July 5, 2013, - 3:34 pm

David Horowitz Says “Zimmerman a Guilty Liar;” Wants Concealed Gun, Stand Your Ground Laws Repealed – Black Panthers Never Change

By Debbie Schlussel


A Black Panther doesn’t change its lack of spots. And so it goes with past Black Panther enabler/supporter/financier and now self-proclaimed “conservative” (apparently for business reasons) David Horowitz. Looks like he’s back on the bandwagon with his Black Panther pals. Horowitz, today, declared that George Zimmerman is a guilty liar and cannot be trusted in the court case against him. He says conservatives are wrong to support Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. He also wants the repeal of Conceal and Carry gun and Stand Your Ground laws, putting him smack dab in the midst of the gun control crowd. You’ll recall that the reconstitution of David Horowitz’s Black Panther gang, the New Black Panther Party, is the racist, hateful organization that is the reason Zimmerman was even charged.


“Conservative” Liberal David Horowitz Now Pimping Us on “Guiltless Young Man” Trayvon Martin, Repeal of Concealed Weapons, Stand Your Ground Laws

I’m not surprised by Horowitz’s declaration, today. As you know, I’ve told you in the past about how David Horowitz and his site hypocritically gushed over and lamented the death of HAMAS supporter and vocal anti-Semite Robert Novak, who said Israel was behind 9/11. Horowitz regularly calls out the left for this same kind of anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred, but remains silent or–in the case of Novak–even celebrates when those on the right do the same. When I called David out on the Novak piece, he got indignant and mad at me, claiming he is not responsible for what goes up–and, to date, remains up as the gushing Novak piece does–on the site where HE is the EDITOR IN CHIEF. Hellooooo . . . . ? Yup, the website that he uses in frequent urgent fundraising schnorrer [Yiddish for “mooch”] letters for his non-profit (which seems to have profited him quite well), using the site as his Exhibit A for why donors should fund him (so he can pay himself over $500,000 per year plus outside speaking fees galore) because he’s so “pro-Israel and outspoken against anti-Semitism and the Islamic threat.”

I laughed when I noted that Daniel Pipes and his organization, David Horowitz and his organization, AND the Thomas More Law Center (which praised and promoted Muslim death, rape, and torture threats on my life and anti-Semitic Holocaust-denial) all tried to raise money for themselves at the same time, with each of them claiming that each alone paid for the legal defense of plagiarist blogger Joseph Kaufman against CAIR in the same lawsuit. And yet, Kaufman’s lawyer sent me an e-mail telling me he defended Kaufman in that suit for free. Cha-ching! Cha-ching! Cha-ching!

You should note that Horowitz’s organization also pays Slobbert Spencer nearly $200,000 per year, so he can spend his time sending me crazy, unsolicited e-mails late at night calling me, “evil,” and so he can contact various websites demanding that they stop promoting and linking to my work. Oh, and so Slobbert can rip off my work and admit to me in writing that he has but refuse to give credit for his theft. Horowitz also gave out some stupid award to Scamela Geller, the car loan fraud scammer who paid off Muslim straw buyers at her car dealership and has two murders in her path, including an investigating cop and her one honest employee–a father of four–who was apparently telling on her to police. (Her mansion was raided by the NYPD because she illegally kept the business’ real books there.)

And the David Horowitz Freedom Center also handsomely pays certain bloggers to just regurgitate what they read on this site, nearly word for word. I’ve had to repeatedly call David and his employees out and demand credit for my work that they lift (I have the e-mails to prove it and the discussions with him in which he admits they stole from me). His minions have also cut and pasted much of my original work from here for their “Discover the Networks” profit center of plagiarism, another item he uses to schnorr money off the work of others. Yes, that’s what liberals do: they take your property so that they can profit off of it without remuneration or any work whatsoever of their own.

I’ve known David for many years and used to like him a lot more . . . when I naively bought his act. When I was an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan, he and his then co-author of best-selling celebrity books, Peter Collier (who now runs his Freedom Center organization), came to visit campus. They visited myself and some other students who were involved in supporting aid to the Contras, the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters who opposed Communist dictator Daniel Ortega. They supported us, and we appreciated their help and moral support in a sea of Marxist liberals in Ann Arbor. My, how things have come full circle. Ortega is back in power in Nicaragua. And David Horowitz is back to being a liberal.

Horowitz’s love letter to Trayvon Martin and his gushing over Jew-hating Bob HAMAS Novak aren’t the only things he’s done to indicate he’s not who he says he is. Right after 9/11, David wrote an accurate, spot-on piece attacking anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, pro-HAMAS/Hezbollah Hussein Ibish, then the spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. But Horowitz not only removed the piece, he publicly apologized to Ibish and retracted it, saying he was wrong and that the openly anti-Semitic Ibish was a nice guy. Why? Because the anti-Israel Christopher Hitchens told him so. When I e-mailed David to question why he did this, he said he did it because Hitchens told him to and that it would be up to me and Daniel Pipes (yeah–I know–hilarious!) to make up for this and publish the real story on Ibish.

In other conversations, David defended Matt Brooks, the chief-for-life of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who repeatedly invites Jew-haters and anti-Israel scumbags to speak at RJC events. When I questioned why Matt repeatedly gets paid over $700,000 in salary (plus benefits) so he can pig out on shrimp and lobster and hang out at poker tournaments, while large percentages of Jews vote Democrat, David got upset. After all, RJC and its associated organization (also headed by Brooks), the Jewish Center for Policy Analysis, often pay David Horowitz mega-bucks for speeches. At one of these events, David Horowitz said (and I have the video to prove it) that Jonathan Pollard should rot in prison for life, etc.

As readers know, I’m no fan of George Zimmerman (though I don’t think he’s a racist in the least). I agree that he lied about his legal defense fund fundraising and didn’t listen to his first set of attorneys, who justifiably fired him as a client. I wrote about that on this site. And I’ve noted how he bragged on the jailhouse phone to his wife that they would become rich and famous off of all of this, which is quite unseemly, not to mention stupid. But it is quite clear that he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, and the case should never have been brought, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks of him personally. Yes, the sleazy scumbag Trayvon Martin who sent out the most disgusting tweets, was suspended from school, was an apparent drug user, tormented the homeless, etc., attacked and brutally beat Zimmerman, or he’d be alive today. But to White Black Panther David Horowitz, he’s a “guiltless” angel who did not fight with George Zimmerman or bash his head to create gashes, scars, and draw blood (I guess ghosts did that). To David, Trayvon Martin is:

A young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead. And shouldn’t there be some penalty to pay for that?

If someone beats David Horowitz and he fears for his life, I hope he doesn’t try to defend himself. Because if he does, then we’ll have to use his sordid logic that “there should be some penalty to pay for that.”

And I’m just completely disgusted that David Horowitz–who lives in a giant mansion in the comfort of fancy, celebrity-infested Pacific Palisades, California–wants to take away my right to defend myself in the unsafe, urban neighborhood in which I live. And he wants to take away my right to conceal and carry firearms because, according to reverted liberal David Horowitz, I’m not capable enough to be trusted to handle my gun appropriately and it will lead to “guiltless young men” getting killed.

The Stand Your Ground Law should be rewritten to apply only to home invasions since then it is clear that the intruder is the aggressor and the response is self-defense. Second, Neighborhood Watch guards should not be permitted to conceal and carry. If you are carrying a weapon it changes your attitude and can well lead you into dangerous situations (such as following someone who doesn’t want to be followed) that you would otherwise avoid. And worse it can lead you to take the life of someone who whatever he did, did not deserve to die.

Are you bleeping kidding me? I and my Second Amendment rights should be limited because David Horowitz doesn’t like how George Zimmerman acted? That’s the idiocy of liberals. NOT conservatives. (That’s not to mention the fact that it doesn’t matter if Zimmerman “wrongly” followed Trayvon Martin. Once Martin was on top of him, beating him, it was Zimmerman’s legal right to defend himself. Period.)

And David has proven, yet again, that he isn’t the latter–that he’s not a conservative. For him, that’s just an act. Because he once was a successful author selling thousands of books on the Kennedys and the British royal family, and that dried up.

A new schtick was needed. Cha-ching.

But he doesn’t really believe in any of it, as he keeps proving. And now he wants to take away my right to defend myself unless it’s at my home and my right to conceal and carry my gun.

Please tell me how those views differ from those of Barack Obama, George Soros, and the rest of the gang he’s made a mint off of pretending to oppose.

By the way, David, since you no longer support my Bill of Rights freedoms, including my right to carry a concealed weapon and my right to defend myself from violent thugs, you might wanna delete the word Freedom from your “David Horowitz Freedom Center” money machine.

Clearly, with his call for the taking away of my freedoms and rights, David Horowitz couldn’t care less about freedom, yours or mine. Not even a little.

I learned something from David Horowitz:

Once a Black Panther, Always a Black Panther.

Even if your skin pigment happens to be White and FOX News and mindless thousands of conservatives blindly pay you money.

*** UPDATE: There is so much stuff on which David has been hypocritical and/or just plain liberal that I did not remember everything as I wrote this column. As reader and commenter Charles Rector reminds me, below, David and his “Freedom Center” hired at least three anti-Semites–Jenn Taylor (who is now “editor” of Michelle Malkin’s self-masturbation site, Twitchy), John Hawkins, and Cassy Fiano–to blog for him on his FrontPageMag site at $100 per post. Those three praised, promoted, and supported deranged Thomas More Law Center attorney Emily Zanotti in her praise and support on her blog for Muslim death, rape, and torture threats on my life and that of my Holocaust survivor grandmother (who has since died) and Holocaust-denying anti-Semitic comments. They repeatedly attacked and bullied me for complaining about it and they supported Zanotti’s mocking of me for contacting the FBI over the death threats. David and his website editors were made aware of this and didn’t care. These same cretins also attacked me for being against Arab Spring. They kept paying them and featuring their crap on the blog, until the blog ultimately failed and much does from the mis-named “Freedom Center” a/k/a David Horowitz Luxury Retirement Fund.

At this point, I’m sad that my late father was a donor–multiple times–to the various incarnations of David Schnorr-owitz’s self-promotion enterprises, from the Center for the Study of Popular Culture to the vanity project, The David Horowitz Freedom Center. My dad stopped his support when he saw Horowitz’s comments about Pollard. But I know my dad is really turning over in his grave now, because he really believe Horowitz was a conservative. At one point, many of us did.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

156 Responses

There is no difference. Does your right to self-defense end when you leave your home? Would Mr. Horowitz like to explain that logic to women who have to walk through dark streets or have to go outside at night? Not everyone lives in a gated community with armed security. As for being unarmed on neighborhood watch, that is a sure way to scare off any volunteers if the neighborhood is at all dangerous. Mr. Horowitz is as much of a leftist as Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in regard to self-defense and quite a few other issues. He only takes a different tack when it involves his own self-enrichment. Evidently, he sees the conservative well drying up, and is looking for a soft landing. Mr. Horowitz is an enabler of thugs and perhaps anti-Hispanic as well. He certainly has now sympathy for the vulnerable.

Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Worry01:”As for being unarmed on neighborhood watch, that is a sure way to scare off any volunteers if the neighborhood is at all dangerous.”

    That’s their policy, you idiot. And look what happened when someone disobeyed it.

