Monday, June 29, 2015

Independence Day through the eyes of John Adams

By Howard Hyde

In July 2011 I hosted a lecture-screening of the 2nd episode of HBO’s series on the American Revolution, John Adams (this episode showing the events and debate leading to the Declaration of Independence), in Spanish, at La Iglesia en El Camino (Church on the Way) in Van Nuys, California. There were about 50 in attendance. During the same week I had been an in-studio guest on a radio program on Univision, guest-hosted by Pablo Kleinman (the regular host would have been Fernando Espuellas).
I chose HBO’s John Adams because it is one of the best Revolutionary War films ever made, presenting in intimate detail the struggle for the founding of our unique nation as seen through the eyes of a heroic couple and their family. I highly recommend it to anyone, immigrant or native, who wants to understand the origins of our nation (I don’t get paid to say this, but I should).
Below is the translation, back into English, of the lecture. Write to me if you are interested in the Spanish version.
I describe in [square brackets] a few of the visuals from the slide show that accompanied my talk.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Good morning and thank you for joining us today.
In anticipation of our great patriotic holiday, Independence Day, which is the Fourth of July, with its festivities and fireworks, we are going to get to know better the men and women who have given us the gift of this day, through the HBO film ‘John Adams’.

[One Dollar bill] You may know George Washington. Well, it was John Adams that nominated Washington to be commander-in-chief of the Continental (Revolutionary) army and years later became President Washington's Vice President.

[2 dollar bill] Perhaps you have heard of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. Well it was John Adams that nominated Jefferson to write this document, since Adams did not have time while conducting the verbal debate in the Continental Congress in favor of independence.

[$100 bill] perhaps you know Benjamin Franklin. Adams worked together with Franklin for independence and later in France to get the indispensable support of the French in the war against the British.
For all this I call Adams the greatest of the founders who never got his mug on a dollar bill, or, the greatest lesser-known founder.

[Circa 1770 map of British colonial America] 250 years ago in the 18th century there were on the east coast of North America 13 colonies ruled by King George the Third of Great Britain (or England). The colonies were not proper states, nor were they by any means united. There did not exist at that time any ‘united states’.

The subjects of the British crown lived in these colonies were already well-accustomed to governing themselves without interference. But the king and the British Parliament tried to force the colonies to comply with an increasingly intolerable regimen of taxes, prohibition of trade outside of the British Empire, the obligation to get official stamps and approvals for the most minor articles of commerce; to accept that British soldiers should be quartered in any American’s house that the British might order (soldiers whose numbers grew ever larger). All that without the colonies having a voice or rights or American representatives in the British Parliament. For that the cry "no taxation without representation" was heard with increasing frequency, and tensions between the colonies and Britain increased.

In 1770 John Adams lived in Boston, capital of the colony of Massachusetts. Humble lawyer, son of a farmer, man of principles, family man, Christian of confession and conviction, Adams became known when he defended in court a group of British soldiers accused of murder in what the colonists called the Boston Massacre, but what Adams judged to be a riot or mob disturbance in which the soldiers had acted in self-defense. His defense of the despised soldiers did not at all please the colonists, least of all his own cousin the political activist Samuel Adams.
Adams hoped that his demonstration of justice would be recognized and appreciated by the king and that the heavy hand of the empire would have been lightened. But George III decreed that any trial of British officers accused of capital crimes in America in the future could not take place in the colonies, but only in Great Britain, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
The disappointments and provocations continued, and the time the frequency of disturbances like the Boston tea party which tons of English tea were thrown into the waters of the port of Boston in protest against restricted trade with England.

You are going to share John Adams experience of all of these events. And also you work you will get to know John Adams family, his wife and his children. You will see Abigail advising her husband with wisdom, balancing his character defects such as his vanity, his stubbornness and his inability to keep his mouth shut when he should. By John Adams’ own admission, if not for Abigail, instead of becoming one of our most important leaders, he never would have amounted to anything.
In 1774 the good faith between the colonies and the king and Parliament had deteriorated to such a point that Adams, together with his cousin Samuel Adams and representatives of all the 13 colonies began to meet at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, capital of the colony of Pennsylvania, 400 miles from Boston (traveling days and weeks by horse, not hours by Continental airlines!) to discuss their common defense against British tyranny. Such a reunion was unprecedented in the prior 150 years of the colonies.

