It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:20 am 
Offline
The Magnanimous
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:47 am
Posts: 38724
Location: on a high horse
Image

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,
(June 2003) Ann Coulter, Crown Forum,
ISBN 1400050308,
368 pages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:51 pm 
Offline
The Magnanimous
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:47 am
Posts: 38724
Location: on a high horse
Excerpt from 'Treason'
By Ann Coulter
Fifty Years of Treason

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 9-11, Mario Cuomo said real patriotism consisted of fighting the "war on poverty."(23) Liberal columnist David Broder said "real patriotism" consisted of expanding the Peace Corps and Clinton's worthless Americorp.(24) A writer for the Kansas City Star, Bill Tammeus, said real patriots "support education, especially the public schools."(25) The only "unpatriotic" act he identified was trying to "silence dissident voices."(26) A man protesting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools said, "True Americans separate church and state."(27) A woman opposing the Pledge said, "Real patriotism, and real love for your country, is. .. dissent, or people fighting against the closure of hospitals."(28) Liberals don't mind discussing who is more patriotic if patriotism is defined as redistributing income and vetoing the Pledge of Allegiance. Only if patriotism is defined as supporting America do they get testy and drone on about "McCarthyism."

In June 2002, an American-born Muslim named Abdullah al-Mujahir was arrested on charges of trying to build a dirty bomb. Most Americans were worried about a terrorist taking out Lower Manhattan. But the New York Times was worried about an outbreak of "McCarthyism." According to the Times, the arrest reminded many people of "McCarthyism and of zealous F.B.I. agents defining the limits of political orthodoxy." Al-Mujahir's arrest had "revived a fear that has permeated popular history: that a homegrown fifth column is betraying fellow Americans on behalf of a foreign foe."(29) Historian Richard Hofstadter diagnosed the country's attempts at self-preservation as a form of "political paranoia."(30) Even Benedict Arnold was thrown in to the Times's enumeration of victims of America's "paranoia," raising the question: Is there no traitor liberals won't defend?

Liberals attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone criticizes them. Days after 9-11, as the corpses of thousands of our fellow countrymen lay in smoldering heaps in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, Professor Eric Foner of Columbia University said, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."(31) On the basis of exhaustive research, apparently the events of September 11, including the wanton slaughter of three thousand Americans, were worse than Bush's rhetoric — frightening and disturbing though it may be. Whenever a liberal begins a statement with "I don't know which is more frightening," you know the answer is going to be pretty clear.

Foner claimed to be the victim of McCarthyite tactics for not being lavished with praise for his idiotic remark. A report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni — founded by Lynne Cheney and Senator Joseph Lieberman — cited Foner's remark as an example of how universities were failing America. This was, Foner said, "analogous to McCarthyism." These "self-appointed guardians" were "engaging in private blacklisting" and "trying to intimidate individuals who hold different points of view." A private group issuing a report criticizing him was "disturbing" and a "cause for considerable alarm."(32) The eminent historian Ronald Radosh is blacklisted from every university in the nation because he wrote the book definitively proving the guilt of executed spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But if someone fails to agree with tenured Columbia professor Foner, he screams he is being intimidated. "There aren't loyalty oaths being demanded of teachers yet," Foner said, "but we seem to be at the beginning of a process that could get a lot worse."

If Eric Foner wants to claim he is patriotic, doesn't he have to do something to show he supports America, someday? Why is it assumed that patriotism is an unmeasurable quality? Is Eric Foner more or less patriotic than Irving Berlin? Berlin wrote the great patriotic song "God Bless America." He donated all profits from the song in perpetuity to the Boy Scouts of America — an organization so patriotic it removed President Clinton as honorary president. Berlin served in World War I and entertained the troops in World War II with a play he wrote for the troops, This Is the Army. He greeted prisoners of war returning from Vietnam at the White House, playing "God Bless America."(33) If only Berlin were around today, he could write us a new song for the war on terrorism, something like, "Good-bye Walla Walla, I'm off to Smash Allah."

Meanwhile, Foner compared the malevolent terror of Islamic terrorists to "rhetoric" from President Bush. He defended Soviet atrocities.(34) He is still defending proven Soviet spy Julius Rosenberg. If only Foner could see beyond what is bad for the United States, he might see that fighting terrorism and Communism might be good for people of other nations, too. In a long tradition of patriotism, in 1941, Foner's father was fired from his job as a state college teacher under the New York State law that prohibited state-supported teachers from engaging in seditious or treasonous speech. (Inasmuch as this happened in New York State while Joe McCarthy was still a young circuit court judge in Wisconsin, the New York Times referred to Foner's firing as a "pre-McCarthy Red scare."(35) Isn't someone who opposes his own country less patriotic than someone who loves his country?

