Vocal Minority

Rite Jew: Bernard Goldberg

I honestly don't know just how Jewish (i.e., practicing) Bernard Goldberg is, but the CBS-correspondent-turned-whistleblower-of-major-network-media-bias is one of the most essential weapons in the arsenal against the liberal hoardes.

If you're not familiar with Goldberg's work, I highly recommend you start with his two books on media bias. The first, Bias, tracks his personal experiences at CBS and how he went from Dan Rather's longtime close friend to his arch enemy with one critical Wall Street Journal editorial. Goldberg's second book, called Arrogance, picks up where the first leaves off—with the media arrogantly denying the bias they possess. What makes Goldberg's works about liberal media bias particularly persuasive is that he himself has worked for decades in the trenches of the liberal media establishment. He has witnessed how they think, how they work, and how they live in a constant state of denial as to what they push.

And if those two books don't satiate your appetite, try his most recent book, Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right.

Today, Front Page Mag released the transcript of a speech Goldberg delivered after the presidential election at an event called Restoration Weekend. The main part of the fantastic presentation is provided here:

Bias Like Never Before By Bernard Goldberg
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/15/2008

[…] The mainstream media, or the so-called mainstream media, is always going to have its thumb on the scale because it's always rooting for the Democrat over the Republican. But this year, it was different. This year, the media jumped the shark because this year, without any embarrassment, they embraced one of the candidates running for president. They took a politician – a politician from Chicago, no less – and deified him. They turned him into St. Barack.

This time around, they weren't content merely, merely, being a witness to history; this time, they felt that they had to make history because this time they had a noble cause – not just to elect a Democrat, not just to elect a liberal, but to elect the first black man in our nation's history.

I don't know that they feel just the same way. I don't know that they would've had all of that emotion if the first black man elected president of the United States were Michael Steele, for instance. When Michael Steele in 2006 lost the Senate race in Maryland, I don't remember one reporter talking about how history was thwarted. It's because Michael Steele, unlike Barack Obama, is a conservative. And as far as liberals in and out of the media are concerned, a black man who is a conservative isn't a black man; he's merely a conservative.

So, how did the media embrace "the one," as Oprah called him?

Well, there was the NBC news correspondent who, without any hint of embarrassment, said that it was tough to be objective while covering Barack Obama because he spoke so well.

There was the New York Times that ran a page one story during the campaign, suggesting that John McCain was having an affair with a Washington lobbyist, and they based this story on two unnamed former staffers who thought that "maybe, possibly, I'm not sure but I think he may have been involved with the woman" – and this made page one.

The New York Times published Barack Obama's op-ed on Iraq and told John McCain, a man who was running for president of the United States, that he had to rework his.

And then during the acceptance speech in Denver, the commentary was incredible. I mean people sounded as if they were thrilled just to be in the same city as Barack Obama.

David Gergen, whom some of my conservative friends call David Rodham Gergen, said that Obama didn't even deliver a speech that night. What he did was perform a symphony. He said – those were his exact words – "It was a symphony." He said, "It was slow at times. It was fast at times. It was intimate. It was a masterpiece." If you were sitting at home watching this kind of syrupy sweet commentary on television, you could get diabetes in your living room.

But all of this is small potatoes compared to the classic of all classics during the campaign, and that came from Chris Matthews, who – forgive me for telling you what you already know – that when he heard Barack Obama speak, he felt a thrill going up his leg. This is not political analysis. This is a man-crush.

A month earlier, after Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus, Chris Matthews went on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and said --and these are his exact words – "If you're actually in the room when Obama gives one of his speeches and you don't cry, you're not an American." I hope all of you right-wing bastards heard that, fascist pigs.

And before he was done with the Leno Show, Chris Matthews morphed from Mr. Hardball into Miss Winfrey, and he told Jay, "If you're in a room with Obama, you feel the Spirit moving." I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a room with Chris Matthews, even if he's only on the TV set babbling in the room, I feel something else moving: my lunch, moving from my stomach up my esophagus and out of my mouth.