The citizens of the colonies and their delegates to the Continental Congress were by no means united on the question of how to respond to the tyranny of the king of England, and much less on the question of independence. Some advocated an armed rebellion for separation; others felt, as loyal subjects of the king of England, that they did not want to break with the mother country, or considered that a military confrontation against the most powerful empire in the world which was Great Britain at that time. was destined to fail catastrophically. And so the contentious debate dragged on for more than two years.

Reconciliation between the colonies and the king became less and less possible after military battles between the rebels and the British forces broke out in Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts in 1775, followed by the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston. In October of that year the king declared before Parliament that the colonies were in rebellion and that he was sending a military expedition sufficient to suppress the rebels (which is to say, massive; more than 400 ships).
At that time Adams’ family lived on his farm in the town of Braintree, south of Boston. During the battle of Bunker Hill and the siege, the thunder and flashes of the cannons could be seen from his property.

His wife Abigail managed the farm and cared for their 4 young children during the frequent absences of her husband in Philadelphia. The Adamses were not rich and life was not easy. Because of the blockade of Boston, outside trade was interrupted and the most necessary goods for daily life were in short supply. To make matters worse, infectious diseases were killing many citizens and soldiers, and threatening even Adams’ own family. So while John was debating independence in Philadelphia, Abigail was having herself and her children vaccinated against the Smallpox, which in those days signified risking death; suffering the disease itself during a few weeks.

When it became apparent that there were no doubts about the intentions of the king to impose his will without mercy or compromise over the colonies, Congress united over the question and elected Thomas Jefferson, a wealthy 33 year-old landowner and representative of Virginia, to write the Declaration of Independence.
The document that Jefferson delivered surpassed all expectations. The Declaration not only separated the American colonies from the king of England; it proclaimed universal ideals of human rights, principles that would threaten any despot or tyrannical regime in any country, in any time.
Lamentably, the institution of slavery survived the American revolution not only in the southern states but in the very estates of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and other prominent American revolutionaries. Even so, the Declaration in effect established a civilization irreconcilable with slavery. The full cost of this incompatibility would be paid in full, 87 (“four score and seven”) years later in the Civil War under President Abraham Lincoln.

The Declaration of Independence is more than 1000 words long. But there is one phrase that has become immortal that summarizes all of its meaning. It begins: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
What was so powerful in these simple words was the fact that no head of state in those days, no king, nor aristocrat, nor Emperor in any way considered such ideas to be self-evident.
It continued: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
This was, and continues to be, the creed of the United States, an imperfect country but among the most free, most prosperous, most just and most enduring that has ever existed in all the world and in all of human history.
[Screen Episode 2, Independence.]

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Climate Change: Where is the Science?

[Over 300 comments]
Is it certain that anthropogenic carbon burning-induced warming is sweeping us to the apocalypse, with all other possibilities combined being less than one percent probable?
The only way to find out is through the most rigorous and critical application of the scientific method, from laboratory practice to public discourse. Anything less than that increases the risk that the 'solution' could be more catastrophic to humans than the results of climate change itself.
Unfortunately, what the IPCC and Al Gore are practicing does not qualify as science.
See the complete article by Howard Hyde at

See also The Heartland Institute's conference on Climate Change in Washington D.C., where Mr. Hyde is inattendance this Thursday and Friday:

[Completely random ;-) sample of comments:]

"This article should be an open letter to the climate science community and published in every major newspaper and magazine in the country."

"Best piece to appear here EVER!"

"Mr. Hyde, you have written a perfectly wonderful article. I wish you could publish it on the OpEd page of the New York Times. Would you consider trying to do so? Or on the back page of the Sunday Times' magazine section? It might actually cause some people to snap out of their acceptance of a faulty argument-from-authority myth and make them think for themselves."

"Excellent article Mr. Hyde. May God bless you and your family."

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Howard Hyde on Larry Elder Show Friday June 12 @1:35 PM PT

Howard Hyde will be a guest on the Larry Elder radio program on Friday, June 12 at 1:35PM Pacific Time, discussing the topic of Climate Change generally. Log in to for listening options.

