Hamas should be allowed to start its own newspaper here in America and we should be forced to read it and accept in the spirit of multiculturalism. It just feels like the right thing to do.

hitler loved dogs and painting

hamas kills children.

They are anti-American scumbags who smoked lots of dope in J-school?

It's a registered link.

They have to treat them as friends, because otherwise they would be enemies. If they were enemies, then we would be at war. If we were at war, then everything they believe would be wrong.

is the LA times readership down another 600% this year?

I don't understand why the lefties in the MSM don't see these Hamas maniacs for what they are.

That paper is still being published?

Let's see.. L.A.?
"Times" in the name?

Even so, this is just beyond the pale.

re: #5 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet
gosh Ed, didn't we all?

re: #2 bosforusThey don't need to start their own newspaper; the LA Times, NYT and WaPo are carrying their water for them.

HEY Real, how ya doing partner?

There was a reason that so many newspaper "reporters" lost their jobs and were blackballed during the McCarthy era. I would suspect that what we are seeing is just the modern version of that syndrome.

re: #13 realwest

re: #2 bosforusThey don't need to start their own newspaper; the LA Times, NYT and WaPo are carrying their water for them.

Last I knew, NYT stock had been lowered to just over junk bond status. Anyone have further word yet on the potential date of their impending demise?

Thank you, Charles!

re: #13 realwest

{realwest}

HOW ARE YOU?

I'm glad I got out of reporting.

re: #14 apachegunner Hey Gunner - procedure went well (albeit it was effin' painful) doc said three to five days for my pain to dissipate, but I already feel much better!
Got to do another one in two weeks however, just to insure that it "takes".
How are you doing?

Patterico continually takes the LAT to task for its bias and invented facts and exaggerations and unremarked upon inline edits (and sometimes all in the same story)

This is the LAT we're talking about after all.

At least the LAT didn't get in a snit because Hamas gave the WaPo and NYT 'exclusives' to run on the same day. They got a day to run Hamas agitprop all on their own.

It's not like the LAT couldn't run out and grab a Hamas sympathizer to pen an editorial. You know, someone like Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University.

re: #18 goddessoftheclassroom Hey there you! Please see my #20. Thanks a lot for asking! How are you doing?

LA Times editorial policy, July 2007 edition:

Hamas good.

Fred Thompson bad.

re: #20 realwest Doing well here, glad you through the first one and taking it well...

Keep an eye on this piece over the next 48 hours, as "facts" mutate and entire paragraphs vanish before your very eyes, in true LA Times style!

Sick Bastard.

He has no right equating the struggle of the revolutionary war with ANYTHING the pali-swine have done. this was NOT a nation before 1948. these people were nomads before then. this really pisses me off to no end.

A few months ago, the LA Times moved its editorial page to the last two pages of the main news section. Now, when I pick up the paper in front of my house each morning, it's very efficient just to drop that section of the paper into the recycling bin and then read the rest. The local news, sports, comics, and crossword puzzle are still pretty tolerable.

re: #13 realwest

'Sup?

Because we let them.

re: #25 Lee

Keep an eye on this piece over the next 48 hours, as "facts" mutate and entire paragraphs vanish before your very eyes, in true LA Times style!

Screenshots are SUCH handy things :)

Since my parrot died in November, I haven't had much use for newspapers.

Would a little McCarthyism be bad right now?re: #15 galloping granny

What the Hell is Wrong with the Los Angeles Times?

Obviously, they are choosing Death.

re: #28 MandyManners Actually I'm gonna go have lunch now, not "sup" LOL! Please see my #20 for what happened with the epidural and all. And thanks for asking!

re: #13 realwest

that's true. but the US govt -taxpayers- should also have to pay for all production and distribution costs of the Hamas Times since they'd a fledgling oppressed cultural minority. in fact, they should also be hired on as chemists and weapons designers as part of some affirmative action legislation

What the Hell is Wrong with the Los Angeles Times?

I'd try to answer that, if I just had a spare decade...

re: #32 BODYGUARDEAGLE

After all, in the end, he was mostly right.

So those Hamas vice squads that threaten Chirstians and internet cafes with death and bombings and those scenes where Hamas members throw people off buildings consititute the "rule of law." How sick and deranged are these people?

re: #27 WestchesterJeff

The local news, sports, comics, and crossword puzzle are still pretty tolerable.

A "tolerable" crossword puzzle is not worth completing...

realwest

As soon as I clicked "post this comment," I saw your reply. I am SO glad you're feeling better. Many of us were holding you up i prayer.

I'm doing well, thanks. I'm not pushing for any decisions from my DH until we meet again with the counselor. Things are civil, anyway,

Funny enough, there's terrific freedom in realizing that I can't please him (he's clearly looking for something to blame on me to justify his behavior) so that I can just be the best "me" I can be.

re: #30 galloping granny

Indeed! :)

re: #37 Pete(Detroit)

re: #32 BODYGUARDEAGLE

After all, in the end, he was mostly right.

ABSOLUTELY ! THAT also kinda got lost in the media too, didn't it?

Yes that famous word "Opinion". No matter the context or subject matter, if it's the opinion of a genocidal terrorist it is therefore fit to print. Now if they were merely making a statement, I wonder if they would get their voice heard. But by cloaking their insane blabber as "opinions" it automatically becomes legitimate. I wonder if I went to the LA Times with an "opinion" that was nothing more that blatant bigotry and racism, if they'd give me a second of their time.

realwest: glad to hear you're doing well!

re: #40 goddessoftheclassroom

Funny enough, there's terrific freedom in realizing that I can't please him (he's clearly looking for something to blame on me to justify his behavior) so that I can just be the best "me" I can be.

Yay, you, Goddess! A sense of freedom that most people never feel!

#21

It's not like the LAT couldn't run out and grab a Hamas sympathizer to pen an editorial. You know, someone like Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University.

No need to go to Columbia. We have a guy named Makdisi here at UCLA for that.

See my update above. Why isn't this illegal?

Might as well give them Op/Ed space. The AP is already doing that but it's marked up in the World News section.

