Evan Sayet’s Speech: Hating What’s Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds Up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue

Evan Sayet has done not one, but two great speeches for the Heritage Foundation on liberals. The first, How Modern Liberals Think, got wide play,

The second, which was done earlier this month, was called, “Hating What’s Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds Up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue,” — and it was every bit as good as the first speech.

The “problem” with these speeches is, quite understandably, that they’re very long (The first is 45 minutes and the second is an hour) and most people simply will not sit through videos that run for that long.

So, with that in mind, I actually had my transcriptionist type up Evan’s latest speech so you could read it. It’s that good!

If you enjoyed the interview I did with Evan, you will definitely enjoy this speech.

Evan Sayet: Thank you, everybody. When I came here two years ago I did not give the speech that was anticipated — partly because I had no idea what inaugural speaker and external functionality or whatever it is you just said meant. What I did was give a talk about how liberals think.
And I had no idea how it would be received. I had no doubt that I was right. What I doubted, perhaps, was that it wasn’t something you guys here at the “think tanks” of Washington think of everyday for breakfast. Instead this talk that I gave turned into sort of a phenomenon.
And let me just – how many of you have actually seen the talk that I gave the last time? Applaud, just it’s easier with the lights on. You just became this thing that – because it explained – it was called by one person the Unified Field Theory of Liberalism because it truly does explain everything about the way liberals think.

So I wanted to come back a second time two years later, but what was I going to talk about? If I had already explained the unified field to – if I had already explained everything. I wanted to come back for two reasons. One, just to remind you guys I’m still alive and two, so that my mother can see my hair.

I don’t know if you remember, in the last talk I actually had hair down to my shoulders. I thought it was the equivalent Ann Coulter’s little black dress. I was going to show the liberals. And then my mother saw the video and I said, “Mom, what did you think?” She said, “Cut your hair.” And so I did. That’s what we Jews do; we do what our mother’s say.

Trying to do this second talk is a little difficult for me. It reminds me of a joke my dad used to tell about running into an old friend and saying to him, “Where have you been?” And he said, “Oh we just got back from a cruise around the world.” He said, “Well, where are you going to go next year?” And the friend says, “Well, somewhere else.”

You know, so I don’t know exactly where else to go with this talk except to revisit some of the things and just like that cruise we might visit places that we haven’t seen. We might spend more time at some of the places we did go the last time. And to begin we’re going to have to start with some territory that we’ve seen a good number of times.

I’m going to, again, explain and expound upon how it is that liberals think and why it is that they side invariably, invariably with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

The first time, by the way, the talk was called “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals Think.” I no longer call it that way for two reasons. One, my publishers felt the word “regurgitating” just didn’t sell a lot of books. And two, I give it a different name just to give it the veneer of being a different talk. It’s now called “Hating What’s Right.” By the way “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals Think,” regurgitating the apple was my brilliant explanation of how they think.

You see, if mankind lost paradise when we ate the apple and gained knowledge of right and wrong they believe that if they can just force us all to regurgitate the apple, give up on knowledge of right and wrong, we can return to paradise. So let’s start with some of the bullet points of what we need to revisit.

First and foremost, to understand how the modern liberal thinks. I got – I borrowed a line from Professor Allan Bloom in his brilliant “The Closing of the American Mind.” And if there are any liberals watching at home, if there – are there any liberals in the room? Yes, good, okay, well I promise not to be condescending, all right. Condescending means to talk down to people.

See, Professor Bloom was trying to figure out why suddenly in the 80s his students were suddenly so stupid. Okay, he didn’t use the word “stupid;” he’s a lot more diplomatic than I am. He had been teaching since the 50s and the 50s, 60s, 70s and the 80s, he said that what he received from the public schools, from the primary schools were what he called scholars.
All right, not all of them as smart as each other, some of them harder working, some of them more accomplished. But what he meant by scholars and he tells us in this book — and by the way, the reason I asked if you were liberal, this book was called “Essential Reading for Anyone Who Wishes to Understand the State of Liberal Education in America Today” by the New York Times. I’ll wait while you genuflect.

All right, so this is not just some right winged book. That’s what it was called. And he was trying to discover, and he would be presented with scholars. And what he meant by scholars were people who arrived at the university to seek the better: the better literature, the better religion, the better philosophy, the better forms of governments. Suddenly in the 1980s by no coincidence when the first children of the children of the 60s were arriving in school, when the first generation not to have been brought up by those from those of the greatest generation and those were the values that preceded the greatest generation.

It was no coincidence that they arrived in the schools, not only not seeking the better, but denying the existence of the better. And what Bloom concluded was that they were raised to believe — this is the big bullet point. They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. That the only way to be moral is to not discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because your act of discrimination – discriminating between these things might just be a reflection of your personal discrimination, your bigotries.

They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. The second bullet point, and this is an essential corollary, is that indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust.

There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization. So it becomes the modern liberal’s job, and by the way, I am not the only one to have recognized this — Dinesh D’Souza in “What’s So Great About America,” a book that if it was written by a liberal, would have a question mark at the end — but doesn’t in this case.