While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria — "McCarthyism" — to prevent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?

NOTES

1. Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, New York: Free Press, 2000, p. 203.

2. Lynn Smith, "Patriotism: One Size Does Not Fit All; A New Generation of Americans Must Assess What It Means to Be Loyal," Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2001.

3. Phil Gailey, "Bush Campaign Takes a Disturbing Turn with Attacks on Patriotism," St. Petersburg Times, September 11, 1988.

4. Peter Applebome, New York Times, October 30, 1988.

5. David Nyhan, "A Tide of Hysteria Rolls in on Dukakis," Boston Globe, September 30, 1988.

6. Phil Gailey, "Bush Campaign Takes a Disturbing Turn with Attacks on Patriotism," St. Petersburg Times.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Mary McGrory, "The Bush Barrage," Washington Post, September 11, 1988.

13. R. W. Apple, Jr., "Playing Rough; Campaign Takes a Turn onto the Low Road," New York Times, September 18, 1988.

14. Michael Isikoff, "President Drops Clinton Trip Issue; Bush Denies Attacking Foe's Patriotism," Washington Post, October 10, 1992.

15. Harry Smith, "Senator Al Gore Discusses the Presidential Campaign," CBS This Morning, October 14, 1992.

16. Bernard Shaw, "In Which Section of the Country Do Bush Innuendos Work?" CNN Inside Politics, October 8, 1992.

17. Tom Bethell, "Bush Calls a Liberal a Liberal and Looks More Like the People's Choice," Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1988.

18. David Denby, "Breaking Through: 8 Mile and Frida," The New Yorker, November 11, 2002.

19. David Nyhan, "A Tide of Hysteria Rolls in on Dukakis," Boston Globe.

20. Ibid.

21. Phil Donahue, Phil Donahue, MSNBC, December 16, 2002.

22. Ibid.

23. Geri Nikolai, "Cuomo Talks Patriotism, War," Rockford Register Star (Rockford, Ill.), April 3, 2002.

24. David S. Broder, "Pave a New Road to Patriotism," San Jose Mercury News, May 26, 2002.

25. Bill Tammeus, "Authentic Patriots," Kansas City Star, October 6, 2001.

26. The Kansas City Star was so impressed with this point, it ran Tammeus's column twice. Bill Tammeus, "Commentary: Patriotism Requires Much More Than Flags," Kansas City Star, October 9, 2001; Bill Tammeus, "Authentic Patriots," Kansas City Star.

27. Doug Erickson, "Board Reverses Pledge Ban; Hundreds Speak at Meeting; Vote Is 6–1," Wisconsin State Journal, October 16, 2001.

28. Janet Hook and Greg Krikorian, "Outrage Ignited on All Sides," Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2002.

29. Richard Gid Powers, "The Nation: Fifth Column; The Evil That Lurks in the Enemy Within," New York Times, June 16, 2002.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Matthew Rothschild, "The New McCarthyism: Cover Story," The Progressive, January 1, 2002.

33. See, e.g., Maynard Good Stoddard, "'God Bless America'. .. And Irving Berlin," Saturday Evening Post, September 1983.

34. See generally John Patrick Diggins, "Fate and Freedom in History: The Two Worlds of Eric Foner," The National Interest, Fall 2002.

35. William H. Honan, "Jack D. Foner, 88, Historian and Pioneer in Black Studies," New York Times, December 16, 1999. In the classic trajectory for Communists, years later, Foner was put in charge of his own department at Colby College in Maine.

Excerpted from Treason by Ann Coulter Copyright© 2003 by Ann Coulter. Excerpted by permission of Crown Forum, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:54 pm
Posts: 3153
Location: Boston Mountains
For whatever his alleged shortcomings, McCarthy was right. And so is Ann. So is Horowitz. So is Medved.

I first saw film footage of the McCarthy hearings while in grade school, in 1960, and knew something was horribly amiss when several of my favorite Hollywood stars curiously refused to comment or respond to even standard congressional and senate inquiry. When the film ended and the lights came on, my middle-aged "Mrs. Rayburn" of a teacher asked, "Anyone have comments?" To which I raised my hand, stood, and responded, "Hollywood is communist."