Nothing is reported in Paleostine without the approval of terrorists.

re: #47 Charles

ya lost me on that one...

"Here, here is your family's house by the sea" well, at least he makes no bones about it...

#17 I suppose you know enough Arabic to know the meaning of your handle? Got a giggle out of that one...

re: #43 Sizzlack

I wonder if I went to the LA Times with an "opinion" that was nothing more that blatant bigotry and racism, if they'd give me a second of their time.

If it was ranting against White Men, Western society, or logic / intelligence, I'm sure they would, ayup.

I drank beer in college. Not in J-school. Engineering.

Unlike the J-schoolers and RTFers at UT, we didn't party Monday through Thursday. We actually had to study for tests, write Fortran programs on VAX terminals that ran painfully slow when everyone had projects due, do design projects, and do homework. With 1980s era Macs and IBMs, and like Excel version negative 1.5

But Friday night, when the SPE student chapter gathered with a keg of Shiner in Eastwoods Park, across 26th from the Law School, I was there.

re: #47 Charles

Perhaps it's a "freedom of the press" issue. I wish the someone would lodge a formal complaint against this practice for the very reasons you cite so that there would be clarification.

Even better, where's the opposite point of view in response?

re: #47 Charles

Excellent question!

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

How dare this mother f*cker compare hamas' charter to the Declaration of Independence!

/Too pissed to quote it

A lizard legal eagle should take this on...it would be very interesting. There are existing laws regarding dealings with terror organization. Surely-publishing terrorist propaganda must be some kind of offense?

Why are newspapers allowed to get away with profiting from their associations with terrorists?

Damn good question.

re: #56 MandyManners

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

They're probably not paying him in money. He's getting paid in a much more valuable currency--access to US media.

re: #54 goddessoftheclassroom

re: #47 Charles

Perhaps it's a "freedom of the press" issue. I wish the someone would lodge a formal complaint against this practice for the very reasons you cite so that there would be clarification.

Even better, where's the opposite point of view in response?

Can't touch the freedom of the press, but you can make a mental note of who the ass-clowns are. thats the only benefit FOTP holds for some. you make a fool of yourself and we get to point fingers and laugh at you.

Hmm...

I read his piece on the LA Times. He blamed the Israelis for the years and years of infighting and international Beggar Status among the Pales. Billions of international welfare dollars have been poured down this hole.

The Israelis left Gaza. What has happened to this area since then? Did the Pales work diligently to make schools for their children? The answer is clear, Instead they choose of occupation of violence and victimhood. Violence against each other, violence against the Israelis.

I found his little dream of his people returning to their homes and orchards with lemon trees by the sea to be nothing more than propaganda. His true occupation is continue the hate and violence because this is all he desires. Of course, why would he admit to this? He covers it in myths and mistruths... except for one thing, he admitted that he is committed to Islamic Jihad, the goal of the elimination of Israel, which means all Jews, in the Middle East.

The ironic part, if this were ever achieved then they would once again turn on each other like jackals.

Just softening up the free world as a prelude for the war to come.

INFILTRATION.

DISINFORMATION.

APPEASEMENT.

(I borrowed this from the Gathering Storm... pretty much says it all.)

re: #47 Charles

See my update above. Why isn't this illegal?

That is an excellent question Charles! Since you qualify as a journalist these days, you should ask the US Attorney for comment on that matter. Perhaps he can enlighten us all as to why you or I would be arrested, but LAT gets a free pass for publishing the propaganda of a known terrorist organization? (They aren't REALLY trying to claim "freedom of the press" here are they?)

ot

...Al-Qaeda's No. 2 issued a new audiotape on Tuesday threatening to retaliate against Britain for having honored novelist Salman Rushdie, a US-based intelligence monitoring group said.

Ayman al-Zawahri's 20 minute speech was entitled "Malicious Britain and its Indian Slaves." It was produced by as-Sahab, the multimedia wing of al-Qaeda, to be distributed to extremist web sites, said the US-based SITE intelligence group, which monitors al-Qaeda messages. The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed.

[Link: www.ynetnews.com...]

re: #60 Charles

re: #56 MandyManners

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

They're probably not paying him in money. He's getting paid in a much more valuable currency--access to US media.

Is it illegal if there is no commercial exchange, and by that I mean money changing hands?

It's that September 11th feeling all over again... Not surprised, just shocked. Our media publishing op-eds from terrorists is the logical end-game of the inevitable leftist slide into all-out shilling for the enemies of civilzation, but you'd think it would have taken longer.

There will come a day when these folks get dragged from their offices and dealt with the old-fashioned way. I'm sure of it.

A truly insane man would believe that Hamas, once Israel is eliminated, will build a fertile country where Jews can live in peace.

BTW, I am not defending this vile behavior.

re: #63 new2thezoo

The world sorely needs Winston Churchill right now...

If todays LA Times were to transport itself back to the summer of 1941, they would be writing editorials about the benefits of sending your children to a Hitler Jugend summer camp.

Is the news media is seeking to gain power by destroying this this nation as it presently exists in order to implement a regime of left wing socialists? At a minimum!

Most of us southlanders have cancelled our subscriptions long ago. There have been massive layoffs at the LAT; things don't look good, and that's GREAT!

re: #60 Charles

Exactly-you cannot BUY better exposure if you tried. These gigs are better than ANY work that ANY PR agency could ever do. You know-people use agents to get op-ed pieces into the Times-it's a very complicated, political lobbying process. Yet-Hamas gets into these rags without lifting a finger. It's really horrendous crap.

#5 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet -

They are anti-American scumbags who smoked lots of dope in J-school?

If that made them think of Hamas as a suitable tool to end the evil prohibition, what was it contaminated with?

/lizards know that Hamas is pro-prohibition

Maybe when the villagers with pitchforks, rakes and torches burn down the L.A. Times the editors will call that mob a "resistance," movement?

re: #35 bosforus
You're right...since Saddam is dead, time for a name change!

Ah, Goddess. Methinks you are trying to be fair and/or logical. Don't waste your time believing they're interested in 'informing' us with context and balance.

Disgusting.

