Yesterday, I noticed something that reminded me of this.
So did Gates of Vienna. Vlad Tepes and Tundra Tabloids noted it, too.
Now, Ruth King at Ruthfully Yours lays it on the line:
I like and admire The Gatestone Institute, and post and circulate just about all their daily columns. Yesterday I posted Clare M. Lopez: Recognizing the Wrong People **** The column has “mysteriously” disappeared from the Gatestone site. Is this an error? Or is this more censorship? Is it because the first paragraphs praise Diana West’s book “American Betrayal”? Is this more of the David Horowitz/Frontpage/Ron Radosh fatwah against the book and it’s author? is this any way to treat a distinguished author like Clare Lopez?
Here is how Gatestone Institute describes Clare Lopez on their site:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/biography/Clare+M.+Lopez
Clare M. Lopez
Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute
Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, the Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.
Already an advisor to EMP Act America, in February 2012 Ms. Lopez was named a member of the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security, which focuses on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) threat to the nation. She is deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team for the Military Department of the South Carolina National Guard and serves as a member of the Boards of Advisors/Directors for the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, the Clarion Fund, the Institute of World Affairs, the Intelligence Analysis and Research program at her undergraduate alma mater, Notre Dame College of Ohio, and United West. She has been a Visiting Researcher and guest lecturer on counterterrorism, national defense, and international relations at Georgetown University. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.
(NB: I am among Clare's 19 co-authors of Shariah: The Threat to America.)
These first paragraphs include praise for Diana West’s book “American Betrayal”…..
“It is high time we stopped empowering those who wish us ill: not just to recognize a blood-soaked regime, but to keep on recognizing it.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt [FDR], reversing the policy of four presidents and six of their Secretaries of State not to recognize the Soviet government, in 1933 extended “normal diplomatic relations” to the Soviet Union, the totalitarian slaughterhouse of Josef Stalin. As meticulously researched by Diana West in her new book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character,” the reasoning behind Roosevelt’s decision was never made clear; what was clear, however, since the 1917-1919 Bolshevik seizure of the Russian government by force, was the Soviet reign of blood and terror. According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, by the late 1930s, Stalin’s regime was shooting tens of thousands of people per month. Yet, for reasons that remain murky, FDR was influenced, inspired, or somehow persuaded to normalize U.S. relations with Stalin, in exchange for a page of Soviet concessions, not worth the paper they were written on, which pledged that the USSR “would not attempt to subvert or overthrow the U.S. system.”
What West documents is the subsequent process of infiltration, influence, and “occupation” by an army of communist agents and fellow travelers; here, however, the focus is on what that original 1933 decision has meant for future generations, most especially our own, when confronted with decisions about whether or not to recognize enemies who make no secret of their enmity and intention to destroy us.
Whatever FDR’s thinking, West points out that this decision — not just to recognize the blood-soaked communist regime, but to keep on recognizing it — fundamentally transformed what Robert Conquest, the great chronicler of Stalin’s purges, called “the conscience of the civilized world.” And perhaps not just our conscience: as West writes, “[b]ecause the Communist regime was so openly and ideologically dedicated to our destruction, the act of recognition defied reason and the demands of self-preservation.” In other words, quite aside from the abdication of objective morality represented by FDR’s decision, there was a surrender of “reality-based judgment,” the implications of which on the ability of U.S. national leadership to make sound decisions involving the fundamental defense of the Republic resonate to the current day.”
This is at the crux of American Betrayal -- the core-detructiveness of our relationship, alliance, appeasement of the Soviet Union. What it did to us. And why we are unable to fend off similar attacks on our liberties today.
That crosses The Censors.
I will have more to say about this -- much more, in fact -- but I will note that Clare's fine essay also appears to have crossed The "Free Speech" Censors line by highlighting the meticulous research that went into American Betrayal.
The serial, falsehoods and assaults on my credibility and the book always, always omit mention, reference to those 944 endnotes anchoring the book -- the State Department records, the Congressional investigations, the memoirs, newspapers, histories, magazines, biographies, letters, private papers, and the like that my book draws on.
It would be interesting to find out why.
I think I know.
As David Horowitz recently put it: "Well-designed attacks on an opponent’s credibility can overpower well-crafted messages.”