    Zippy on July 6, 2013 at 12:56 am

      Er . . . pinhead (given your screen name)*, you mean you actually side with New Black Panther, Crips, and Bloods thugs in this case? Because it is they and their allies such as Obama associate Van Jones who are calling for Zimmerman’s head – precisely to turn back the clock to 1964 when neighbors would hear the screams of a crime victim and do nothing to help or stop their attacker just as what happened to Kitty Genovese.

      And that’s not all – we see this pro-criminal, pro-gang bias all the way up in the Obama administration, with their trying to force businesses (via the EEOC) to hire criminals with no questions – and no background checks, thus putting the safety of employees and customers at grave risk – which Obama, Holder et al., couldn’t care less about. (As, by extension, doesn’t Horowitz or “Savage” or Rich Lowry or any of those other opportunists.) And of course, their trying to meddle in the NYPD’s affairs on behalf of the bad guys in that city.

      * As in, Zippy the Pinhead

      ConcernedPatriot on July 6, 2013 at 1:49 am

        CP, you thought, just like me…”Zippy The Pinhead”.

        What an appropriate handle. 😀

        Skunky on July 6, 2013 at 9:15 am


          Well then, both of you are as dumb as rocks since both of you think alike.

          Zippy on July 6, 2013 at 2:11 pm


        Don’t read what’s not there, you twit. I was only talking about Neighborhood Watch’s gun policy.

        Zippy on July 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm

      “Look at what happened…” one dead thug. What’s the problem?

      Pete on July 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm

      Who owns the sock puppet Zippy? AR, perhaps?

      Those who use such devices should be summarily banned. No conversation is possible with types.

      skzion on July 6, 2013 at 8:24 pm

      OK, please feel free to correct me in all things, as I have been following the Zimmerman case just in spots:

      I have a feeling he screwed the pooch on his defense fund situation. Nonetheless, being tried for a Capital Crime can affect one’s logical powers, I would guess. (Actually, given my profession, I’m not guessing.)

      But, on the major issue, our “kid” was 4 inches taller than Zimmerman, and jumped Zimmerman as Zimmerman was on the WAY BACK TO HIS CAR, FOLLOWING POLICE INSTRUCTION. Martin was then punching Zimmerman’s face in with bothfists while stradling him on the ground, and pounded Zimmerman’s head against the concrete.

      For those who have never been assaulted by a psychopath, let me tell you I have, and the rule in our State hospital is that if you feel your life is in danger, you can use as much force as necessary to save yourself. No onlooker was intervening here, the intent on Martin’s part could be perceived as lethal, and smashing a man’s head against concrete could result in a lethality (that should be obvious, but, again, I’m a physician and a boarded psychiatrist).

      He was perfectly within his rights to shoot the evil little scumbag.

      Other topics: Chambers wrote Witness believing that he was on the losing side of history by turning against the Communists. Hiss WAS a Communist. As for me, I spent my College years as VEEP for TCU’s YAF Chapter. As I studied Russian in high school, I also has a subscription to Moscow News as an high-schooler.

      My favorite hour in college not spent with a girlfriend was attending a lecture by Bill Buckley, culminating in asking the great man a question.

      Occam's Tool on July 7, 2013 at 10:58 pm

      Yes Zippy, George Zimmerman is not dead. As for your idiot comment, it tells us more about whom you sympathize with. You should go hang with your gangbanger friends.

      Worry01 on July 8, 2013 at 3:57 am

My guess is that he is trying to enlarge the group from which he can successfully schnorr.

I used to read Frontpage until that piece on Novak. I wonder what kind of glowing eulogy he will give Jimmy Carter on his death.

I_AM_ME on July 5, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    He is the sort of person who lives in a gated community, much like Michael Bloomberg and so many others. They take for granted that their streets will be patrolled by armed security guards. People like Mr. Horowitz will never live in neighborhoods where the likes of Trayvon Martin cold possibly knock them down and beat them to a pulp or worse. No, “Creepy Ass Crackers” like Dave enjoy several lines of defense that most people could not even dream of. This level of safety renders the pampered and protected nearly deaf to the concerns of ordinary people.

    Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 4:29 pm

Yes, several conservatives are now backing away from Zimmerman. As you suggest, much of it is personal opportunism, but I also believe some of it is political opportunism, just like the immigration garbage we are being subjected to is part personal and part political. Just like they want to make the Republican Party more hospitable to Latinos, apparently the same thing for Blacks. But being a conservative means defending conservative causes, even when they are not politically attractive.

And the most obnoxious aspect of the Trayvon Martin case is the “racial profiling is bad” predicate of almost all the discussion, defense of Martin, and criticism of Zimmerman. Racial profiling has become so ingrained that no one dares go against it anymore. It is “RACISM”. It has become virtually as bad to defend racial profiling as it is to defend the Ku Klux Klan or say you’re against abortion on demand.

None of this is to defend Horowitz, who I agree is an unprincipled opportunist. I am just discussing the phenomenon of former radicals returning to their roots in more general terms.

But while I agree with your analysis that former leftist Horowitz has returned to his earlier radical roots (something many former leftists do when they get older — and maybe in his case he never really left them), this is not inevitable. A number of former Communists renounced their roots for ever and ever.

The shining example, of course, is Whittaker Chambers, who essentially sacrificed his life to combat the Communism he once believed in. But others from that period who renounced their earlier Marxism once and for all include James Burnham, and a number (but, unfortunately not all) of the other founding editors of National Review.

I will acknowledge that permanent repudiation of 1960s radicalism is rarer than repudiation of 1930s radicalism. This is especially true since a number of the 60s radicals have now reached the pinnacles of power.

But there are still a few examples in the academic community. Political Passages: Journeys of Change Through Two Decades 1968-1988 by John H. Bunzel contains essays by a few people who renounced their Marxism of the 60s (although some of them just moved to the right of the Democratic Party rather than becoming conservatives.) And of course I recognize the insincerity of some of the “apologies” for treasonous behavior of the 60s, such as Hanoi Jane’s example.

LA: Glad you mentioned Whittaker Chambers. His “Witness” should be required reading for all Americans and other Westerners. Sadly, David Horowitz is no Whittaker Chambers. Not even close. You are spot on in your analysis. DS

Little Al on July 5, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    It was easier to turn your back on the Stalinism of the 1930’s. Even most of the left had done so after Joseph Stalin’s death in 1953. The radicalism of the 1960’s was a different animal, since it was not wedded to the fairly puritanical stances of the old communists. One thing the New Left had learned from its predecessors was to be less honest. Also, its emphasis on free love, drug use, and a dissolute lifestyle made it more attractive to those who were not already hardcore leftists. Marxists who were not rigid Stalinists did not as readily attract the adverse attention of academia and government. Such people could more successfully embed themselves and advance their careers than those back in the 1930’s to 1940’s ever could.

    Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm

      I agree with most of your comments about the 30s vs. the 60s, except that the Stalinists were extremely dishonest in the 30s and 40s, and certainly not free of opportunism.

      There was the Popular Front of the 30s when they masqueraded as liberals for half a decade. True, the Stalin-Hitler pact put an end to that temporarily, but then right back to the Popular Front during World War II (1941-1945). And the way the Stalinists infested the Government during the 30s and 40s — it is one of the most disgusting things to think about. Many were secret Communists, and although McCarthy tried, he didn’t get all of them by any means.

      Little Al on July 5, 2013 at 4:56 pm

        Little Al. Honesty was a relative thing. Also, by the 1960’s, the old slogans(pre-1953)would have been off-putting to most. The old fogies could not adapt themselves to the new environment, unlike C. Wright Mills, Bettina Aptheker, Mario Savio, etc.

        Joe Building does capture the pre-1953 atmosphere, despite the atheism plug: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtoAvSlWxNE

        Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 5:12 pm

          It is an open question what C. Wright Mills’ political evolution (or devolution) would have been given his early death. But there are at least some indications that he would have gravitated towards the Communist Party, given his early defense of the Cuban revolution, which by the early 60s had identified itself publicly with Russian Communism (and privately from its inception.)

          Bettina Aptheker was not exactly independent of the Communist Party. I assume you know who her father was. In spite of recently (and speaking of opportunism) disclosed differences with her father, she remained a loyal Communist for many years.

          Savio was basically an ephemeral figure. He had his moment if (in)glory in the early 60s in the Free Speech Movement, and faded into obscurity after that.

          The Communists had more influence in the 60s and 70s than is generally acknowledged. You imply that when you speak of their dishonesty. Their sneakiness and deception aided them tremendously in the postwar era, although they had to compete with Maoists, and many other groups, which had not exerted pressure on them in the 30s.

          They were extremely active in the leadership of the Vietnam War protests, and had surprisingly close bonds with the Black Panther Party.

          Why didn’t more of the 60s radicals recant? The reasons are complex and go beyond the scope of this discussion. But the moral legitimacy of the early Civil Rights movement, the much greater campus population than that of the 30s, the greater depth of the radical movement (women, Latinos, gays, Blacks much more than in the 30s,) the fact that these movements were not destroyed as was Communist influence in the trade union movement in the late 40s, all played a role. The success of the anti-Vietnam War movement, within which, as I indicated, the Communists played a central leadership role, was also an important reason. The fact that the Communists and their supporters were successful in stigmatizing Joe McCarthy also had a momentous effect.

          Little Al on July 5, 2013 at 8:37 pm

        Joe McCarthy, by his drunken rages against people who were not communists, did more for the communists than he did for America.

        He had no list of communists. It was pure political opportunism for a former supporter of the New Deal (McCarthy).

        As Richard Nixon said, “When you are going to shoot rats, make sure you aim properly so you don’t hit any innocent person.” McCarthy never aimed, and shot with his eyes closed.

        Nixon did a great job on Alger Hiss, whose entire family knew he was a commie rat bastard.

        Jonathan E. Grant on July 6, 2013 at 11:33 pm

          Senator McCarthy was not a drunk. The left has demonized him over the years and portrayed him as a irrational buffoon. You need to do some research, Jonathan E. Grant.

          lexi on July 7, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Whittaker Chambers DID NOT SACRIFICE HIS LIFE TO FIGHT COMMUNISM. He was a commie, who turned tail when caught, and made a nice living off of his “rebirth.” He did not die fighting communism, he did not suffer. He saved himself a long term in prison and made a pretty penny doing so.

    Debbie, you should have caught this glaring error.

    Jonathan E. Grant on July 6, 2013 at 4:14 pm

      I guess this is the type of comment I would expect from a defender of Charlie Chaplin. Chambers went to the Government on his own. He was afraid of the Communists, and actually was not believed by the Government for several years. He was, indeed almost prosecuted by the Government, but it was in the late 40s, several years after he had originally told Government representatives about Communist infiltration.

      He came close to being prosecuted for, of all things, perjury, lying about Communist infiltration of the Government. The Communists in the Government were responsible for that.

      He died young, of a heart attack, persecuted by the liberal establishment, still powerful in spite of McCarthy, and he died a pessimist.

      You should really stick to your funny movies. Your constant use of obscenity and inflammatory language does not hide your deep-down liberal beliefs. Chambers was a hero of the anti-Communist movement, but of course your idol Charlie Chaplin didn’t like him very much.