The interview comes at the conclusion of the Heartland Institute's conference on Climate Change in Washington D.C., where Mr. Hyde will be in attendance this Thursday and Friday.
For more information on the conference, see

Monday, June 08, 2015

First Amendment Under Assault in Climate Change Debate

The scientific debate about climate change is so un-scientific that freedom of speech itself has been put in doubt.
Michael Mann, the climate scientist most famous for the 'hockey stick' graph, sued Mark Steyn for criticizing his work. Even the ACLU and a dozen other not-at-all-right-wing-denier organizations have recognized the impropriety of such a lawsuit.

Read the complete article at

Thursday, June 04, 2015

Back to the Future and the Solution to Climate Change

The Global Warming alarmists are effectively claiming to have received the infallible Climate almanac for the next one hundred years. If that is so, then they don't need any help to solve the problem. Let them put up (their own money, not ours) or shut up.
Read the complete article by Howard Hyde at:

Monday, June 01, 2015

Howard Hyde guest on Conservative Commandos Radio Show June 1, 2015 1:35 PM PT

Howard Hyde will be a guest on the Conservative Commandos radio program today June 1st at 1:35 PM Pacific Time. Tune in at

Sunday, May 31, 2015

The Fraud of Climate Change Hysteria

By Howard Hyde
Climate Change hysteria is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon a gullible American public, and the worst perversion of Science since Josef Stalin had all scientists exiled or shot who dared to disagree with his agronomist stooge Trofim Lysenko, a policy that resulted in the starvation of millions of Soviet citizens when the Socialist theory of Agronomy turned out not quite to agree with the realities of Nature.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, along with Al Gore, Barack Obama, the <sigh!> Pope, and our own congressman Ted Lieu (successor to Henry Waxman in California's 33rd district), are doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on the narrative that Climate Change is the single greatest threat to our civilization, indeed our very lives. This they say with a straight face while Radical Islam is ascendant as never before from Baghdad to Paris, while our cities are burning, race relations, employment and entrepreneurship are all at their lowest levels in two generations, enemies don't fear us, friends don't trust us, Israel is once again is under existential threat, and the Rule of Law and the supremacy of the Constitution have never been hanging by such a thin thread. They say that they know with absolute certainty that Climate Change will kill us all, even while the term itself is a cop-out, a hedge, a punt, just in case the real problem turns out not to be global warming but an incipient ice age, as was the 'settled' scientific consensus of 40 years ago.
And what are we supposed to do about this threat, according to the 'experts'? Why, destroy western civilization of course. Destroy capitalism, destroy free markets, restrict freedom, regulate industry, raise taxes, swear off the cheapest energy sources that generations ago saved the whales from extinction and allowed millions of people who otherwise would have starved, to thrive.


Indeed, that is the word that those of us who live in districts where a majority of our liberal friends have drunk the Kool-Aid, need to deploy in challenge to everything that they say.
Seriously? The greatest threat to our lives?
Seriously? There is no doubt, in spite of the fact that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years? In spite of the repeated failure of the 4-D computer video game models even to predict the weather accurately for one year?
Seriously? A settled scientific consensus based on government funding of research, where scientists who don't toe the party line are sent to the Gulag?
Seriously? Carbon dioxide, which makes plants flourish, is now a pollutant?
Seriously, out of a thousand factors in a system a million times more complex than the stock market, just one is the key to it all, to the exclusion of all others?
Seriously? The solution is to make energy as expensive as possible? To kill endangered birds with ineffective, ugly, land-guzzling wind farms? To make poor people cut down trees or freeze to death because they can't afford heating fuel at prices imposed by your solution?
Scientific authority, Seriously? What authority did Copernicus bow down to with his theory of the sun at the center of the solar system? What consensus was Einstein appealing to when he blew up the Newtonian system of physics with Relativity? What significant advance in Science was ever made by appeal to consensus or obedience to authority? Shall we return to the Golden Age of Medieval Times?

The greatest threat to western civilization is the willingness of the most prosperous and free people who have ever lived on Earth to flush down the biofuel toilet everything that made their own freedom and prosperity possible.

Write to

Reader comments:

I'm sorry, But I think our party loses support and legitimacy when we deny climate change. I think that that then affects our ability to get out the message to younger generations about our founding principles of limited government and personal responsibility; of a strong military and a strong national identity; of free markets.

