Enter your mobile number below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism Hardcover – June 24, 2003
|New from||Used from|
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence. The left's obsession with the crimes of the West and their Rousseauian respect for Third World savages all flow from this subversive goal. If anyone has the gaucherie to point out the left's nearly unblemished record of rooting against America, liberals turn around and scream "McCarthyism!"
Liberals invented the myth of McCarthyism to delegitimize impertinent questions about their own patriotism. They boast (lyingly) about their superior stance on civil rights. But somehow their loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate. Why is the relative patriotism of the two parties the only issue that is out of bounds for discussion? Why can't we ask: Who is more patriotic -- Democrats or Republicans? You could win that case in court.
Fifty years ago, Senator Joe McCarthy said, "The loyal Democrats of this nation no longer have a Party."(1) Since then, the evidence has continued to pour in. Liberals mock Americans who love their country, calling them cowboys, warmongers, religious zealots, and jingoists. By contrast, America's enemies are called "Uncle Joe," "Fidel," "agrarian reformers," and practitioners of a "religion of peace." Indeed, Communists and terrorists alike are said to be advocates of "peace."
Liberals demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies. We must lift sanctions, cancel embargoes, pull out our troops, reason with our adversaries, and absolutely never wage war -- unless the French say it's okay. Any evidence that anyone seeks to harm America is stridently rejected as "no evidence." Democratic senators, congressmen, and ex-presidents are always popping up in countries hostile to the United States -- Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iraq -- hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America. One year after Osama bin Laden staged a massive assault on America, a Democratic senator was praising bin Laden for his good work in building "day care centers." At least we can be thankful that in the war on terrorism, we were spared the spectacle of liberals calling Osama bin Laden an "agrarian reformer."
The ACLU responded to the 9-11 terrorist attack by threatening to sue schools that hung god bless america signs. Is the ACLU more or less patriotic than the Daughters of the American Revolution? Public schools across the nation prohibited the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance. Is it more patriotic or less patriotic to prevent schoolchildren from saying the Pledge of Allegiance? University professors called patriotic Americans "naive" and described patriotism as a "benign umbrella for angry people."(2) Is it more patriotic to love your country or to ridicule those who do as "naive" and "angry"? These are not questions impenetrable to human logic.
Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of it. Patriotism is vitally important -- but somehow impossible to measure. Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it, they say he's a kook and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes "McCarthyism."
In the 1988 presidential campaign, Vice President George Bush pointed out that his opponent Michael Dukakis had vetoed a bill requiring students to begin their day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberal heads spun with the dark reminders of the McCarthy era. Dukakis instantly compared Bush's dastardly trick of citing his record "to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red-baiting during the 1950s."(3) Despite this slur against his patriotism, Dukakis said, "The American people can smell the garbage."(4) At least sophisticated Americans could smell the garbage. As one journalist said of Bush's unwarranted reference to Dukakis's record, it was intended to "rile up" ignoramuses in the American populace: the "folks who don't know any better," whose inferior "education or experience has not taught them that the right to speak out is the rudder of this great big boat we call America."(5) The only people whose "right to speak out" is not part of this great big boat we call America are Republicans who dare to mention that a Democrat vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance. Free speech is a one-way ratchet for traitors. While journalists assailed Bush for creating an atmosphere of intolerance for those who "object to patriotic oaths," they didn't mind creating an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who support patriotic oaths.(6)
Later, while campaigning at a naval base, Bush said of Dukakis, "I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks a naval exercise is something you find in the Jane Fonda Workout Book."(7) Again, there were wails of "McCarthyism" all around. Showing the left's renowned ability to get a joke, one reporter earnestly demanded to know: "Did Bush mean to imply that Dukakis is anti-military?"(8) Bush responded to the hysteria over his Jane Fonda joke, saying, "Was that funny? Reasonably funny? A naval exercise -- I thought that was pretty funny."(9)
Historians claimed they had not seen "patriotism used with such cynical force" since the fifties. It was "disturbing," historians and political analysts said, for Bush to manipulate symbols to "raise doubts about the Democratic nominee's patriotism."(10) Historian William Leuchtenburger, at the University of North Carolina, said, "I don't recall anything like this before. I don't think there has been an issue like this -- an issue so irrelevant to the powers of the presidency."(11) Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory complained about the "McCarthyesque form" to Bush's language: "The subliminal message in all the nastiness and bad taste is that Dukakis is somehow un-American: doesn't salute the flag or dig defense."(12) The New York Times denounced Bush for "wrapping himself in the flag." Through his "masterly use of the subliminal" Bush had used "political code." The code was "pledge plus flag plus strong defense equals patriotism."(13) (Evidently true patriotism consists of hatred of flag plus hatred of Pledge plus weakness on national defense.) Not going for subtlety, this was under the headline "Playing Rough; Campaign Takes a Turn onto the Low Road."