      Little Al on July 6, 2013 at 4:23 pm

        Only an idiot and traitor would support communism. Whittaker did both. He was a spy for the Soviet Union. He also cheated on his wife with men while traveling around the country. He was no salt of the earth He is no hero. He was a scumbag that got nervous, and then turned in his fellow travelers, who were as much pieces of garbage as he was.

        As to Charlie Chaplin, wow, his movie making was a real threat right? Do you know why he was accused of being a communist? Because of the movie “The Dictator,” Some right wing anti-Semites felt that if you opposed Hitler, you must be a commie. This kind of stupidity was how the anti-Communist movement was discredited. To my knowledge, he was never a registered Commie.

        Incidentally, for a while, Lucille Ball was a registered communist. As she had a popular show and was America’s most favorite Irish Catholic, this was overlooked when she lied her way before Congress.

        Jonathan E. Grant on July 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm

          You are writing off some very distinguished people who ultimately performed very valuable services to this country. Most people who are Communists don’t recant, even though they may get nervous, or feel persecuted. While Chambers showed poor judgement in becoming a Communist, he more than made up for it. His character defects are well known, and were publicized by Communists and others on the left.

          But, basically, what distinguished him was that he told the truth about what he knew, something very, very few involved with the Communist movement wound up doing. In spite of all his deficiencies, he told the truth, and helped cleanse the Government, at least partially, of Communist influence. He and Bentley performed an invaluable service. The Government had decided not to disclose the contents of the Venona Papers at that time, and consequently depended mightily on the assistance of Chambers, Bentley, Budenz, Bella Dodd, and others.

          And while, of course adherence to Communism shows poor judgment, credit should be given to those who learn from their mistakes. One example is Jay Lovestone. He was a Communist leader in the 20s, an independent communist in the 30s, but with Dubinsky as a mentor, became active in the AFL, and ultimately became International Affairs Director of the AFL and later the AFL-CIO. He was instrumental in preventing Western Europe from going Communist after World War II, keeping the AFL free of Communist influence, and both William Green and George Meany considered him an extremely valuable aide. There are other examples, as well.

          Sincere ex-Communists can have tremendous value to the anti-Communist effort, because they have an understanding of Communist tactics and strategy that frequently evades those without such background.

          A person’s life should be taken as a total package. While, of course, I do not support Chambers’ early Communist efforts, he more than made up for it later in life. That opinion is shared by a number of very prominent anti-Communists, who were never sympathetic to Marxism, such as William F. Buckley, and Richard Nixon.

          I’m not quite sure why you brought up Lucille Ball. Are you comparing her with Chambers? While she recanted her earlier Communist views and activity, she never took any initiative to expose Communist activity or Communists who had wormed their way into the Government. She made no sacrifices, but just acted to preserve her privileged position.

          George Sokolsky had an excellent column about Chambers in early 1949. He explained the circumstances by which Chambers went to see Berle, though the intervention of Issac Don Levine. He pointed out that Chambers should have been arrested when he went to Berle before World War II. But he wasn’t, and by renewing his contacts with the Government in the late 40s, took tremendous personal risks of becoming imprisoned, and lived with that vulnerability his entire life. He never asked for any protection from the Government.

          Little Al on July 6, 2013 at 10:07 pm

      JEG, Debbie disagrees with you.

      I’m interested in why you believe as you do.

      skzion on July 6, 2013 at 8:26 pm

        And would it have been better if Chambers hadn’t testified and exposed Hiss through the Pumpkin Papers? Would we have been better off if Hiss had remained in a privileged elite position for years to come?

        Little Al on July 6, 2013 at 10:13 pm

          Little Al, do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just plain stupid? Nobody ever said that Chambers should not have tried to mitigate the damage he caused this nation; it is just that he is not a hero. Are all of the Mafioso that testify in court against their fellow scumbags heroes? I don’t think so, but under your standard, they deserve a medal.

          As to Lucille Ball, I note that you brought up someone who was not a card carrying communist (Charlie Chaplin), and I countered with someone who was (Lucille Ball.

          I never brought up Charlie Chaplin. You did. I also note that some on the right think Elizabeth Bentley was a hero. No, she was another communist that turned tail and even emphasized her Catholicism to avoid being tossed in the slammer or executed like the Rosenbergs, just as Whittaker Chambers found religion and became a Christian to further polish his image. It worked for too many morons on the right.

          The reason that the anti-communist movement failed is that they elevated scumbags to the level of heroes, and they misidentified those who were not communists. People like Joe McCarthy did more damage to the anti-Communist movement than Joe Stalin.

          The problem with people like you is that you have John Wayne syndrome. You elevate ex-communists and draft dodgers (Wayne) to hero status, when in fact they are not worthy.

          Jonathan E. Grant on July 6, 2013 at 11:29 pm

          Little Al and JEG, this personal stuff (started by Little Al’s snarky comment about Chaplin, I believe) is not very helpful. However, the substance of the discussion is indeed very interesting. One problem with going personal is that important issues can end up being dropped prematurely.

          No offense to either of you is intended, of course.

          skzion on July 7, 2013 at 12:56 am

Debbie, you are totally correct on just about everything you’ve claimed in this piece about David Horowitz, and your right ma’am, he ought to drop the word “Freedom” from his propaganda organization, because with him ratifying his stance on our 2nd Amendment and wanting so-called gun-control implemented in our laws, etc.

BTW DS, what you’ve said about Horowitz having ties to the radical black racists group, the Black Panthers are ALL facts of reality, rather than conspiracy, and here goes:


“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on July 5, 2013 at 5:02 pm

great post Debbie. Horowitz and Pipes have left the reservation and are with the thugs.

sad how many so-call conservatives have really never been conservative.

maybe they just want to be liked. sorry it doesn’t work that way David. They actually despise you even more when you try.

General P. Malaise on July 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm

Et tu David? Yikes, it’s like a punch in the stomach every time I find out about another-thought-he-was-a-conservative, who stabs us in the back for thirty pieces of Silver. Our country is awash in wh*res; has it always been this way?

waynesteapartyworld on July 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm

This is an appropriate theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u4vn0Ju5K8

It is an abyss that gets hold of you and drags you down to its center.

Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 5:49 pm

The fact that Horowitz supported, at any time, the Black Panthers, an organization that now calls for the murder of white babies, speaks volumes. How his mind could go from that level of depravity to then being a “conservative” is hard to believe.
Perhaps Mr. Horowitz is suffering from Zelig Syndrome…

I have watched the Zimmerman trial, carefully examining every word from every witness. He is innocent.

Nocturna on July 5, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Nocturna: Of course Zimmerman is innocent. He is the victim of a mob that includes the POTUS.

    lexi on July 7, 2013 at 10:54 am

I agree with everything said here – many ex-Marxists moved to the Right purely for reasons of opportunism and to ride “the wave.”

Now that the Left has won the culture wars, many of them are reverting to being liberals and libertarians whose only real difference with the Democrats is they defend capitalism – as Debbie has noted, that’s where the GOP is headed today.

Its impossible to have a good word to say about people who lack principles and malign others. David Horowitz is doing what he thinks is popular, not what is right. I don’t agree with him at all that our right of self-defense should end at the gat of our home. With his six figure income, I’m sure he can afford bodyguards while he moralizes how the rest of us are a danger to ourselves.

Those of us who don’t in Pacific Palisades don’t have that luxury. Debbie’s right, if Horowitz is going to be a hypocrite and a political whore, he might as well delete the word “Freedom” from his center’s name. My freedom shouldn’t be a function of whether I have the right connections or happen to live in the right neighborhood.

Sure, people may make mistakes – that’s the price of living in a free society. If we’re going to insist on perfection, you’ll be happier living in an Islamic dictatorship. I don’t want to live in a terrestrial heaven in which more powerful people get to decide how I live! Thanks but no thanks.

Conservatives who forget that freedom is not for sale with the season were never conservatives in the first place. I prefer principle to expediency and if we can’t defend that, then we’re not going to have a free country for long. George Zimmerman’s fate isn’t merely an abstraction and the push to repeal our Second Amendment rights frosts me to no end. And I’ll have nothing to do with any one who wants to take them away from us. Period.

No wonder our country is danger of becoming lost for want of good men in it.

NormanF on July 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    It is a place that grows ever more barren. As social and familial bonds are rent, the once healthful air and soil grows arid. The dawn takes longer to come, but yields less warmth each day. Foul molds and mildews encrust the lintels of our homes, while slowly spreading down the walls until our very floors are carpeted with the horrid slime.

    Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 6:18 pm

      Worry, who wrote that?

      skzion on July 7, 2013 at 1:02 am

        It came to mind. But, if you find it someplace else, let me know.

        Worry01 on July 8, 2013 at 4:06 am

Strange that some of the other readers here seem surprised by Horowitz’s action. Remember, DS has written about how Horowitz’s Frontpage Mag eulogized the passing of anti-Israel Robert Novak. Also Frontpage Mag hired anti-semitic types to blog for it at $100 per post.

He has been nothing but an opportunist for practically his whole life.

Charles Rector on July 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Alas, Michael “Savage” has also declared Zimmerman guilty, which also tells you something about him as if you didn’t already know.

The whole attack on “Stand Your Ground” laws, the Second Amendment, and even the whole concept of neighborhood watch, is part of a deeper, more insidious trend. All sundry groups out for Zimmerman’s hide clearly seek to turn back the clock and intimidate/frighten ordinary citizens back to the old, apathetic “we don’t want to get involved” stance that was as much a factor in the vicious and brutal murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964 as what her assailant had done to her. Moreover, many of the leftist politicians, especially most New York City Council members and the Democrat candidates for Mayor, are in cahoots with/stooges of/doing the bidding of/giving cover to/running interference for armed robbers, drug dealers, gangbangers, illegal-alien gangs such as “MS-13,” rapists, carjackers, home-invasion burglars, cop killers, and other assorted violent criminals, miscreants, malcontents, hoodlums, lawbreakers, and troublemakers of all stripes. This is what is behind their efforts to tie both hands of the NYPD behind their backs with so-called “inspector generals” and “monitors.” Those same leftists have nothing to say about those wearing T-shirts in some bad neighborhoods with the message “Stop Snitching” emblazoned on it – a clear message of intimidation to people in those neighborhoods to keep quiet about the rampant crime, violence, etc. in their communities, or else. It is these groups and elements which those including Horowitz have sympathy for – and none for their would-be victims. In both these cases – the “controversy” over NYPD “stop-and-frisk” and the Zimmerman trial – we see the old 1960’s “soft-on-crime”/”coddle the criminals”/”mugger’s best friend” stance returning with a vengeance, with potential consequences for everybody.

ConcernedPatriot on July 5, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    Concerned Patriot-

    You must have studied sociology. The Genevese case it a noted incident from a sociological prospective and was cited in many studies by Gresham Sikes. It indeed is much like that today in urban areas with a racial demographic of African-Americans and Hispanics, where the mindset is, “Snitches are bitches who get stitches.”

    That is to say, in many parts of the country, many people are gunned down in the street in broad daylight, with many witnesses, but know one will dare utter a word for fear of reprisal. This is a common tactic among one of the gangs you cited, dope dealers and other dangerous criminals that display anti-social behavior. This self destruction of the justice system is directly related to the ACLU and the communist agenda to attack the legal system and use our laws against us by freeing criminals that will most certainly erode the very fabric of a decent society.

