RUTHFULLY YOURS

Please note that Diana West is preparing a long, detailed and documented response.

Today, Horowitz vents that Diana’s book should never have been published and that he is falsely accused of being in a “circular firing squad”….Wrong again….in a circular firing squad the participants do take a chance on becoming dead. Horowitz and cohorts are taking no chances in their frontal assault against Diana West and her book “American Betrayal.”

He offers faint praise for West’s writing on Islam, but neglects to mention her very long list of columns detailing the harm that political correctness did when it infiltrated our military’s COIN doctrine with rules of engagement that spared the sensibilities of our enemies at the expense of the safety of our own fighting forces. Frontpage did have one column on this national disgrace: “US Army Colonel Reveals Failure of COIN and Barbarism of Afghans” in October 2012.

In 2006 a critique of his book “The Professors-the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America’- a book that I personally liked very much- stated “Quotes and facts from Horowitz about individual professors are incorrect and many quotes are “wildly out of context.” Furthermore the report (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/09/report) stated : “In 52 of the descriptions of professors Horowitz critiques, he does not cite a single classroom event or statement — despite his statement that his concern about professors is over what they do and say in the classroom.” Also: “Horowitz does not cite a single example of a student having his or her grade changed because of political views — despite his repeated statements that the “Academic Bill of Rights” is needed to prevent such grade punishment. ”

To all these critics Horowitz responded: :(http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/13/list)as noted before:

“He noted that he writes in the introduction to the book that he believes all professors — liberal and conservative — have points of view and are entitled to interpret their fields according to their philosophies. Such expression, he writes, “is the essence of academic freedom.” In the interview, Horowitz said that a McCarthyite would never make such a statement, and he said that the only McCarthyism in evidence with regard to his book are those who criticize it with “a rash of misrepresentations” and without having read it.

He was right then….why is he so wrongheaded now?

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/humberto-fontova/the-axis-of-evil-alive-and-well/ “Foreign reporters—preferably American–were much more valuable to us at that time (1957-59) than any military victory. Much more valuable than recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda.” (Che Guevara 1959) “Reporters in Havana are either insensitive to the pain of the opposition ‘or in clear complicity’ with the […]

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5383 They’re not liberals, stupid! On Wednesday, Egyptian interim Vice President Mohamed ElBaradei resigned in protest over the Egyptian military’s use of brute force against supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi. News of ElBaradi’s exit were accompanied by rumors that “other liberals” in Egypt had followed suit. These rumors turned out to be as false […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/crush-the-muslim-brotherhood/ Like all terrorist organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood has only one commodity to trade in. Blood. In the war of ideas for the future of Egypt, the Brotherhood had nothing to offer but the blood of its followers and victims. It has no new ideas. It has no record of accomplishments. It has no vision […]

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2626/I-Got-Plenty-of-Evidence.aspx

The bizarro war on American Betrayal doesn’t stop. The latest from David Horowitz is that I “should not have written this book.”

Who says that?

I will have a lengthy rebuttal to publish in the next few days.

Couldn’t let this comment keep sliding, though. One of the mainstays of this surreal assault on my credibility is that I argue without evidence. Or, as David Horowitz says, I make “large claims unsupported by the evidence.”

No, I make large claims supported by evidence — lots of evidence. Here is one chapter’s worth of my 900-plus endonotes.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/15/What-Difference-Does-It-Make-A-Response-to-Diane-West
Some conservatives are taking the position that the dispute between Diana West and Ron Radosh, and by extension Frontpage, is a “circular firing squad.” Others regard it as a scholastic dispute over obscure historical sources. Still others feel that it is a distraction from important matters, and are puzzled by the heat that it has generated. Except for the first point, these objections simply misread the conflict and what it involves. I will deal with them shortly.

First, regarding circular firing squads: Among political activists these destructive formations are normally inspired by disagreements over policy and/or tactics–immigration reform or shutting down the government, for example. The disputes degenerate when one side attacks the alleged motives of the other and questions the political credentials of its adherents. In other words, they accuse those who disagree with them of treason to the cause.