A frenzy of "McCarthyism" arose again in Bush's next presidential campaign against noted patriot Bill Clinton. While a Rhodes scholar, Clinton joined anti-war protests abroad. One year after the USSR crushed Czechoslovakia, Clinton had taken what the media called a "sightseeing trip to Moscow." For mentioning Clinton's anti-war protests abroad, Bush was called a nut and a McCarthyite. Clinton campaign aide George Stephanopoulos said Bush was "off the wall, lost his compass."(14) Clinton's running mate, Al Gore, accused Bush of "smear tactics, McCarthyite techniques."(15) Meanwhile, CNN's Robert Novak defended McCarthy, saying, "Joe didn't do any innuendo, Joe would have said the guy is a Communist."(16)
"McCarthyism" means pointing out positions taken by liberals that are unpopular with the American people. As former president Bush said, "Liberals do not like me talking about liberals."(17) The reason they sob about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country.
Liberals unreservedly call all conservatives fascists, racists, and enemies of civil liberties with no facts whatsoever. Reviewing the movie 8 Mile in The New Yorker, David Denby praised the interracial friendships portrayed in the movie and then said, "Perhaps the specter of such friendships is what right-wingers actually hate most." Conservatives are prohibited from citing actual facts that reflect poorly on a Democrat's patriotism, but liberals regularly fire off shots like that from their little movie reviews.(18)
Liberals malign the flag, ban the Pledge, and hold cocktail parties for America's enemies, but no one is ever allowed to cast the slightest aspersion on their patriotism. The very same article that attacked Bush for questioning Dukakis's patriotism questioned Bush's sensitivity to civil rights -- for mentioning Dukakis's veto of the Pledge. The writer scoffed: "George Bush will really be a stand-up guy when it comes to civil liberties. You betcha."(19) We could draw no conclusions from Dukakis's veto of the Pledge. It was a "smear" merely to state the implacable fact that Dukakis had vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance. But apparently it was not a smear to attack Bush's stand on "civil liberties for mentioning Dukakis's veto of the pledge."(20)
Only questions about patriotism are disallowed -- unless it is to say that liberals are the "real patriots." Phil Donahue said the "real patriots" were people who aggressively opposed their own country's war plans: "Are the protesters the real patriots?"(21) It is at least counterintuitive to say that it is more patriotic to attack America than to defend it. Even Donahue couldn't continue with such absurd logic, and quickly condemned patriotism as "the last refuge of scoundrels," and warned: "Beware of patriotism."(22)
In addition to opposing any action taken by your own country, "real patriotism" also consists of promoting the liberal agenda. After 9-...
From the Inside Flap
In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today?s war on terrorism. ?Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,? says Coulter. ?Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don?t.? From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America?s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives.
Reexamining the sixty-year history of the Cold War and beyond?including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers?Alger Hiss affair, Ronald Reagan?s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to ?tear down this wall,? the Gulf War, and our present war on terrorism?Coulter reveals how liberals have been horribly wrong in all their political analyses and policy prescriptions. McCarthy, exonerated by the Venona Papers if not before, was basically right about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government. Hiss turned out to be a high-ranking Soviet spy (who consulted Roosevelt at Yalta). Reagan, ridiculed throughout his presidency, ended up winning the Cold War. And George W. Bush, also an object of ridicule, has performed exceptionally in responding to America?s newest threats at home and abroad.
Coulter, who in Slander exposed a liberal bias in today?s media, also examines how history, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, has been written by liberals and, therefore, distorted by their perspective. Far from being irrelevant today, her clearheaded and piercing view of what we?ve been through informs us perfectly for challenges today and in the future.
With Slander, Ann Coulter became the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual of the year. Treason, in many ways an even more controversial and prescient book, will ignite impassioned political debate at one of the most crucial moments in our history.