The worst thing that MSNBC did was during its hard news coverage. During the day when Sarah Palin was being announced as John McCain's choice for vice president, they put up a graphic on the screen in capital letters that said, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" This wasn't on the Jon Stewart comedy news show. This wasn't on one of their lunatic primetime shows. This was during the day during their hard news coverage on what is supposed to be a real news network.

Jay Leno had the last laugh, though. He said that after the election, the Obama people were throwing a victory party at their headquarters, MSNBC.

There was so much other stuff, we'd be here for three years. But let me just tell you about one other thing.

There's a young man at CBS News who I'm sure you haven't heard of. His name is Jeff Glor, He's one of their rising stars. To the extent that anybody cares about anything that CBS does, he's one of the people in the future. He did a piece called "Five Things You Should Know About Barack Obama." You're going to think I’m making this up. When I read this, I thought the person who sent it to me was making it up, so I tracked it down. This is exactly what he said.

"In addition to enjoying basketball and cycling during downtime, Obama loves to play Scrabble. Obama's job as a teenager was at Baskin-Robbins, and to this day, he does not like ice cream. This is a man who plays to win. No matter what it is, whether it's the woman he wants to date or elected office or board games, there is an ambition there. There is a determination."

Folks, you can't make this crap up. Now, it isn't just what they said about Obama; it's also how hard the mainstream media worked to either ignore or, at best, downplay stories that might've hurt Obama.

Let’s take a few examples….

Do you think the media would've paid more attention if it were the National Rifle Association instead of ACORN that signed Mickey Mouse up to vote? That's a good question, I think.

Do you think the mainstream media would've shown more interest if it was John McCain and not Barack Obama who had a relationship, no matter how flimsy, with an unrepentant terrorist?

What if this unrepentant terrorist had bombed not the Capitol or the Pentagon but a black church or an abortion clinic no matter how many years ago it was?

What would the media say if on September 11, 2001, of all days, the New York Times ran a story in which this bomber said that his only regret was that he didn't do more? What do you think the media would say about all of that?

How would the media play the story if it had been John McCain and not Barack Obama who spent 20 years in a church with a right-wing bigot?

What if it was Sarah Palin and not John McCain, who before a cheering crowd of supporters, said that the answer to our economic problems is a simple three-letter word, jobs, and then went on to actually spell J-O-B-S?

Well, what do you think, as a very funny guy who looked like Joe Pesci said, what do you think the media would do if it was Sarah Palin and not Joe Biden who said that in 1929, Franklin Roosevelt got on television to reassure the American people when the stock market crashed even though FDR wasn't in office until 1933 and television wasn't introduced to the general public till 1939? How would the mainstream media have played that story? Do you think the might've portrayed Sarah Palin as a moron or worse, as a ticking time bomb? I think we all know the answer to that.

Part way through the campaign, speaking of Sarah Palin, right after she was announced, something very, very strange happened. A mental disorder spread through liberal America, including many American newsrooms. This disorder became known simply as PDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome. PDS was a lot like BDS, which was Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which liberals foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the name George Bush. Palin Derangement Syndrome was a lot like that.

A few examples of Palin Derangement Syndrome:

Mary Mitchell wrote in the Chicago Sun Times that Sarah Palin "makes me sick."

Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times that Palin was our "new Napoleon in bunny boots."

Wendy Doniger, a professor at the University of Chicago, wrote on the Washington Post's website, "Sarah Palin's greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she's a woman."

Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, wrote a piece for Salon, the online magazine, "What's the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

Also on Salon, somebody named Cintra Wilson managed to type these words as Palin Derangement Syndrome was eating away at her brain: "Sarah Palin has me and my friends wretching in our handbags. She's such a power-mad backwater beauty pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her, but in reality, I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism."

Now, you can Google it, as they say. The rise of Sarah Palin to PDS sufferers is akin to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Somebody, somebody, please, call Jerry Lewis. We need a telethon. We need to raise money to fight this terrible disease.

I have a theory as to why liberals in and out of the media hated this woman so much. What drives them nuts, especially liberal feminists, is that this white trash pro-gun, pro-life church-going woman who didn't go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton was and remains the most prominent talked-about woman in the United States of America. They hate that. They hate that. It wasn't supposed to be that way. The most prominent woman was supposed to be one of them, a liberal feminist.

