David Horowitz

GLENN BECK PROGRAM


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: Last night on the TV show, I don't even know what the hell we were even talking about. Oh, I was talking about the Ron Paul revolution and, you know, with this Guy Fox day that, you know, remember November the 5th, which is all over Ron Paul stuff, not by him but by his supporters, right, Stu? He has not pushed --

STU: Yeah, November 5th day, no, he has not.

GLENN: But his supporters have. And I believe Ron Paul's, you know, slogan, Ron Paul revolution is not meant -- you know, is not meant literally. However, I think some of his supporters may, and we were talking about it last night, about the seeds of discontent, and some of the real signs of danger from the left and the right, you have the extreme right -- well, no, it's not a left and right thing. It's really socialism or communism, totalarianism and anarchy. You've got those two extremes. You've got the ones that want to put us in the Soviet Union all the way to those who are just anarchists and those are the fringes that I am most afraid of here in America. Those are the enemies within, some of them, and they're targeting legitimate concerns.


Radical Son


by David Horowitz

For instance, the Ron Paul revolution, the reason why a lot of people are saying no government is better than this government is because they're giving our freedom away. It's bad stuff. Our sovereignty is going away. And a lot of people are up on it. They don't know what to do. Some say, well, it's just time to take our government back. And I was talking to David Horowitz about that and I started the conversation with, you know, David, I know that you were a Marxist back in the Sixties, and he came out and he said, well, yeah, but I mean, you know, you've got to understand. I was raised by Marxists who had Soviet influence on, you know, my parents and everything else. We were in the middle of another conversation. So I couldn't stop and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, what? So I invited him on the program today. Welcome, Mr. Horowitz. How are you, sir?

HOROWITZ: Thank you, Glenn. It's funny how even at this late date, it's hard for any of us to say as parents we're card-carrying members of the American communist party. There was a communist party in this country. My parents were members. All of our friends were in the party.

GLENN: Actual card-carrying communists.

HOROWITZ: Actual card-carrying. Of course, they never used the word communist. They referred to themselves as...

GLENN: Progressives.

HOROWITZ: Progressives, exactly. So hang on just a second. Your parents, when you were growing up, they actually advocated the destruction of the United States?

HOROWITZ: They wanted Soviet America. They wanted to lose the Cold War and they had views which are very, you know, similar to the left today. When I was a kid, I used to be taken by my parents to Ninth Avenue or Seventh Avenue where there was a theater called the Stanley Theater and we used to go see Soviet films about Stalin.

GLENN: You must have been mighty popular. When did you --

HOROWITZ: Actually it's really interesting. I was a classic Yankee fan. If you were on the left, you could not be a Yankee fan. It was my first deviation.

GLENN: That's so funny.

HOROWITZ: The Yankees were kind of the ruling class of baseball. You had to be a Dodger fan because, of course, they had brought in Jackie Robinson in 1947 and which I was 8 at the time. That's kind of where I --

GLENN: So when you were a teenager, it was during the McCarthy era.

HOROWITZ: Right.

GLENN: How did you experience the McCarthy era, as a teenager whose parents were card-carrying communists?

HOROWITZ: Well, it was kind of in a hard time for me. My father was one of the -- was a teacher who lost his job. New York had a law which said they couldn't be a member of the communist party and teach, and they knew he was a communist because -- but, you know, he wouldn't answer the question. So they fired him. And his name appeared in the New York Times and I got some hate mail, which is not that easy to, you know, handle when you're 14 years old, you get it from people that you know as schoolmates.

GLENN: Right.

HOROWITZ: But, you know, I have to say that my life, for example, at Columbia University where I was a student in the Fifties was a lot better than that of conservative students on American campuses who were constantly harassed in the classroom by their teachers. My teachers never singled me out even though I wrote Marxist papers and they knew very well what my politics were. I went through the whole story, Glenn, in the book "Radical Son" which is not only a history, it's not only my personal biography and honestly including, you know, my personal life because when I finally left the left, my whole world collapsed and I went through a series of divorces. So I integrated the personal and the political in the book. (Inaudible). Understand the mentality of American Progressives. My book "Radical Son" is as good a place to start as any.

