|
|
|
Jewish World Review March 19, 2009 / 23 Adar 5769 Hate crimes laws — fighting bias with fascism: The speech I never gave By Don Feder
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Author's Note: I was invited by the UMass Republicans to give this address at
a forum at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 11. Due to an
organized and highly disruptive demonstration by a mob of socialists. "peace
activists" and homosexuals, I was unable to deliver the speech. More on this
in a future commentary.
When asked if fascism could ever come to America, Huey Long (the
Depression-era governor of Louisiana) replied, "Sure, only here
they'll call it anti-fascism."
Hate-crimes laws are fascism in the guise of protecting minorities.
They're fascism in crime-prevention drag. They're fascism in the
name of combating bigotry and hatred.
Truly, we live in a blessed land. What I'm doing here, this evening
— expressing my ideas, not those of the government, not those of the
media, not those of the powerful, but my own opinions - is unheard
of in much of the world, even at the dawn of the 21st century.
In the 18th century, at the time of the American Revolution, Thomas
Jefferson noted that in most of Europe, the views of the king were
the views of the kingdom. To express a contrary opinion was to risk
life and limb.
In America, freedom of expression and belief includes the freedom to
believe things that are manifestly wrong - the freedom to believe
things that are dangerous, the freedom to go against public opinion.
Excepting laws against libel and slander, we have the freedom to say
things that are hurtful and even hateful. We have the freedom to say
things that enrage those who would suppress speech in the name of
tolerance.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it rightly in 1919,
when he wrote in his dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States:
"The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes added, "I think
we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the
expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with
death."
In the 1943 Supreme Court case of West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette, the majority opinion explained: "If there is
any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or
force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
What is a hate crime?
According to a federal law enacted in 1990, a hate crime is one in
which there is "manifest evidence of prejudice based on race,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including
where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation,
arson, and the destruction, damage and vandalism of property." This
statute requires the FBI to compile hate-crimes statistics, and
nothing more.
Federal involvement here is governed by a 1969 law which allows
authorities to prosecute a crime that was motivated by the victim's
"race, color, religion or national origin," and then only if the
offense involves interstate commerce or if the feds act to secure
the victim's rights to certain "federally protected activities" —
such as voting, enrolling in a public school or traveling on a
common carrier.
Lastly, a 1994 law changes federal sentencing guidelines to require
enhanced sentences for hate crimes.
In 2007, there was an attempt to amend the law to add "gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity or disability," to the category
of protected persons.
Additionally, under this legislation, the federal government would
have been free to prosecute such crimes at its discretion, whether
or not they interfered with a federally protected right or involved
in interstate commerce.
Enhanced sentences for those convicted of such crimes would have
included up to an additional 10 years in prison if the defendant
"willfully causes bodily injury to any person or through the use of
fire, a firearm or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to
cause bodily injury to any person."
The "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2007" was passed by
Congress but, fortunately, vetoed by then-President Bush. Like The
Terminator, it'll be back.
Are hate crimes a serious problem? According to Sen. Edward Kennedy,
they are "domestic terrorism" (this from a man who's never seemed
overly concerned about foreign terrorism).
In sponsoring his own legislation, our Senator-for-life informed us
that there is a national epidemic of hate crimes against homosexuals
and the transgendered.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is more of a national epidemic of dengue
fever in this country, than there is a national epidemic of hate
crimes of all kinds.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2007, the last year
for which statistics are available, there were 16,929 murders and
855,856 cases of aggravated assault in the United States.
By comparison, there were 7,624 hate-crime incidents, involving
9,006 victims. Moreover, of all hate crimes, 32.4 percent were property
crimes, such as vandalism.
Of "crimes against persons", 47.4 percent were intimidation — in other
words, words alone - and 31.1 percent were simple assault, where no weapon
was involved and there was no serious injury. This would include
pushing or almost any other physical contact. And so, the vast
majority of hate crimes affecting persons (roughly 78 percent) involved
only words or an assault in which there was no serious injury or
weapon involved.