The present dispute is not about policy or tactics. It is about an approach to historical events. That approach, exemplified by West’s book American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, is conspiratorial rather than political, and makes large claims that are unsupported by the evidence. It also leads to political conclusions that have consequences–in our view quite destructive ones. Only one side in this dispute, it should be said, has impugned the motives and questioned the political bona fides of the other. Conservatives who find this regrettable should address their concerns to Diana West and her followers, who have accused us of anti-anti communism (i.e., pro-communism) and referred to us as “totalitarians.” Given our long public record of anti-communist activities and publications these are absurd accusations on their face, but very similar to the kind of accusations we find fault with in West’s book.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/355910/print

VOGUE’s efforts to be relevant other than as a fashion rotogravure for the wealthy are really funny. Remember their tribute to Bashar al-Assad’s wife Asma? And the cover of Hillary in designer duds “The Extraordinary Hillary Clinton” followed by the sappiest post Monica hagiography….And now of course the new idol in 2009-“Michelle Obama: The First Lady the World’s Been Waiting For,” trumpeted Vogue’s March 2009 cover.And now Anna Wintour is gushing “I can’t wait to put President Hillary Clinton on the cover.’ ….rsk

From Pink Sneakers to Stilettos

“Wendy Davis in a Carolina Herrera dress and Reed Krakoff pumps” is the description under the Vogue glamour shot of the Texas state senator posing in the state capitol.

“Texas state senator Wendy Davis’s filibuster against an antiabortion bill turned her into an overnight sensation. Now can she battle her way to the governor’s mansion?”

An “antiabortion bill,” of course, that if honestly discussed, is more of a uniter than a divider, as most Americans see the wisdom and justice in trying to protect innocent life, while wanting to make sure that mothers are safe and supported. An “antiabortion bill” that sought to raise clinic standards for the health of Texas women and protect unborn children at 20 weeks and older capable of feeling pain. Presumably in the three-hour interview, the Vogue reporter never asked her about Kermit Gosnell, or Davis might have googled what that story was about before her National Press Club appearance where John McCormack asked her about it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/355909/print At his August 9 news conference, Obama spoke with journalists in the White House East Room about Republicans and Obamacare. “At least they used to say, ‘Well, we’re going to replace it with something better,’” Obama said. “There’s not even a pretense now that they’re going to replace it with something better.” Unless Republicans […]

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2625/In-Defense-of-My-Livelihood.aspx

What did I do on my summer vacation?

I stayed home. The family went to the country this week but not me. I stayed behind to deal with a white-hot controversy.

About what? Me.

Thus, I am now engaged in the painstaking job of rebutting an explosion of falsehoods and distortions about me and my new book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. These attacks began appearing on the Internet last week at several neoconservative websites: first and mainly Frontpage Magazine (FPM), Pajamas Media and American Thinker.

Close to 10 pieces have appeared (more promised), all of them emanations of a 7,900-word book review at FPM that reviewer Ronald Radosh described as a “take-down” in one of his own three follow-up pieces. Two writers who followed suit admitted in print that they hadn’t read the book.

It is important to note that this lengthy “take-down” comes after an earlier, positive review of “American Betrayal” appeared at FPM. Controversial books spark different reactions, of course, but instead of leaving the original, positive review posted and commissioning a new review from a different perspective, FPM editor David Horowitz – noted free-speech advocate – pulled the positive review off the website.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/355959/print

After repeatedly, and correctly, proclaiming that phone and e-mail surveillance by the NSA is both necessary and constitutional, the president has succumbed to left and libertarian pressure: He has proposed installation in NSA of “a full-time civil-liberties and privacy officer” and other mechanisms in “the transparency community.” A “transparency community” within an “intelligence community” is an unworkable oxymoron. Any “civil-liberties and privacy” officer installed in NSA would, to show that he is performing, have to impede intelligence activities — a burden we do not need in our already difficult war on terrorism.

Our Constitution’s authors and proponents warned against bowing to the sort of demagoguery that lies behind attacks on the NSA program as an unconstitutional invasion of our rights. The Federalist Papers — the bible of the Constitution’s meaning — warn at the outset (No. 1) of those who invoke supposed rights of the people to oppose the government’s efforts to defeat an enemy seeking to destroy us: “A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.”

Continuing, “Publius” (probably Alexander Hamilton) explains why: “History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing Demagogues and ending Tyrants.”

This warning is repeated: The Government’s “powers” for “the common defense . . . ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them” (No. 23). Again, our Founding Fathers opposed “every project that is calculated to disarm the government of a single weapon, which in any possible contingency might be usefully employed for the general defense and security” (No. 36).