After class ended, my teacher quietly guided me to her desk, and said simply, "Don't ever let go of your beliefs."

I'd give my left arm to see a return to the American public school system of 1960.

Thanks for the book, Ann. Deeply grateful for it. God bless America. When I see a book of this caliber, I'm reminded that my military service was well worth it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:57 am 
Offline
Forum Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:50 am
Posts: 54969
Location: (M) California - God Bless America!
I deeply regret having lent this book to a friend who will probably never return it or read it.

I'll have to buy another copy.

Wonderful book. This was the book that first drew me to Ann's writings. I saw it in a bookstore, and the title caught me. I had to know who was accusing whom of treason.

She had me on the first page. By the third I was laughing, and within five I knew that I must own this book and read it with relish. I then went out and found the other books (Slander and High Crimes), and waited on bated breath for How To and Godless, both of which are pithy gems of reason and wit.

Treason, however, is, imho, the Opus Magnus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: This book is amazing...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:08 pm
Posts: 1
I wish that Ann would do more on the Che Guevara followers and the Castro bootlicking hippies in this country...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:05 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:06 pm
Posts: 8184
Location: 404 Not Found
Welcome Punchiest!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:15 pm
Posts: 1845
Location: NJ - Leftardom USA
IMO, this was the best of all her books.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:35 am
Posts: 7263
Location: Dallas, TX
I just finished the Chapter on McCarthy, and I loved it! I'm taking a look at my American History book (I'm a High School Junior) and check this out:

"The political power of the new broadcast medium was again demonstrated as up to 20 million Americans at a time watched in fascination while a boorish, surly McCarthy publicly cut his own throat by parading his essential meanness and irresponsibility. A few months later, the Senate formally condemned him for 'conduct unbecoming a member'. Three years later, unwept and unsung, McCarthy died of chronic alcoholism. But 'McCarthyism' has passed into the English language as a label for the dangerous forces of unfairness and fear that a democratic society can unleash only at its peril."

~The American Pageant, 12th edition, Houghton Mifflin

And I thought this book was pretty neutral! But, it should be noted that this book was written in 2002, and it contains no mention to the Venona Project. It's not even in the index. The book also says "the treat of Soviet spies was very unlikely."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:35 am
Posts: 7263
Location: Dallas, TX
Sir Andrew wrote:
I just finished the Chapter on McCarthy, and I loved it! I'm taking a look at my American History book (I'm a High School Junior) and check this out:

"The political power of the new broadcast medium was again demonstrated as up to 20 million Americans at a time watched in fascination while a boorish, surly McCarthy publicly cut his own throat by parading his essential meanness and irresponsibility. A few months later, the Senate formally condemned him for 'conduct unbecoming a member'. Three years later, unwept and unsung, McCarthy died of chronic alcoholism. But 'McCarthyism' has passed into the English language as a label for the dangerous forces of unfairness and fear that a democratic society can unleash only at its peril."

~The American Pageant, 12th edition, Houghton Mifflin

And I thought this book was pretty neutral! But, it should be noted that this book was written in 2002, and it contains no mention to the Venona Project. It's not even in the index. The book also says "the treat of Soviet spies was very unlikely."


Oh, I forgot to mention, that passage about McCarthy was the McCarthy-Welch Hearings (Yes, because McCarthy was sooo irresponsible pointing out the obvious :cry: ). By the way, I've taken the liberty of inserting Post-Its to help whoever has this book after me, so they can know the truth.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 191
Sir Andrew: you are a true patriot and I hope you will be president someday. I like the "unwept" part. that is if you don't include the 100 priests, 70 senators, and the director of the fbi who attended his funeral and the 30,000 Americans who flew to DC to pay their final respects to mccarthy, and the Americans who sent 70 mail bags of condolences to his wife. so not including that, mccarthy died "unwept."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:07 pm
Posts: 3666
Location: California
McCarthy launches his "Witch Hunt"
The most famous anti-Communist activist was Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican from Wisconsin. During his first three years in the Senate, he had acquired a reputation for being an ineffective legislator. By January 1950, he realized that he was going to need a winning issue in order to be reelected in 1952. Looking for such an issue, McCarthy charged that Communists were taking over the government.
MCCARTHY'S TACTICS Taking advantage of people's concerns about communism, McCarthy made one unsupported accusation after another. These attacks on suspected Communists in the early 1950s became known as McCarthyism. Since that time, McCarthyism has referred to the unfair tactic of accusing people of disloyalty without providing evidence. At various times McCarthy claimed to have in his hands the names of 57, 81, and 205 Communists in the State Department. (He never actually produced a single name.) He also charged that the Democratic Party was guilty of "20 years of treason" for allowing Communist infiltration into the government. He was always careful to do his name-calling only in the Senate, where he had legal immunity that protected him from being sued for slander.
The Republicans did little to stop McCarthy's attacks because they believed they would win the 1952 presidential election if the public saw them purging the nation of Communists. But one small group of six senators, led by Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, did speak out.
A Personal Voice MARGARET CHASE SMITH
"I speak as a Republican, I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States senator, I speak as an American....I'm not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle."
MCCARTHY'S DOWNFALL
Finally, in 1954, McCarthy made accusations against the U.S. Army, which resulted in a nationally televised Senate investigation. McCarthy's bullying of witnesses alienated the audience and cost him public support. The Senate condemned him for improper conduct that "tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute." Three years later, Joseph McCarthy, suffering from alcoholism, died a broken man.