    In cities like Oakland and Los Angeles, they have had an historically deep seeded hatred for the police. In Oakland, the feds have taken over that department and judge oversees what the department can and cannot do. ((((((golf clap))))))
    thank the ACLU for that. It is so bad, that a beat officer must articulate as to the reason for a stop and the corresponding race of an individual that was cited, arrested, or question that must be reviewed by internal affairs. This will soon be policy of all departments. If all of this is not enough, both cities have a Police Commission that is staffed with civilians that are ACLU supporters.

    Of course, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out, as I predicted, as a result of this policy of keeping statistics on even subjects that are given a mere ticket, will
    cause crime to dramatically increase simply because the cop will not stop a minority. They turn a blind eye and take a Laissez-faire approach to policing.

    What the cops now do, and this is a frightening trend nationwide, will go after law abiding citizens that are usually white. Why? because they are not in a protected group, an illegal alien, a terrorist or homosexual and are easier targets because they actually fear the police.

    There is a link on Michael Savage’s website that has an article relating to this where a woman was jacked up by a alcohol beverage control officers and jailed for the purchase of water.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 11:02 am

      I’ve seen reality in the flesh and live in the real world, and thus can read the danger signs as surely as they’re coming up. In short, “real world” smarts as opposed to “ivory tower” smarts like so many leftists espouse and spew.

      In many communities (such as you’ve mentioned) with a pathological hatred of the police, there is also, concomitantly and in direct proportion, a hero worship of cop-killers over the years such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, Larry Davis, Christopher Dorner, Troy Davis, Lovelle Mixon, and Assata Shakur (ex Joanne Chesimard – not a complete list, to be sure, but some of the more infamous that stand out like the proverbial sore thumb) – to say nothing of the support in those communities for other cold-blooded killers like Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams (R.I.H.).

      Many of these nefarious forces were also emboldened in their quest to neuter and castrate the police, by the statements by Eric Holder in 2009 after he dropped the Justice Department’s voter intimidation prosecution of the New Black Panthers, to the effect that he would never prosecute any crime where the perpetrators were black and the victims were white (and he – and Obama – couldn’t care less that statistically, black-on-black crime is much higher than black-on-white crime).

      The “Stop Snitching” campaign is also, in its end intent, at one with HAMAS CAIR’s pressing Muslim communities to effectively obstruct and stonewall law enforcement when it comes to investigations of terror plots or attacks. And not coincidentally, the same leftists agitating to make NYC’s streets more dangerous again as they were in the ’70’s, are circling the wagons against the NYPD’s proactive counter-terror measures – meaning that they clearly want a Boston Marathon-style terror attack (or even worse) to happen in the Big Apple.

      ConcernedPatriot on July 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm

        Concerned Patriot-

        I see that there are some very astute readers on Debbie’s blog. The Mixon and Dorner cases are two prime examples of societal decay. Imagine, a rapist, and convicted felon, gets pulled over and murders a motorcycle cop, a sgt., who is also a motor cycle officer, an officer on the SWAT team and a another Sgt. on the SWAT team in a matter of less than an hour. Then the communists hold a candlelight vigil for a Mixon, who was sadly neutralized by the other members of the SWAT team, in a hail of .223 and 10mm MP-5 rounds.

        The Dorner case in which he was fleeing an officer, removed a concealed handgun, turned and shot at the officer numerous times. The officer did what was tactically correct and targeted for center mass whereby dispatching Dorner.

        [readers of this can see the protest on Youtube]

        The fine outstanding citizens, white communist agitators and all, were outraged that the police officer had the temerity
        to use lethal force against a well-intentioned-urban-youth that was a student, no doubt aspiring to go to college, and was a fine outstanding role model for the community, traversing the fine streets of Oakland in 4:00 am. I guess he was en route to work at such an early morning hour. Or, was it perhaps he was getting off of the late shift?

        AR on July 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Turns out, “creepy a** cracker” is a compliment!

While were at it, another phoney is Ilana Mercer who actually defends the quarter-ton Rachel Jeantel who was on the phone with infant Trayvon when he made those racist remarks. Mercer defends her on her BAB website. Another loser.

EJ Rader on July 5, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Can’t wait until Fatboy Zimmerman, if and when he takes the stand.

    Zippy on July 6, 2013 at 1:00 am

    Your revelation about Ilana Mercer is a genuine surprise to me. I’ve read her column for years, and she’s always struck me as a sensible, tough libertarian conservative. One would think that being a native of South Africa, Mercer especially would be hip to black criminal brutality, but apparently she’s M.I.A. when it really counts.

    R: Ilana Mercer is a PoS, egomaniacal, self-hating Jew who brags that her father was involved with the anti-apartheid Marxist Blacks and who herself for years blogged on the site AntiWar, at the invitation of her openly anti-Semitic, admitted neo-Nazi friend, Justin Raimondo (yes, he’s a Nazi Party member). That you think she’s “sensible” or “conservative” tells me you don’t think, period. DS

    Rocker on July 6, 2013 at 4:27 pm

      Libertarians are NOT conservatives! They’re nutty to the extreme of dismissing the importance of national security. Debbie’s observation about Ilana Mercer could apply to the RuPaulistinian Republican establishment today. They embrace Arab Nazis just as Mercer embraced a real life Nazi. All of which I find repulsive! That’s why we don’t have people who are sensible and honest and its the reason why America is in such deep trouble today. The Right is in very poor shape, intellectually, ethically and in terms of standing up for America. Many of the disastrous foreign policy intiatives, such as the Libya misadventure that cost our US Ambassador and staff in that country their lives came from the Right. And yet sucking up to the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood is exactly the kind of move the Right wants more of. Its a national tragedy.

      NormanF on July 7, 2013 at 5:41 pm

I like Michael Savage. He is dead wrong on Zimmerman’s motives. I lost alot of respect for Michael over this and I hope he comes back to his senses, like real soon!

EJ Rader on July 5, 2013 at 6:42 pm

“Savage” has also essentially come out in agreement with Horowitz about Jonathan Pollard, which would constitute another strike against him as a reliable conservative voice. Every so often he has regurgitated the “Pollard should rot in jail” canard that Horowitz has long been saying.

And since “Slobbert” Spencer and “Scamela” Geller were mentioned in passing in this article, I suppose it would count as either karma, or something on the order of “Alien vs. Predator,” or Schadenfreude, or “so sad, too bad,” that these so-called “anti-jihad” frauds were recently banned from entering Britain (irrespective of that country’s virulent Jew-hatred and equally craven capitulation to Islam) – especially given what’s been pointed out here about “Scamela’s” dealings with Muslim straw buyers and her particular track record.

ConcernedPatriot on July 5, 2013 at 8:17 pm


    You stupid twit, no reliable conservative should support a traitor.

    Zippy on July 6, 2013 at 1:04 am


      You stupid twit, no reliable conservative should support a traitor.”

      Pollard is a not a traitor.


      JeffE on July 7, 2013 at 12:25 am

      @Zippy the Pinhead – Speaking of traitors, “Savage” is in line with the Paulistinians in declaring Edward Snowden a “hero” which he clearly isn’t.

      ConcernedPatriot on July 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm

What a piece of trash Horowitz continues to be. I admit I was unaware of the extent of his idiocy. He’s probably never thought of serving a community like a guy like Zimmerman who put himself in harms way to his obvious detriment. Too bad Martins parents didn’t pay attention to him when he was alive as they are now that he’s been taken from them. Anyone else notice it seems that Martins dad has gold teeth? If they are, what an example he was to his dead son. I have a theory that Martins dad was actually in on the criminal enterprise that plagued that area. It’s not being talked about much the fact that Martin named himself something on twitter that was completely unacceptable in any other culture. It’s also not being widely reported how many twitter accounts of Martin supporters are openly threatening to kill and riot but nobody has been arrested for the threats. Big surprise Mr. Horowitz isn’t railing about that.

samurai on July 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm

Michael Savage has a mouth. That is all that he really has. He was an employee of Dr. Timothy Leary, the LSD Guru during the 1960’s. Mike also liked to hang out with Alan Ginsburg during that time. He only got into the talk radio racket in the early 1990’s when his other career options, such as being a health and nutrition writer or stand-up comic had dried up. By the accounts I have seen, Michael Savage was a strange jerk before he became a “Conservative”. As is the case with David Horowitz, Michael Savage is gradually drifting back to his innate belief system. Conservatism is no longer the gold mine that it once was, and Dr. Savage knows it.

Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Worry, you beat me to it. Michael Savage (narcissist out-of-control) was blabbering about a bunch of nonsense um-gala-gala last week and I didn’t go for a lick of it but I wondered how many of his lemming fans would follow his lead.

    He’s only worth listening to the comedic value. Maybe not even that after his George Zimmerman crap he was slinging last week. (His podcast is free and I would not pay for it although I stupidly did in the past..)

    I’m glad I have an independent mind and my BS detector went off BIG TIME.

    The so-called Conservatives are getting even more worse than the Libtards these days. Have your ears and eyes open and when you smell a rat don’t try to think you’re imagining things.

    See how they will fight and give up any integrity they may have had for a piece of the pie.

    THESE are the interesting times that come just before a major change and shake up comes!! Beware.

    Skunky on July 5, 2013 at 9:52 pm

      Thank you Skunky. You will see a couple of appropriate links above. One is “Joe Building or The Stalin Memorial Lecture”. The other is a terrifying symphony from 1937. 😉 Joe was into reforging.

      Worry01 on July 5, 2013 at 10:41 pm

So what Horowitz is essentially saying is that former Klansman and cop wannabe, George Zimmerman, driven by racial hatred, stalked and murdered toddler Travon Martin who would have went into the priesthood had he lived. And, additionally, we should become an unarmed society like Britain and so on.

Yes, I’d say Horowitz is certifiably insane at this point.

FairEnuff on July 5, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    your comment is hella funny

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 11:22 am

Oh that we had 1000 Debbie’s in this country. Out troubles would be over.

Brian on July 5, 2013 at 9:54 pm

I will never ever listen to Michael Fraud Savage again. I have never heard him go off the deep end like he has about the Zimmerman case. Unbelievable. Savage presumes to know what Zimmerman was thinking that night, calls him a “mall cop”, and quotes from the DOCTORED NBC TAPE that was edited by an NBC employee to make Zimmerman look racist!

I hope you are reading this Michael Savage, schmuck, you are off my radio permanently. A fake ass fraud and publicity hound. I should have known you were too good to be true.

FedUpAndTired on July 5, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    I think he did, side with Travon Martin, to appease the Al Sharpton crowd because maybe African-Americans are gong after him.

    Admittedly, I listen to Savage but you have to question him about the fact that he makes money hand over fist, millions per year, yet he has the balls to solicit money from his audience so that he can pay his lawyer in a civil suit. He also incessantly peddles his books and has no way to contact him by e-mail. Wuss up wit dat?

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 11:20 am

I tried listening to Savage when I first heard of him in 2003. Didn’t go over too well. Then I tried again in 2004, and heard him say “Demmicans and Republicrats,” something I’ve been saying since early ’96. I thought that was cool, but didn’t make him the greatest thing since sliced bread. Different people can certainly see the same things happening at the same time in a society, and call it by the same name.