Of the rest, 20.6 percent were characterized as aggravated assault, defined
by the FBI as "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the
purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury."
Rounding out the hate-crime statistics, 0.2 percent (2/10ths of 1 percent) of hate
crimes involved murders or forcible rape — of which there were 9
murders that year.
To put Senator Kennedy's alleged epidemic in perspective, of all
aggravated assaults in 2007, it's estimated that .0013 percent (roughly
1/100th of 1 percent) were hate crimes. Of murders, .00053 percent (roughly
5/1000th of 1 percent) were hate crimes.
Your chances of being the victim of a serious hate crime are
comparable to being struck twice by lighting and run over by a
high-speed train while skate-boarding on a national holiday. There's
a greater chance of drowning in the backseat of Senator Kennedy's
car than becoming a hate-crime statistic.
Hate-crimes laws violate the 14th. Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause, in that they favor one class of victims over another. The
same crimes are treated differently based on the victim's
group-identity and the perp's motivation.
Thus, if a man is assaulted because of his race, his assailant will
get one sentence.
If the same man is attacked in exactly the same way, with the same
outcome, because of his political views, or because he has the
misfortune of being a Yankees fan in Massachusetts, his assailant is
treated more leniently. If something like the 2007 bill passes, that
will also be true of what's termed sexual identity and
transgenderism.
At the conclusion of my remarks this evening, if you beat me, shoot
me, stab me or attempt to blow me up because of my views, you get
one type of punishment. However, if you commit exactly the same
offense against my person because I'm a Jew or a Caucasian, you are
punished more severely.
Is that fair?
Yes, proponents of hate-crimes laws say, because you have attacked
me for what I am. As the American Psychological Association
ominously explains, a hate crime is "… not only an attack on one's
physical self, but is also an attack on one's very identity."
This is identity-politics applied to the administration of justice.
For the left, an attack on a representative of a group (especially a
group sanctified as a persecuted minority) is far more serious than
an attack on an individual — because, in its worldview, groups count
for more than individuals.
Thus, Matthew Shepard becomes far more important than the victims of
Jeffrey Dahmer. Shepard's killers "hated," whereas Dahmer was merely
hungry.
Along with "the attack on one's very identity," there's a related
argument. An attack on a member of group X is somehow an attack on
all of X, and results in the intimidation of the entire class.
Let's test the proposition. If you're in a wheelchair and someone
500 miles away is attacked because they're disabled are you
intimidated? Angry, perhaps. But intimidated? Will the assault cause
you to alter your behavior in any way? Doubtful.
Many of us - we're called grownups - have reconciled ourselves to
the fact that there will always be people who hate us because of the
color of our skin, the way we pray, our ethnicity, etc.
Humanity being flawed and given to senseless hatred, that's a sad
reality. We can admit it and deal with it, or sit in a corner
sulking about it and demanding that government do something. That
something usually entails punishing thoughts or expression, as well
as conduct.
Hate crimes are thought crimes.
If a perpetrator gets 5 years in prison for aggravated assault, but
10 years for hating the person he assaults (if that person is a
member of a protected class), clearly, the additional punishment is
for his motivation — what he was thinking or believed when the crime
took place, the thoughts behind the crime.
It's an attempt to punish ideas — bad ideas, possibly reprehensible
ideas, but thoughts, often accompanied by speech, nonetheless.
In hate crimes, motives are all-important, and motivation isn't
always what it seems.
Take the 1998 homicide of Matthew Shepard. Was Shepard murdered
because he was a homosexual? Possibly. But it's equally plausible
that he died because his murderers wanted drug money, and Shepard
(weighing in at 105 pounds) was an easy mark. According to a 2004
report by ABC's "20/20," that's what many close to the case believe.
Thomas Jefferson declared: "The legislative powers of government
reach to actions only, not to beliefs."
There is a well-founded fear that hate crimes — which are, for the
most part, based on actions and words — will eventually mutate into
crimes based on words alone.