That being said, we need to stop debating climate change I'm terms of existence and just debate climate change initiatives from the perspective of fighting back big government.

Again, the more and more denialism we employ, the more we lose the younger generation. The older generation is near the end, and we need the younger generation. Based on the description of this article, this seems to me to be more of the same thing--damaging to the image and legitimacy of our party.

As fellow conservatives, I think we need to speak up when we more than believe and actually know when something hurts more than helps our message.

There is more to the electorate than the base.

Please take this message from someone who is considered "extremely far right" by his friends, even the conservative ones.

Thanks. Have a good day.

[Howard:] We do not deny that climate is changing; it changes all the time. What we absolutely deny is that there is any certainty that the industrial human civilization's burning of fossil fuels is the cause, or even a significant cause; or that if the planet were to warm, it would be an unmitigated disaster. What is catastrophic is to destroy the foundations of western democracy and prosperity in pursuit of an unfounded goal.

I certainly understand the difficulty of reaching a younger generation that has not only been indoctrinated by our public schools and teachers' unions into the leftist view of the world, but has been rendered almost incapable of critical thinking. But that is a social and political challenge that does not alter facts or scientific logic.
You have not challenged me on the scientific merits, only on the politics.

[G.R:]I'm no fan of teachers unions or the bias I see in the social sciences, however it's honestly a hard sell for me to believe that the objective courses (math and science) can be biased. To the best of my understanding, global warming has been widely accepted by respectable scientists--so I ask what do you mean by scientific facts and logic, when the worldwide scientific community accepts this claim? Can scientists be biased? Yes. But their reports, required to follow the scientific method and submitted through extensive peer review and replication? As I said it's a hard sell...

That's why I say we should focus on attacking individual pieces of legislation rather than the science. Because only the public is debating this, the scientific community--from what I know--is not.

[Howard:] You are correct, it IS hard to believe that objective science and mathematics, with its rigorous methodologies and peer review processes, could be corrupted. But they have been, which is why this scandal is so outrageous. Leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia have exposed bias against dissenting scientists, and falsified readings of primary data by the U.S. government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) have been exposed.

Jim Enstrom is a physicist and professor with a 40-year career track record. He was fired from UCLA when his research did not reach the conclusions pleasing to the political establishment of the university. He only got his job back after filing a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The IPCC is not a scientific body; it is a political one, with a one dimensionally defined mission, taking anthropogenic global warming as assumed. Al Gore and Barack Obama are not scientists. It has been pointed out that a plurality of the most prominent leaders of the Climate Change alarmism movement do not have degrees in the sciences, but in English Literature.

I refer you to Australian geologist Ian Plimer, author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, and a co-author of Climate Change: The Facts: "We derive scientific evidence from measurement, observation, and experiment...Computers do not generate evidence: they analyse evidence that should have been repeated and validated...Scientific theory...must be in accord with other validated evidence from diverse sources...Unlike in law, there is no inadmissible evidence in science...On the basis of new evidence, scientists must always be prepared to change their opinions...It is skepticism that underpins science, not the comfort of consensus.”
“The theory of human-induced global warming is not science because research is based on a pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored, and the analytical procedures are treated as evidence. Furthermore, climate ‘science’ is sustained by government research grants. Funds are not available to investigate theories that are not in accord with government ideology."

Please don't take any of this as not welcoming your comments. To the contrary, you have opened my eyes to very important perceptions, for which I am grateful.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Hillary's Path to 9/11

Imagine censorship coming to America.
Stop imagining. The most significant of all the post-9/11 movies has never been seen by the public, because it offended the Clintons.

Read the complete article by Howard Hyde at

UPDATE 2015.04.12:
Here is the extended version, longer by about 600 words, for readers who prefer excruciating detail:

We will probably never know specifically what was on Hillary's email server (unless, as suggested by the Wall Street Journal, we subpoena China's military intelligence). But if the spell is finally and definitively broken, as the willingness of less-than-right-wing pundits at the New York Times, Time Magazine and others to criticize Hillary without restraint suggests it might be, then we may yet learn many things about the world in which we live that we had no idea were being suppressed out of rapturous worship, or mortal terror, of the Clintons. We may emerge into a world of freedom and democracy that we had almost forgotten existed.