He says the multiculturalist, which is the indiscriminate with regards to culture, that all cultures must be deemed equally good and equally right and equally valid — that the multiculturalist must “de facto invariably and inevitably” are the words that I use and I got a lot of junk for that. But de facto is exactly the same point. The multiculturalist must de facto becoming a apologist for tyranny.

He must also de facto become antagonist to liberty. And, in fact, if you extrapolate this out to all of those who are indiscriminate across the board, not just with regard to culture, but they must de facto become antagonistic towards all that is good, right, and successful. And antagonistic towards all that is evil, failed, and wrong. Think about it this way: if we can agree, if we can stipulate that the United States is the most successful nation in human history, that we are the most prosperous — that we are the strongest, that we are the most ingenuous and creative and productive.

If we can stipulate that, this needs to be explained. And in essence there are only two possibilities to explain this. Either there is something exceptional about our culture, about our founding documents, about the unprecedented Judeo-Christian heritage, about our Protestant work ethic, whatever it is, it combines to create culture. And that what is exceptional about our culture nurtures productivity, prosperity, strength.

Or there is nothing special about our culture and, therefore, our success is an unjust. And the duration we are now finishing the first decade of the second American century. The duration and the magnitude of our success makes this injustice not just accidental, not just some luck along the way. It’s got to be proof positive of our having cheated. Our success is de factor unjust and the degree of our success proves that we are the most unjust peoples in the history of the world.

At this point the modern liberal, the multiculturalists has already taken one of those two possibilities off the table. He cannot believe that it is an exceptional culture because he wouldn’t be a multiculturalist if he could. So with only two possibilities and having removed one of them from the table, the modern liberal does not have to engage in what he considers a hate crime which is rational and moral thought because the answer is pre-ordained.

America must have stolen our success because any other conclusion would be an act of bigotry. Therefore, at this point he may finally engage his intellect for the first time, not to arrive at the truth, but for no other purpose than to support the pre-ordained conclusion that America is the most unjust nation in the history of the world. So he will proclaim quite articulately from time-to-time that Americans are evil imperialists —
not because we are imperialists, because we’re not imperialists. The facts are overwhelmingly clear: could anybody legitimately argue that after World War II we put a gun to the Japanese heads, put our governments in charge, and said destroy our auto industry, it will make us richer.

Could anybody legitimately argue that after World War II we took over the French government, put a gun to their heads, and said for the next 60 years “run around the world stabbing us in the back,” it will be good for America. Of course not, we are not imperialists.

Think about this: when Nazi Germany was the world’s superpower, they tried to take over the world. France and Napoleon tried to take over the world, Great Britain tried to take over the world, Islam has tried to take over the world. We are the world’s lone superpower. We have not taken over Canada.

I mean, it’s not like we can’t. We’ve got the greatest military in the history of the world. They have got what, like they’ve got Celine Dion. Of course, we are not imperialists — but it doesn’t matter to the left that we’re not imperialists. There has to be something other than our exceptionalism that explains it because truth, fact, reason, logic, and evidence are not employed by the Democrat, by the modern liberal, the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party.

By the way, I am not the only one to have noticed this. It is Howard Zinn — Howard Zinn, the leftist author of the most assigned text in American history — the book that our children or you guys probably learned about history from who said that objective truth, objective fact, objectivity is undesirable. It’s undesirable if you seek to have history support a political agenda. I am misquoting him slightly but get the gist. That was me paraphrasing to my best.

But objective truth is undesirable if history should serve a social purpose. And what is that social purpose? To show that good isn’t good and evil isn’t evil, right isn’t right and wrong isn’t wrong. The behaviors that lead to failure aren’t bad, the ones that lead to success aren’t good. And by the way, it is for this reason that any time you see an anti-America rally masquerading as an anti-war rally hand-in-hand with those who are trying to undermine America’s defense are those who are screaming hatred against the Jews of Israel.

Jew hatred is as endemic to modern liberalism, de facto to the multiculturalist as is America hatred for exactly the same reason. How do you explain the history of the Jews? How do you explain that this people have survived with the culture intact longer than any other civilization in human history?

How do you explain that anywhere where the Jew lives and because of the (INAUDIBLE 00:13:25] he lives all over. And anytime in any place so long as he is not being murdered he tends to thrive. How do you explain that just as it says in the Bible, that any nation that treats its Jews well will do well? Any nation that treats its Jews badly will do poorly, like the Arab and Muslim world today.

How do you explain that the nation that treats the Jews better than any other nation in the history of the world, America, is the best and most successful nation in the history of the world? And finally, how do you explain the miracle of this tiny dot of desert in the Middle East that had been administered by the Arabs and the Muslims for millennia accomplishing nothing almost instantly, upon the return of the Jews and Jewish administration, becomes a First World economy with a thriving symphony orchestra and Nobel Prize winning physicists and cutting edge technologies. How do you explain this?