Tried listening to him again starting last December, but tiring of it rather quickly. I find him hypocritical in many ways. He loves to play the “I’m different” card, pointing out how he’s for saving elephants while other “conservatives” would be making fun of him for saying so, etc.

In the case of the Zimmerman trial, he has reached extremely low, especially with bringing up the “fuckin’ coons” remark as though it was the first time anyone ever heard of this. This is OLD news, and it has LONG since been determined that Zimmerman did NOT say “fuckin’ coons” so I don’t know what game Savage thinks he’s playing by exploring this angle. Dirty pool is what I’m thinking. Very disappointed in him, but not like I haven’t experienced his hypocrisy before.

Since we live in the times we live in, I’m not surprised to learn that anyone could be a hypocrite. Nobody’s God here, and it’s hard to know the players without a scorecard, especially when so many are such politically expert chameleons. Horowitz is someone I don’t know a whole lot about, but can’t say I’m surprised at anything in Debbie’s article.

Very informative and educational responses by a number of the posters. Thank you, one and all.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 5, 2013 at 11:56 pm

Zimmerman will be acquitted, then we will see just how far we have come since Rodney King.

#1 Vato on July 6, 2013 at 12:05 am

    He will get convicted. Or maybe not because Bib Sis wants protests and anarchy to rein in the streets. After his trial, the feds will then go after him on civil rights charges or whatever else that they can trump up. I do not really follow this case; but I am guessing that the lawyers came out of the woodwork for the civil trial. It is clear that the feds, as well as the Sharpton crowd, want Zimmerman to face a firing squad–although they are adamantly opposed to capital punishment.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 11:31 am

Michael Savage is a clown, an entertainer, nothing more. He is a cheap side show version of Rush Limbaugh, except Rush isn’t crazy. I think Mike is a couple cans short of a six pack. I think he might be conservative on maybe 2/3 of the positions he takes. The rest of his stuff is Twilight Zone material. I notice how he gets a dig in, every once in a while against other talk show hosts, especially Mark Levin.

RT on July 6, 2013 at 12:08 am

One thing I’ve learned after reading all this – never take the claim of an ex-Lib who claims to be Conservative at face value. If Horowitz didn’t feel it necessary to take on Hussein Ibish, his sites posts against jihad are fraudulent.

As are Savage, Pipes, Spencer, Geller, Medved, Hannity, Mark Levin and the rest of the crowd

Infidel on July 6, 2013 at 2:00 am

I read the Horowitz piece. It’s not very good.

“What we do know is that a young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead. And shouldn’t there be some penalty to pay for that?”

Really? Isn’t Zimmerman is just as innocent by the same standard? Looking into Trayvon’s school suspension record seems to show that the story is a little more complicated than David’s little artifice suggests.

Why bother having a trial? Isn’t it only right and proper that a penalty be paid to smooth the troubled waters of the racial divide? As for questions of self defense they’re secondary. Zimmerman should never have had the bad taste to get into such a compromising situation in the first place. Correct?

It’s shoddy. Very shoddy.

There’s a lot of blah blah about the personal recriminations David would have if he was involved in this kind of nasty incident. Unlikely to happen for obvious reasons.
David apparently would have the appropriate guilt response however.
Well we can all sleep better at night safe in the knowledge. Those of us that sleep in safe neighborhoods that is.

On the other hand this case has degenerated into a media fiasco.
It was a fiasco from the beginning obviously. People know that but they can’t look away.
Conservatives really shouldn’t allow themselves to be dragged into these kind of media circuses if they can be avoided. They usually play a set piece.

If Obama had an illegitimate son he might have looked a lot like Zimmerman.
And why should his looks concern us anyway?
Because that kind of side issue is exactly how the president got elected in the first place.
That’s why.

migraine boy on July 6, 2013 at 3:25 am

    “If Obama had an illegitimate son he might have looked a lot like Zimmerman.
    And why should his looks concern us anyway?
    Because that kind of side issue is exactly how the president got elected in the first place.”

    Very nicely put.

    skzion on July 7, 2013 at 1:11 am

“…A young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime…”

Guiltless of any crime?

He jumped Zimmerman and assaulted him,according to Zimmerman’s testimony.

ebayer on July 6, 2013 at 11:27 am

    Oh yes, but his life, according to reports, was not in imminent danger. Therefore, lethal force was not an option. It simply goes down to training and Zimmerman really had none to speak of….There is what called a continuum of force and he should have learned this prior to carrying a gage. Likewise, he should have learned the elements of defense. Had he done this, and not created the incident, this never would have happened.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm

First, homes in Zimmer’s ‘hood had been broken into repeatedly. All suspects were described as black males. One was caught and sentenced to five years. The break-ins continued. The crime rate within a 100 mile radius of Miami has been sky-high since the 80s when I lived there. Thats why the CCW laws were passed to begin with. I also carry and have for years.

Where Savage becomes a freaked out zombie, I mean a nut job, is the rediculous theory he came up with about how Zimmer should have carried a pistol for self defemse — with an empty chamber in a semi-auto!! This means that if your life becomes threatend, where a split second could be the difference between life and death, you would have to remove your pistol from its holster then use both hands to slide a round into the chamber before you could fire. Nobody serious about self defense would do that. That could get you killed. Yet because Zimmer didn’t carry his gun in this non-usable state, Savage claims Zimmer was out looking for somebody, anybody, to murder that night. What a gigantic A-hole!

Savage is henceforth a nut job in my book. He should be kept away from small children and pets. He should become a Greeter at Wal-Mart.

skid mark on July 6, 2013 at 11:39 am


    I disagreed with Savage on this issues as well. From what he said, one could glean from his statement, his lack of experience with firearms, or at least from a law enforcement prospective, was incorrect. Even for the sake of argument, if it were self-defense purposes, Savage is still wrong. If a weapon is to be carried, it should be, “locked and loaded.” Around the house, it should be safely stored, like in a safe, and under no conditions should it be loaded. I am considered an expert and that is the way I do it.

    For the average person, however, they should avoid a firearm all together.

    I am asked quite a bit, and the subject comes, up about concealed weapons. I suppose that in California the issues is moot because no one is issued a concealed weapons permit unless of course you are Diane Finestein. She is opposed to guns yet she has a CCW. Typical hypocrisy of the left. The other thing that you have to consider, that Zimmer did not, is that if you carry a weapon you may have to use it, or you may be involved in an unjustified shooting,[ Zimmerman apparently was cleared at the local level but because of politics, the feds put pressure on the DA] or worse, someone may see you with it, call the police and when the police arrive, will see the gun and they could quite frankly care less about a permit, and will shoot you, “fearing for their safety.?

    There is no question that many people get a CCW [this is the legal term in Californa] because of an ego; and no one really knows the state of Zimmerman’s mind. To avoid all of this, the HOA, providing they had adequate reserves, should have just retained a security company to patrol the complex and this would have all been avoided.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 2:08 pm

There is a regional case, Oscar Grant, killed by a BART officer. This so-called cop, working for a so-called police department, murdered Oscar Grant, shot him in the back, while he was handcuffed and laying on the ground. Meserlie’s defense was that he thought it was a tasar. His other co-cop and murdering conspirator, Pirone quite and joined the army and was busted for committing unemployment fraud.

Anyway, I seen a poster with Jaimee Fox and it said Fruitvale. This has to be about Oscar Grant. Does anyone have any info about if this is a movie?

AR on July 6, 2013 at 11:50 am

” letters for his non-profit (which seems to have profited him quite well),” Wanna bet the irs didn’t investigate his group?

sal on July 6, 2013 at 12:57 pm

When the verdict comes…. The local authorities should ban sale of Gasoline in containers, in a 12 block radius around any city with a Martin Luther king blvd.

sal on July 6, 2013 at 1:00 pm


    Hey, hey, whoa, whoa. That is not permitted in this forum.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm

“A young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead. And shouldn’t there be some penalty to pay for that?”

The young man could have run away but told Rachel he ain’t runnin’ from no creepy ass cracker. The young man could have done several things. What the young man chose to do was put on his “no fear nigga” act and attack the neighborhood watchman, got on top of him then started beating his head in.

Sorry Horowitz, dumbass, there should be no penalty for defending your life. How about you making a large financial donation to the Martins? Put your money whete your

JJ the wonder dog on July 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    … your money where your mouth is.

    JJ the wonder dog on July 6, 2013 at 1:14 pm

Anyone who has been following the Zimmerman trial and is not a Martinoid know that Zimmerman should never have been charged. The prosecution witnesses either supported the defense overall or changed their stories such as the medical examiner and Jeantel, who lied about her hospital visit but confirmed that Trayvon used “cracker” to describe Zimmerman. Trayvon spent 14 of his 17 years with his stepmom, not biomom$, he was caught with 12 pieces of women’s jewelry, pot, and a large screwdriver at school, that he used “lean,” also called Purple Lean or Purple Drank, a southern rap narcotic drink for which he had 2 of the ingredients – skittles and Arizona Watermelon Drink – purchased at the 7/11 that night, and that there is a missing 25 minutes from the time he left the 7/11 to the first time he was seen by Zimmerman.

What I found in the blogs is that the anti-Zimmerman Martinoids do not care what the evidence indicates, which is that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon (sucker-punched), was pinned on the bottom, and that Trayvon, a goon in training, was pounding him. The medical examiner screwed things up and changed his testimony. Dad never called about his son or tried calling him until the next morning. His biomom$ who wants money has been absent and he was really raised by his stepmom (why wasn’t she called to identify his voice) and his father, who may have a Cripp gang tatoo on his neck.

This is a politically and racially motivated show trial for black grievance agitators such as Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc. And for Horowitz to say these things says a lot more about him that Debbie has exposed (and she has exposed a lot). He will lose support by conservatives, as will Savage. Both are idiots for pronouncing Zimmerman guilty before all the evidence was in. When Zimmerman was tricked into thinking that the incident had been videotaped, he was relieved because he felt it would show he was right. I know this – a not guilty verdict should have been entered by the political whore judge and should be entered by the jury. There is plenty of reasonable doubt. And what has been done to Zimmerman to smear him or throw the case against him by the MSM, prosecutors, Judge Nelson, and most of all Obama – Trayvon would have looked like the (goon) son he never had – is an absolute disgrace.

At least I learned something – I never knew there where “whote” Hispanics. Amazing. I guess that makes Obama a white African-American.

Concerned Citizen on July 6, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    I don’t have a problem with Horowitz being on the other side of the gun control issue. I think I can infer that he is but that doesn’t make him a fraud.
    Conservatives don’t have to and aren’t going to agree on everything.
    I don’t really like his suggestion that conservatives are simply taking a reactionary position to the liberal narrative on the Trayvon Martin case.
    Mainly because his view of the case is an exact parallel to that narrative as far as I’m concerned.

    But I also don’t like the implication that because a commercial organization’s involved he’s insincere in his beliefs.
    That’s exactly the approach the left wing media uses to discredit people like him but they get paid to do that don’t they?

    Conservatives better start playing in the big leagues. The opposition is that’s for sure.