Witness the case of a group of Christians in Philadelphia who
protested a gay pride event in October of 2004.
The incident occurred at Philadelphia's Coming Out Day Celebration,
held in a public place, to which Philadelphia taxpayers are forced
to contribute $10,000 annually. The "celebration" was picketed by 11
members of a group called Repent America.
These desperate characters, ranging in age from 17 to 72 (the
youngest and oldest were women) did no more than peacefully protest.
They weren't disruptive. They didn't attempt to block access to the
event.
There was no physical contact between the protestors and those
attending the event. One demonstrator held a sign that read "Truth
is hateful to those who hate truth" — not exactly a lynch mob.
The protestors were themselves harassed by a group called the Pink
Angels, who screamed obscenities, blew whistles and held large pink
signs in front of them to block their messages.
The police did not interfere with the counter-demonstrators.
Instead, they arrested the Christians, a number of whom were charged
under Pennsylvania's hate-crimes law called "Ethnic Intimidation."
The Philadelphia District Attorney - who fairly salivated at the
prospect of having these miscreants drawn and quartered — got really
creative.
The defendants were charged with a number of felonies and
misdemeanors, including the aforesaid "ethnic intimidation,"
criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime (it's
unclear whether those were placards or Bibles), reckless
endangerment, riot, failure to disperse and disorderly conduct. The
D.A. inexplicably overlooked kidnapping, forgery and jaywalking.
If convicted on all counts, each of the defendants could have been
sentenced 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines.
On February 17, 2005, Judge Pamela Dembe, of the Court of Common
Pleas for the City of Philadelphia, dismissed all charges against
the remaining defendants. After viewing a videotape of the incident
which led to the arrests, Judge Dembe announced: "It is clear that
there was no violence. There were no threats."
That's interesting. The judge said the case was without merit, but
the police insisted on arresting the protestors and the district
attorney insisted on treating them as the homophobic equivalent of a
combo Klan rally, cross-burning and lynching.
In granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, the judge remarked:
"That which is unpopular now, may not always remain so. We can not
stifle free speech because some don't want to hear it — or don't
want to hear it now."
The prosecution of hate crimes often results in unequal enforcement.
Compare the treatment of the Philadelphia 11 with those
participating in a Boston demonstration, on October 29, 2005.
A mob of almost 1,000 left an anti-war rally and descended on
Boston's Tremont Temple Baptist Church, where a "Love Won Out"
conference was taking place, which included testimony by
ex-homosexuals. The demonstrators shouted obscenities and threats of
violence and brought a sound truck which was parked near the front
doors, blaring the message "Shut it down. Shut it down!"
Do you think those inside the church might reasonably have felt
intimidated? Regardless, the police took no action. Apparently, the
Boston demonstration was motivated by love and esteem, rather than
hate.
When it comes to criminalizing speech, many states are way ahead of
the feds.
New Jersey has a law that makes it a hate crime "to communicate in a
manner likely to cause alarm or annoyance. " Can you believe it,
there are people so depraved that they intentionally cause alarm or
annoyance? — the fiends!
In Washington State, it's a crime to "Threaten a specific person or
groups of persons and place that person…in reasonable fear of harm
to person or property." What is "a reasonable fear of harm"? The law
states "For purposes of this section, a 'reasonable person,' is a
member of the victim's group." Thus, if a "reasonable member" of the
group in question happens to be paranoid, hyper-sensitive or
vindictive, and feels "threatened" by any almost sign of
disapproval, well, you'd better not raise an eyebrow at them.
Just how far the You-Should-Be-Silenced-Because-I-Feel-Threatened
standard can be taken may be seen in an incident that occurred at
Ohio State University's Mansfield campus in 2006.
Librarian Scott Savage was concerned about the political imbalance
in suggested freshman reading. In an effort to correct this, Savage
recommended that freshman read four conservative books — "The
Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian , "The Professors" by David
Horowitz, "Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis," by Bat Ye'or and (perhaps
most shocking of all) "It Takes a Family," by then- United States
Senator Rick Santorum.
