JONAH GOLDBERG: A WAR THAT COULD HAPPEN-Hostility Between the GOP and the Tea Party Could Cause a Real Rift. See note please It is simply amazing to me that Republicans gloat about their ability to “reach across the aisle” to Democrats but shun reaching within their ranks to the Tea Party. …..rsk Conservatives with long memories had to laugh at the recent New York Times front-page headline: “Fiscal Crisis Sounds the Charge in GOP’s ‘Civil War.’” […]

HEATHER HIGGINS: HISTORY OF A SHUTDOWN The developing narrative, whether on talk radio or in these pages and other publications, about the shutdown fight — who was on what side, what the options were, and what was gained or not — often starts from incorrect premises, based on incomplete or erroneous assumptions. Since we need to understand how we got […]


Why is NRO trashing American Betrayal, dismissing Vladimir Bukovsky, whitewashing Alger Hiss, and glorifying FDR?

Conrad Black has now published three attacks at National Review Online against my book American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, but I would bet the $4.1 million Black has to pay the U.S. government in fines related to his fraud conviction that he hasn’t read the book.

In his most recent attack — this time against a positive review of American Betrayal by famed Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov at Breitbart News — Black mocks Bukovsky for, in Black’s telling, imagining that FDR believed that the capitalist and Communist systems were on a path of “convergence.”

“Convergence theory” shows up in more than half a dozen listings in American Betrayal’s index. Nonetheless, Black writes:

Where it [the review] all starts to go horribly wrong is in the sudden metamorphosis of Duranty into Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, Bukovsky has learned, presumably from whatever unimaginable emanations possessed him in his decades of brave resistance to Communism and in his apparently incomplete convalescence since, sought a “convergence” of Stalinist socialism with American constitutional government.” (Italics added.)

Before I establish the well-founded points of FDR’s oft-stated belief in “convergence,” I will note for readers that this same exercise — demonstrating the baselessness of an attack on my book (or, in this case, on a positive review of my book) — is, to date, the main mechanism of “debate” about American Betrayal. (See The Rebuttal: Defending American Betrayal from the Book-Burners for the gruesome details.) Distortion, fabrication, sloppiness — these are the hallmarks of “discussion.” While I realize American Betrayal’s findings are shocking (they were to me as I uncovered them), I still rather expected the book to be debated civilly, and not continually mauled.

JEREMY CARL: LIBERAL DENIAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY The late science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick once observed, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” It’s a statement that many liberals need to take to heart on energy and climate issues. According to the Hoover Institution’s recently completed Golden State Poll, conducted in partnership with the nationally respected […]

CAROLINE GLICK; A MIRACLE AND AN OUTRAGE IN WASHINGTON If you happen to be in Washington, DC, between now and January, you can see a piece of Jewish history that was never supposed to see the light of day. The National Archives is now exhibiting restored holy books and communal documents that belonged to the Jewish community of Iraq. In 1940, the Iraqi […]

A MIRACLE AND AN OUTRAGE IN WASHINGTON: CAROLINE GLICK Restoring the Iraqi Jewish archive to its Israeli owners would be tantamount to recognizing that the cause of the Arab world’s conflict with Israel is Arab anti-Semitism. If you happen to be in Washington, DC, between now and January, you can see a piece of Jewish history that was never supposed to see the […]



You don’t need a translation to understand this. It’s in plain old English. And its message is really simple too. To the extent that there is such a thing as Muslim extremism it extends to either internal Muslim infighting or to greater stringencies in religious practices that have no relevance to us.

But when it comes to things like the death penalty for adultery or any of other penalties of Islamic law. Or the necessity of forcing non-Muslims to accept Islamic law. Or the right to use force in compelling them to do so, whether it’s conventional war or terrorism. Every religious Muslim agrees.

The illusory “moderate” Muslim at best is a fellow who is less insistent on going out there and doing it. It doesn’t mean that he opposes it. It just means that he’s in less of a hurry. And less eager to get killed doing it. Often it just means that he’s more willing to be dishonest and to embrace long term thinking over short term thinking.

But the final outcome is never in doubt. Everyone agrees on the ends. The only debates between the so-called politicals and militants are over the means of making this happen.

And this is the end. It’s Orwell’s boot on the face of humanity forever. Universal slavery, oppression and degradation. That’s Islam.

Geneva Conference Moves Toward Criminalizing “Islamophobia” By Deborah Weiss In its quest to criminalize speech that’s critical of all Islam-related topics, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)* endorsed the formation of a new Advisory Media Committee to address “Islamophobia.” This past September, the OIC held “The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media.”  The conference endorsed numerous recommendations which arose from prior […]

How The Left Formulates Our Vocabulary — on The Glazov Gang

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Karen Kenny, Founder of the San Fernando Valley Patriots, John Duffy, a Film Producer from the Bronx, and Kai Chen, the author of One In A Billion: Journey Toward Freedom.

(See Karen Kenny’s testimony before the Ways and Means Committee in Washington, DC on June 4, 2013 regarding the IRS scandal here).The Gang discussed How The Left Formulates Our Vocabulary. The discussion occurred in Part II and focused on how Americans are allowing Obama’s assault on America’s founding principles. The dialogue also shed light on Obama’s Rejection of the American Dream, ObamaCare’s Doom of Destruction, and much, much more.


Obama does many things. He prevaricates, manipulates, defrauds, abuses and usurps. But one thing that he does not do is compromise.

Any strategy built on forcing Obama to compromise is inherently flawed. He may occasionally throw Republicans a tiny bone to make them feel better about giving in, but only as long as his is the only plate with meat on it.

Obama never compromises because he has never really lost. He has been insulated from defeat by his fanaticism, his arrogance and his media… and by Republican incompetence.

Obama can only be beaten on his own terms. He can’t be beaten legislatively or judicially as long as he wields executive powers whose limits he refuses to accept. If Congress passes something, he can and will choose to ignore it. If the Supreme Court strikes something down, he will do it anyway.

That is why Justice Roberts, like so many other conservatives, blinked in a confrontation with Obama and chose to preserve the system while legalizing ObamaCare, rather than see ObamaCare implemented anyway while the system of checks and balances was trashed.

The Roberts mistake is the same one that Congressional Republicans have made in their games of chicken with Obama. They have chosen to preserve the system, whether it’s the political system, the economic system or any other part of the status quo, over defeating Obama.