Highly. Utterly vile.

re: #66 MandyManners

re: #60 Charles

re: #56 MandyManners

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

They're probably not paying him in money. He's getting paid in a much more valuable currency--access to US media.

Is it illegal if there is no commercial exchange, and by that I mean money changing hands?

As far as I have ever heard you don't have to actually give them money to qualify as supporting a terrorist organization. You could make phone calls for them, mail letters, rent houses, speak in favor of them to politicians. . . .

Al Queda promises response to Rushdie knighthood:

[Link: www.breitbart.com...]

Charles: Why are newspapers allowed to get away with profiting from their associations with terrorists?

1st Amendment rights as defined by the media. I forget the landmark case that the SCOTUS decided back in the 60s, letting the NYT off the hook for libeling an innocent man. They ruled libel had to have prior intent to harm, or some such nonsense.

I know Freedom of Speech is a cherished and MUST HAVE right in a free society, but I don't see why we can't legislate some national security and personal attack protections.

But it's a great question as to why we haven't as yet, despite what everyone has to see is a clear need for it: Not going to happen if Republicans bring it up, and the left will never do so (they own the media).

Okay, bear with me here:

I don't think the government should stop the LA Times from printing what it wants to.

I think the righteous should canvass its advertisers to pull business. Perhaps call possible subscribers to point out that the paper is doing so that they cancel sibscriptions, too. I bet many subscribers don't even read the op-eds.

THAT'S true freedom of the press and the marketplace.

Every Freakin' Pal had an orchird, and a vinyard, and a house by the sea.

History Lesson:

Arabs only came to the Land of Israel in large numbers after the Jews returned in the 20th century and started to rebuild the nation, thereby creating economic and employment opportunities for Arab immigrants.
Prior to 1870, when Jews started to return to the Holy Land in large numbers, there were fewer than 100,000 Arabs living in what is today the State of Israel - including Yesha (the Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District).

In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians':

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

re: #82 buzzsawmonkey

OT

#60 Charles

Re: last night's Safari/code problems.

Sprung for the upgrade to Tiger, though I haven't yet had a chance to load it (work does come first, sometimes).

In any event, I hope that within 24 hours I will no longer be a barrier to site progress.

In the meantime, thanks for temporarily disabling the latest innovations.

Not a problem -- and I think you'll be happy you did the upgrade. It's a big improvement.

There is freedom of the press and then there is the editor's policy of doing something that is good for his business... Publishing the opinions of those who want to kill many, many millions is not a smart thing to do on any front...

That being said, since Hamas IS on the official watch list, any exchange of goods and/or services would constitute treason but man, oh, man, this is pretty bad to begin with... However, why are more right-leaning people not doing more to stop this type of insult?

re: #27 WestchesterJeff

... The local news, sports, comics, and crossword puzzle are still pretty tolerable.

I also subscribe to the LA Times, and I'll have to disagree with you on the local news being tolerable. Their left-wing bias infects all reporting in the paper. You cannot trust anything the LA Times prints. I subscribe for the TV listings, the Sunday coupons, and the Fry's advert on Friday -- it's gotten to the point I even distrust those. If you want local news, get the Long Beach Press-Telegram or OC Register.

re: #60 Charles

Yes, Charles, this is true. Free advertising for your propaganda. Imagine if this existed before WWII, our newspapers pandering to those who sought to destroy others. Monsters in sheep's clothing.

He could of griped about the Jews and how they were introducing their "filthy" Jazz music into the Fatherland.

It boils down to the hypocrisy.

Too many of our folks abuse our freedom of the press protected by the Constitution.

It is the same knee-jerk, hypersensitive reactionists who melt, and gulp for air at the instant they hear another American voice something politically incorrect in their opinion.

I really do hate these people, and I am being honest, because they facilitate, and pacify everything that is wrong, unjust, and bankrupt on the other side of the fence.

Like they equivocate, one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.

I have not bought a paper for more than 10 years. The quicker the msm can die, the better in my opinion.

Hitler, that is.

Our Own Worst Enemy
By ALEXANDER M. HAIG, JR.
July 10, 2007

In the Palestinian, Lebanese and Iraqi elections, we allowed parties (Hamas, Hezbollah, Sadr) with standing armed militias to run, even though their platforms negated the very legitimacy of the democratic vote. In each case we got escalating conflict and ineffective government as the result. Some neoconservatives believe that if only unshackled from their current dictators, people everywhere would simply vote for democracy as we know it. We should have learned by now that a policy of elections at all costs and hope for the best, a by-product of neoconnery, is a good way to discredit democracy and risks replacing bad with worse. . . .

Gen. Haig (U.S. Army, ret.) was the 59th U.S. Secretary of State.

Everyone thinks I'm exaggerating when I say that the hard left in the West is a more serious threat than Islamism. Islamic terrorism is a symptom of the incursion of leftism in the West. Without the rot brought on by the Left there would be no terrorism because we would crush them completely using whatever force was necessary.

Islamism is a passing phenomenon, one that the West could easily deal with were it not for the pervasive and sinister presence of atheistic leftism in our society.

re: #87 tfc3rid

There is freedom of the press and then there is the editor's policy of doing something that is good for his business... Publishing the opinions of those who want to kill many, many millions is not a smart thing to do on any front...

That being said, since Hamas IS on the official watch list, any exchange of goods and/or services would constitute treason but man, oh, man, this is pretty bad to begin with... However, why are more right-leaning people not doing more to stop this type of insult?

Gotta tread very carefully with the 1st Amendment. Law of unintended consequences and all that. But putting market pressure on advertisers, and at least some basic national security protections should 'chill' freedom of speech.

re: #84 goddessoftheclassroom

Okay, bear with me here:

I don't think the government should stop the LA Times from printing what it wants to.

I think the righteous should canvass its advertisers to pull business. Perhaps call possible subscribers to point out that the paper is doing so that they cancel sibscriptions, too. I bet many subscribers don't even read the op-eds.

THAT'S true freedom of the press and the marketplace.

Yes! Exactly.

People : Speak with your wallets!

Stop your subscriptions.