There are only two possibilities. Either there is something exceptional about the Jewish culture, something about the Ten Commandments, something about the Torah and the Talmud that fosters success or there is nothing special about the Jews and, therefore, their success is unjust and, again, the duration and magnitude of success proves that it has to be chicanery.

There are only two possibilities and once again the multiculturalist, the indiscriminate, those who cannot recognize the better for fear that the recognition of the better might just be their own bigotries. There are only two possibilities and the multiculturalist, the modern liberal has taken one of those off the table before he even begins.

De facto, the only moral thing that the modern liberal, the dominant force in today’s Democrat Party is allowed to believe is that not only are the Jews bad people, they are amongst the worst people in the history of the world. It is no surprise in the first thing that Osama – Barack Obama, sorry that was a legitimate mistake, Barack Obama did was to release – to seek to release the closing of Guantanamo Bay, to seek to give tons of money to [Inaudible 00:15:41], to demand that Israel help to rebuild Gaza, et cetera, et cetera.

Not only will the – are you guys with me? Yeah, okay. Not only must the modern liberal attack that which is good, right, and successful he must justify the crimes, the evil, failure, and wrong. He must justify it. He must turn the act of criminality – let me try it this way. The act of criminality is de facto proof that the criminal has been victimized.

That’s all the proof they need. The fact that the terrorists flew those airplanes into our buildings is proof positive that the terrorists have been provoked because to not believe that they have been provoked would be an act of racism. You are saying that the Muslims are bad people, that they would murder wantonly unprovoked. And that is not allowed de facto to the multiculturalist.

So the act of criminality is proof positive of victimization and the more heinous the crime the more victimized they must have been. And once again it does not matter what the facts and evidence prove, modern liberals are not allowed to employ fact and evidence. Fact, reason, and evidence are things employed by people who are attempting to discriminate. It doesn’t matter the facts overwhelmingly debunk the claim that they were – they were provoked.

It was de facto, the chicken is coming home to roost. And when Barack Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright gave the explanation — what it is that we did that was so horrible, that it was, that we deserved to be burned alive and attacked in our buildings — it led on a litany of half truths and outright lies. It does not matter because objective truth is undesirable to the left. Seeking the truth is an act of bigotry to the left. In fact, not only must the modern liberal attack that which is good, prove that the attacks were provoked, he must elevate the degree of evil committed by the victim. I’ll explain this.

He must elevate the provocation, the wrong committed by the victim to exactly the level of the evil that the modern liberal is invariably championing. You see, it’s not enough if you’re trying to prove that wanton murder was justifiable homicide, it is not enough simply to point out some wrongs that America may have done. You see, if I go and I shoot my neighbor and I prove to you that he did the wrong of playing his music too loud at 3:00 a.m. That is definitely a wrong, but it does not turn my killing him into justifiable homicide.

His wrong has to rise to the level of the strength that I use to stop him. So it’s not enough for the people on the left to simply disparage America. They must elevate the evil that they invent to put on us to exactly the level of the evil they are invariably championing. So when Ward Churchill calls the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmanns,” a viscous slander against innocently, newly murdered innocents, he does not do so because the sous-chef at Windows on the World was going home at night plotting the takeover of Czechoslovakia.

He does not do so because the intern at Cantor Fitzgerald would go home at night and make mini-concentration camps. He does so because the only way to justify what was a miniature holocaust, lower-case “h,” an all-consuming hellish flame in downtown Manhattan, the only way to turn that wanton murder into justifiable homicide was to call the victims “little Eichmanns.”

When Senator Dick Durbin calls our troops at Guantanamo Bay “like the Nazi’s,” he doesn’t do so because they are factually, objectively any way at all like the Nazis. In fact, just a simple fact to put this in perspective, after five years of the Third Reich, tens of millions of innocents had been slaughtered.

At the end of five years at Guantanamo Bay not a single suspected terrorist died at the hands of an American, not one. So why then would this Democrat, the liberal, this United States senator, compare our troops to the Nazis? Because the evil that he is championing, the Islamic and Arab world are not only like the Nazis, but in World War II which to some of you is ancient history, but it’s just my dad’s generation — in World War II the Arabs and the Islamists aligned with the Nazis.

When America gave our blood and our treasure to liberate the Europeans from the Nazis because they were too stupid to recognize the evil that was mounting on their border because Pierre was there with Jacque, and Jacque said to Pierre, “That Hitler guy looks like a threat.” And Jacque said, “Well what kind of threat?” And Pierre said, “An immediate threat.” And Jacque says, “An imminent threat?” By the time they discovered what kind of threat Hitler was, the Nazis were doing the jig through the most ironically named monument in human history, the Arc de Triomphe which makes you wonder how many times do you have to march through the Arc de Triomphe with your hands in the air before you change the name of the thing?

So when the Americans liberated the Europeans and the Nazis had to flee for their lives, where did they go? They went to see their allies and their friends and their buddies in the Muslim and Arab world where they taught them the Nazi tricks of torture, terror and propaganda. The reason Dick Durbin calls our troops the most horrible people in the history of warfare like the Nazis is not because they’re right. The Nazis, it’s because he is defending people who are like the Nazis, and the modern liberal must elevate the evil committed by the innocent to the level of the evil they are invariably championing.