As just one example: Imagine for moment a world in which any of the movies Flight 93, World Trade Center, Zero Dark 30 or American Sniper had been produced but never screened in theaters, because some cabal of politicians had objected to it and seen to it that the film would be censored, censured and suppressed.

Stop imagining. That is exactly what happened to the prime time miniseries 'The Path to 9/11', written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, directed by David Cunningham and featuring possibly the performance of a career by Harvey Keitel as John P. O'Neil (FBI special agent and later chief of World Trade Center security, who was killed in the twin towers on 9/11). This film is arguably the most significant of the post-9/11 set, as it connects the dots between the first World Trade Center attack of 1993, the failure to off Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan despite multiple opportunities, and the ultimate tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Yet this 5-hour docudrama was aired only once on ABC TV in September 2006, with edits and cuts demanded by partisan censors, and then buried under orders of Robert Iger, president of the parent company, Disney. To this day it has not been released to the public on DVD. Why? The ostensible reasons are summarized by Wikipedia as "The film was controversial for its alleged misrepresentation of events and people, that some people called inaccurate, biased and included scenes that never happened." One would be hard-pressed to name a single historically-based or documentary film that couldn't be accused of the same to some degree, except that the bias of most that get produced emanates from the left. Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko and An Inconvenient Truth come to mind. Yet the controversy surrounding these and similar films never remotely caused, or are ever likely to cause, anyone to contemplate the possibility that they might be banned from the public square.

What then made the case of The Path to 9/11 different? Was it a precursor case of Charlie Hebdo Stockholm Syndrome appeasement? Suppress the film out of sensitivity to our Muslim friends, or so as not to provoke our not-quite friends the jihadis into committing murderous atrocities against innocent people?
No. No peep was ever heard from any Islamic organization in objection to the film.
The reason for the unprecedented censorship may be summarized in two words: The Clintons. The Clinton machine, jealous both of Bill's legacy and Hillary's 2008 White House ambitions, saw the film as a right-wing hit piece against them and mobilized all of its heavy artillery to make Disney/ABC offers it couldn't refuse, first to edit and then to completely withdraw the film.

Following a partial pre-screening of the film to the National Press Club (which part did not include the Bush years), Clinton attorney Richard Ben-Veniste spoke out harshly against the film and its producers. Another Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey wrote directly to Disney president Bob Iger to impugn writer Nowrasteh's alleged political agenda. Keith Olbernan (remember 'The Worst Person in the World'?) interviewed Judd Legum, Research Director for the Center for American Progress and editor of, the latter run by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, to cast aspersions on the writer. The damning evidence, according to Legum: "[Nowrasteh] admits that he's a conservative". Legum later became Hillary's research director for her 2008 presidential campaign.

More 'damning evidence' of a right-wing conspiracy emerged when Rush Limbaugh endorsed the film and called out Nowrasteh personally as 'my friend'. Little mention was made during this time of Nowrasteh's extensive collaborations with other far-right Oliver Stone. Nowrasteh's work with Stone on the Showtime film The Day Reagan was Shot had previously earned him charges of liberal bias.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer and others wrote to Disney's Bob Iger, threatening legal and legislative sanctions which included jeopardizing ABC's broadcast license. Max Blumenthal, son of Clinton ally Sydney Blumenthal, wrote of a subversive conservative conspiracy, with David Horrowitz as its godfather, infiltrating ABC.

Then they went after director David Cunningham for his shocking ties to a -- gasp! -- evangelical Christian ministry founded by his father. Apparently Youth with a Mission, or YWAM, in between digging wells and running schools and orphanages in the third world, had been a major financier and shadow director of the movie. YWAM had an auxiliary film institute which had once stated somewhere its hope to 'have a positive influence on Hollywood movies'. To Keith Olberman, a The Path to 9/11 was nothing less than 'a stealth attack in the culture wars'.

According to Carol Felsenthal, author of Clinton in Exile, Bill Clinton personally phoned Bob Iger to demand the suppression of the film, and asked former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, then chairman of the board at Disney to do the same. Another Clinton attorney (how many do they have?), Floyd Abrams, demanded that references to Clinton's impeachment and other scandals be edited out.

Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, the National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton who had been convicted in 2005 of stealing classified documents from the national archives by stuffing them into his underwear for the express purposes of preventing them from being seen by the 9/11 Commission, was given 30 minutes on CNN to denounce the movie and question the producers' honesty, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer. Berger was an advisor to Hillary's presidential campaign.

One of the most colorful and yet chilling demonstrations of the left's spirit of censorship came from New York congresswoman Louise Slaughter (a major Hillary Clinton ally) in an outdoor press conference: "We demand that ABC run a disclaimer in every single frame. Saying up front 'this is not true' is not good enough. It's gotta be in every frame, 'don't believe this!'"

Very few of the Clintonite critics had actually seen the film. As a result, while making the charge that the film was historically inaccurate for depicting scenes that never happened, many of them were reduced to making straw-man arguments against scenes that didn't exist in the movie.

No free-speech, civil libertarian or professional guild organization came to the producers' defense; not PEN America (even though Nowrasteh was a 2-time award winner) not the Director's Guild of America, nor the Writer's Guild of America nor the Screen Actor's Guild, nor the ACLU. Participant Productions, producer of the anti-McCarthyism movie Good Night and Good Luck and others, posted a letter in support of the miniseries on its website, but quickly took it down under pressure from ex Vice President Al Gore.

All of this happened within the last two weeks before the planned air dates of September 10th and 11th, 2006. Prior to that time, no one, including the executives at ABC and Disney, the attorneys that had vetted every scene of the heavily footnoted script, and the many liberal Democrats and Clinton voters who had senior roles in the production (this is Hollywood, after all) had expressed anything other than the greatest enthusiasm for the project and for its prospects as an annual commemoration broadcast. Members of the Bush administration, who didn't come away much less scathed than the Clintons in the movie, never protested.

In the end, all of this pressure may have been overkill. Bob Iger and the Disney political action committee were donors to Hillary Clinton's campaigns for several years. Iger forbade his employees from talking to anyone and pulled the plug, putting political considerations above his fiduciary duties to the Disney shareholders, going so far as to refuse to sell the film to prospective buyers. (Incidentally, if a corporation takes a $100-million loss for the sake of a political candidate, does that count as a campaign contribution for purposes of campaign finance laws? Just asking.)

Nowrasteh, Cunningham and their crew have done an adequate job of responding point-by-point to their critic's more rational challenges to the film's historical accuracy, including explaining the obvious point that squeezing 70,000 hours of historical time into a 5-hour movie requires some amount of compression and amalgamation. It's doubtful that the Clintons would have been happier if the producers, instead of condensing ten missed opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden into one composite 'scene that never happened', they had presented every episode in exhaustive detail, extending the film's duration to 10 hours, of which a much greater percentage would have been focussed directly on Clinton's failures.

But the bottom-line reason this film should be released is not because it is accurate, fair or true, or least of all because conservatives like it, but because we are a free society of mature adults governed, among other things, by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in letter, in principle and in spirit. Conservatives who are sick of Michael Moore's Sicko are free to make their own documentary on health care starring Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz. Those who find An Inconvenient Truth mendacious are at liberty to produce their own blockbuster Climate Change Is Just Hot Air flick starring Senator James Inhofe, geologist Ian Plimer and indicted denier Mark Steyn. No one is saying that Nowrasteh's and Cunningham's Path to 9/11 has to be the last word -- unless, on the merits and in the marketplace, no one else is able to do a better job. Competition? Bring it on!

So when Hillary is finally out of the running sometime in the next three to nineteen months, will Bob Iger or his successors at Disney finally relent and release the film? (Or will they persist for Chelsea's sake? -- follow the money.) Maybe if they feel enough heat in a different direction, including the direction of their own self-respect.

The suppression of this film is only one example of the latent effects of the Clinton intimidation machine. To combat it we will need the courage of Barbara Olson, author of Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who died in American Airlines flight 77 on that fateful day. Once the fear is lifted, there's no telling what other revelations may be made to the American public. We might yet be able to shine a brighter light on how much of HillaryCare, thought to have been defeated in 1994, actually made it into the Clinton-Gingrich budget act of 1997. Price controls, caps on the number of medical student residencies (already under the bureaucratic control of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and never since increased), interference in the patient/doctor relationship, backed by the full might of the tax and criminal justice system, were all piled on. The resulting healthcare market dysfunctions contributed to renewed calls for the government to solve problems of its own making via a socialized medicine scheme in 2009.
But that's a topic for another article. As with everything else Clinton, the horror stories never seem to end. Until now? We can only hope.