No Money = No Voice for the terrorists.

re: #83 wvobiwan

I know Freedom of Speech is a cherished and MUST HAVE right in a free society, but I don't see why we can't legislate some national security and personal attack protections.

Actually those laws are very much on the books already...

re: #94 wvobiwan

re: #87 tfc3rid

There is freedom of the press and then there is the editor's policy of doing something that is good for his business... Publishing the opinions of those who want to kill many, many millions is not a smart thing to do on any front...

That being said, since Hamas IS on the official watch list, any exchange of goods and/or services would constitute treason but man, oh, man, this is pretty bad to begin with... However, why are more right-leaning people not doing more to stop this type of insult?

Gotta tread very carefully with the 1st Amendment. Law of unintended consequences and all that. But putting market pressure on advertisers, and at least some basic national security protections shouldn't 'chill' freedom of speech.

oops. PIMF!

I'm really beginning to wonder what is going on in DC.

The latest is the Pentagon and some shifty senators are looking to allow DoD security clearance to drug addicts, ex-cons, and mental incompetents.

I'm all for giving people second chances in life, but not a DoD clearance.

The remainder of the speech moves away from Zawahiri’s enmity and warnings to Britain, and rather discusses the state of Muslim affairs in Lebanon, Palestine, and Pakistan. Zawahiri reiterates words he has stated often in prior speeches, castigating Hamas for its participation in the Mecca Treaty and ceding four-fifths of Palestine, and calling upon its leaders to return to Salafist Jihadi doctrine and follow the paragon of deceased Hamas leader, Dr. Abdul Aziz al-Rantisi. He also rails against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, declaring to Muslims that opposition to him should not be through farcical elections, but through supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Regarding Lebanon, Zawahiri lauds an attack which struck international forces in the south of this “precious part of the land of Islam”, referring to a car bombing on June 24, 2007 that killed six UN peacekeepers. He then calls upon all Muslims in the Lebanon to rebel against the forces which oppose Islam and have encircled them, and threatens: “those who conspire against jihad and the Mujahideen in Lebanon through American weapons, Zionist corruption, and Saudi money must start to dig their graves with their own hands.”

Making overtures to Muslims for participation in jihad and support to the Mujahideen, Zawahiri concludes his speech with an appeal that what occurs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Somalia may be repeated in any Muslim land; “the Jews and the Americans are not from the planet Mars, but they are on our borders and in our land with their gear, equipment, and numbers.” Only jihad and unity, rather than secular calls, nationalism, and other political movements, is determined as the solution.

[Link: www.siteinstitute.org...]

The start of the article reminds me of Hitler, Mussolini, and all the other tyrants. They list safety of the streets (and trains being on time) as showing how great their reign is. But what of the 'other' parts of society?

The end is just a total fabrication in that how does the 'boy' have shrapnel? He couldn't have been firing a rifle at an Israeli by any chance? Or maybe throwing a bomb at some Israelis. When did a Jew ever suicide bomb a bunch of Palistinians?

In between was nothing but lies.

But the times still printed it for 'your right to know' yet when the writer is conservative even the smallest fact must be correct.

They make me sick.

re: #97 Cognito

re: #83 wvobiwan

I know Freedom of Speech is a cherished and MUST HAVE right in a free society, but I don't see why we can't legislate some national security and personal attack protections.

Actually those laws are very much on the books already...

Toothless shells, gutted by SCOTUS and Congress long ago.

re: #83 wvobiwan

You're referring to NYT v. Sullivan, and it set the rules for libel of public figures. It doesn't affect the situation here.

The First Amendment does have multiple exceptions as perceived by the Supreme Court over time. National security is one such exception.

Here's the relevant federal law on foreign terrorist organizations:

The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

The federal prosecutors in California really ought to look in to this publication, since publication could meet the definition.

re: #89 Ginn

re: #60 Charles

Yes, Charles, this is true. Free advertising for your propaganda. Imagine if this existed before WWII, our newspapers pandering to those who sought to destroy others. Monsters in sheep's clothing.

He could of griped about the Jews and how they were introducing their "filthy" Jazz music into the Fatherland.

Actually, a lot of this DID exist before WWII - including some of the same perpetrators. There was a pretty large Nazi movement here before the war and a large communist movement too. One of the biggest reasons that FDR took so long to get us into WWII is the large segment of LLLs in the population. Then came Pearl Harbor. . . . and the war footing allowed the government to put some restrictions on what the "free press" could print. If they hadn't, we would probably all be speaking German. Or Japanese.

re: #80 galloping granny

re: #66 MandyManners

re: #60 Charles

re: #56 MandyManners

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

They're probably not paying him in money. He's getting paid in a much more valuable currency--access to US media.

Is it illegal if there is no commercial exchange, and by that I mean money changing hands?

As far as I have ever heard you don't have to actually give them money to qualify as supporting a terrorist organization. You could make phone calls for them, mail letters, rent houses, speak in favor of them to politicians. . . .

Then arrest the fucking publisher.

re: #102 wvobiwan

Maybe so, but they're still on the books. And for what it's worth, the 'intent to harm' aspect of libel is really important. Otherwise people would be slandering and libeling -- in a prosecutable sense -- on American streets every day.

re: #71 SlartyBartfast

re: #63 new2thezoo

The world sorely needs Winston Churchill right now...

re: #71 SlartyBartfast

re: #63 new2thezoo

The world sorely needs Winston Churchill right now...

Instead, we get Gordon Brown...
/spit

re: #71 SlartyBartfast

The world sorely needs Winston Churchill right now...

Yes, indeed. The greatest generation is gone and past. All we have now are spoiled self-reflecting elites that can't face danger. The media supports everything except what is good and right.

Just fired off a letter to the editor. I highly doubt it will be published.

Why are newspapers allowed to get away with profiting from their associations with terrorists?

Is it because they are in a disgusting symbiotic relationship, like a lamprey and a shark?

The irony of the LA Slimes relatively new-found "progressivism" (only since the late 1970s) is that the Left will always hate them for being strike-breakers during WWII and McCarthyites in the 1950s. The political sins of the Times past can never be forgiven by the True Believers.

Heh.

