RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Here is what she wrote in her book and actually quotes in her rebuttal:

“The vast and deep extent of Communist penetration, heretofore denied, had in fact reached a tipping point to become a de facto Communist occupation of the American center of power.”

Apparently she doesn’t realize that the Latin phrase de facto means “in fact.” It is impossible to argue with a mind as obtuse as this.”

HOW DE FACTO IS PROPERLY USED:

It means “concerning fact.” In law, it means “in practice or common experience but not ordained by law” or “in practice or actuality, but not officially established.” The words”de jure”would mean established by law .

As in: Horowitz was a de facto traitor when he published Ramparts, but not a dejure traitor. He, himself admits to de facto treason in:  http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24332′

Diana is quite right in her usage of the expression because she did not use the words de jure. But then, it is impossible to argue with a mind as obtuse as his.

He also dissembles about his own past:

“I am not going to make apologies for my political views as a five-year old. But both Radosh and I became New Leftists when Bukovsky was only 15 and never supported the Soviet totalitarian state or Bukovsky’s jailers.”

HUH?

As Andrew Bostom has noted….

Horowitz’s  “New Leftism” defense is more mendacious drivel-mongering. His August 1973 Ramparts essay, “Historians and the Cold War: The Battle over America’s Image” (written when he was 34 years old) acerbically denounced the “myth” of aggressive, ideological Soviet expansionism—despite the fact this was indeed the lasting, openly pronounced creed of the revolutionary Communist Soviet state, since its World War I-era advent. Writing, at age 35, with breathtaking cognitive dissonance, in the June 1974 Ramparts (“Solzhenitsyn and the Radical Cause”),  not even Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago had convinced Horowitz the “critics of Bolshevism” were “right,” or that the “Soviet experiment has failed.”