The David Horowitz organization has historically been touchy about being criticized, so it's no surprise that my blog post detailing the craziness of Ralph Peters' wild attack on immigration reform at Horowitz's FrontPageMag drew a response.

In his April 6 FrontPageMag article, Rich Trzupek kicked things off with ad hominem attacks, calling Media Matters “George Soros' steno pool” and calling Peters “a real American hero who spent ten years in military intelligence defending this nation in ways that journalists like Terry Krepel could not imagine.” In contrast to what he calls Media Matters' depiction of Peters as a “racist, extremist, blood-thirsty lunatic,” Trzupek further defends Peters as “an unapologetic advocate of taking and keeping America's gloves off while fighting the war on terror.”

Actually, Peters has done a bit of what could be called apologizing. Last year, Peters smeared a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan captured by the Taliban, claiming that if he was a deserter, “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills” by killing him. After the Pentagon said that Peters' comments could further endanger the captured soldier, Peters tried to walk it back.

Trzupek went on to claim that I “construct[ed] a straw man of massive proportions” by framing Peters' opposition to comprehensive immigration reform as giving voting rights to “illegals,” adding: “Peters didn't argue that Obama was going to pass out voter registration cards to illegals. Any discerning, intelligent reader understood that Peters' concern is about making illegals citizens -- as the president has suggested we do -- and therefore granting them votes. I'm not sure why those particular dots needs connecting, but apparently they do, at least at Media Matters.”

But Peters' argument that he opposes “making illegals citizens -- as the president has suggested we do -- and therefore granting them votes” was drowned out by his repeated insistence that there should be "No voting rights for illegals." Like these passages:

• “If there is one message patriotic Americans must act upon during the remainder of Obama's reign, it's this: No voting rights for illegals.”

• “Anyone who challenges the free gift of voting rights to illegal immigrants is going to be charged as a bigot by the left.”

• “But I view the question of voting rights for illegal immigrants as the most critical issue of my lifetime, as regards the protection of our republic.”

• “Those who love this country must focus on that single mantra, repeating it until the votes-for-illegals snake is dead: No voting rights for illegals, no voting rights for illegals, no voting rights for illegals.”

Peters is the one who framed the issue that way, not me. When you repeatedly claim that Obama wants to give “voting rights to illegals,” don't profess shock when people take those words at face value and highlight their inherent nonsense.

Trzupek then goes on to suggest that I'm part of a “genteel mob rule” who's pushing “mind-numbing populist propaganda.” So what kind of propaganda is Peters pushing by raising the (nonexistent) specter of “voting rights to illegals”? What type of propaganda is FrontPageMag advancing by accompanying that piece with a photo of heavily tattooed, Hispanic-looking gang members -- thus presenting them as the type of “illegals” Peters and FrontPageMag think will get that vote? Trzupek is curiously silent about that.