Normally, I'm a big believer in market forces to handle issues where speech is being abused. But the fact is that over the past six years since 9/11, we've seen a huge increase in this kind of stuff from mainstream media. Not a decrease. Market forces are not working. And we have a determined external enemy who sees this, and is using it to great effect.

re: #88 Fritz_Katz

re: #27 WestchesterJeff

... The local news, sports, comics, and crossword puzzle are still pretty tolerable.

I also subscribe to the LA Times, and I'll have to disagree with you on the local news being tolerable. Their left-wing bias infects all reporting in the paper. You cannot trust anything the LA Times prints. I subscribe for the TV listings, the Sunday coupons, and the Fry's advert on Friday -- it's gotten to the point I even distrust those. If you want local news, get the Long Beach Press-Telegram or OC Register.

All of which you could get with a quick dumpster dive in the mailroom of your local apartment complex, or on the internet. I highly encourage you to cancel your subscription, and tell these commies why when you do so.

I just had an idea. How hard would it be to make up a completely fake terrorist organization and send an op-ed to the LA Times to see if it gets published? Our theory is that it doesn't matter if your primary desire is murder of Jews, as long as you parrot the right soft-Marxist BS about "Israeli oppression" you'll be happily fellated by the media, right? All you'd need is some borrowed Youtube clips, a bit of free web space, and a little bit of creativity. Make up a fake web-page for some sort of "martyr's brigades" full of bile and Judenhass, then write an op-ed full of classic PLO/KGB First Directorate talking points in their name and send it in to the Times.

For added fun, do the same for a Jewish group, except flip the experiment. Make up a "Jewish terrorist" group, send in an op-ed full of nasty stuff about how you want to drive Muslims into the sea and shoot everybody who doesn't eat Kosher, but on the web page, explain that the whole thing is a media experiment.

I think the results would be interesting.

re: #109 hebrewtoyou

Just fired off a letter to the editor. I highly doubt it will be published.

It won't, because unlike the leader of Hamas, the editorial board diagrees with you...

re: #108 new2thezoo

Fred Thompson and John Bolton seem to be a good start.

re: #105 MandyManners

re: #80 galloping granny

re: #66 MandyManners

re: #60 Charles

re: #56 MandyManners

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

They're probably not paying him in money. He's getting paid in a much more valuable currency--access to US media.

Is it illegal if there is no commercial exchange, and by that I mean money changing hands?

As far as I have ever heard you don't have to actually give them money to qualify as supporting a terrorist organization. You could make phone calls for them, mail letters, rent houses, speak in favor of them to politicians. . . .

Then arrest the fucking publisher.

I agree. At this point, though, I think that THREE publishers would have to be arrested so that the LAT could not yell that they were being discriminated against.

re: #103 lawhawk

re: #83 wvobiwan

You're referring to NYT v. Sullivan, and it set the rules for libel of public figures. It doesn't affect the situation here.

The First Amendment does have multiple exceptions as perceived by the Supreme Court over time. National security is one such exception.

Here's the relevant federal law on foreign terrorist organizations:

The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

The federal prosecutors in California really ought to look in to this publication, since publication could meet the definition.

Thanks, NYT vs Sullivan, yes. It doesn't have direct bearing here, but it certainly gave leftist media the tools they need to shape public debate and destroy naysayers. Leading directly to today's climate of publishing national security secrets, running propaganda for terrorists groups, and all out assaults on those without socialist agendas.

The provisions for National Security seem widely ignored these days, we could get tougher rules there...

What's wrong with them? They're leftists. They hate America, and what better ally than radical islam do these people have? Many hate Jews and Christians almost as much as the muslims.

To the left, dhimmitude might feel like Heaven, where they can wallow in their inferior position, paying the jizyah, and their guilt complex will be justified.

re: #112 Charles

Do you think it is happening because the old media is losing readers and viewers and they see controversy as the way to sell more papers and increase viewers?

Ot...more proof Iran is helping Al-Qaeda...

...Rabat, 10 July (AKI) - Saad al-Houssaini, a Moroccan militant arrested in March in a police raid on an internet cafe in Casablanca, lived in Iran before the 2003 Casablanca suicide attacks in which 45 people died, according to police sources in Rabat. Al-Hossaini, an explosives expert, is suspected of involvement in the attacks.

The man allegedly left Afghanistan in 2001 after US troops invaded the country following 9/11 and travelled to Iran, where he received training in a camp of the Revolutionary Guards, the Pasdaran, together with Salafite militants close to al-Qaeda.

According to Moroccan police al-Houssaini, who studied chemistry at the university of Valencia in the 1990s, was specifically trained in Iran in the preparation of bombs for suicide attacks.

[Link: www.adnkronos.com...]

I sort of hate to wade into this, as I can't stand Hamas, but I will try to shed some light -- what light I can -- on the reason it's okay for the LA Times to run the guy's Op-Ed. That is, okay legally -- not morally.

The press exists as the 'fourth estate,' as conceived by the founding fathers, to check the three branches of government. That means that just because a group is put on the civic version of a do-not-call list -- like the terrorist list -- the press doens't have to go along. That's set in place for the possibility that some day a truly evil governor rises to power in America, and bans any communication -- in a press sense -- with a certain group. The press has to stand independent of that, in a free society. The press has be able to call, in the worst stock-your-bomb-shelter scenario, for revolution.

So that's why it's legal for the LA Times to more or less run words written by anyone they deem relevant. But legal, as I said up front, doesn't always mean right.

As is the case with Hamas.

re: #118 Sharmuta

What's wrong with them? They're leftists. They hate America, and what better ally than radical islam do these people have? Many hate Jews and Christians almost as much as way more than the muslims.

To the left, dhimmitude might feel like Heaven, where they can wallow in their inferior position, paying the jizyah, and their guilt complex will be justified.

Fixed that for ya Shar...

re: #112 Charles

Look at the major papers like the LAT, NYT, Seattle PI and elsewhere they are losing subscriptions and money like crazy. Yet they don't change their methods.

It's not money, it's ideology.

They are SOCIALISTS, and see a greater threat from conservatism than Islamofascism.