So that way Jimmy Carter plagiarizes maps, falsifies documents, and engages in objectively disprovable, obviously disprovable slanders against the good people of Israel calling the Jewish state an apartheid state. Israel, why does he do that? Not because Israel is an apartheid state but what he is defending is an apartheid state. There could be nothing more apartheid than Islam that says, “kill all infidels.”

In the Jewish homeland the Muslim shrines are treated as if they were Jewish shrines, with honor. Why does Jimmy Carter engage in the slander? Oh, why, when you’re watching a pro-Palestinian marching down the street in the anti-America rallies will they say that the Jews are committing the genocide of the Palestinian people. Sixty plus years the Jews have been committing the genocide of the Palestinian and the Palestinian population is bigger than it’s ever been.

Either the Jews aren’t trying to commit genocide or the Jews are schmucks. Let me just move on to something else because of the inability of the left to recognize the better things in life. And when I say better, when I say success, I want to be very clear I am not talking financially necessarily, although being financially successful is great.

There is nothing wrong with it. The left is a grief. The left doesn’t like financial success. And it’s for a very simple reason and this is not – wasn’t the point of my talk, so don’t let me get too far off on this. The left, because they don’t learn anything after kindergarten, what they believe, it’s true and I don’t want to go that way right now — but “Everything I Ever Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” is their Bible.

And one of the things you learn in kindergarten is that life is zero sum, that if Janie and Sally hold on to the ball, then Bobby and Billy don’t get to play — and they grow up believing that life is zero sum. And if life is zero sum, then the way that you prevent failure, the way that you prevent suffering, the way you prevent poverty is by preventing success. If my success causes your failure, then the way to prevent your failure is to prevent my success.

Now the truth is exactly the opposite. The truth is that in the grown-up world all ships rise with the tide. When you recognize this, and by the way, there are a million ways to look at it, and not to be missed is the economic crisis — that’s a world crisis, why? Because when the tide goes down everybody goes down with it. When the tide goes up, when America is in a period of growth, the world’s economy grows.

You can see on the micro level, if life were zero sum it would be insane for Bloomingdales to open in the same shopping mall as Macys — not to mention the 50 stores in between. But because everybody who comes to the mall is good for everybody, Macy’s success doesn’t hurt the little store. Nor does it matter who the person came to shop, if they came to shop at Macys, buy a suit and while they’re waiting for it to be tailored, go down and buy a pretzel or if they came in to buy a pretzel and on the way out they pass through Macys and pick up a tie clip. Either way everybody’s success raises the tide for everybody.

This is a fundamental reason why the left is so antagonistic towards America — and why the right recognizes America to be the greatest gift the world has ever seen. Because if all ships rise to the tide, then America’s unprecedented success is brought about as it has unprecedented goodness around the world, medicines prosperity, technologies. But if life is zero, some of America unprecedented greatness makes us the cause of unprecedented suffering.

All right, that was off on a tangent. In order to help people live better lives, the republic seeks to encourage them to engage more in the behaviors that lead to success, the better behaviors. The modern liberal ain’t capable of recognizing better behaviors. Not only does he not promote the better behaviors, he attacks them. He attacks the better behaviors as, after all, nothing’s better than anything else. What we say is better must be the beneficiary of our bigotries.

Thomas Sowell, if you have a conflict of visions that might be the visions of anointment, said, “That which is held in esteem qualifies to be their targets. That which is held in distain qualifies to be their mascot.” I think the wording there is just a little too cutesy. But what he means is that there is no other criteria by which the modern liberal comes to their beliefs and their policies take what you believe and attack it.

See, having any beliefs at all is an act of bigotry. And it is their job to destroy your beliefs whether you believe that America is good or that it’s funded fascism is evil. So let me give you a couple of examples.

You and I recognize that childhood abstinence is a behavior that increases one’s behavior for success. All right, it doesn’t guarantee it, but it makes it more likely. Let’s do it the other way: it makes less likely one’s chances for success if as a child, they are promiscuous. I forget the main component; just simply consider the practicalities. If your boy’s out messing around, he’s not home reading a book.

If your daughter’s down at the abortion mill again, she’s not at the library studying for the SATs. If your son is in a hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, that’s not good for his future success. All right, I think I can even get some Democrats to admit dying puts a damper on future success.
So we encourage our children and others in the village that it takes — to have a better chance at a good and happy and successful life by being abstinent throughout their childhood. The modern liberal sees our promotion of abstinence as a form of bigotry, our religious fanaticism.

They actually promote promiscuity in the movies, TV shows, in the schools, (Nay) rally a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro-choice organization — holds a fundraiser– I don’t want to be vulgar. I don’t want to say the word, the whole word. They hold a fundraiser called ‘F’ abstinence.

Why would you want to ‘F’ abstinence? OK, I can understand the argument that not every child will be abstinent — but why would you want to destroy childhood abstinence altogether? And the answer is because the modern liberal invariably promotes the behaviors that lead to failure, invariably.