There are more reasons that they hate her. Liberals, again, in and out of the media, they look at this woman and they say, what kind of woman has five kids? What kind of woman actually has a baby with Down Syndrome? What kind of woman lets her daughter go through with the pregnancy? What kind of woman is this?

And there's one more reason that they hate her, and Dennis Miller mentioned this the other day. Women hated her more than men hated her. Women hated her because she seems to be happily married and she's not neurotic, unlike so many liberal feminist women.

You know, what I've learned over the years, and this, again, has to do with liberal reporters but liberals, in general, they not only don't understand middle Americans; they don't want to understand middle Americans. They think that anybody who eats at a Red Lobster is committing a crime against humanity; anybody who flies the flag on the Fourth of July is a hopeless hayseed; anybody who bowls is a square. This wasn't about Sarah Palin at all. This was about them. This was their real pathology that they have no use for regular Americans.

Now, a few points as I wrap up because I know you guys have other things to do.

A few years ago, I spoke about bias in the news to a class at the American University, and after I talked, every question that I got was from deep left field from the students in the class. And then the professor said something at the time I didn't find especially interesting, but I did much later.

He said, "But isn't it the role of the media to effect change in society?" "Isn't it the role of the media to effect change in society"? I said to him, "Your change or mine?"

And he went silent because this supposedly intelligent guy, it never occurred to him that change comes in more than one package. The only change he thought was worthy of affecting by the media was liberal change.

Now, I put that out of my mind the way you try to put a lot of bad things out of your mind, but it came rushing back to me during this campaign because it occurred to me that's exactly what the media is doing. They are trying to effect change in society, their change, not your change, I guarantee you that.

As corrupt as the media was this time around the media did not defeat John McCain; Republicans defeated John McCain. George Bush, who strikes me as an eminently decent man, was an albatross around John McCain's neck. He got this country into an immensely unpopular war, and whether the surge works or not in the long run, and we all hope it does, the American people will not tolerate a war that goes on this long. John McCain was with Bush on that. John McCain paid the price.

The Republicans in Congress cost John McCain the election. In 2000, when they controlled not only both houses of Congress but when Republicans also controlled the White House, that's when Republicans sold out their conservative principles. They spent money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store. They were out of control. And what did our compassionate conservative president do? He didn't veto a single spending bill. He paid for that, and John McCain paid for that.

I don't want to perpetuate the civil war that is now going on in our ranks. Some people think Sarah Palin was a good choice; 91 percent of Republicans do. I'm not at all sure that if she, 100 percent of Republicans, she can get 51 percent of the vote. That is going to be up to all of you to decide as time goes on. Reasonable people on that score may disagree. […]

Roger Simon Calls Out Jewish Democrats

Roger Simon, who writes for Pajamas Media, posted this brilliant entry yesterday:

Open Letter to My Fellow Jews: The Democratic Party is not your religion (or anybody’s)

From the days of FDR, the vast majority of American Jews have identified with the Democratic Party almost if it were their religion. This included most especially secular Jews like me whose blasé attitude toward their faith and toward religious observance in general made such a replacement all the more important emotionally. This same Jewish majority also identified with the cause of social justice and, as Barack Obama among many others has noted, were some of the most active participants in the civil rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. That was all how it should have been and was a perfectly logical and praiseworthy epoch in the development of our country.

Hello – those days are over! The events leading up to Monday’s anti-Ahmadinejad demonstration by Jewish organizations at the UN put the final nail in an already long-moldering coffin. Jews should no longer align themselves with the Democratic Party any more than they should align with the Republicans. They should act and think for themselves, devoid of ideological or partisan bias. They should first be Americans, not Democratic Party Americans.

The reasons for this are many, but paramount among them is that being hostage to one political party is tantamount to giving up your freedom and relinquishing your ability to confront reality and act in your own interest, not to mention the interest of others. Many Jewish Americans still do this for reasons that are at best sentimental and nostalgic, and at worst self-destructive. But a tipping point may be approaching. The virtual night of the long knives played out between the Democratic Party and various Jewish organizations surrounding the Iran demonstration, including allegations that party operatives were threatening the loss of tax exempt status over Sarah Palin’s appearance, with more unpleasant revelations undoubtedly to come, is obviously causing people to reconsider this allegiance to the Democratic Party that approaches fealty.