Top Customer Reviews
As for Treason, Coulter has once again shown how easy it is to anger the Left by simply revealing the truth. Personally, I am sick of the spin from both sides of the aisle, and appreciate facts backed up by proof. That's exactly what Coulter delivers in this book. If you disagree, go look up the source material. Coulter meticulously covers all of the bases, sometimes even providing the exact search terminology she uses on LexisNexis so the Doubting Thomases of the world can go do some homework.
As I read her books, I can hear her voice -- and picture her shredding through Liberals one after another, and usually with their own words come back to haunt them.
6 stars out of 5.
Over the past several months a number of books have come out "bashing" the left, most since 9/11. Most of them stating that the Liberal Democrat elite have missed the boat on the issues and most of the books do nothing but "bash" them. So why then is this book different? Why then is this book making the news?
Ann Coulter, who has already put together 2 other books, has taken the issues, one by one, broken them down and with documented evidence shown that the left has missed the boat on many of them.
Does she bash the liberals? In some cases very hard, and in others not at all. Coulter takes the Left to task and put the facts in front of them, there is no doubt as to where she stands and this conviction is what makes this book such a compelling read.
I was impressed by her straight forward, no holds barred approach and her unwillingness to leave the core beliefs. So gives no ground and if you look at all the facts and evidence you may start tot think twice about what needs to be changed.
Coulter's work is first rate, leaving no stones unturned in pursuit of the truth. While the liberals may find it hard to swallow the information, the work is complete and well organized. Overall an excellent job!!
Years later, while teaching a History class at a High School, a new book was published about "Venona" - or decrypted soviet communications from before, during and after McCarthy's supposed reigh of terror. This evidence should have put to rest any questions regarding the accuracy and importance of McCarthy and his efforts.
I introduced this information since the history book provided by the district was clearly biased and inaccurate given the latest information. I was told to simply "teach the book" by administrators. I was not prevented from presenting the new information, but sticking to the book was the suggestion first offered.
Ms. Coulter, lays out all the facts in her latest work. Sprinkled with her usual witty jabs at those on the left, she takes the reader through a well documented and supported thesis.
However, its sad that works like this get couched in the usual left/right, democrat/republican hopper. Instead, you can simply read her claims and check for yourself. Its all there. All the sources are dutifully noted for the reader to fact check on their own.
The myth of who and what McCarthy is may never be corrected. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth... particularly after half a century! Perhaps this will be a good way to discover how many years of facts it takes to restore the truth.
Interested in learning more? Simply do a search on Amazon for the word "Venona" in the book title. There are several works on the subject and they are astonishingly eye opening.
Finally, when reading books like this, always let the notations be your guide. If the bibliography does not have primary sources listed, its not likely to be worth your time - or its supposed "facts".
Treason addresses the extraordinary contrast the Left's approach to national security makes with that of the Right. The first hundred twenty pages of the book are given to a shattering re-examination of the life and work of the most maligned figure in modern American politics: Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. As was Slander, it's meticulously footnoted -- and all the references appear to check out perfectly.
There are folks who dislike Coulter's take-no-prisoners style. "Of tastes there is nothing written," say the sages. There are folks who think no one would pay her any attention if she weren't a tall, beautiful blonde. Nearly all of these are her ideological adversaries. There are folks who think her willingness to say precisely what she thinks is somehow shameful, a detriment to the American political dialogue. These persons, who've dispensed a lot of slander at conservatives in their day, have a funny idea of the dictates of gentility.
Ann Coulter has been called virtually every vicious name in the book for her opinions and her unabashed presentations thereof. I don't agree with all of her positions, but I admire her tremendously for her courage. When one makes one's living by the written word, to express oneself as she's done requires quite a lot of courage. As has been pointed out by many observers of the punditry scene, including Coulter herself, it's not conservative authors who rake in the big bucks for their work -- despite their enormous differential popularity among persons who buy nonfiction books.Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
I recently finished this book last week. I lost sleep at night because I just couldn't put this book down. Read morePublished 29 days ago by Craig Payne
I actually read this from cover to cover. It was even more moon-bat crazy than I expected. First sentence calls liberals “hysterical”. Read morePublished 10 months ago by A Reader
Thanks Ann for giving me such an understanding of liberals. I have never liked them and felt that they were destroying our great country!! Read morePublished 14 months ago by Kindle Customer