- McCougal Littell "The Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st Century" 2006, my son's 11th grade history textbook


***

There is zero mention of, "Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York Times's man in Moscow," the scumbucket who covered up Stalin's atrocities. link

Great idea using the post-it notes, Sir Andrew. I will do the same.

McCarthy is attacked by the History and English teachers. Most students end up believing McCarthy was evil incarnate.

As for Venona, this textbook only mentions it once, in passing: "Hiss claimed he was innocent and that Chambers had forged the documents used against him. However, in the 1990s, Soviet cables released by the National Security Agency seemed to prove Hiss's guilt."

I am outraged at the liberal bias in public school curricula.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:16 pm
Posts: 699
Location: New York
I'm a senior in high school, and had American History/Government last year. Obviously, I don't have my textbook anymore, but I kept my Regents Review book for that class. Here is what it says about McCarthy:

"Against this political background, Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin began his own hunt for communists. In 1950, McCarthy charged he had a list of State Department employees known to be communists. Over the next four years, McCarthy went on to charge that many other people and government agencies had been corrupted by communism.

McCarthy made bold accusations without any evidence. This tactic became known as 'McCarthyism.' He ruined the reputations of many people he carelessly accused of being communists. Meanwhile, the Rosenberg case and congressional legislation helped win public support for McCarthy's actions.

In 1954, McCarthy charged that even the army was full of communists. He held televised investigations into these charges. For the first time, millions of Americans saw McCarthy's bullying tactics for themselves. His public support quickly faded, and in December 1954 the Senate censured, or denounced, him for 'conduct unbecoming a member.' The fall of McCarthy ended the red scare of the 1950s, although anticommunist attitudes lingered as the Cold War continued to drag on."

Brief Review in United States History and Government, Prentice Hall, 2006

It also says this of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were undoubtedly guilty of treason: "Convicted and executed for treason in 1953 during the era of McCarthyism; innocence is still debated."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:16 pm
Posts: 699
Location: New York
By the way, last year in my English class, we read The Crucible, and I had to do a research paper on "McCarthyism."

The good thing was that I wrote the paper BEFORE I read Treason, so it was easy to write a B.S. paper.

I'm so glad and grateful to Ann Coulter that I now know the truth (and was able to laugh at her jokes as well)! :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:02 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 2:07 pm
Posts: 3963
escondida7 wrote:
By the way, last year in my English class, we read The Crucible, and I had to do a research paper on "McCarthyism."

The good thing was that I wrote the paper BEFORE I read Treason, so it was easy to write a B.S. paper.

I'm so glad and grateful to Ann Coulter that I now know the truth (and was able to laugh at her jokes as well)! :nod:


:clap: Good job, escondida!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:35 am
Posts: 7263
Location: Dallas, TX
Wow, it seems I've started a movement... :sputter:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:16 pm
Posts: 699
Location: New York
Right Wing Conspirator wrote:
escondida7 wrote:
By the way, last year in my English class, we read The Crucible, and I had to do a research paper on "McCarthyism."

The good thing was that I wrote the paper BEFORE I read Treason, so it was easy to write a B.S. paper.

I'm so glad and grateful to Ann Coulter that I now know the truth (and was able to laugh at her jokes as well)! :nod:


:clap: Good job, escondida!!!