    MB: WOW. Anyone who thinks that you can support gun control AND be conservative is an idiot. There isn’t a SINGLE conservative position David Horowitz has, except protecting the fortune he’s made fooling people like you who still won’t face facts on that phony. Con artists like him make $500K per year because of suckers like you. His organization is NOT “commercial.” It’s supposed to be a non-profit, which you’d know if you bothered to read the facts noted in this column. Facts are stubborn things. Sadly, morons are more stubborn. WAKE. UP. DS

    migraine boy on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm

      “Anyone who thinks that you can support gun control AND be conservative is an idiot”.
      Well they’re not my type of conservative if that’s what you mean.

      They can still be a “conservative” though because conservatism is bigger than just gun control. It’s bigger than the social issues and it’s bigger than the economic issues. It’s bigger than the religious issues.
      We need to be on all these fronts.
      Liberals may disagree on some of these issues too but they always come together when it comes down to destroying American exceptionalism. Ever notice that?
      In my humble opinion we need to do the same in the opposite direction.

      I don’t give any money to Horowitz but I do benefit from some of the great contributers he gives a forum to. There are many you didn’t mention.
      In that sense I am a freeloader.

      I do however give small amounts to you and Aramic Broadcasting Network and I’m happy to do that while I can. Any dirt on ABN BTW? Love to hear it.

      You’re right I shouldn’t have used the word “commercial”. That was strictly inaccurate in terms of what you were saying but if Horowitz makes $500k annually it’s not through “suckers” like me unfortunately.
      I hope to be a much bigger “moron sucker” in the future.

      migraine boy on July 7, 2013 at 7:05 am

      Completely off topic but whatever…

      There’s a great article in the Jerusalem Post about the Nazi roots of the German Greens.

      Their youth movements were always big on back to nature camping trips so there’s a strange kind of symmetry to it really.

      “Before the Nazi Party was founded, a strong youth movement already existed in Germany. It began in the 1890s and was known as the Wandervögel, a male-only movement featuring a back-to-nature theme.

      Wandervögel members had an idealistic, romantic notion of the past, yearning for simpler days when people lived off the land. They rejected the modern, big city era and took a dim view of its predecessor, the industrial revolution, which had been started by their fathers and grandfathers.” – The History Place

      migraine boy on July 7, 2013 at 7:59 am

      You’re appropriately named! Next thing you’ll be telling us its “conservative” to embrace gay marriage and to force Israel to give up Jewish land to Islamic terrorists bent upon its destruction! You defend David Horowitz because you don’t have any real principles and you don’t know where your red lines are. Cuz if you really had them, you wouldn’t be defending him and Debbie wouldn’t need to post a reply to admonish you.

      With friends like you, conservatives don’t need enemies.

      NormanF on July 7, 2013 at 5:48 pm

        This really is the weekend for fights among regulars, this time between migraine boy and NormanF.

        MB, if you were the brains behind a coalition, and if coalition members proceeded to steal your work–work that they could not do in a million years–using this work as a steppingstone for more and more money and power, using these in turn to attack your livelihood directly … and if these same people yukked it up about threats against your life and the life of your mother, and then hired fellow yukkers, I think you would not want any of this gang praised on your website. In addition, if this same gang did substantial harm to the very causes that motivated the coalition in the first place, you would be even more unsympathetic.And if, finally, a poster provided a link to this gang’s website, meaning money for them with every click, you might go nuclear.

        Norman, I believe MB’s point is that conservatism has many dimensions. Even if every dimension could be represented on a unidimensional scale (lib vs con), it would soon become clear that, for most, their location on, say, one dimension may be less “rightwing” than on most other dimensions. Indeed, a concept like “social conservative” points to this complexity. And let’s be clear that plenty of so-cons are not very economically conservative.

        So, what to do when someone has an outlying position? Do you adopt the rule that any outlier makes the person a lib? And what should others do about your own outlier? If this rule is not your choice, what rule do you endorse? Are certain dimensions more heavily weighted?

        One will not find anyone who perfectly matches one’s preferences. The issue with Horowitz, of course, is that his behavior demonstrates far more than a single aberrant position. And yet, the guy wants to pose as a conservative.

        skzion on July 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm

An awful lot of “Hispanics” have White Western European heritage. I am a “half-breed” like Zimmerman, in my case half Puerto Rican and half Jewish. I look at least 97% like my Puerto Rican half, pasty white, blond haired and blue eyed. On my Puerto Rican side, we descend from Austrians, Italians and Corsicans, all white Western European ancestry.

Both my Puerto Rican grandparents were redheads, leading to even more speculation about our true ancestry, and even more evidence that we, despite over 300 years of history in Puerto Rico, are indeed “white” people.

“Hispanic” is an erroneous, made up term used to classify people for government bureaucracies, and also used by the Spanish speaking political lobbies of the 60’s and 70’s to galvanize people of many ethnic varieties but all speaking Spanish, in to one political bloc. It has proven its erroneous and misguided nature time and again. I am obviously not Hispanic, as in descended from Spaniards, at least not originally, although the path my ancestors took to the New World did lead through Spain at one point.

If there is no such thing as a white Hispanic, and with so many Puerto Ricans being descended from Spaniards, why did the Puerto Ricans in the 2010 census list themselves as being 75.8% white? Spaniards, Italians, Dutch, Russians, Sephardic Jews, Germans, Danes, Irish, English, etal, all became Puerto Ricans when their ancestors settled there during the past 50-500 years. All those ethnic varieties and some others who settled in Puerto Rico are WHITE.

This “white Hispanic” phrase as used in the Zimmerman trial has been beaten to death, misused, misunderstood and also joked about ad nauseaum. Zimmerman’s father is Jewish, a white man, and his mother of “Hispanic” ancestry. Therefore, if we ARE going to use terms such as white, black, Hispanic, etc., it IS correct to refer to him as a white Hispanic. His features mark Zimmerman as being a man of color in addition to his whiteness. As many Spanish speaking people can trace some aspects of their ancestry back to African slaves or “indigenous peoples,” this would not make them totally white or totally of color.

In conclusion, it is also therefore correct to refer to the President as being of “mixed race,” although the term half-breed, something I was called by certain bully types 45 years ago, is now considered an insulting term. President Obama is not JUST a black man, he is a white man as well. And just like Mr. Horowitz and some others in this world Debbie regularly reports on, he doesn’t seem to appreciate at least one part of his ethnic makeup.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 pm

White Hisapnic refers to people like Cameron Dias, Emillio Estevez, Linda Carter, etc. So far as I know, people of Jewish heritage are not considered white by some and white by others. I take it you look something like David Blain. In any case, if you look at Blain, his race cannot immediately determined. To me, he sort of looks Arabic.

It seems to me Puerto Ricans come from Blacks and White descendants of Castilians but not from Italy.

AR on July 6, 2013 at 3:44 pm

Puerto Ricans come from anyone who settled there no matter where they came from. It can “seem” to anyone that this or that, but the same fact holds true for Dominicans, Cubans, Brazilians, Colombians, Argentines. If you have the last name Farinacci and were a member of the House of Representatives in Puerto Rico prior to being forced to resign in disgrace as a result of domestic violence charges, you are still Puerto Rican despite the fact your father’s ancestors obviously emanated from Italy.

The Chinese people in my town, who are descended from folks who in some cases came 200 years ago, and in others, from those who came 50 years ago, are no less Puerto Rican than anyone else. If your ancestors came to America 300 years ago, you, your parents, and your grandparents, on back beyond them, are Americans, NO MATTER WHERE THEY CAME FROM!!! The same holds true for Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Ecuadorans, Bolivians, etc. After your German ancestors came to Brazil, generations later you are a Brazilian.

The term “white Hispanic” is therefore correct, “in a sense.” It can be used to denote someone of mixed race who has a Spanish speaking parent in George Zimmerman’s case, or in the case of obviously white people in Mexico, such as former President Vicente Fox, the term would also be correct.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 6, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    It’s a little disconcerting to have to respond to some of the comments in this discussion from regular contributors. If White-Hispanic were used consistently by the media to denote all of mixed Hispanic-Caucasian descent, fine. But of course it is being used selectively, and regardless of technical, hairsplitting accuracy, we should be able to understand its prejudicial use in this context.

    Little Al on July 6, 2013 at 4:41 pm

      You’re right of course, but all this time later, it still causes confusion. And what’s to be disconcerted about? It’s just part of the minutae of a momentous case at a critical point in American history? My post here only makes 70 for this blog. Debbie had another column recently which garnered 144 posts!!! LOL!!!

      Definitely what you said, though. The eggshell walking, selective and prejudicial use are not going unnoticed, even by people who are fuzzy on the term. None of us would mistake a whale for a giant squid. It is obvious there’s a whale of an agenda here, and that “white Hispanic” is part of it.

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    To me there is no difference in an Hispanic. A lot of them say they are from here or they are from there. Truthfully, no one gives a rat’s ass. One day, I asked an illegal when he came from Mexico and he told me that he was not from Mexico but from El Salvador. Likewise, I hear the Political correct garbage in the MLB. This one communist agitator, and so-called sports sociologies, Harry Edwards, who was only a tenured prof because of affirmative action at Berkeley, argued that there are no blacks in major league baseball. Well, that simply is not true because there are plenty of Los Negros. Just look at Manny Ramirez.

    Anyway, Edwards is an Al Sharpton-type. He goes on to say how wonderful his people are yet he does not live amongst his own people. Rather, he lives in the lily white suburbs where houses are a million plus. I call this the Maxine Waters syndrome.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 7:46 pm

      Ahhhhh yes, Harry Edwards, now there’s a name and a face I know all too well. He of the noble, educated, stern faced visage, erudite, quietly hard bitten demeanor, among the cream of the 60’s black radicals still looking to be relevant. Shame that Harry wound up as never holding a race card he didn’t play. I expected better from him 45 years ago. Guess not.

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 6, 2013 at 8:21 pm

        I talked to one Hispanic guy, the guy from El Salvador and I asked him it were true that Hispanics are bigoted toward their own people when it comes to dark completed and light completed Hispanics and he told me it was true. For this reason, if you pause on the Mexican channel you will see light, that appear to be white, Hispanics,

        AR on July 6, 2013 at 10:46 pm

          Uhhhhhh, “appear” to be white? Where do you think the whiteness comes from? Their Nigerian ancestors? It comes from the various white, mostly Western European factions that made their way to the new world, and settled in every part of it, from Canada to Mexico, Central and South America.

          Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 6, 2013 at 11:10 pm

        You do not hear much about this 60s race hustler. He weaseled his way into, rather, the NFL, brought him in with the 49-ers as a so-consultant. What the hell was he consulting? They did this to basically shut him up much like MSNBC to for Foul Sharpton.

        AR on July 7, 2013 at 12:05 am

        Isn’t he a piece of work…

        AR on July 7, 2013 at 12:07 am

          Piece of work is right. The only game Harry Edwards has left is the same game he was playing during the 60’s, the race game. Back then “the cause” meant something and had legitimacy. Now, it’s just a hustle. Racism will always exist in all peoples, as will stealing and adultery. The race game however is always profitable, and a guaranteed method to enrobe a society in divide and conquer machinations.

          Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 7, 2013 at 12:49 am

        Edwards was on a local talk show when this story broke. He went on to say his left-wing nonsense about how he thought nothing was suspicious about Martin except for the fact that he was black. He further went on to say “what if he called the cops on everyone that was white, looked like Timothy McVey and had a crew cut?”

