Moral Court Hosted By A Radio Talk Host

[TVTalkShows.com News]

'Moral Court' Has No Judge, But a Radio Host

Conservative Los Angeles radio talk show host Larry Elder on KABC now has his own show called, 'Moral Court'. He also has a politically incorrect new book titled, 'The Ten Things You Can't Say in America. Black himself, he states that blacks are more racist than whites, the media is bias and there is no health care crises. Larry Elder was born in Cleveland, Ohio and raised in the South-Central section of Los Angeles to law school to a Cleveland law firm and then his own executive-recruiting business. While in Cleveland, he also began the newspaper column, which ran for a time in the Akron Beacon Journal, and appeared regularly on Cleveland television. He believes that the Constitution talks about a limited government, meaning no Medicare and Social Security as we have today. 'Moral Court' is run by the creators of 'People's Court' who say that people on both sides choose either right or wrong, moral or immoral. and the winner of the argument gets to walk home with $2,000 per episode.

TVTalkShows.com Webmaster Trevor Rieger

[mmount]

I am morally outraged by your comment to the guy who loved two women and didn't want to give up either that they all should move to Utah. Just because we have some people who are polyogomists do you have to trash the rest of the 99.9999% of us who live here and live happy with just one husband/wife. I am sick of people assuming this is the only state where polyogomy is. Every state has this kind of people and it is against the law in all the states to be a polygomist. So how about not trashing us on national tv again about this subject.

[lovelyone]

I don't understand the negative comments against moral court and their host (Larry Elder). People need to hear a diversity of issue's they may encounter. Problems don't always require a civil or criminal court. A good counseling session may help. That's where Moral Court comes in. It gives individual's the opportunity to express their opinion on matters of difficulty in their life. Moral Court host listens to their argruments and makes a decision. The producer's of the show may have some input in my opinion. But it does not matter "It's a great show". The truth is reaily. Let it be heard by someone who could not tell it better than Larry Elder.

[KimtheJ]

This is for lovelyone. Using 's is for when something is possessive, as in "Tom's coat." If you're making something plural, just add an "s." Don't lecture people on listening to some idiot on television when you've obviously watched too much yourself and should have been paying more attention to your grammar teacher.

P.S. Elder's an idiot.

[ESBRWNSUGR@AOL.COM]

I think the judgement for the man who thinks it is a waist of time & money for his daughter to play basketball on moral court should be for him to play a full game of one on one with Lisa Leslie or one of the WNBA players.

[EEE]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EEE]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EEE]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EEE]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shaunac]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
KimtheJ:
This is for lovelyone. Using 's is for when something is possessive, as in "Tom's coat." If you're making something plural, just add an "s." Don't lecture people on listening to some idiot on television when you've obviously watched too much yourself and should have been paying more attention to your grammar teacher.

P.S. Elder's an idiot.
www.tvtalkshows.com/board/showpost.php?p=442220
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too funny. I always get a kick out of poster's spelling abilities, or lack thereof, and love that you pointed it out.

[TRUE LIBERAL]

David Horowitz: Democrats Are Party of Defeat
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:26 AM

By: Phil Brennan

In their book “Party of Defeat” authors David Horowitz and Ben Johnson expose the blatant lies about the origin of the Iraq war being peddled by the Democratic Party and their far leftist allies.

[Editor’s Note: Get David Horowitz and Ben Johnson’s book. Go here now.]

The authors explain in great detail the real reason why George Bush went to war, and it was not merely because he believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Bush, they show, went to war to enforce a U.N. ultimatum.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, Horowitz explains how the Democrats have created this false scenario and used it to promulgate a monstrous lie.

Newsmax: former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has repeated the Democratic charges that in effect Bush lied us into war. Do you have any comment on that claim?

Horowitz: As I say in my book the biggest lie of the war is that Bush lied, or even that he manipulated the intelligence. The fact is that every Democratic senator who voted to authorize that war had on his or her desk the National Intelligence Estimate — a 100-page summary of all of our intelligence on Iraq. We live in a democracy which means that the opposition gets to see all of our secrets.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is an oversight committee; it has authority over the intelligence agencies. The head of the CIA is appointed by the president and has to be vetted by the intelligence committee and he reports to them. If there was any intelligence information on the war in Iraq that was submitted by Bush that they had a question about all they had to do was subpoena the heads of the intelligence agencies and they would have had the information on their desks within 24 hours.

So it's a colossal lie that the Democrats have told and that the Bush administration let them get away with, that the Democrats could be deceived about the reasons we went to war.

It’s even worse that Scott McClellan, who was a spokesman for the White House, is operating within this false universe that the Democrats and the left wing media, beginning with The New York Times, have created over the war. It's a mass of confusion — I think that even conservatives are confused about these issues — and that's in part because of the vacuum that the Bush administration allowed to develop on our side.

I think that the book that Ben Johnson and I [wrote] is really the first straight-out, point-by-point case that refutes the entire left-wing case against the war and exposes the [New York Times columnist] Frank Riches and the [Newsweek journalist] Michael Isikoffs and all the people who’ve written about the war for the phonies they are.

As we point out in the book, the arguments that, for example Michael Isikoff and David Corn [Washington editor of The Nation magazine] and a whole library of books have made, Frank Rich in particular, about the selling of the war, are not about the rationale for the war, why we went to war, but about political statements that were made along the way that have nothing to do with why we actually went to war, but a lot to do with trying to deal with the political debate that was created when dishonest people for political reasons, or people who for political reasons are dishonest, argue for and against the policy.

The rationale for the war against Hitler was that the Axis powers were bent on world domination, that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later, and better to fight them sooner than later.

The selling of the war was the attack on Pearl Harbor — that's actually what convinced the American people that we needed to go to war. That was just one episode on the way to war.

Newsmax: You have warned that if the Democrats win the election in November, it will be a disaster for the United States. What do you think would be the consequences of a Democratic president and a huge Democratic majority in the House and Senate?

Horowitz: There are many ways in which we can go, one of course is taxes, but I'll deal with foreign policy issues. If any Democrat is elected regardless of what he actually intends to do, all of our enemies are going to celebrate and all of them are going to be thinking of ways to test us because, as we have shown in our book, for the last five years the Democrats have advocated and pursued a policy of appeasement, retreat, and defeat.

Mainly they have advocated surrendering in Iraq, immediate withdrawal, and appeasing our enemies. The idea of talking to Ahmadinejad without conditions is only one example.

Newsmax: What is the outlook on the domestic scene if a Democrat is elected?

Horowitz: I was listening to Dick Morris the other day and if half of what he says is correct, it's an absolute nightmare. They will raise taxes on everything; they will kill whatever economic recovery that is by then, assuming there is one. These are people who are operating out of Karl Marx instead of some modern economic manual.

They know how to divide and conquer; they don't know how to build and create.

Newsmax: Do you see a Marxist rationale behind this whole global warming thing?

Horowitz: I wrote an article for National Review more than 10 years ago entitled ‘From Red to Green.’ The leftist revolutionaries, of which of course, I was one at one point, ran into a problem when the working class refused to behave in a revolutionary fashion. When you have rocks and trees they can't reject the revolutionary party the way the hardhats did during the Vietnam War when they beat up the left-wing demonstrators.

Rocks and trees can’t object when people speak in their name which is what the left is doing in this environmental alarmist movement.

What the leftists want is an apocalyptic scenario — the world is coming to an end — and a statist alternative. Surrender your freedoms to the state so that they can save the planet. And that's what Al Gore is preaching. It's part of the Marxist movement.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.