So here’s the difference — we try to help people live a better life by encouraging the behaviors that lead to success. The Democrat promotes the behaviors of the modern liberal, the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party. It’s not all Democrats.

All right, there’s a Democrat, there’s a name for a Democrat who is of thoughtful moral person. It’s called a Republican. The Republican, the conservative will seek to help people live a better life by encouraging the behaviors that lead to successes.

The Democrat will seek to rehabilitate the image of the behaviors that are bad. And when their policies invariably as they do, as they have, as they must, lead to greater suffering. When their promotion of childhood promiscuity leads to unwanted pregnancies and poverty for two generations — the out of wedlock born child and the single mother that they’ve promoted to single motherhood.

Who’s to say that’s wrong. But it leads as it has or it must to an epidemic of venereal diseases amongst children. At this point the Democrat screams about his compassion, confiscates our money to create a program designed simply to somewhat mitigate the consequences of the failure that they’ve promoted.

So then they are pro promiscuity — and there was an episode of the Family Guy, a cartoon in which the child Meg tells her mother that she has taken a vow of abstinence until she’s adult. Instead of saying, “That is great, honey, now you won’t get STDs, now you won’t get pregnant; that’s wonderful, if that’s what you want.” Instead of being supportive the mother ridicules her and tries to seduce her into trying to have sex with strangers.

And so when this mentality leads to unwanted pregnancies, the answer from the Democrat is to confiscate our money to open more abortion mills. When it leads as it has, and as it must, like in New York City when one out of four girls are infected with a venereal disease, some with several.

The policy of the Democrat is not to not promote engaging in promiscuous sex. Instead it is to forcibly inject every child with a vaccine that might prevent one of the myriad sexual diseases that the Democrats by their policies made epidemic.

Let me give you another example: anybody who thinks, recognizes that the way for an immigrant to have a chance at a better life is for him to learn the language of the majority. It’s self evident. If he’s a salesman, he has a better opportunity to sell his wares if he can speak to more people. Right, if he’s a scientist in his home country, in his native country he has a better chance of landing a quarter of a million dollar a year job at AMGEN or Eli Lilly if he can speak to the HR person.

It’s self evident. So to help the immigrant live a better life in America, we promote the better behavior. Not morally better, that’s not what I’m claiming, the practically better. We promote that he learn the language of the majority of the people.

The Democrat will attack us for that. He will call us cultural imperialists. They will attack us and say we are creating cultural genocide — and when they encourage the immigrant not to learn the language of the majority — and because of the Democrats’ policy, instead of getting a quarter of a million dollar a year job, he’s pushing a broom or making the beds at Motel Six.

This is when the Democrat jumps into action, screams about how compassionate he is, and raises the minimum wage. So now, thanks to the Democrat, this man who would have been making a quarter of a million dollars a year, perhaps curing cancer, is now making $8.75 an hour. Thank you, Democrats.

And as we have witnessed over and over and over again, the Democrat does not alleviate problems. He simply flip flops them in his Orwellian mentality. So in the end, not only does the Democrat not require — I got to be careful. I mean the modern liberal. The dominant force, I get called on this all the time.

The modern liberal, the dominant force in today’s Democrat Party, not only does he not encourage the immigrant to learn the language of the majority, but you know these immigrants have rights. And they can’t exercises all of those rights if they don’t speak the language.

So in order not to take away their rights, the majority has to learn the language of every single minority. It gets flipped on its head invariably. It’s an Orwellian philosophy because whenever you are champion, this is when they’re champion evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failures over those that lead to success. Obviously it’s going to be Orwellian.

So let me just finish up by saying who these people are. Let me just– there are a couple of common knowledges in the community that we associate with modern liberalism. And again, not people who voted for Barrack Obama but I’m sure there are some people in the middle. Because I don’t think America’s divided in two.

I think we’re divided in three. I think there are those of us who get it –who actually attempt to think and we tend to vote Republican — but there are some Democrats that have just a slight difference. They want more social programs, but they don’t believe America’s evil, bad and wrong, and imperialists and all these things.

Then there’s a whole bunch in the middle who can be moved — and I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the Rosie O’Donnell’s. I mean, what can you do with a Rosie O’Donnell — and this is a woman who claimed the most heinous slanders against America. Exonerating the terrorists. Blaming on George Bush 911. It was an inside job.
And proof that it was an inside job — that never before in history has fire melted steel. Now that’s a very powerful scientific argument with one flaw. Fire is how you melt steel. Fire is the only way you melt steel. And it’s not even that Rosie O’Donnell doesn’t know this; you do know that she’s watched flash dance, over and over and over again.

Yes, I don’t know, maybe if the construction worker from the Village People had a welder’s torch, I– but what can you do. Has she never seen her silverware bend as she eats. She has to know that.

So what fact could you possibly put in front of Rosie O’Donnell that could make her say, “Oh I did not know that.” “Now I love America.” And here are the basic commonalities, I’ll finish up I don’t want to keep you guys from the important work that you do here.