Conservative Fundraising: What-Me-Worry?

In the popular consciousness as successfully twisted by the progressive left, it is axiomatic that the Republican Party is the party of the rich, and therefore conservatives must easily out-raise and out-spend liberals in the fundraising wars.
Reality, of course, paints a very different picture.

Read the complete article by Howard Hyde at

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Ex Muslim Wafa Sultan exposes Muhammad, Islam, Brutal Sharia Law

Dr. Wafa Sultan, born in Syria, lifts the veil on life under Islamic law in this gut-wrenching personal account.

Watch the complete video at

Obama's Sharia-compliant Truce with Iran

Islamic law places jihad as not only a duty of every Muslim, but more importantly as the duty of every Muslim head of state. Permanent peace agreements with non-Muslim countries are forbidden.

Read the complete article by Nonie Darwish at

Conservative Fundraising: What Me Worry?

Most of the 'progressive' foundations were founded by industrialists and capitalists who must be spinning in their graves witnessing the socialist agenda being promoted with their hard-earned money.

Read the complete article at

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Forging the Black-GOP Alliance in California

There are philosophical harmonies that exist between the African-American community and the Republican Party that, if built upon, can lead to real opportunities for the party to grow. What the Republican Party must understand, however, is that these harmonies exist largely between separate factions of the Republican coalition and between differing segments of the African-American political community.

Read the complete article by John Wood, 2014 Republican candidate for US House of Representatives challenging Maxine Waters, at

Get Over Your Blackness, by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Black History Month is dumb. And it provides no value for black Americans or anyone else.

Read the complete article by the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny (B.O.N.D.) at World Net Daily.

Do we Need a Black History Month?

(First published as the 'President's Message' in the February 2015 edition of the newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and men.)
The Month of February has been designated ‘Black History Month’ (or updated for political correctness for the 21st century, ‘African American History Month’) since the U.S. government during the President Gerald Ford administration gave it official recognition. This commemoration had roots in the designation since 1926 of the second week of February as ‘Negro History Week’ by historian Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. The particular week was chosen because it contained the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass. The motive given by Woodson was to put black Americans on an equal plane with other American ethnicities to ensure cultural continuity and prestige, noting the success of the hebrew peoples on the one hand and the near-obliteration of the native American cultures on the other. Gerard Ford praised “the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.”
Nonetheless the concept has been criticized by prominent people of all political persuasions, having in common the view that black history is American history and should not therefore be relegated to some ghetto apart.
Moreover, in the dominant political culture of today, one can discern a certain bias for honoring ideologically ‘correct’ black individuals while ‘dissing’ others. Does the work of the liberal black leadership really honor the legacy and values of Booker T. Washington? Will the Congressional Black Caucus honor Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? Will they invite as a keynote speaker to any of their events Lloyd Marcus, author of ‘Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America’? Will Jason Riley, member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and author of ‘Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed’ be winning any awards? What about J.C. Watts, U.S. Congressman and author of ‘What Color is a Conservative’? Larry Elder? Star Parker? Alan Keyes? Allen West? Walter E. Williams? The list goes on and on.
Thomas Sowell would be considered a world-class economist and philosopher whether he were German, Russian or Chinese. The fact that he is American simply honors America. The fact that he was born poor in rural North Carolina simply gives his writing on wealth and poverty extra perspective and credibility. And the fact that he grew up black in Harlem (where I can safely say that in the all-black public school that had no name but a number, he got a better education than I did thirty years later at the far better-financed integrated junior high named for Dr. Martin Luther King) simply gives his work in the matter of culture and race unmatched authority. Yet the dominant black political leadership shuns him and every other black conservative like the plague.
Designating a month as Black History may be a good idea or a poor one. No one outside of the Ku Klux Klan would ever propose such a thing as ‘White History Month’, to the exclusion of other races. But as long as we have it, I can think of plenty of individuals I am eager to honor.
Please join us on February 21st to hear our featured speaker the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, author of ‘Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America’

Monday, January 19, 2015

David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat March 6-8, 2015

David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat will be held March 6-8, 2015 at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California.
Confirmed speakers thus far: David Horowitz, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Congressman Louie Gohmert, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Bruce Thornton, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Bill Whittle, Jeremy Boreing, Jay Cost, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson and Michael Ramirez
Reservations: 866-802-8000.
For registration and program details, please contact Michael Finch at (818) 849-3470 ext. 212 or email at

See the complete invitation at:

47 Changes to far

By one count, more than 46 significant changes already have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: at least 28 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court.
Read the complete story at: The Galen Institute.