Thanks!! :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:16 pm
Posts: 699
Location: New York
Sir Andrew wrote:
Wow, it seems I've started a movement... :sputter:


I see bias/indoctrination all the time at school. I expect most government schools (or "skrewls" as Rush Limbaugh calls them) in the country are essentially indoctrination centers.

The textbooks--especially the history books--are always seeping with liberal bias and lies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:20 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:50 am
Posts: 54969
Location: (M) California - God Bless America!
Sir Andrew wrote:
Wow, it seems I've started a movement... :sputter:

It appears that Ann was right about you: A natural leader and future president. May your tribe -- and Escondida's as well -- increase.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:11 am 
Offline
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:06 pm
Posts: 8184
Location: 404 Not Found
Ann Coulter wrote:
Sir Andrew: you are a true patriot and I hope you will be president someday. I like the "unwept" part. that is if you don't include the 100 priests, 70 senators, and the director of the fbi who attended his funeral and the 30,000 Americans who flew to DC to pay their final respects to mccarthy, and the Americans who sent 70 mail bags of condolences to his wife. so not including that, mccarthy died "unwept."


So...Romney's fallen out of favor?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:35 am
Posts: 7263
Location: Dallas, TX
kmackie6612 wrote:
Ann Coulter wrote:
Sir Andrew: you are a true patriot and I hope you will be president someday. I like the "unwept" part. that is if you don't include the 100 priests, 70 senators, and the director of the fbi who attended his funeral and the 30,000 Americans who flew to DC to pay their final respects to mccarthy, and the Americans who sent 70 mail bags of condolences to his wife. so not including that, mccarthy died "unwept."


So...Romney's fallen out of favor?


Yeah, but I'm going to drop out this year and let Tom Tancredo take my place.... I think he's probably the best bet. People don't know Romney any better than they know Tancredo, in fact, I'd bet more people have heard Tancredo speak than Romney.

Oh, and my History book turns horribly liberal at the end (and looking back, it's horribly liberal in the beginning too.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 291
Location: Milky Way
I also found some attacks on McCarthy, in my younger sister's 12th grade history book.

Born in 1908 near Appleton, Wisconsin, Joseph R. McCarthy studied law and served in World War II before his first run for the Senate. McCarthy's 1946 political campaign sounded the keynote of his career. Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.

After becoming a senator, McCarthy continued to proclaim that Communists were a danger both at home and abroad. To some of his audiences, he distributed a booklet called "The Party of Betrayal," which accused Democratic Party leaders of corruption and of protecting Communists. Secretary of State Dean Acheson was a frequent target. According to McCarthy, Acheson was incompetent and a tool of Stalin. He wildly accused George C. Marshall, the former army chief of staff and secretary of state, of disloyalty as a member of "a conspiracy so immense as to dwarf any previous such ventures in the history of man. McCarthy was not alone in making such charges. In the prevailing mood of anxiety about communism, many Americans were ready to believe them.

After the 1952 election gave the Republicans control of Congress, McCarthy became chairman of the Senate subcommittee on investigations, Using the power of his committee to force government officials to testify about alleged Communist influences, McCarthy turned the investigation into a witch hunt-a search for disloyalty based on flimsy evidence and irrational fears. His tactic of damaging reputations with vague and unfounded charges became known as McCarthyism.

McCarthy's theatrics and sensational accusations drew the attention of the press, which put him in the headlines and quoted him widely. When he questioned witnesses, McCarthy would badger them and then refuse to accept their answers. His tactics left a cloud of suspicion that McCarthy and others interpreted as guilt. Furthermore, people were afraid to challenge him for fear of becoming targets themselves.

In 1954 McCarthy began to look for Soviet spies in the United States Army. Alerted to his intentions, the army conducted its own internal investigation and found no spies or any suspicion of espionage. Furious at the denial, McCarthy took his investigation onto television. He questioned and challenged officers in a harsh voice, harassing them about trivial details and accusing them of misconduct.

During weeks of televised Army-McCarthy hearings in the spring of 1954, millions of Americans watched McCarthy bully witnesses. His popular support started to fade. Finally, to strike back at the army lawyer, Joseph Welch, McCarthy brought up the past of a young lawyer in Welch's firm who had been a member of a Communist-front organization during his law school years. Welch, who was fully aware of the young man's past, now exploded at McCarthy for possibly ruining the young man's career: "Until this moment, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. . . . You have done enough. Have you sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Spectators cheered. Welch had said aloud what many Americans had been thinking. One senator on the committee, Stuart Remington of Missouri, was also repelled: "The American people have had a look at you for six weeks. You are not fooling anyone." McCarthy had lost the power to arouse fear. Newspaper headlines repeated, "Have you no sense of decency?"