This blatant attack on the sensibilities of the academic community —
recommending conservative books — caused three professors to
complain that they felt "unsafe" on campus. One wonders what
horrifying scenarios ran through their fevered imaginations: Perhaps
they feared the savage beast of the Dewey Decimal System would
follow them around campus reading passages from the menacing books.
Given the mindset that dominates academia, it probably should come
as no surprise that the entire faculty voted to file charges of
sex-discrimination and harassment against Savage for (as their
complaint put it) "anti-gay hate-mongering" — all for recommending
four books.
It's a wonder that the librarian's detractors didn't don armbands,
build a bonfire and march around it, consigning arm-loads of
conservative books to the flames. Surely, that would have made them
feel safer on campus.
When this insanity came to the notice of the non-academic community,
the charges against Savage were quietly dropped.
Still, when it comes to censorship, our neighbors to the north and
those ultra-sophisticated Europeans are way ahead of us.
Canada's Human Rights Act was originally intended to ensure "equal
opportunity" to individuals who might be victims of discriminatory
practices. The law, which sets up a Human Rights Commission to
investigate complaints and a Human Rights Tribunal to judge them,
has spawned a plethora of provincial equivalents.
The law keeps morphing, so that now discrimination includes hurting
the feelings of a victim group. The Human Rights Commissions are
usually manned by what a writer on salon.com called "a banal,
clerical bureaucrat." Canadian Human Rights Tribunals are the
hate-crimes equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, without the
ambience.
In 2001, Hugh Owens, a resident of Saskatchewan, published a small
ad in a local newspaper which was illustrated with two stick-figure
men holding hands in a circle with a line drawn though it. The ad
included a few Bible verses. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal
ordered Owens and the newspaper to pay $4,500 to three homosexuals
who were traumatized and scared for life by the stick-figure men.
On New Year's Day 2004, two plainclothes policemen showed up at the
home of Canadian Internet journalist Robert Jason to investigate a
possible hate crime after a gay activist complained that he was
personally threatened by Jason's pro-family website — which,
needless to say, he was forced to visit every day, and twice on
Sundays. Can anyone say "chilling effect"?
In 2006, well-known columnist Mark Steyn wrote a book called
"America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It." Macleans,
Canada's largest-circulation magazine, published an excerpt that it
titled "The Future Belongs To Islam." That's when the hummus really
hit the fan.
A Canadian Muslim group claimed that both Steyn and Maclean's had
violated Canada's anti-discrimination/don't-hurt- anyone's-feelings
law, by misrepresenting "Canadian Muslims' values, their community
and their religion." Misrepresenting the Muslim faith, would that be
like saying that Islam is a religion of peace?
Maclean's lawyer, Roger McConchie, observed that according to
Canada's anti-discrimination law (hate crimes detached from actual
crimes): "Innocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is
true comment on fair facts. Publication in the public interest and
for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good
faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense."
Star Chamber proceedings against Steyn and Macleans eventually
ended, when even some liberals started complaining about the
absurdity of it all.
On the liberal website salon.com, on January 13, 2008, Glenn
Greenwald (an author and civil rights litigator who loathes
conservative views, including Steyn's work, which he calls
"pernicious") wrote: "Empowering the State to punish speech is not
only the most dangerous step a society can take — though it is that
— it's also the most senseless. It never achieves the intended
effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything,
it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus
preventing debate and exposure."
Punishing speech is the objective of American hate-crimes laws,
which currently punish views that motivate actions, but which could
soon penalize words alone
The Dutch are reputed to be the quintessence of tolerance. They've
legalized soft drugs, prostitution, euthanasia and same-sex
marriage. It's even legal to have gay sex in Amsterdam's public
parks. Soon, it may be mandatory.
But when Dutch tolerance meets political correctness, in the words
of the Johnny Mercer song, "somethin's gotta give". That something
is freedom of expression.
In January, a Dutch appeals court ordered Geert Wilders to stand
trial for making a movie. The court directed prosecutors to charge
him with "inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims."
A member of the Dutch parliament, Wilders made a 10-minute
documentary called "Fitna" (viewed millions of times on YouTube)
which consists mostly of verses from the Koran, that Wilders says
incite violence and death to infidels. There are also scenes of a
radical imam doing the ever-popular death-to-the-Jews rumba.
The court's ruling comes six months after Dutch prosecutors
announced that Wilder's film contributed to the public debate on
Islam and that the parliamentarian had committed no criminal
offense.
Now, Wilders will stand trial for trying to further the debate on a
subject about which, the left has announced, the debate is closed.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which represents nations
where minority rights are scrupulously respected (just kidding),
admonishes that there is a "thin line separating freedom of speech
and the instigation of hatred, animosity and discrimination." The
attitude seems to be: We can say it, but if you quote us, that's
Islamophobia.
Jordan, an OIC member-state in good standing, is demanding Wilders'
extradition to stand trial for the crime of "blasphemy of Islam,"
which, under Shari'a law, is punishable by death.
By the way, at different times, various imams, sheiks and mullahs
have told us that cartoons depicting Mohammed and the Pope quoting a
14th. century Byzantine emperor are also blasphemy of Islam — hence
the 2006 demonstrations calling for the pontiff's death.
On January 28, 2009, Egyptian cleric Ahmad Abd Al-Salam spoke on
Al-Nas TV, a religious channel broadcasting in Arabic.
His remarks were simply titled "Why We Hate the Jews," and contained
such lunatic ravings as — The Jews "invest their utmost efforts… in
conspiring how to corrupt the Islamic Nation… This is why we hate
them." Also, the Jews "infect food with cancer and ship it to Muslim
countries." And "The Jews conspire to bring Muslim youth down to the
pit of sexual temptation."
Such rancid rhetoric is heard daily in the Arab media. Should Mr.
Al-Salam be extradited to Israel, there to stand trial for
slandering Judaism and the Jewish people? In Egypt, you aren't
placed on trial for the instigation of hatred, animosity and
discrimination against Jews, you get a medal and a weekend at a
Sinai resort.
Here's an example closer to home. During the Gaza fighting, the
ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition held an
anti-Israel rally in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. There were at least 200
in the ANSWER crowd, and a much smaller group of Jewish
counter-demonstrators.
At one point, a woman in a traditional Muslim headdress began
cursing the Jews, and shouting: "Go back to the oven" and "You need
a big oven, that's what you need" — in reference to the millions of
Jews who were cremated by the Nazis during World War II.
Does this qualify as a hate crime? What if the crude anti-Semite
made a threatening gesture toward the Jewish activists? What if the
Jews had reasonable cause to feel threatened by the much larger
pro-Palestinian crowd?
After calling for a resumption of the Holocaust, if the woman had
hit one of the Jews over the head with a picket sign, should she be
charged with assault or with a more serious hate crime?
Many evangelicals rightly fear that hate-crimes laws will be used
against Christians here, as they are in Europe, to punish preaching
the Gospel.
Take the case of Swedish Pastor Ake Green. Sweden is one of the
European free-speech meccas where speech alone is punished,
providing it's hateful and that those offended can claim victim
status.
Green, an evangelical pastor from southern Sweden, was sentenced to
a month in jail for a 2003 sermon "inciting hatred." The pastor had
his sermon, citing Scripture on homosexuality, published in a local
newspaper.
In it, he compared Sweden to a biblical city that experienced
instant urban renewal, but ended with the words, "What these people
need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an
abundant grace… We can not condemn these people. Jesus never
belittled anyone. He offered them grace."
In demanding that charges be brought against Green, a spokesman for
Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization insisted: "Hatred and
defamation is not accepted, just because it is based on religious
beliefs or religious scriptures. You have some limits when it comes
to freedom of speech." In Europe, limits on freedom of expression
abound.