GLENN: I've got to read it. I'm sorry to say, David, I haven't. I'm kind of new to this whole, you know, caring kind of thing. September 11th changed me. I was just a screw-off. When it came to global politics and everything else, I always thought, you know -- I thought McCarthy was wrong, and I'm still not sure that he was necessarily, you know -- I'm not saying that he was a good guy, but the jury is now out for the first time on that, and I really never questioned why the Soviet Union could collapse and there wasn't a revolution, there weren't people, as they were pulling down the statues of Stalin, why there weren't people shooting at the people that were tearing down the statues until recently and I thought, you know, if your system ever collapsed and we became communist, if they pulled down the statue of Abe Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, I know I would be on the front lines trying to shoot those people.

HOROWITZ: Well, the thing about -- let me just say that the fact that you came after 9/11 and had this whole other background makes you a very refreshing voice, and I'm sure that's part of your, a big part of your popularity. People like me who are so, you know, historically rooted can often sound like broken records.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOROWITZ: So I really appreciate what you do to win people up.

GLENN: David, explain this to me because where I was going is the Soviet Union collapsed. Those guys just went underground. They became social Democrats. They didn't stop being communist and I don't --

HOROWITZ: And in America you have to understand that the left that you see out there, which is opposing the Iraq war and, you know, getting upset about prisoners in Guantanamo is the same left that supported the Soviet Union. The Cold War, wanted us to lose the Cold War. They didn't go away. When communism collapsed, and it collapsed because with the crackpot economist that just got it wrong, it was a bankrupted system. But when it collapsed, their attitude was, oh, good, now we don't have to defend this anymore. We'll just go on attacking capitalism, American democracy as the great Satan and continue on our way. And that's really what's happened. These people never looked back. You know, you would think that people who went through the Vietnam War, I was a -- you know, I was one of the leaders of the antiwar left and the largest magazine of the left, Ramparts. And then when the war ended, when America left and the communists proceeded to slaughter 2 1/2 million people in Cambodia and Vietnam, I had second thoughts. I said, you know, Nixon was right: There was going to be a bloodbath if the communists won, and we were wrong and we helped make this bloodbath possible.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOROWITZ: But if you listen to John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean or the Clintons, all of whom were part of that movement, they have no regrets. They don't take any responsibility for the disaster that's to retreat. And then we're proposing that we do it again in Iraq.

GLENN: You know, David, I have to tell you I appreciate anybody who tries to be intellectually honest and will say, boy, I made a huge mistake because we all make mistakes but people pretend that they never did and they never go back, you are exactly right. They always go forward. So I appreciate it. As a guy who -- as a guy I should be pissed at because, you know, I think we treated our Vietnam veterans in shameful despicable ways, and you were part of that. I actually have admiration for you that you can come around and say, whoa, was I wrong, God bless America for being a place where you can admit that you're wrong and get a second bite at the apple.

Let me go back to when McCarthy made communism into a joke or it was allowed to become a joke, nobody -- we don't even call China Red China anymore. Communism isn't anything to be feared. In fact, there's a lot of people -- in fact, I just read something in the Yale paper today that communism or socialism will cure what ails America today.

HOROWITZ: Exactly.

GLENN: What happened, tell me what happened to the Democratic party and wake some of the Democrat -- because I really, truly believe most Democrats are good Americans, love their country just like me. But they have been duped and hijacked by socialists, by communists and been taken over and nobody will pay attention because it's a communist has become a joke. Am I wrong?