One in Two Large Employers Unprepared to Fully Comply With the Affordable Care Act

More than half of large employers (1,000+ employees) are unprepared to comply with all ACA regulatory requirements.
Read the complete story at:

(Hat tip:

Obamacare Winners and Losers

This Week's Health Policy News Roundup Curated by Jane M. Orient, M.D. of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Read the complete story at:

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

12 Murdered for Exercising Freedom of Speech in Paris

Unlike so many of the supposedly "edgy" "satirists" on this side of the Atlantic, congratulating themselves on their transgressive "bravery" at one back-slapping awards ceremony after another, the editors, writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were genuinely brave - and paid for it with their lives.

Read the complete article by Mark Steyn at

Ukraine Goes Dark

The sovereign nation of Ukraine has been the 2nd most important source of traffic to this site after the United States over its 9 year history. For the past month or more, it has not registered in the top 10.
It it not a stretch to imagine that the former soviet satellite is home to many freedom-loving people who sought out sources like this one to inform, guide and inspire them; but that now that they have fallen under Vladimir Putin's censor, they are unable to get past the prison firewall.
Perhaps we flatter ourselves here to think that we are that important. But if true, it is another terrifying sign of the decline of liberty and rise of tyranny around the world today.
Please send corroborating or contradictory stories to

Sunday, January 04, 2015

The Best Presentation of the Founding Fathers of the United States

The best lecture ever given on the Founding Fathers of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution... is in Spanish, presented by José Piñera at the Universidad Francisco Marronquin in Guatemala in 2010, to an audience of students from all over Latin America.
Piñera is the former finance minister of Chile who, inspired and advised by the Nobel Prize-winning American economist Milton Friedman, reformed the Chilean social security system into one of individual, privately owned accounts; whose success has been immitated around the world from Mexico to Poland (if only it could reach the USA!). His reform bill was passed on November 4, 1980, the same day that Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, and implemented beginning on May 1 (May Day, a.k.a. 'Communist Day') 1981.
If you understand Spanish, or have hispanic friends and acquaintances who want to understand our great nation better, recommend they watch this. Even if you don't understand Spanish, listen and watch anyway. The clues you will pick up will amaze you. For example, how do you say "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? "Sostenemos que estas verdades son evidentes en si mismos..."
Read more and watch it here: Los Principios Fundamentales de Estados Unidos.

Thursday, January 01, 2015

President's Inner Circle Conceded Obamacare Rationing

Jonathan Gruber was not alone.
Read the complete story at: World Net Daily.

Obama economic surge built on doctored data econometrician John Williams argues that the developing White House narrative of “the strongest economic growth in a decade” is nonsense.
Read the complete story by Jerome Corsi at: World Net Daily.

Video: The ObamaCare Battle

A panel discussion “The ObamaCare Battle” featuring Michael Reagan, Tom Fitton and Larry Kawa took place at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend.
See the complete story at:

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

‘Muslim Reformers’: Forever Talking the Talk, Never Walking the Walk

Due to its rarity, it’s always notable whenever a top Islamic leader publicly acknowledges the threat of Islamic radicalism and terror. And yet, such denunciations never seem to go beyond words—and sometimes not even that.
Read the complete article by Raymond Ibrahim at:

Increasing Economic Growth Means Shrinking the Size and Scope of Government

Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. Economic freedom is diminished and private exchange opportunities are lost.
Read the complete article by James A. Dorn at: The Cato Institute.

If the Supreme Court Breaks Obamacare, Will Republicans Fix It?

If the justices strike down the law’s subsidies, voters will demand a fix. But who in Congress is going to give?
Read the complete story at: National Journal.

(Hat tip: