All right. The question is on the table: "Why is it that liberal Jews -- Hollywood Jews, Jewish people, liberals all over the country -- don't seem to join the fight for Israel?" There are many theories out there, but the simplest explanation, folks -- and it's going to sound simplistic, and oftentimes trust the simplistic because the simplistic is right on the money. Most liberals, whatever their faith, put their liberalism first. Liberalism is a more powerful religion than any other, to the committed liberal. In the world of liberalism, Israel is too powerful. Israel is using jets against these defenseless little backwards terrorists. That's not fair. Israel is richer. Israel is allied by the United States. This is just not right.

You cannot exclude from this the element of guilt, which pervades liberalism and perpetuates it. A liberal in the United States is really no different than a liberal in Europe or a liberal working at the United Nations. They have the same worldview. A liberal here was no different than a liberal in the Soviet Union. They all -- I don't care where you go, find a liberal in Congo, find a liberal in Kuala Lumpur, find a liberal in Tibet. (Find anybody in Tibet! You talk about a bunch of people getting their butts kicked and nobody cares about that because nobody's got the guts to go up against the Chinese, but I get sidetracked.) Find a liberal anywhere.

They all think we need to negotiate with terrorists, that we should have a Manhattan Project for terrorists and so forth, that we need to examine what it is we're doing to cause these people to become terrorists. Why do they hate us so? It's our fault. Well, not theirs. The liberals, of course, are the understanding and compassionate. It is the blockheads, the conservatives, others, they're the ones causing the problem. Conservatives and conservatism pose a much greater threat to liberals than terrorists do. Check their language against the terrorists versus their language against George W. Bush, or me, or any other prominent conservative public figure, and ask yourself for whom do they have the most criticism, and about whom do they speak in the harshest of terms?

It's not the terrorists. Liberals in this country want terrorists to have essentially constitutional rights, the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights. Another story today in the stack, United Nations, amid all this going on with the Hezbos and the Israelis, the United Nations demanding that we close our secret prisons around the world. Well, if they're secret, how do those boneheads know that we have any? But number two, who the hell are they? A bunch of liberals at the United Nations. The human rights committee, conference, whatever they call themselves up there, and don't forget, this human rights club at the United Nations can have as one of its leaders somebody like Saddam Hussein, or a country like Iraq under Saddam Hussein.


It rotates. So it doesn't matter, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant. The only competition liberals really have with other religions, is the religion of Gaya, which is the earth, a tree, whatever. They're a little conflicted there. But they don't see Israel as anything with which they have in common in any way, religious or otherwise. They have no understanding of this enemy as they have no understanding of communism, and for the longest time they had no understanding of Nazism and actually they still don't have a real understanding of Nazism. They associate Nazism with conservatism when Nazism is one of those horrible things that you get on the left: communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism. Those are all on the left side of center, but liberals have found a way to put it on the right.

Of course, that's become popular conventional wisdom now, just like the Voting Rights Act. President Bush signed the Voting Rights Act extension, and liberals out there, "Oh, whoa, this is wonderful! This is wonderful. The Voting Rights Act. Wonderful, wonderful!" What they don't tell you is it was a bunch of Democrats that made the damn thing necessary. It was a bunch of Democrats came up with the poll tax. It was a bunch of Democrats came up with literacy tests. It was a bunch of Democrats and liberals that came up with the restrictions, but somehow that's been reversed in popular culture and conventional wisdom today. There are exceptions to this, however.

As I said, Alan Dershowitz writing today in the Washington Times (that would be the War-shington Times, for those of you in Rio Linda), he writes: "As a liberal Democrat, I listened carefully to the opposition voiced by many Democratic senators to the nomination of John Bolton as our chief representative to the UN. Mr. Bolton has been representing us in the UN since August. During the current Middle East crisis I've been able to listen for myself to what Mr. Bolton has been saying at the United Nations. On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared; he's extraordinarily articulate.

"He places the best face on American policy particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time. But Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical and all the great US ambassadors to the United Nations from Stephenson to Goldberg to Moynihan to Kirkpatrick have shared that skepticism of the body. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucrat structure at Turtle Bay. As he once said, 'If member countries want the UN to be respected, they should begin by making sure it's worthy of respect.'

"I have observed Mr. Bolton's performance with regard to Israel and its conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas. On many other fronts, he's proved himself a staunch advocate of freedom and human rights, specifically in Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. Some critics have argued that Mr. Bolton is better in his public role as advocate than his behind-the-scenes role as conciliator. But at this point in history the United States needs a public advocate who can further its case in the court of public opinion. No one does that better than John Bolton."

So, Dershowitz. You will not hear this from any liberal in Hollywood regardless of their religion, but Dershowitz does have an alliance and a deep love and a relationship with Israel and has written books about it. This is fabulous, by the way. I was happy to see this, happy to read it -- and I don't want to poison it or sadden it, but I do have just one small complaint. It would just be wonderful if Mr. Dershowitz would join his country in other efforts, as he has joined our effort in Israel. That's the one thing that I would add, because if it's not Israel, then the usual liberalism in Mr. Dershowitz surfaces, and he is part of that chorus. I hope this helps answer the question, ladies and gentlemen. It's really no more complicated than that.