What are the commonalities that are essential. Is the modern liberal isolated from the consequences from his own beliefs. Whether it is the Hollywood liberal, let me pick Bruce Springsteen. I picked Bruce Springsteen for a reason. I’m a big Bruce Springsteen fan.

I do not for a moment think that when he promotes policies that destroy the public schools, he does so because he’s standing up on a veranda in Beverly Hills looking down at the lights below going, “Hahahaha, I will destroy the public schools because my kid goes to private school.” Instead, Bruce Springsteen really does care.

And when he reads the paper he comes across something on television that says gang violence is destroying our schools. He wants to know if that’s true. So he asks his daughter, “Honey did you see any gang violence today?” And she says, “No, dad, not down by the stables, no, no.”

And Bruce Springsteen, he cares so much he actually gets in the car, drives a mile down the street to his next door neighbor. And he knocks on the door and he says, “Jackson, Jackson Brown did your kid get beat up in school today?” And he says, “No, no, no not down by the motor pool.”

It’s not that they really want to promote evil, failure, and wrong. The problem is that when you live in a utopia where there is no cost or consequence. Like there is no cost or consequence to Bruce Springsteen of anything he believes. You know, he went out on tour.

It was the Rising Tour. He went and he played guitar for 88 days — and grossed $188 million. So when he militates for increased taxes suddenly, so that when he comes home from that tour instead of $188 million he’s only got $148 million, it does not affect his life one wink.

When I, who every once and awhile might cross that line, because I have a screenplay that I wrote and struggled with, I didn’t make a penny in 1985. I didn’t make a penny in ’86, didn’t make a penny in ’87 — in ’88 I sold it for $250,000 and they take a big chunk of that, that does make a big difference in my life.

The guy who worked at a minimum wage job and then got a promotion. And now at the age of 65 finally crosses that threshold where he’s making less money in one year than Springsteen makes in residuals from a song he wrote 30 years ago. And Barrack Obama and Bruce Springsteen say, take more of his money, it affects him. It doesn’t affect Springsteen. Nor does it affect the other group.

Well, there goes my dream of being his opening act. The other group that you associate with the mindless left are the college children. Why? Because no matter how much they binge drink, no matter how much they projectile vomit, no matter how much they go wild for the camera, the next day they wake up on lush manicured lawns.

Right, no matter how bad their hangover is they slide a card through a reader and somebody else went out and bought them food, prepared their food, served them their food. When they’re done they do their dishes for them. So when they militate for things– and my point is this and then I’ll take questions.

Stupidity is a luxury and you will find time and time and time and again that those who are overwhelmingly on the left are those who can afford to be. Those who do not suffer the consequences of their stupidity –those, who like Springsteen, or like Susan Sarandon, or like with the rest of them — have, like a special floor set aside for celebrities, at Cedar Sinai hospital.

So that when they destroy our public health, our health care system, it doesn’t affect them at all. And I want to make one more point. Of these two communities: the celebrity, lets call it — and academia. And by the way I want you to take note that the word “academic” is a well known synonym for the word “meaningless,” all right.

As in it’s all academic anyway, let’s go get some real work done. Even in these two groups there are subcultures that aren’t as brain-dead as the others. In the world of celebrity there’s one group that votes Republican or is more likely to support the Republican candidate in ideals.
This group is just as wealthy. They became just as wealthy at just the same age. They are just as beautiful as the other celebrities and yet they vote Republican. Why? Who am I talking about? Professional athletes. Why?

Because a professional athlete works in a field where truth is objective. You catch the ball, you drop the ball. It doesn’t matter how articulate you explain the ball is an anti-Semite. You know the ball goes through the uprights. It doesn’t go through the upright. It doesn’t matter how much you scream that the ball is patriarchal.

And the same is true on a college campus. In what– I got to find a nice way of saying this. The bull crap professions of ethnic studies and woman prior to the (inaudible) flood (blah blah blah blah).

The people who vote Republican on the college campuses work in the hard science where truth is truth. Where it does matter how much you complain that the phosphorus hates black people, it either reacts or it doesn’t react. You can’t lie or manipulate. Liberals cannot survive in the fields where truth is truth. OK, I will take questions. You can applaud first and then I’ll take questions.

Evan Sayet: Yes Sir.
Male: ((Inaudible)) Microphone, please to identify yourself, especially to young people here from the manicured campuses.

(Steve): Well my name is (Steve) I’m an intern at the Heritage Foundation and my manicured campus is American University. But my question is regarding the anti-Semitism of the left. And I know you mentioned it briefly. But I have always wondered why so many Jewish Americans are active loyal supporters of the Democratic party when the far left base, particularly the Answer Coalition and the Anti-War movement.

I remember seeing a rally where a lot of the anti-war protestors were protesting across the street from a group of pro-Israel protestors. And these Answer people were saying go back to the oven.