It's an agenda driven reporting scheme, and has nothing with news, truth, facts, or logic.

Cognito, we know it does not matter what laws are on the books.

We can't enforce what we sign in to law now.

Again, my point is with all of this is, the msm at large is run by majority leftists who are guilty more of omitting stories than reporting them.

Stories like this are no different than what the Germans did for their own propaganda, perhaps just with better nuance.

This article legitimizes a terrorists outfit as a resistance movement.

Now if it was abu grhaib, well then...

What will be next? OBL gets a syndicated column?

/dear osama

re: #112 Charles

Very true, very true.

re: #112 Charles

...Market forces are not working...

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, Charles. Look at the rise of Fox News. That was a sea change, and there are other similar effects happening across the media universe. For example, the popularity of LGF.

Then again, there's the popularity of Kos and Huffington Post. So market correction does depend, in that sense, on a correct market...

re: #9 boocat

I don't understand why the lefties in the MSM don't see these Hamas maniacs for what they are.

Let's start by defining stupidity as "wilfully cultivated ignorance."

Armed only with this concise definition of stupidity, we can conclude that the reason the lefties in the MSM, and in general, don't see these Hamas maniacs for what they are is that they are extremely stupid people.

I hope this has cleared things up a bit.

Here is the way I look at it:

It is illegal to do business with Hamas.

The LAT charges people to buy their rag.

There will be people who buy their paper to read Hamas.

Hence doing business with Hamas.

Would it stand up in court? Probably not.

#114, tfc3rid

Sadly true. But I was very polite in my complaint over their publishing of this opinion piece, so they've no excuse not to publish it. I even provided references for the facts I called upon. I mentioned that the U.S. State Dept. has Hamas listed at #12 on their list of FTOs; I mentioned that the Hamas Covenant contains genocidal statements; and then I pointed out that the ADL considers Mousa Abu Marzook, the author of said opinion piece, to be responsible for international terrorist training for Hamas.

That they didn't bother to do any research into this opinion piece is very, very troubling.

re: #115 jcm

Fred Thompson and John Bolton seem to be a good start.

Also Duncan Hunter, who is being totally ignored. But the reality is that you will probably get an empty pantsuit as leader of the free world. Let's pray that doesn't happen. (Other than PMS might serve a purpose.)

Well, here's Cognito, defending the indefensible. Legality is all that matters; morality is out the window. What if the government made it legal to shoot journalists for sport? Would that be okay too?

/pissed off

Funny how the opinion pages of major newspapers never seem to publish anything except anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda. So much for showing all viewpoints.

So is the LA Times receiving government subsidies or funding?

I don't understand how people would pay them money to advertise in that fish wrap.

re: #60 Charles

re: #56 MandyManners

Is publishing this twaddle doing business with Hamas if no money is paid to the author?

They're probably not paying him in money. He's getting paid in a much more valuable currency--access to US media.

Because they are SPECIAL Charles! Don't you get it? These are the people who have money and power and influence. They get to do what they want when they want and how they want. They are above the law, because they MAKE they laws.

No President who wants to have even a shred of power and influence would even consider arresting these lunatics. Because they know that if he did, they would set up the exact same hue and cry which they did not give off during the Danish Cartoon controversy.

Why one and not the other? Because the worst the President can do is give them jail time and torpedoe his own presidency. The worst the other side can do is kill them, and they know that's what would happen.

re: #121 Cognito

I sort of hate to wade into this, as I can't stand Hamas, but I will try to shed some light -- what light I can -- on the reason it's okay for the LA Times to run the guy's Op-Ed. That is, okay legally -- not morally.

The press exists as the 'fourth estate,' as conceived by the founding fathers, to check the three branches of government. That means that just because a group is put on the civic version of a do-not-call list -- like the terrorist list -- the press doens't have to go along. That's set in place for the possibility that some day a truly evil governor rises to power in America, and bans any communication -- in a press sense -- with a certain group. The press has to stand independent of that, in a free society. The press has be able to call, in the worst stock-your-bomb-shelter scenario, for revolution.

So that's why it's legal for the LA Times to more or less run words written by anyone they deem relevant. But legal, as I said up front, doesn't always mean right.

As is the case with Hamas.

I doubt the founding fathers intended for American press to run propaganda for known foreign enemies, at the expense of long time allies. The 'revolution' the LAT is calling for here is no longer even disguised as 'balanced', it's clear support for foreign genocidal madmen in direct opposition to long standing US policy/foreign interests.

re: #134 Oh no...Sand People!

I don't understand how people would pay them money to advertise in that fish wrap.

That's insulting to the fish.

re: #125 Ward Cleaver

What will be next? OBL gets a syndicated column?

/dear osama

Farfur the hamas mouse replaces peanuts in the cartoon section

re: #92 Lawrence Schmerel

Is it wrong for an atheist to say "God Bless Alexander Haig"? Cause that is just what I did.

Now, how do I convince 175 million lefties to read that column. I'll worry about convincing them it is right after the first insurmountable task is complete.

Does anybody have Hercules email address?

re: #132 Ward Cleaver

Well, here's Cognito, defending the indefensible. Legality is all that matters; morality is out the window. What if the government made it legal to shoot journalists for sport? Would that be okay too?

/pissed off

Doesn't do much good to let emotions take over, really.

And if you look at my post, I said the exact opposite of what you've got here: That legally the OpEd might be all right, but that it a larger moral sense it is not.

In the immortal words of the gal who works at my local Wendy's drive-thru, "Don't get it twisted."

re: #119 deadbackpacker

re: #112 Charles

Do you think it is happening because the old media is losing readers and viewers and they see controversy as the way to sell more papers and increase viewers?

These media big shots are so dedicated to their anti-Americanism and leftist causes, they will continue to publish this rubbish despite the fact that it worsens their financial condition. The market forces will eventually work, but it will be a long, slow, painful process.

It may not be illegal to publish terrorist propaganda, but it certainly is immoral.

What this situation needs is a gigantic spotlight shined on it. As they say, the best disinfectant is sunlight.

