I have been running an ad in college papers in the form of an open letter to Harry Belafonte. To date, the ad has appeared in more than a dozen college papers  and I am raising funds with the intention of increasing the number. Its self-explanatory headline reads, "Message to Harry: Respect African Americans Who Love Their Country - Or Leave It."

I wrote the ad as a response to Belafonte's attack on Secretary of State Colin Powell and the nation he represents. In the current debate over America's response to the war against us, Belafonte belongs to the camp that seeks to appease Saddam Hussein (which is fair if misguided enough) and also the camp that thinks America is the terrorist threat to the peace (which is something else again). In his remarks to the press and on the Larry King Show about Powell, Belafonte also compared America to a slave plantation and Colin Powell to a "house" slave who is doing his master's bidding. This lowered Belafonte's comments to an entirely different level, and inspired my intervention.

A blogger named Micah Holmquist who also posts to a site devoted to keeping an eye on me  http://www.horowitzwatch.blogspot.com has raised questions about my ad, which are throught-provoking and of more than parochial interest. Holmquist singles out the following sentence from the ad: "The fact that 'progressives' like Belafonte feel bold enough to voice hateful views towards their own country in the midst of a war in which America is under attack and America is the victim should be troubling to everyone." (In the ad I pointed out that Belafonte is a lifetime supporter of America's adversaries and that two-years ago he went to Cuba as a personal guest of its dictator to give a tear-filled tribute to the Rosenberg spies at a rally to mourn their execution nearly fifty years ago.)

Comments Holmquist: "This passage along with the ad title -- raises some interesting questions. Does Horowitz want a country where a person with Belafonte's views is afraid to voice them? If so what means should be used to strike fear into such a person? Does he believe that Belafonte should change his views or face deportation? And does Horowitz just want Belafonte to leave voluntarily? And given how just about every idea ever thought is believed by at least few people in the America, what makes Belafonte's statement so 'troubling'?"

The answer to these questions is that I would like to see America become a country in which a person with Belafonte's views would be ashamed to voice them in decent company. Why should a crude racist face a wall of opprobrium in our society, while an anti-American race-baiter like Belafonte gets kid glove treatment and a friendly platform on national TV shows like Larry King's? Both the black community and the larger American community will be much better off when conservative, or even moderate Republican blacks like Colin Powell, are treated with the respect and not constantly accused of being lackeys of the white man. Republicans no more speak for white people than Harry Belafonte speaks for blacks. 

On the other hand, who said anything about deporting Belafonte? Belafonte hates America. Why is it unreasonable or problematic to suggest as I (in effect) did, that people who think of America as a slave plantation and yet live like aristocrats on that same plantation should be regarded as hypocrites, or as poseurs who don't really believe what they say - or perhaps just as morons who don't understand the plain common sense meaning of their words?

In my view, Belafonte is probably a combination of all three -- contradictory as that may seem. What prompts him to spew such ignorant bile is his irrational hatred of America and love for Communism or for any form of socialist tyranny (so long as it is "of color" of course). But I don't believe for second that he could actually make the case for the position he has taken. Of course when his interlocutors are mush-brained fellow travelers like Larry King, he will encounter no difficulty at all in espousing statements that are both offensive and absurd.

Belafonte's attitude is "troubling" because it is the attitude of a Fifth Columnist who sympathizes with our enemies. It is troubling because in this war the enemy has already attacked us, is inside our borders, makes no distinction between military and civilian targets, or between the old and the young, or between the genders, and has access to weapons that can kill thousands of innocents at a single blow.

That is why, in the context of this war (as Holmquist notes), I have consciously applied terms like "anti-American propagandist" and "traitor" to some opponents of America's efforts to defend herself. That is why I have referred to these adversaries as a "Fifth Column" of supporters of those who would kill us, and have pointed out that is larger than any internal enemy we have ever had to face, including the internal Communist Fifth Column during the Cold War.