HOROWITZ: Not. I mean, you get called a McCarthy-ite. If you point out that there are actually people who have these views. What happened at the Democratic party happened in 1972, and I actually was appalled. I never considered myself a Democrat. I was a radical. And then I saw Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. Tom Hayden had just three years earlier, McGovern for the younger people ran in 1972. In 1969 to 1970, Tom Hayden was advocating military uprisings, guerilla warfare in American cities conducted by American radicals and saying that the country was going fascist and that we would be in jail within a year. I mean, I knew Hayden and that's what he was saying. In 1972 he and Fonda organized caucuses among Democrats with the help of Democratic congressmen like (inaudible). To get America to cut off aid to the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians. And the left, part of the Democratic party and part of the McGovern apparatus, the party was formed that created these caucuses. So for the legislative party and the political apparatus, came under the control of the left, the same left that had been in the streets in the Sixties calling for revolution and, you know, it's called -- it's called a boring from within. Which is to transform the system by becoming part of it and using its own instrumentalities and institutions to overthrow it.

GLENN: You know, I'm reading -- have you ever read any Skousen? Have you read -- do you remember "The Naked Communist"?

HOROWITZ: Yeah.

GLENN: I went back and reread that, it was printed in the 1950s. I reread that recently. You look at all the things the communists wanted to accomplish, it's all been done. It's all been done.

HOROWITZ: Here's the way I measure what's happened to the Democratic party and the country. John F. Kennedy was a Reagan Democrat.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOROWITZ: He was a militant anticommunist. He was a hawk on the fence. He had the largest military buildup in peace time history in his three years in office. He was for a balanced budget and a capital gains tax cut, and the cabinet was composed of, you know, Republicans. Defense, treasury and Secretary of State. If John Kennedy were alive today, he would be called a right wing conservative.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

HOROWITZ: That's how far the Democratic party has moved to the left. Yet when I read the "New York Times," for example, on Sunday, had two books on the McGovern campaign. And of the reviewers, one of whom is a Provost at Columbia said, well, the Republican party has gone far to the right but not -- the Democratic party is just a moderate party.

GLENN: I've got to tell you, I think that the Republicans have become the Democrats. They are the --

HOROWITZ: They shifted to the left dramatically.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, they're still for big government. I mean, David, it almost looks like it is an intentional breaking of our spine economically by what -- I mean, here we are. We're facing anywhere between 50 and $100 trillion in debt, about four or five years away that's going to come due and yet they are talking about dogpiling even more debt on. It doesn't make any sense.

HOROWITZ: You know, the problem is twofold. One, that in our system it's called buying votes. That's what government spending is about.

GLENN: Right.

HOROWITZ: Democrats do it as a religion. Republicans have adopted it as a tactic but then also they -- the worst thing I can say about Bush's presidency and, you know, I'm with you on borders and all these things.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOROWITZ: Is that he hasn't fought the war as home. He doesn't ask for sacrifices. When you fight a war, it's expensive. You've got to go and you've got to cut stuff. Why didn't they go and slash some domestic programs for the poor. Why wasn't Bush on television every week in a press conference exploiting new -- while we're at war, they failed to bring the American people along with them. And that is absolutely the source of our problem.

GLENN: That's right. Because you feel like, I feel in a way like we've been lied to, that we don't even feel like we're in war. He should have been saying this is the fight of our life. This is the fight of our life. When I say that on the air, when I say, guys, this is World War III, it's just 1939, you just don't know yet, people always say, well, why isn't the President saying stuff like that? Why don't I hear that from anybody else? It is the lie. It's not about weapons of mass destruction. That's the lie.

HOROWITZ: Exactly. The whole Democratic case actually was built on lies.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOROWITZ: You know, the President's too polite or, you know, I don't know what's wrong with him that he doesn't point this out.

GLENN: Got my theorys.

HOROWITZ: Every Democrat who voted for the war, the majority of them in the Senate knew, had all the intelligence that Bush had. They had the national intelligence estimate. They voted for the war based on our intelligence...

GLENN: David, I've got to run. I'm up against a network break but I'd love to have you on again, sir. Fascinating history. Thank you very much.

HOROWITZ: All right.

GLENN: David Horowitz.

END TRANSCRIPT

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?