The more attention given, the better.

re: #119 deadbackpacker

re: #112 Charles

Do you think it is happening because the old media is losing readers and viewers and they see controversy as the way to sell more papers and increase viewers?

Deadbackpacker, I see the old media as stuck on stupid. The other day someone posted an editorial by a member of the MSM ranting about the destruction of the world as we know it (media, movies, music, etc.) by the INTERNET and "your 10 year old in the next room." The write went on and on extolling the numerous reasons to limit the dissemination of "news" solely and entirely to members of the MSM . . . you get the idea.

I've been watching the NYT for a while now - several years at least. Each and every quarter they lose business. They've had several really big lay offs, down-sized the number of pages, the column inches available, even the paper size, in an effort to put things "right." The one sacred cow that they simply refuse to consider changing is their political message. They simply do not or can not recognize that their problem is not the internet or some 10 year old hacker or the business climate - it is their attitude. As a result, every single quarter they sink farther and farther in the hole.

They quite remind me of a conversation my daughter had with my 2 year old grandchild a few weeks back. "I have beads." "I know. Put them up now and we'll play with them in a bit." "But I have beads. They are my beads."

re: #121 Cognito

I sort of hate to wade into this, as I can't stand Hamas, but I will try to shed some light -- what light I can -- on the reason it's okay for the LA Times to run the guy's Op-Ed. That is, okay legally -- not morally.

The press exists as the 'fourth estate,' as conceived by the founding fathers, to check the three branches of government. That means that just because a group is put on the civic version of a do-not-call list -- like the terrorist list -- the press doens't have to go along. That's set in place for the possibility that some day a truly evil governor rises to power in America, and bans any communication -- in a press sense -- with a certain group. The press has to stand independent of that, in a free society. The press has be able to call, in the worst stock-your-bomb-shelter scenario, for revolution.

So that's why it's legal for the LA Times to more or less run words written by anyone they deem relevant. But legal, as I said up front, doesn't always mean right.

As is the case with Hamas.

Cognito,

This is true. It's immoral. Not illegal. Every day we see or read something that makes us outraged.

The LA Times and others are businesses. Dropping your subscription, complaining to their advertisers may affect their bottom line.

re: #144 Ginn

The LA Times and others are businesses. Dropping your subscription, complaining to their advertisers may affect their bottom line.

Exactly so. As the money goes, so goes the paper.

re: #132 Ward Cleaver

Well, here's Cognito, defending the indefensible. Legality is all that matters; morality is out the window. What if the government made it legal to shoot journalists for sport? Would that be okay too?

/pissed off

What's the bag limit?

re: #1 Iron Fist

The Media are the Enemy.

I seem to think I have heard that somewhere before, by someone...

/could it possibly be here and by you?! :)

re: #140 Cognito

Oh shut up already, while you're still ahead. You're like a robot, dispassionately observing, while Western society is destroyed.

re: #131 new2thezoo

Yes, Duncan also.

The problem is that we are in '33 or '34 when Churchill and others were worried about the coming storm and issued warnings which were discounted, only when the storm broke did Churchill get the reins. By the the cost was a butchers bill.

When can achieve a victory now at a low cost. Or we can wait 5 or 6 years and have another butchers bill to pay.

History is going to repeat itself, I just hope the historians get it right.

Why are newspapers allowed to get away with profiting from their associations with terrorists?

Because our leaders are too timid to do anything about.

re: #127 Cognito

re: #112 Charles

...Market forces are not working...

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, Charles. Look at the rise of Fox News. That was a sea change, and there are other similar effects happening across the media universe. For example, the popularity of LGF.

Then again, there's the popularity of Kos and Huffington Post. So market correction does depend, in that sense, on a correct market...

I agree. Besides, we have had this problem since the beginning. We declared a "war" on terror but then we were told by our government to be extra "sensitive" to the Muslims for fear of a backlash against them. This never happened. We continue to embrace the Saudis and pay monies to the Pales.

There is a bigger issue here one that printing this op-ed piece exposes.

re: #127 Cognito

OK, let me amend that slightly. Maybe market forces are working. But if so, it's at a glacial pace. Meanwhile groups like Hamas and Hizballah are exploiting our morally blind media as rapidly as they can--while our government does nothing to counter it, neither by enforcing the laws against doing business with terrorists, nor by mounting an effective counter-propaganda campaign. The situation is bad. We're losing the propaganda war.

Also, I'm not so ready to point to Fox News as evidence of responsible media. To my mind, they're only slightly less blind than the rest.

re: #121 Cognito

The press exists as the 'fourth estate,' as conceived by the founding fathers, to check the three branches of government.

While I agree with the rest of your post (they have legal grounds to do it), I've always disagreed that "the press" is the fourth estate vs. the people. What makes the press different from anyone else? Nothing - the first amendment applies to everyone, not just those that went to journalism school.

Remember that when the Bill of Rights was being written, it was possible for a person of modest wealth to purchase and use a simple printing press and print anything. Somehow journalists have become elevated to the level of doctors, priests and lawyers with special privileges. However with no special governing body to oversee them (as with medicine, law, and the church), they are free to violate ethics with only market forces to contain them.

How the hell does this paper make money? Oh yeah it doesn't.

re: #145 Cognito

re: #144 Ginn

The LA Times and others are businesses. Dropping your subscription, complaining to their advertisers may affect their bottom line.

Exactly so. As the money goes, so goes the paper.

Yes, or the editors or journalists.

re: #145 Cognito

Cognito, I am not so sure.

These companies seem to be losing huge amounts of money, and it has not changed the tone one bit.

I'll agree, it has opened the door for Fox, blogs, and the like.

re: #148 Ward Cleaver

re: #140 Cognito

Oh shut up already, while you're still ahead. You're like a robot, dispassionately observing, while Western society is destroyed.

Huh. Western society destroyed. That's pretty evil, then.

Guess I've got what someone once called an 'over-reliance on reason.'

Why are newspapers allowed to get away with profiting from their associations with terrorists?

Because the terrorists are "marginalized." Period.

Personally, I'm outraged that Jerry Springer Show guests aren't given more of a foreign policy platform.

Note: the free press can't be expected to defend itself, but you'd think it would be grateful now and then to those who defend it.

re: #141 MrMom

Lets hope for our sake it is an especially painful process for these traitors and a short one for us.

re: #142 looking closely

It may not be illegal to publish terrorist propaganda, but it certainly is immoral.

What this situation needs is a gigantic spotlight shined on it. As they say, the best disinfectant is sunlight.

The more attention given, the better.

I agree.

re: #145 Cognito

re: #144 Ginn

The LA Times and others are businesses. Dropping your subscription, complaining to their advertisers may affect their bottom line.

Exactly so. As the money goes, so goes the paper.

Not necessarily, as Charles points out. Some lefty papers have lefty owners with deep pockets, and other suspect sources of finance.

To a socialist profit margin is a distant second to accumulation and exercise of power.

LA Times, SF Chron, NYT, etc are based in large moonbat infested cities where their readership is concentrated and agrees whole heartedly with the America hating, leftist bilge they sell. Market forces are on their side.

I'd like to see some ad revenue stats.

re: #149 buzzsawmonkey

re: #91 Ginn

Hitler, that is.

The West Bank Hillbillies

Come and listen to the story of Mohammed
He pastured his goats on a land empty and dead
But then he got some neighbors that he thought were rather rude
'Cause they bought the land and watered it and started growing food.

Jews, that is. Children of Israel. Yehudim.

Well, the next thing you know, more Jews are streaming in.
Mohammed says, "This land's Muslim, so your presence is a sin!"
He said, "A wholesale massacre is what there outta be,
I'll take a leaf from the book of the guy who hosted the Mufti!"

Hitler, that is. Mr. Genocide.

But things didn't work out quite as Mohammed planned
The Jews stayed and thrived in their ancestral homeland
Since there's nothing but a murderer Mohammed wants to be
He's living on the UN dole with his whole family.

Y'all get out now, hear?

Buzz! Fantastic!

Gaze.

What percentage of the paper is owned by outside interests? Say middle eastern of some sort... may be hard to track... Look at Fox with it's 6% of Saudi influence. It has changed. There is obviously another influence. Or am I being pecksniffish?

149 buzzsawmonkey

Encore! Encore!

re: #143 galloping granny

I agree just watch the evening news on any of the networks to see blatant examples of stuck on stupid.

re: #159 godfrey

Why are newspapers allowed to get away with profiting from their associations with terrorists?

Because the terrorists are "marginalized." Period.

Personally, I'm outraged that Jerry Springer Show guests aren't given more of a foreign policy platform.

Note: the free press can't be expected to defend itself, but you'd think it would be grateful now and then to those who defend it.

Terrific point, Godfrey!

Behold, verily I say unto youse that the Islamic Beast will ride the Gramscian Whore straight into the abomination that causes desolation...

Yet another example of the Biblically described convergence of Beasts and Whores in action. Every time it travels around the circuit it amps up just a little bit more.
Compliciots and caliphellators, the lot of them.
Soon to bear the "mark of the Beast" which IMO is not a "mark" you can see, but is the acceptance and enabling of an Islamic Caliphate established by all phases of jihad, aided and abetted by non-Muslims such as these...
I see your third eye, MFers.
Be careful what you wish for, you craven whores, because you will receive it in abundance one day.

The Fourth Estate Is the Fifth Column

re: #162 wvobiwan

Any idea who owns the LA times?

I for one, do not trouble myself over "recognizing" Israel's right to exist — this is not, after all, an epistemological problem; Israel does exist, as any Rafah boy in a hospital bed, with IDF shrapnel in his torso, can tell you.

Yeah, and you Hamas fucks exist as any family of any number of dead Israelis who were riding a bus or eating lunch when one of you assholes blew them up can tell you. You ski masked asshole.

Geez.

I think the reason why the leftist media increasingly publish terrorist apologetics like this can only be found in psychology.

These activist journalists imagine they were presenting an opposing viewpoint, while they in fact they are rehashing the prevailing consensus. Yet if they were to admit that, they´d lose their purpose of speaking truth to power etc. and their activism would appear as empty as it is. So to keep up a surrogate of meaning in life, they have to delude themselves that the Bush administration controlled the American media, and their actions were serving to restore a perceived balance. But there is no such thing as a conservative narrative power they could be throwing their so-called truth against, and hence they have to outmatch each other with more and more extreme pieces and lose all sense for restraint, just to reaffirm their imagination of an heroic opposition role.

BOO!

re: #153 Charles

re: #127 Cognito

OK, let me amend that slightly. Maybe market forces are working. But if so, it's at a glacial pace. Meanwhile groups like Hamas and Hizballah are exploiting our morally blind media as rapidly as they can--while our government does nothing to counter it, neither by enforcing the laws against doing business with terrorists, nor by mounting an effective counter-propaganda campaign. The situation is bad. We're losing the propaganda war.

Also, I'm not so ready to point to Fox News as evidence of responsible media. To my mind, they're only slightly less blind than the rest.

Yep, I'm on board with that. I wish the market would correct itself faster as well, but the market is largely still asleep. Which is largely due to the media, in a sense... Which is largely due to the market, again... Which is...

You see what I mean. It'll unfortunately take time. Or even more unfortunately -- and maybe certainly -- it'll take another, larger terrorist attack in America.

buzz

I'm waiting for an American Songbook lyric from your Satirical Eminence.

Hi Babba. You are the 4th estate now. ;)

re: #121 Cognito

Do you have links to at least summaries of court decisions to support any of that ? The press, per se, certainly has no constitutional standing other than the right to free speech, and is most certainly not mentioned in the constitution. I would think that if the founders had wished to set it as a formal check on government, they might have at least mentioned it. That "fourth estate" business is pretty much largely self-agrandizement.

Newspapers (the press) were rare back then, but major centers often had several which spent as much time attacking each other's views as attacking anything else. This was maintained until recent times, but is pretty much gone now.

I will grant that in this instance, I cannot see any laws being broken.

Maybe this is their version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Reading suggestion:

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
by David Horowitz

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260263/ ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7003080-2882421?ie=UTF8&s= books&qid=1184090257&sr=8-1