My admirable critic concedes that I have, "also made a point of respecting the free speech rights of those he tags with such labels. In a September 10 editorial [Horowitz] wrote, 'Let us respect their right to express themselves, but let us not make the mistake of respecting them.'" Holmnquist then wonders whether my latest comments about Belafonte have stepped over an invisible line and are no longer so circumspect: "At the very least, many people who will read the ad but who have not read anything else by Horowitz are likely to think that he is trying to silence Belafonte. In the proposed ad, he says, 'We need to support leaders like Colin Powell, who is proud of his country even though he is aware that our nation - like every other nation - is not without flaws. Pride in our nation is important in this hour of national crisis, because if we are not proud of our country we will not be able to defend ourselves.'"
The quote continues: We are in a war, and need to speak in war tones as well. We need to speak in a voice that is proud of this country, which has made black Americans the richest and freest black people in the world. Because if we are not proud of our country we will not be able to defend ourselves.

As Holmquist reads these words, their basic message "seems to be that criticisms of the U.S. weaken the war effort and thus are a problem. The 'war on terror' is presented as an all-consuming project that necessitates strict obedience. It is not a big stretch from this to saying that the government should prohibit citizens from criticizing war leaders or military actions."

Here we disagree. It is a big stretch to say ideas that are hateful, or ideas that have the effect of dividing the home front and weakening our defenses should be prohibited. This is what the First Amendment and America's liberty are about. Hate speech is also dangerous, but that does not mean that we should outlaw it. I have been frequently called names that could easily incite someone to want to harm me. But I have also been a strong and active opponent of the speech codes imposed on our campuses by the political left. As a conservative whom the left has tried to silence on these campuses across the country, I appreciate the importance of free speech far more than those who are opposing this war - who are ready to silence their opponents in a heart beat - ever will. 

On the other hand, the very point of using words like "hate speech" is to identify its ability to inflict real world wounds. The argument that unwanted speech is dangerous is the first resort of all censors. Unfortunatley, many people do not appreciate the danger latent in anti-American libels. We believe ourselves so invulnerable as a nation. Or did. Noam Chomsky's allegation - made to an audience of millions in the Muslim world after 9/11-- that the United States was the world's "greatest terrorist state" and was planning a "silent genocide" in Afghanistan is an example of a libel with American lives written all over it. The words that led sniper John Muhammad to join the anti-American jihad and to murder a dozen innocents is another. But recognizing these dangers is one thing, dealing with them is a different matter.

Personally, I will defend the rights of America-haters to spew their venom wherever they please. (I have posted their wretched views on my website many times if evidence of my willingness to do this is needed). To suppress those who verbally oppose America's right to defend itself -- even those who are appeasers, al-Qaeda sympathizers and totalitarian America-haters -- would be to undermine the very freedoms we are defending. Therefore, I am against it.

But for this very reason, it is important to call these enemies by their right name. To identify the dangers they represent. No one can seriously believe at this point in time that Saddam Hussein will permit real inspections of Iraq, or that any word of his can be trusted, or that he is not a dedicated foe of the United States and supporter of terrorist acts against us. Anyone who maintains these fictions is either a Fifth Column sympathizer of Saddam or a muddle-headed appeaser, and should be regarded as such. Are there other reasons for delaying military action  - however mistakenly I, or others who support such action, might believe them to be? Of course there are, and I will defend (and respect) those who raise them even as I will continue to disagree.

But we must not fool ourselves into thinking that ideas are without consequences, or that as Americans targeted for death we are united in our defense. We are not. There are millions of Americans who secretly embrace the anti-American agendas of our enemies, who think we got what we deserved on 9/11, and who are already providing aid and comfort to our enemies. The so-called "peace" movement is nothing of the sort. Its mass demonstrations are organized by self-styled Bolsheviks who share a totalitarian fantasy of the revolutionary future and who want to destroy America, this nation that we are privileged to inhabit now. Calling them by their right name - the Fifth Column enemy within -- is the first step towards ensuring that their efforts to bring us to our knees will fail.