Evan Sayet: That’s right. That’s really vicious. Hatred for the Jew is endemic to the dominant force in today’s Democratic party. Anywhere you find leftism whether it was national socialism, Nazism, whether it was communism, whether it was socialism now in Europe or whether it was in the Democrat party today. Not all Democrats but the modern liberal force within the Democrat party, Jew hatred is endemic to modern liberalism.
So why do Jews support it? Two basic reasons: one, there is something very attractive to people who have been persecuted to the notion that nothing will be judged, because if nothing is judged, then they can’t judge the Jew. The Jew can’t be evil, the Jew can’t be put in an oven. There is just something attractive about that.

The second salient point is if you’re called a Jew is different than any other religion that is out there. To be called a Christian you have to believe something. You have to believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. And from that belief stems other beliefs, other practices, cultural things, behaviors, rights, and rituals.

To be called a Muslim you have to believe something. You have to believe that the Koran is the final testament of God and Mohammed is perfect messenger. From that belief stems certain rights, and rituals, practices and behaviors.

To be called a Jew you don’t have to believe anything. All you have to do is plop out of the Jewish womb, they call you a Jew. All right, so lets call these people the plopping Jews. It is the plopping Jew that votes Democrat. And as you go down the line to first the reform Jew who is basically a plopping Jew with a better social calendar.

All the way up to Conservative and Orthodox, that’s people who actually have Judaism as part of their moral cultural upbringing, not just an accidental Jew. The more Jewish you are by practice, by choice, not just by accident, the more likely you are to support the Republicans. And not just the Republican candidate, but down the line on every single issue. The Republican Party and the practicing Jew shares values. Yes, ma’m.

Female: When you were talking about celebrity and academia one group you might want to expand on also isolated is the media which is why they’re getting away with what they’re doing now.

Evan Sayet: Well, the media is holicely, well, it’s interesting I owe so much because I just keep quoting him. But it was a different, this was a third piece that he wrote. He said that– let’s go back to what Howard Zinn said, “that objectivity is undesirable.” He also said that it’s impossible.

And what journalists are now taught in the journalism schools and this is a big deal because it used to be a journalist came up through the ranks. He had a job as the court reporter or the late night beat, the crime beat — and worked his way up through the real world and learned about things through the real world.

And now journalism, journalists go to journalist school — where they’re taught theoretical crap and then they get a job because they graduated Columbia School of Journalism. And then they get a job way up near the top never once dirtying their shoes. And so they have no idea about the real world. And what they’re taught in journalism school is that objectivity is impossible. Whatever it is that you believe is objective is really your bigotries.

So the goal of the modern journalist is not going to be objectivity, objective truth. It’s going to be neutrality. Let me just briefly and that’s what (Thomas Sowell) made clear. Let me explain the difference between objectivity and neutrality.

Let’s say you’re a sports reporter and you’re covering the Giants versus the Jets — and the Giants beat the Jets 57 to 3. If you’re an objective reporter your article is about how the Giants are a better team, how they have a better coach, how they played better, how they are conditioned and the Jets, just the opposite.

But now, let’s say that you have been told that you cannot argue that the Jets or the Giants are a better team because you might just be a Giants fan. You must conclude neutrality. You must be neutral and say the Jets and the Giants are equally good.

What happens to that story? What happens to that article? Suddenly it all becomes about explaining how these two equally good teams saw one team get 57, the other team get 3. The Giants must have cheated, the Jets must have been cheated — and it’s the same things with American imperialism. They write down that you’re an imperialist or the student weekly.

Look we don’t have cable television because we stole it from the Sudanese, right. The Sudanese don’t have cable, not because we stole it from them. The Sudanese don’t have cable because when you’re hacking off heads of a million of your citizens, chances are one of them may have been the cable guy, right. I’m sorry, anybody.

Male: ((Inaudible)) I’m sorry, anybody?

Evan Sayet: Yes Sir?

Robert Stacy McCain: Robert Stacy McCain, The American Spectator, how are you, Evan.

Evan Sayet: I’m good, Robert; good to see you.

Robert Stacy McCain: Is there hope to recover objectivity? Is there hope that some of the diluted might be persuaded? What hope can you offer us because we believe in hope?

Evan Sayet: Well, first of all I’ve got to just object to your choice of words; that was just so divisive — and by the way, even that word “divisive” is a word that comes from discriminative. What are we fighting for? Why are we being divisive? The Jews in the Warsaw are being divisive by fighting back.

Is there hope? I got, you know, I wake up on alternative days terrified and saddened. And on other days, that I can’t believe that such stupidity can reign in the greatest nation, the freest nation, the most prosperous nation, the last best hope of man is going to be flushed down the toilet by spoiled academicians and pseudo intellectuals. I can’t believe it.
So I don’t know. But here’s where I think hope lies or is it lays, because I didn’t study in college. They own the media. Time is not on our side. Every generation further removed from the last of the great generations has less and less contact — and less and less knowledge and the left is becoming more entrenched and more courageous in their attacks upon all that is good right and successful.

We need to ‘A’ engage in the fight. It is not enough to simply say “Season’s Greetings” when somebody says that to you. You say “Merry Christmas” and you start in August, all right. You stand up for what’s right and you make it clear– do I have time for one quick story and…
Male: We’re already out of questions.