        Frankly, I did not see a connection. This particularly does not hold true in every major urban city in the country because simply look at the racial makeup of persons committing these crimes. They certainly are not Anglo-Saxon. Further, I do not buy the argument that a cause of crime among blacks is directly related to poverty. Look at the poorest countries in India, Mumbai, etc. Those people are ultra poor yet crime is relatively nonexistent.

        AR on July 8, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    Alfedo: Interesting posts. I’ve always had difficulty pigeonholing all Spanish-speaking people into one category, “Hispanic”, and your synposis on Puerto Rico’s racial strata shows why that is a political fallacy.

    DS_ROCKS! on July 7, 2013 at 4:45 pm

      Thank you. Much obliged. Educating people away from stereotypes is difficult. I appreciate very much that you refer to Puerto Rico’s ethnic varieties as a “strata,” because that’s exactly what it is. Puerto Rico is as much a melting pot as anywhere in the world. When your ancestors have been somewhere for a couple hundred years or so, no one refers to themselves by the name of the country they came from. They call themselves Americans, or wherever nation or island their ancestors settled in.

      The same is true for anywhere else. There is an Arab family that lives across the street from a cousin of mine in town. Can’t say too much about other people’s private lives here, but the parents came during the early to mid-80’s. They now have four grown daughters, young, but all born and raised in PR. The girls consider themselves Puerto Ricans, and will not conform to certain, ahem!!!, protocols, should Daddy, as strict as he is, try to “govern” certain aspects of their lives.

      I won’t go deep in to this, but there is a reason why most Puerto Ricans who live in the states have a different appearance than many who live in PR. That has also helped to create the mistaken impressions. There’s a reason for it, but don’t want to jack the thread.

      The Zimmerman case and the use of the term “white Hispanic” however, has opened up an interesting angle. By engaging in side topics such as this, relative to the larger headline topic, it helps people to further their knowledge base, and reduce prejudices. Many prejudices are not necessarily anyone’s “fault,” it’s simply a lack of information. But the use of those prejudices, in our minds, words and deeds speaks to the measure of our character.

      Because of my own complexion, hair and eye color, as well that of many Puerto Ricans in my area of the island, it gave me a chance from a unique perspective to point out these things and address the phrase “white Hispanic” in an educative manner. This is a separate issue from my agreement on the major point that for the Zimmerman case, there is an obvious “journalistic” agenda regarding its use.

      I’ve been greatly educated by all the activity on this thread, and genuinely appreciate all the various aspect of this discussion. Delving in to the Communist influence and history in the USA is particularly interesting to me.

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 8, 2013 at 12:05 am

        Who knew A-rabs went to Puerto Rico?

        AR on July 8, 2013 at 9:38 pm

          Since the 1800’s, AR. There’s an Arab family very big in real estate in my area, been there since the 1800’s. Read my previous posts about a melting pot. NYC and the rest of the USA is not the only one. The entire new world, or The Americas if you will, is a melting pot. Would you believe Russians and Hindus also? Yup, we’ve got names like Wiscovitch and Petrovitch where I live.

          We’ve also got a local businessman named Richard Nixon. Yes, he’s a real Puerto Rican, Richard Nixon is his real name, and he’s as Puerto Rican as anyone who ever had the right to call themselves Puerto Rican.

          Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 10, 2013 at 10:43 am

Maybe the police ought to contact ol’ Dave in addition to everyone else they’re contacting, to make sure he doesn’t start rioting if Zimmerman is acquitted.

Little Al on July 6, 2013 at 4:38 pm

David Horowitz is an odd fellow. He endlessly claims he’s an “ex-radical.” On one level that’s true; he does despise the most blatant cases of Leftism. Yet on the other hand, his “conservatism” is, proverbially, “a mile wide and an inch deep.” He can’t be counted on to fight the good fight when it really counts. And he’s much more egomaniacal than his public persona suggests. Anyone who has dealt with him over the phone or face to face — and I’ve done both — knows he’s a rather uncouth ass.

Rocker on July 6, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Good post, Debbie. I was always wary of this clown and his mysterious, yet unexplained, conversion to conservatism. Anyone who consistently has to state that he was a former liberal is only wearing a conservative mask…

Marc on July 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm

If that judge had any balls, she would turn in a directed verdict of “not guilty.” I would. Every single witness who was actually there told the same story – facts that make out a clear-cut case of self-defense.

I know that many Americans have literally started worshipping black booty. But are we actually supposed to make human SACRIFICES to it now?

The jury will be deadlocked. It’s patently obvious that Zimmerman is not guilty (so obvious that the case should be dismissed before it gets to the jury, in fact), but it’s also as plain as day that the black jurors will NEVER vote to acquit – even if a still-living Trayvon Martin walked into the jury box and started chowing down on some Skittles, they would still convict. They have to contend with their neighbors and families, you see.

No Uncle Toms on THAT jury, LOL.

Status__-Monkey1 on July 6, 2013 at 5:56 pm


    As far of anything you say about Zimmerman defending himself can be regarded simply that ou do not know what you are talking about.

    As far as your second statement, the answer is a resounding yes. Whites in this country really suffer from white liberal guilt because they were indoctrinated through the public school systems in this country and yes they use anybody and everybody as a scape goat if it is a means to the end of their communist agenda. Take a look at many white parents. They pimp their kids to blacks to show the world how accepting they are toward the black race. See the Kardashians.

    I will never understand the jury system in this country. Is has been argued that certain races are simply too stupid to serve on a jury and if they do they will use jury nullification. In California, I mean Mexico, they let the illegals serve on a jury. Go figure? They will let an American’s fate lie in the hands of an illegals that cannot even speak English nor comprehend the justice system.

    AR on July 6, 2013 at 8:01 pm

      ^ Pffft, and how are you any better than they are, dingleberry?

      Sounds to me like you are a leading disciple of the high holy black booty. You just rationalize your faith in it through painfully contorted, incompetent pronouncements about self-defense.

      If you honestly don’t see the case for deadly force in this incident, you are a fool indeed. Or else you worship the ENORMOUS black booty like some kind of strange new god.

      Possibly both of the above.

      Status__-Monkey1g on July 6, 2013 at 8:10 pm

        Put it to you this way, Spank the Monkey, Vanessa Williams, would you hit it?

        AR on July 8, 2013 at 9:27 pm

Excellent take down of David Horowitz, Debbie. I looked at both David’s linked article and the home page of FrontPage Magazine website to see if he responded to Debbie and as of this writing he hasn’t and I predict that he won’t for obvious reasons.

JeffE on July 7, 2013 at 12:19 am

For what it’s worth, federal grants funding research involving human subjects distinguishes between two variables, race and “ethnicity” (which means hispanic status). Indeed, any application must have a 2×2 cross tabulation with race on one axis and hispanic status on the other. Every subject must have BOTH a race and a hispanic/not designation.

Now this is nearly arbitrary and asinine on its merits, but the “logic” is purely political.

skzion on July 7, 2013 at 1:32 am

    Ummmmmmm, bear with me here, dumb blond(e) on premises, as I watch an episode of Lidia’s Italy.

    We go down to the next right, and make a left at The Scopes Monkey Trial. Then, at the juncture of the XY squared chromosome, we throw in a whale gene, with 2/3 of a small scoop of horse DNA. Then, at the intersection of e=mc2, we break off the DNA strand connecting the NH3 molecule to the right kidney. THEN, we connect the LEFT kidney to the right eyeball via a Vulcan Mind Meld, and PRESTO!!!

    A White Hispanic!!!


    Ahhhhhhhhh, what a world, what a world. To think that if The Marx Brothers or even Eddie Murphy would be starting out today, their material would have them branded as homophobes and racists. Ever hear Eddie Murphy’s Delirious from 1982? Priceless. But he would be banned and never heard from again if he tried that today. Shame.

    And shame on David Horowitz. More of the “follow the money” adage with three scoops of “sooner or later, everybody does business with everybody.”

    Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 7, 2013 at 2:21 am

      Oh, just so you know, many Hispanics with a light complexion may be because during WWII, officers and staff NCOs, fled to countries in Africa, Central, South America, etc. and blended with the aborigines, and as I mentioned, Hispanics will discriminate among their own people, much like blacks do, against persons of a darker skin hue. The perception is that a lighter skin tone is more desirable. For this reason, you always see black men with white women or black women that “pass.” You rarely see a black man with a genuinely black woman.

      BTW, no one will argue that Latinas, usually from Brazil, have the most desirable rear posteriors in the world.

      AR on July 7, 2013 at 11:23 am

        You DON’T SAY!!! LOL!!!

        Yes, of course, even on that last point, LOL!!! A well rounded point, if I might add. ROTFLMAO!!!

        Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 7, 2013 at 5:54 pm

      She reminds me of my Mother. Forget about all those crappy restaurants that are en vogue. Just watch her and she always does things right. Man, can she cook.

      AR on July 7, 2013 at 10:46 pm

        Just call me an owl. WHO?????? Debbie? Lucille Ball? Who cooks like you said?

        Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 7, 2013 at 11:47 pm

          Lidia’s Italy

          AR on July 8, 2013 at 9:43 pm

One thing about Horowitz is that even after his supposed switch to the Right, he was pushing leftist causes as being good for conservatives. For instance, he wrote on FrontPage early in its existence that if the GOP enacted Health Care Reform, that would guarantee a Republican majority for years to come. Guess what? George W. Bush & Karl Rove put in place budget-busting policies and lost that majority.

Apparently, FrontPage’s archives have been setup to make it extremely difficult if not impossible to find anything from FP’s early years. The “Archive” is good for 2009-present only and using the website search engine only yields results from recent FP articles.

Perhaps someone else here is more skilled at website searches and can find Horowitz’s health care drivel.

Charles Rector on July 7, 2013 at 1:42 am

It is true, as skzion says, that this discussion should be free of personal attacks, so I will try to just stick to the issues in this post and any future ones.

I guess when presented with complex personalities of the past, it is worth trying to figure out which of their personal characteristics is more important in the long run. For Bentley and Chambers, definitely the fingering of Communists was the most important aspect of their lives, and the value to the United States of those actions, far outweighs any prior damage they did. We aren’t discussing them here or remembering them because of their actions as drunkards or spousal cheaters.

I don’t condemn either of them for turning to religion and am not aware of any documentation effectively challenging their motives in doing so.

In those days, religion and communism were counterposed, and in some ways religion was an expatiation for Chambers and Bentley for their prior behavior. Organized religion, in general, was considered the greatest enemy Communism in those days, both here and in Eastern Europe, and of course deserves much of the credit for the liberation of Eastern Europe from Communism.

There may have been some innocent people Joe McCarthy attacked, but, on the other hand, the content of the Venona papers was never publicized.

M. Stanton Evans, author of the magesterial and aptly titled Blacklisted by History considers McCarthy’s attacks basically on the mark. To my knowledge, the specific statements in his book have not been refuted, although a few people such as Ron Radosh, another former radical turned “conservative” and now veering back towards the left has tried.

It is also wrong to blame the anticommunists for the failure of the anticommunist movement. Like the struggle against illegal immigration and affirmative action, the anticommunist fight was lost because neither the majority of the Democrats nor a majority of the Republicans was behind it. There is no question regarding the Democrats — virtually all of them defended Hiss, and the subversive list was a defensive move. Eisenhower spent the first couple of years of his presidency working to reduce McCarthy’s influence. And too many of the anticommunists in Congress were stained by their support of segregation.