Britain's High Court ruled that Harry Hammond, a 69-year-old
evangelical, was properly convicted for holding a protest sign that
read "Stop Immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism,"
notwithstanding that, while he was protesting peacefully, he was
assaulted by onlookers (dirt was thrown at him, water poured over
his head, someone tried to wrest his sign away, and he was knocked
to the ground). Hammond was fined 330 pounds and ordered to pay 395
pounds in court costs.
The Anglican Bishop of Chester, Dr. Peter Forester, was investigated
by police for saying that homosexuals "could and should seek medical
help to reorient themselves."
A columnist for the London Telegraph wrote: "That the bishop should
be threatened with prosecution for a perfectly reasonable, if
debatable, suggestion will strike people still in their senses as a
bad joke, a case of … 'political correctness gone mad.'
Unfortunately, it is much more serious than that. Here are the
unmistakable beginnings of state thought control."
When he was tried, the prosecutor asked Pastor Green if he would
retract his previously stated views. The pastor said he was
following the Bible. To this the prosecutor replied, "Then get
another Bible." You see how easy it is. If your Bible offends the
prevailing cultural ethos, find one that doesn't.
Pastor Ake's Green conviction was overturned by Sweden's high court,
when his lawyers threatened to take the case to the European Court
for Human Rights.
Easily the most hilarious example of hate speech careening out of
control was a controversy in the Disunited Kingdom in 2006.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary
general of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said civil
partnerships are "harmful" and "not acceptable." He too was
investigated by the police, who declined to press charges.
A British gay group charged Sir Iqbal with homophobia. This caused
the Muslim Council to charge the gays with — you guessed it —
Islamaphobia. "You hate me!" "No, you hate me more!" Dueling
phobias.
I could cite other cases, in Canada and Europe, where individuals
have suffered for what they've said in public, on the air, in a
letter-to-the-editor or with a protest sign.
This is where American hate-crimes laws will eventually lead.
It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but obviously no one should
be assaulted, robbed, raped or killed for their race, religion,
ethnicity, gender or lifestyle. Such crimes are abhorrent and
condemned by all decent people.
If you think the penalties for these offenses aren't tough enough,
by all means, work to make them more stringent.
But don't criminalize speech. Punish the act itself, not the ideas
behind it, even ideas you find abhorrent.
For the record, I would not punish the Philadelphia 11, or Mark
Steyn, or Pastor Ake Green or the Nazi-sympathizer in Fort
Lauderdale, or the Egyptian cleric who claimed Jews infect the food
shipped to Muslim countries and conspire to sexually tempt their
youth.
Nor would I punish the contemptible cretins who deny that the
Holocaust happened — which, by the way, is a crime in Canada,
Germany and France.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." That quote, usually attributed to Voltaire,
has become a cliche.
Yet it represents 19th century liberalism at its best — the idea
that if one man is censored, the freedom of all men is diminished.
Some in this audience may think that those who commit hate crimes
are evil, and deserve to be punished more severely than ordinary
criminals for the same act.
Some may have no problem with the premise that speech alone should
be actionable. If what's said offends them, makes them feel
"unsafe," calls their conduct into question, or passes judgment on
them, they believe it should be silenced
Be careful, the principle you establish today could come back to
haunt you. Thought crimes — which hate crimes manifestly are — is
the proverbial double-edged sword.
Recall that it wasn't all that long ago that to step across the race
line was a crime in certain states.
Bull Connor, the public safety commissioner of Birmingham Alabama in
the early '60s, felt so intimidated by civil rights demonstrators
that he used fire hoses and attack dogs against them. One of the
arguments white Southerners used to fight for Jim Crow was that
integration would make them feel unsafe.
Ultimately, safety for minorities — as well as the rest of us — not
to mention the survival of free speech, lies in the unfettered
marketplace of ideas.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Send your comments by clicking here. JWR contributor Don Feder is a former syndicated columnist for the Boston Herald and author of Who's Afraid of the Religious Right? (Regnery) and A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America. He works as a freelance writer and media consultant and serves as the president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation.
© 2009 Don Feder |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
