UPDATE 11:55 p.m.: Protesters at Emory University reportedly managed to shut down David Horowitz's speech. Incorrect U. has the exclusive with video and photos:
The booing started when David Horowitz walked on the stage and the interruptions lasted until the talk was cancelled.Now Horowitz comes to D.C. for Thursday's showdown at George Washington University.
It was a dark day for Emory University. . . .
There were continuous outbursts coming from this crowd.
Finally a member of the university security staff told the crowd to sit down or they would be forcibly escorted out of the building.
You know what happened next . . . The place erupted. . . .
It was shameful.
UPDATE 5:40 p.m.: Incorrect U. is at Tufts University for the Richard Pipes event, and links Fishwrap on Tuesday's Santorum event. -- RSM
* * * * * *
Day Two of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week (IFAW) Tuesday featured former Sen. Rick Santorum speaking to a packed house at Penn State:
Santorum began his speech by acknowledging that some are offended by the term "Islamo-Facism," but said it is misunderstood.The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a fuller version of Santorum's quote:
"What that term does is describe an ideology," he said. "You either subscribe to it or you do not."However, the audience was not pacified by Santorum's statement. Even during the former senator's 45-minute speech, the crowd could not stay quiet, interjecting questions and corrections throughout.
"What that term does is describe an ideology -- just like Italian fascism was an ideology. Not every Italian was a fascist. Not every German was a Nazi.Last week, as Stop The ACLU reports, Santorum was blunt and specific:"You may disagree that that's an appropriate term for the ideology I'm going to talk about, but it is important to understand that this is a serious issue and that there are people who are avowed enemies of the West and of the United States, and that Americans do not fully appreciate the gravity or nature of the threat." . . .
Santorum said people "should not be offended by a description of a way of thought."
"I would make the argument that since we do not understand the enemy, we have no concept of the gravity and severity of the nature of this war," he said.
You have to describe the enemy as who they are. . . . They're not Irish Catholics, they're not Ukrainian Orthodox. They are who they are and their faith is integral as to why they are doing what they are doing.On the other side of the state, at the University of Pennsylvania, Daniel Pipes spoke at an IFAW panel discussion:
Dr. Pipes told the audience that "radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution" and warned that the greatest danger to the West was in legal Islamism which is crafted to work, "through the system."Pipes appears Wednesday at Tufts University, where a history professor wrote a column in the student newspaper denouncing Pipes as a "neoconservative Islamophobe" and urging students to "call [Pipes] out on his vicious statements." The history professor has organized the Tufts Coalition Opposed to the War in Iraq. No wonder parents are so eager to pay $36,700 tuition a year at Tufts. It's so elite, the students don't even have to organize their own protest groups -- that's what the faculty members get paid $82,000 a year to do.According to Pipes, "The key battles in this war . . . are the political battles between ourselves" and in that conflict "public opinion" was more important than "soldiers on a battlefield." . . .
Dr. Pipes concluded his address, "Noting that the problem ultimately is . . . between Muslims among themselves" and that "Islam was not radical a few decades ago."
Also on Wednesday's IFAW schedule David Horowitz speaks at Atlanta's Emory University (where "tensions" over his appearance were first reported a month ago), while Ann Coulter speaks at USC (where one student activist suggested she's worse than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).
As reported yesterday, Monday's IFAW speech by Nonie Darwish at Berkeley was repeatedly interrupted by opponents. ZombieTime has put together a photo essay of that event. Incorrect U highlights an interesting video from the Berkeley event: A reporter for Al-Jazeerah begins interviewing a conservative student; a liberal activist (in a green shirt) then interrupts; a confrontation ensues, which concludes after another liberal activist shouts, "I hate capitalism!"
In an update on the George Washington University IFAW brouhaha two weeks ago, GW President Steven Knapp says it was "based on a misunderstanding of the facts."
Also blogging IFAW: Sister Toldjah, Christian Worldview, Sundries Shack, Michelle Malkin, Solomonia, Peripheral Vision and Gateway Pundit. More at Memeorandum.
-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times
Comments (6)
Shouting people down is not a misunderstanding of facts. It is a subversive tactic to quell the views of opposition while imposing focus on one outcome. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. This is just a refinement of the 1960s tactics. We have seen it work subtley with supposed intellect with regard to Global Warming, 'The debate is over' is the ultimate objective.
Posted by Larry Stone | October 25, 2007 3:42 AM
I am no fan of Ms. Coulter or the current President of Iran, but, had the President of Iran (as much in control if the Iranian military as Ms. Coulter is the American) said Iran should invade America, kill American leaders, and convert the population to Islam, don't you think we'd be upset?
That's Ms Coulter's rhetoric and it's as disgusting as anything said by that moron from Tehran.
....Or is consistency not the point here? Are we just scoring political points in an attempt to bludgeon liberals and sell books? No, surely not!
Posted by tim | October 25, 2007 3:33 PM
The problem is not that either Ann or Ahmedinanndnandnjjnan *said* it. The problem is whether or not they would *do* it. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right anyway.
Posted by mgroves | October 25, 2007 4:22 PM
I find it difficult to believe that any sane, rational human being could equate Ms Coulter's desire that everyone believe like she does with "Iran should invade America, kill American leaders, and convert the population to Islam."
Posted by Christopher Taylor | October 25, 2007 5:18 PM
Ann Coulter is just a talking head while Ahmedinejad is the PRESIDENT of Iran. How can the two be compared? One controls a state while the other is a struggling controversial pundit, who gains fame through making remarks that push the envelope.
Posted by Sal | October 25, 2007 7:21 PM
What I'd like to know is why isn't the ACLU being very vocal on TV defending David Horowitz's right to speak without being shouted down by protesters? Why isn't the National Organization of Women condemning the treatment Nonie Darwish was getting at Berkeley? How come liberal groups all over the country are not flocking to the cause promoted by someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is trying to show the world how horrible and degrading Sharia law is to women? And why is it that these idiotic protesters are always screaming about their right to free speech, but never allow anyone else to exercise that same right? Ladies and gentlemen, we really, really, need to start standing up to radical Muslim fundamentalists, Islamo-Fascists, and all the people who support them. There are not enough voices out there standing up to these thugs. Make some noise and tell them we don't accept their warped view of the world and that they certainly don't have the right to force their opinions on us.
Posted by Libertyship46 | October 26, 2007 9:34 AM