There was never Government disclosure of the fact that Currie, White, Hopkins, etc. were either Communists, or so close to the Communist Party that they might as well have been. If that content had been disclosed when it became known, the anticommunist movement would have been much stronger.

Are the commenters of this blog responsible for the fact that the Muslim threat to this country has not yet been effectively countered? Maybe some of the commenters have the types of character defects you spoke of. Does that detract from the comments they make here? Ad hominem attacks always lead us away from the arguments being made.

For quite a while in the 30s and 40s, Communism was considered an acceptable social movement, even though it was wrong, and the facts about it were available to those who looked. Unfortunately, it is not hard to understand how people got sucked in, especially since the political leadership during that time was anything but hostile to Communism in general. (within government, the trade union movement, etc.)

If someone tried to undo the damage of their earlier years, and wound up making invaluable contributions to this country, I don’t condemn them, any more than I would condemn Horowitz if he was really sincere and really a conservative.

If someone had turned away from the Weathermen 40 years or so ago, and warned the Government ahead of time of their planned terrorist actions, I would welcome that person back to the civilized world, and try to ease their way back. Unfortunately there were no such people. Recantation from left-wing activism is rare and I think we were lucky to have a few people like that in the late 40s and 50s. We don’t have those sorts of people today.

There were plenty of anti-communists who were not draft-dodgers, or cheaters on their spouses. Unfortunately some of the most valuable contributions were made by people who did have those defects. But that does not lessen the value of their contributions.

I can understand how, in the midst of a national movement, those who were wrongly accused would be angry. That experience, and the memory of it would cause bitterness, but it does not diminish the value of the overall fight. But in most cases, those attacked by governments, local and national, only had to sincerely pledge loyalty to the United States to save their jobs, and sincerely break with Communism. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

Little Al on July 7, 2013 at 2:15 am



    And pull your head out of your butt; Gay Obama (“skzion”) does nothing BUT make (inept) personal attacks.

    As for you,


    McCarthy DID reveal the names on the list – all of them – to the sneering Millard Tydings committee. You sound exactly like the pro-Communists (viz, the DEMOCRATS) of the 1950s: “Why, I’m the biggest, rootin-tootinest Communist fighter that ever lived! But I object to your METHODS, sir! I INSIST that we keep doing things my way, i.e. losing China, protecting Alger Hiss, botching Korea, abandoning Chiang, etc, etc.”

    I’ll bet you also think the people who criticize Obama are “discrediting” conservatism. In your world view, the Obamas of the 1950s – and today – should have an absolute veto over what your side says, AND who says it – or else you will lose your “credibility.”

    Status__-Monkegy on July 7, 2013 at 9:23 am

      I see the cha-cha-chimpanzee is at it again. The only thing that surprises me about his latest manifestation is that Debbie hasn’t banned him already and deleted all his comments. If he is allowed any presence whatsoever, his behavior will rapidly grow nasty, as he is a sociopath. Oh, and stupid.

      skzion on July 7, 2013 at 6:27 pm

        degenerative psychopath trumps a sociopath any day of the week you terd

        AR on July 8, 2013 at 9:46 pm

          Golf clap, it’s spelled “turd.” Incidentally, “douche” has no apostrophe after “e.”

          Glad to see you’re doing psychoanalysis again. Last time we had a humorous discussion about you and projection.

          Anyway, sorry that your boyfriend is gone. 🙁

          skzion on July 8, 2013 at 11:29 pm

You still miss the point. Former Commies ratting out others did their duty, and saved their butts, but they were not heroes.

Additionally, anti-Communists who made wild, stupid, and malicious accusations against innocent people did do more harm to the anti-Communist movement than did the communists. Because of McCarthy’s wild behavior and wild accusations against people such as President Eisenhower, the US Army, etc., he looked like a drunken fool. Ever hear the term “McCarthyism?” Falsely accusing people who were merely liberal or who disagreed with him was hardly fighting communism; all it did was to discredit the whole anti-Communist movement, as anyone thereafter who criticized someone as a communist was branded a “McCarthyite.”

Making things worse, McCarthy talked about a list of communists in the State Department. His numbers on the list kept changing, and he never, ever revealed the names on the list. As it turned out, there was no list. The drunken sot even accused Dean Acheson of being a Communist.

As to the religion of the individuals involved the “turn towards religion,” and specifically, Catholicism, was rather cynical, given that the Church was vehemently anti-Communist, and these former(?) traitors used religion as a shield to deflect further criticism and prosecution.

Jonathan E. Grant on July 7, 2013 at 2:31 am


    There were numerous reasons to condemn Eisenhower. Operation Keelhaul is a good place to start.

    Prometheus on July 7, 2013 at 10:59 am

Evans deals conclusively with the changing State Department numbers. The book is worth reading or rereading. The term McCarthyism was originated by liberals with help from fellow travelers. I find it unpersuasive. While Acheson was not a Communist, he did stick up resolutely for Hiss, and never disclosed what the Government knew about Hopkins, Currie and the rest of them.

I think I already addressed the assertions about religion in my prior comment. I don’t think he ever called Eisenhower a Communist, and yes, he did make a mistake with the Army, but I don’t think he made very many others. I did acknowledge in paragraph 5 of my prior comment that there were a few innocent people he attacked, but by and large, he was on the mark.

Little Al on July 7, 2013 at 4:19 am

    What if you were one of the innocent people? And as for as Korea being outside of our perimeter of defense, it should have stayed that way. For 60 years, they barred US goods, after we saved their butts. Their women don’t even make good prostitutes, as they rip off the customers.

    Jonathan E. Grant on July 7, 2013 at 7:02 pm

And of course Acheson, in spite of stronger anti-Communism that characterized his later career, and in spite of his ironic later alliance with Nixon, did bear immense responsibility for NSC 68 (leaving S. Korea outside our perimeter of defense), which certainly emboldened the Communists in Korea.

Little Al on July 7, 2013 at 4:27 am

The freedom to defend yourself from harm is a standard conservative issue. It’s also a major component of the U.S. Constitution and a basic G-d given liberty. The fact that Horowitz says we shouldn’t have this freedom once we leave our homes reveals who he truly is – and he’s NOT a conservative.

David on July 7, 2013 at 10:47 am

I encourage David Horowitz to take note of the following LINK to Brainy Quote / http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/political.html

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)”. Ayn Rand

Debbie, the consistency of your positions is commendable. My question to David Horowitz is can a Black Panther, former or current, truly change color???

Dennis on July 7, 2013 at 5:26 pm

This will be my last comment. There was massive US investment in Korea throughout the postwar period. It was certainly a benefit to the US to have a thriving capitalist country as a counterweight to North Korea and the other monstrous Communist countries of that region. And who knows how much the Communists would have expanded if we hadn’t gone into Korea. Europe might have been next, as was widely speculated at the time. The failure to stop Germany in time was on everyone’s minds during the late 40s and early 50s.

I would not have been one of the innocent people, as I have never done anything remotely associated with Communism, Marxism or any other type of anti-American activity. People weren’t picked out of the blue. And the problem with the Army represented favoritism towards McCarthy’s aides.

People really had to do something to draw attention to themselves.

I really don’t know anything about Korean prostitutes. I really consider your comment about “Korean prostitutes” to be somewhat offensive. Since I have agreed to refrain from personal comments, I will say nothing else.

Little Al on July 7, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    The Russian Mob that has far out played other organized
    crime groups is an out growth of the refuseniks and open
    immigration policy that emptied the Soviet bloc of its
    worst actors in the name of religious freedom. These cretins
    encourage more shysters to graduate Law School every year.
    The Billionaires have their gangs doing their dirty work
    just like the Mustachio Petes employed their mobs in the
    30’s. Illegal immigrants are just red herring, chum, for
    the worst criminals who fish from their hundred million dollar

    Colonel Biteme on July 7, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    Little Al & Jon: Some observations. LA, it seems to me that your emphasis is on what’s called in the test world “sensitivity”: how often is a true commie detected. Jon, your emphasis is mainly on “specificity”: how often is a non-commie correctly determined to be a non-commie. There is always some tradeoff between these. For example, a “test” that called everyone a commie would absolutely never miss a commie. While we all agree that it is bad to accuse someone of being a commie falsely (just like it is bad to accuse someone of being a racist falsely), we also agree on the importance of nabbing commies, especially agents of the commie powers. Also, false accusations do tend to cause PR problems that can be capitalized on.

    The tension between your positions is inherent, which is no doubt why you are now at a standstill.

    And yet … I do think some resolution in a particular situation, even if not universally. Jon, Evans’s book did make clear that our government was saturated with commies, and that McCarthy was overwhelmingly right in his accusations. Not perfectly right, but impressively right for government work. Even some of the errors were, if not commies, “fellow travelers” who aided commies. Nobody sane doubts that Chambers was perfectly right in whom he accused. Given the circumstances–a literal communist conspiracy–do you really think that the number of false hits were excessive?

    Now, you have argued that McCarthy undermined anti-communism, spawning such accusations as “McCarthyism.” But really, do you have any reason to believe that such a term would never have been developed if McCarthy were 100% accurate? (We couldn’t even have known that back then, of course.) Consider that most everyone refers now to “Palestinians,” a non-existent people created by Arafat. Do you think that anything Israel could have done would have prevented this term from being coined? Closer to home, I’d say that Debbie is more accurate than McCarthy was. Does this stop others from lying about her and calling her names?

    Things are different when we are discussing a run-of-the-mill felon. There, the chance of a false accusation and conviction are taken very seriously. But we are not dealing with individual possible criminals.

    I can’t comment on Korean hookers. 🙂

    Anyway, as I have been reading this exchange, I thought I should put in my two cents.

    skzion on July 8, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Guys, I understand if you want to drop this matter. Still, it was a thoughtful discussion–one that would not occur in most forums.

      skzion on July 8, 2013 at 11:32 pm

Wasn’t there an ’80s show, “Fight Back! With David Horowitz”, or something like that – not that same David Horowitz – right? I guess i could have Googled it, but I’m past the point of no return.

DS_ROCKS! on July 8, 2013 at 12:35 am

    Yeah, he was a consumer advocate for a while, same guy. Johnny Carson used to do a skit where he or someone else played a guy named “David Howitzer” as a take off on Horowitz’ show and consumer oriented advocacy.

    Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 8, 2013 at 2:12 am

      LOL- okay. At least someone else remembers him and that show. It’s nice once in a while to use the old noodle instead of Googling everything.

      DS_ROCKS! on July 8, 2013 at 7:31 am

      Although, in a sense, the “David Howitzer” name would be even more applicable today to the phony, opportunistic, once-a-leftist-always-a-leftist. And no, the David Horowitz who hosted Fight Back! (and was once taken hostage by a crazed gunman in the studio where he worked) was not the same as this Black Panther enabler who is now doing the bidding of the New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam et al., in being a de facto judge and jury for Zimmerman and seeking to disarm law-abiding Americans.

      ConcernedPatriot on July 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm

        OOPS!!! Thanks for the correction, and my apologies to DS_ROCKS! for misleading him. Thought it was the same guy.

        Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Yeah, he would give a tip off to a rip off

    AR on July 8, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field