Evan Sayet: Oh, we are. Don’t I get to say that? I was at my cousin’s house. I love my cousin. He’s the most kindest, sweetest, most generous human being in the world. The only problem is, he’s a schmuck and then he really is. He’s a modern liberal.

He’s a brain dead liberal and by the way, that’s David Mamet’s choices of words when he came out and finally opened his eyes, he wrote a piece called “Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal.” And so at the end we were at his house for dinner; it was Passover and the children were in the other room looking for the (inaudible).

He decided to wax politically and he got up and he shouted, “We must do more to help the Sudanese.” I agree. What exactly? “I don’t know, but something.” OK, he then added, “You do know why we have troops in Iraq but not in the Sudan, don’t you?” Well, I happen to know this. This is what I do, but I let him finish, “It’s because the Sudanese are black and Iraq has oil.”

And that was all I could take. I jumped up in front of his friends and I said I don’t want to shout out his name but I said that is asinine. I said there are two possibilities — either America’s an evil, racist, bigot, horrible nation who loves to steal people’s resources or it’s because the Sudan is located on an isolated continent and Iraq is the crossroads to three continents.

It could be as you say that America’s an evil, horrible, racist place, we’re thieves and bigots, or it could be in the Sudan they’re killing each other with machetes. Saddam Hussein will use poison gas, will use SCUD missiles, will use the fourth largest army in the world. It could be because Americans are evil, racist, horrible thieves or it could be that in the Sudan the violence has never crossed the border.

Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia, and bombed Israel and committed atrocities against the Kurds in the north and was committing genocide to the Arabs in the south and funding terrorism from the West Bank and Gaza strip.

And at the very, very least and it was much more, and we all know it. But at the very, very least there’s nursing the leading Al Qaeda figures leading back to health. And in the end it did nothing to move my cousin.
But there was another couple at the table who had never heard this. All they had heard was from people like my cousin and people on the nightly news and Katie Couric is that America steals people’s oil. Did that change that immediately? I doubt it they’re going to have to run into you, you, you and you.

There was another couple at the table who believed everything. Who knew everything I had said but just didn’t want to fight. So he was going to let– they were going to let this slander go. Maybe in the future they’ll have a tad more courage and not let it go. Because I have made it an oath, a vow that I will no longer allow, I will no longer just sit by and allow slanders about my country. I just will not let it. I may also never work again. But that’s not the point.

And here’s the answer. I have a program that I started that people are going to laugh when I say, because I’m a comedian they’re supposed to laugh, but I’m serious. I call it “Adopt a Democrat.” There’s got to be somebody in your life who you know is not the Rosie O’Donnell kind. Who’s not the Sean Penn kind. Who actually would– doesn’t believe America’s an evil, horrible place. They’ve never heard what we believe.

It dawned on me when I went out to seek an ally after 911. I was a New York City liberal Jew. I was a brain-dead liberal. Democrat’s good, Republicans evil; that’s all I knew. On 911 I was stunned by the response of my liberal friends to this attack. That we deserved it and that the way to prevent another one was to be nicer to the terrorists.
I needed to fight this fight. I need to fight this party and I expected to disagree with the Republicans on every single issue but this one. But who cares? It doesn’t matter where you stand on abortion if you’re dead, right. It doesn’t matter where you stand on gay marriage if you’re dead.

And I went there and I listened and, “oh my goodness,” it was the first time in my life that I had heard from a Republican what a Republican believes. Until then I heard from my liberal parents, my liberal rabbi, my liberal school teacher, my liberal professor, , my liberal entertainer. I had never before heard what a Republican believes from a Republican. And that’s where our hope lies or lay.

Female: (Surely) there’s one more.

Hi, Al Malek in the AM Media. Do you see the Fairness Doctrine embodying liberal thinking?

Evan Sayet: One, I doubt very much they’re going to call it the Fairness Doctrine, but I think what they will do is find ways to impede free speech. And there’s a reason for this (Al). Every single medium in which there is honest debate and discussion the liberal loses.

He has to lose because he’s always arguing in opposition to the truth. All right, so he must stifle the other side. The way he normally does it is by calling us racist, fascists. Hitler’s Nazis and fascists aren’t allowed to speak. But look at in the 23 minute nightly news where Brian Williams will lie spin bias, bias, bias, spin, lie, bias and that’s the truth.

He lectures us about the truth for 23 minutes and the left is justified on the nightly news. Take those same arguments to the hour long debate and discussion programs on the cable news and the leftists lose. Everybody watches Fox. And the leftist does just well in the print media where Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman lie, lie, lie, lie, spin bias, spin, spin, spin and it is written. How do you challenge that?

Take the same arguments to talk radio where the host has to entertain questions, has in-studio guests. And what you end up with is every radio station is conservative you’ve got one leftist radio station. It’s called Air America which need to be funds pumped in from George Solos. They basically, Air America is so liberal, they’re on welfare. So stifling opposition is essential to the leftist because they cannot win in the marketplace of ideas.

Male: Thank you, Evan.

Evan Sayet: My pleasure

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!