I urge my fellow Jews to keep thinking about this and not to retreat into the cocoon-like safety of an outmoded tradition. Change is difficult. But remember that Hillary Clinton – that paragon of the Democratic Party, a woman who calls herself a “progressive” (oh, desecration of the English language!) – was willing to forego the protest of the man who is arguably the most significant enemy of the Jews since Hitler for partisan and (most likely) personal pique reasons. How morally repellent is that!

And then Joseph Biden told us he was busy–too busy to protest a nuclear-armed madman who fervently believes that his mysterious Twelfth Imam (Mahdi) is destined to unite a chaotic globe under Allah. (And don’t tell me that evangelicals believe similar things. If you think there is an equation between evangelicals and Khomeinist Islamists, you need a cold bath.) [They’re way ahead of you, Roger. The Palin-hating Left, Jewish and non, has already been equating Palin with A’jad.]

No, those Democrats thought of themselves and their party first, the citizens of this country and the world later. When Republicans behave in a similar reprehensible manner, we should condemn them with all ferocity. But fellow Jews, stop being slaves to the Democratic Party. End this illicit love affair – not just for your own good, but for the good of humanity.

This open letter just kicks ass; however, I’m fairly certain that if any of my Obama-loving Jewish friends and family even read it, it will go in one ear and out the other. It takes more than an article to shake someone out of their comfortable well-intentioned but mortally dangerous ideological cocoon.

In fact, I believe nothing short of a mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv will make a single bit of difference to the lockstep lemmings commonly known as Jewish American Democrats.

Dennis Prager's Best Articles of 2007

On this last morning of 2007, I set out with a seemingly noble goal: Select the best quotes from my favorite columnists’ articles, and post them here in a “Best of” format. I started with my idol, Jewish conservative Dennis Prager. Having read all these articles once before, I was certain that upon a second read I’d be able to find a couple of gems.

I was wrong—I had barely gotten to February when I had to concede that full articles were gems. Finding it impossible to do justice to Mr. Prager by selecting a mere few sentences, I am now forced to modify my plan. Here are my twelve favorite Dennis Prager articles of 2007, along with introductory or other key paragraphs.

I strongly urge every Jewish American to read Prager’s work, especially these cogent articles. On so many things he hits the nail square on the head. I hope they speak to you as much as they did to me having read them once during the year, and then again this morning.

America Founded to be Free, Not Secular (Jan. 3)

There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its Founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.

It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible—even for most of the Founders who were religious Christians.

This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: “In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it’s the past that is always changing.”

Forcing Girls to Cheer for Girls (Jan. 30)

High school cheerleaders must now cheer for girls’ teams as often as for boys’ teams thanks to federal education officials’ interpretations of Title IX, the civil rights law that mandates equal playing fields for both sexes. According to The New York Times, almost no one directly involved wants this—not the cheerleaders, not the fans, not the boys’ teams, and not even the girls’ teams. But it doesn’t matter: The law coerces cheerleaders to cheer at girls’ games.

Liberals Don’t Ask “What Happens Next?” (Feb. 6)

In general, the Left does not ask the question, “What will happen next?” when formulating social policy. Not thinking through the long-range consequences of their positions is liberalism’s tragic flaw. […]

In the view of many liberals, “What happens next?” is a pragmatic, but not idealistic, question by which to guide social policy. In fact, however, no question is as idealistic as “What happens next?” Asking it means that social policy is made by noble and compassionate minds, not hearts alone. In the rest of life, thinking through the consequences of actions is called “responsible” and “mature.” Those remain worthy goals in public life as well.

New Form of Evil Is Why America Has Not Won Iraq War (Mar. 27)

I never thought we could see a new form of evil. After the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the tens of millions murdered in the Gulag, the forced starvation in the Ukraine, the hideous medical experiments on people by the Germans and the Japanese in World War II, the torture chambers in all police states, I had actually believed that no new forms of evil existed.

I was wrong.

Duke Lacrosse Scandal: Eight Lessons (April 24)

America’s news media, an amoral university, an opportunistic district attorney, and a police department that seems to have collaborated in framing innocent students all combined to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent young men—members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

“Buck Fush” and the Left (June 5)

Every day I see at least one car, usually more than one, sporting a bumper sticker that reads, “Buck Fush.”

Apparently, some of our fellow Americans on the left find this message to be profound and witty. But it is not these individuals’ presence or absence of wit or profundity that interests me here—both are so obviously absent, no comments are necessary. It’s their contempt for society and their narcissism that demand commentary.

America Needs a Fourth of July Seder (July 3) *This one’s my favorite!

Perhaps the major reason Jews have been able to keep their national identity alive for 3,000 years, the last 2,000 of which were nearly all spent dispersed among other nations, is ritual. No national or cultural identity can survive without ritual, even if the group remains in its own country.

Americans knew this until the era of anti-wisdom was ushered in by the baby boomer generation in the 1960s and ‘70s. We always had national holidays that celebrated something meaningful.

Why “Islamophobia” Is a Brilliant Term (July 31)

Whoever coined the term “Islamophobia” was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not “Muslim-phobia” or “anti-Muslimist,” it is Islam-ophobia—fear of Islam—yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.

(Also recommended: Prager’s Oct. 30 related article The Left and the Term “Islamo-Fascism”)

If It’s Bad for America, It’s Good for Democrats (Aug. 14)

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party’s chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

Ann Coulter Wants Jews to Become Christian—So What? (Oct. 16)

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, … and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

The World Doesn’t Hate America, The Left Does (Nov. 27)

One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world—so widely held it is not disputed—is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats’ major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.

But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world’s left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world’s news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America.

Baby Boomers Owe America’s Young People an Apology (Dec. 4)

We live in the age of group apologies. I would like to add one. The baby boomer generation needs to apologize to America, especially its young generation, for many sins. […]

… Most people get wiser as they get older. But not those of us baby boomers who still believe these things. Of course, many of us never bought into these awful ideas that have so hurt you and our country, and some of us have grown up. But many of us still talk, think, dress and curse the same as we did in the ‘60s and ‘70s. And we’re still fighting what we consider the real Axis of Evil: American racism, sexism and imperialism.

Thank you, Mr. Prager, for your inspiring and thought-provoking words. Looking forward to more in 2008.

Rite Jew: Mark Levin

In December, 2005, a liberal listener called into Mark Levin’s daily radio show and mockingly asked exactly what his qualifications were.

For anyone familiar with Levin, the question is insulting and ridiculous. Most websites containing Mark’s bio state plainly that he “holds a B.A. from Temple University and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.” What they don’t say is that he received that B.A. at age 19 and the J.D. at age 22. (And what degrees do Al Franken and Rosie O’Donnell have?)

The About page on MarkLevinShow.com tells the rest:

Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers ... Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet—including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.

In a nutshell, Levin is a dedicated scholar and unapologetically conservative. His first book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, is riveting and I would recommend it to anyone interested in constitutional law, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. And if you’re a fan of heated debate on these issues and current events, you should try his show as well.

But most of all, Levin is a human being, as evidenced by his most recent book, Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover’s Story of Joy and Anguish. A bestseller since its release last month, it’s the heartwarming story of his family’s lovable recently-deceased dog. (When I showed my wife the book, she chuckled, “He does have a heart!”)

Of course, nobody’s perfect, and there are aspects of Levin’s show that have received criticism, both deserved and undeserved. I will readily admit that he can get worked up and impassioned at times, but I would argue that his anger is never gratuitous. His pet names for some liberals could easily be called mean-spirited, but he does have some humorous lables for his favorite senators, e.g., Ted Kennedy the “Cape Cod Orca” and the distinguished senators from New York, “Chucky Schmucky Schumer” and “Hillary Rotten Clinton, her Thighness.”

It’s without question that I have learned more about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the law by listening to Mark Levin two hours a day, five days a week, than I ever could by sitting in a college classroom. That’s what makes Mark Levin and his show unique.

Rite Jew: David Horowitz

David Horowitz started out the way a lot of right-wingers did: on the left. He grew up a "red diaper baby," marching alongside his Communist parents in the '50s. He was among the founders of the New Left in the '60s and was editor of the radical magazine Ramparts. Then, after the murder of a friend by a member of the Black Panthers, he realized how radicalized and totalitarian his liberal colleagues had become. His past experiences and transformation are recounted in the autobiographical Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (1996) and Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey (2003), as well as Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties (1989), co-written with biographer Peter Collier.

Once deep in the trenches of liberal activism, Horowitz has now for over three decades spoken out against the virulent anti-Americanism, and often anti-Semitism, of the left. This includes not only grass-roots organizations but also powerful high-ranking Democrats and their financial supporters. Among numerous books he has written on this are The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future (1998), Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes (1999), The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits (2000), and most recently The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (2007), co-written with Richard Poe. In 1988 he founded the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (renamed the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2006) and runs the website FrontPageMag.com.

Horowitz is also currently a strong voice against the threat of radical Islam. His book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (2004) is an eye-opening account of how these two groups directly or indirectly cooperate to undermine American and Israeli interests. Just a few weeks ago Horowitz launched Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, mobilizing dozens of speakers to deliver speeches on radical Islam on college campuses throughout the country. Exhibiting their characteristic open-mindedness and tolerance for diverse points of view, certain student groups smeared the speakers as Islamophobes and attempted to disrupt their speeches. Horowitz, who himself came to speak at Emory University, was shouted off the stage by a mob of students and was ultimately unable to deliver his speech. (Mind-blowing, considering just weeks prior, the Jew-hating and Holocaust-denying leader of Iran managed to speak at Columbia University uninterrupted.)

Confronting the one-sided activism and infiltration of classrooms by radicals-turned-teachers at all levels of education is yet another of Horowitz's missions. In 2003 he founded the Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) and devised an Academic Bill of Rights to protect students from teachers who use their classrooms to launch political rants rather than teach the subject were hired to teach. Horowitz writes on this crucial issue in Indoctrination U: The Left's Assault on Academic Freedom (2007). His 2006 book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics is a disturbing exposé of teachers at the country's most prominent universities and their ties to radical,even terrorist, activity.

Needless to say, David Horowitz has acquired several enemies during his years confronting radical leftism and radical Islam. He is routinely denounced as hateful, divisive, racist, intolerant, Islamophobic, and fascist. Neither surprised nor deterred by these personal attacks, Horowitz continues campaigning to protect America, as well as Israel, from the threats posed by these powerful and well-funded groups. For that, he is truly a Rite Jew.

 

Rite Jew: Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is hands down one of my heroes. His academic field was Russian studies, the Soviet Union, and Communism. He is the author of a number of books on Judaism and ethics, including one of the most widely used books about anti-Semitism, Why the Jews.

Through his studies and experiences, Prager realized the classically liberal Democratic party he grew up with had changed for the worse. Today he proudly espouses the conservative views found mostly on the Republican side, noting often that JFK, the quintessential classical liberal, would not find a home with today's Democrats, but rather the Republicans.

I highly recommend to anyone Dennis's daily radio show on KRLA 870AM in Los Angeles or on-line. His topics are interesting, his comments insightful. He also publishes a weekly column on a variety of topics related to Judaism, ethics, politics, and current events.

Of course, Dennis has gotten a lot of flak from the left for his politically incorrect views. He has been criticized for his criticism of Islamic totalitarianism, his steadfast support of Israel against Islamic terrorism, and any viewpoint not endorsed by the left.

Dennis is often vilified by the left for siding with Christians on most issues, especially issues where the actions of secular groups adversely affect both religious groups. In 2004 he was the loudest Jewish voice to speak out against the decision by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors to remove a tiny cross from the county seal under threat of litigation by the ACLU. (The pagan symbols on the seal were allowed to stay.)

Our country is better off because of thoughtful and eloquent Jewish commentators like Dennis Prager.