Later that year, the Senate passed a vote of censure, or formal disapproval, against McCarthy-one of the most serious criticisms it can level against a member. His influence gone, McCarthy faded from public view. Although he remained in the Senate, he had little influence. He died in 1957, a broken and embittered man.


Last edited by elephant21 on Thu May 31, 2007 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:35 am
Posts: 7263
Location: Dallas, TX
elephant21 wrote:
Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.


McCarthy did no such thing. I'm calling B.S. on that.

He didn't really make Communism his issue until his re-election.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:36 pm
Posts: 21
Location: Middle West
Quote:
[Liberals] absolutely never wage war


Actually Ms. Coulter, there have been far more wars waged this century by Democratic presidents than there have been by Republican presidents. War does not follow one political party or nation, but has become our national past-time. I don't blame Bush or Reagan any more than I blame Clinton, Truman, and Kennedy for our military misadventures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:01 am
Posts: 7612
Sir Andrew wrote:
elephant21 wrote:
Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.


McCarthy did no such thing. I'm calling B.S. on that.

He didn't really make Communism his issue until his re-election.


Looks like both of you are wrong. McCarthy used that insult against his Democratic opponent in the Senate race -- Howard J. McMurray.

"It was in his campaign against McMurray that McCarthy first came to grips with the issue he would make his own: communism. He called his opponent "communistically inclined" and a "little megaphone" of the "Communist-controlled CIO-Political Action Committee."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:35 am
Posts: 7263
Location: Dallas, TX
Sun City Crazy wrote:
Sir Andrew wrote:
elephant21 wrote:
Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.


McCarthy did no such thing. I'm calling B.S. on that.

He didn't really make Communism his issue until his re-election.


Looks like both of you are wrong. McCarthy used that insult against his Democratic opponent in the Senate race -- Howard J. McMurray.

"It was in his campaign against McMurray that McCarthy first came to grips with the issue he would make his own: communism. He called his opponent "communistically inclined" and a "little megaphone" of the "Communist-controlled CIO-Political Action Committee."

Hmm...

I'd have to see the primary source documents first.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:01 am
Posts: 7612
Sir Andrew wrote:
Sun City Crazy wrote:
Sir Andrew wrote:
elephant21 wrote:
Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.


McCarthy did no such thing. I'm calling B.S. on that.

He didn't really make Communism his issue until his re-election.


Looks like both of you are wrong. McCarthy used that insult against his Democratic opponent in the Senate race -- Howard J. McMurray.

"It was in his campaign against McMurray that McCarthy first came to grips with the issue he would make his own: communism. He called his opponent "communistically inclined" and a "little megaphone" of the "Communist-controlled CIO-Political Action Committee."

Hmm...

I'd have to see the primary source documents first.


Be my guest. You claimed that McCarthy didn't make Communism an issue until his re-election. I will be awaiting the primary documents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 1532
Location: I don't feel I have to wipe everybody out, Tom. Just my enemies. That's all.
Saladin wrote:
Quote:
[Liberals] absolutely never wage war


Actually Ms. Coulter, there have been far more wars waged this century by Democratic presidents than there have been by Republican presidents. War does not follow one political party or nation, but has become our national past-time. I don't blame Bush or Reagan any more than I blame Clinton, Truman, and Kennedy for our military misadventures.


She admits that. She just says liberals lose more.

Bush II may blow there theory, granted...but that isn't over yet, old sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 291
Location: Milky Way
Sun City Crazy wrote:
Sir Andrew wrote:
elephant21 wrote:
Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.


McCarthy did no such thing. I'm calling B.S. on that.

He didn't really make Communism his issue until his re-election.


Looks like both of you are wrong.


Ahem... I was quoting a younger sibling's 12th grade history book. Those weren't my words. Read my entire post and you will see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:01 am
Posts: 7612
elephant21 wrote:
Sun City Crazy wrote:
Sir Andrew wrote:
elephant21 wrote:
Without making any specific charges or offering any proof, McCarthy accused his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of being "communistically inclined." Fear of communism, plus McCarthy's intense speeches, won him the election.


McCarthy did no such thing. I'm calling B.S. on that.

He didn't really make Communism his issue until his re-election.


Looks like both of you are wrong.


Ahem... I was quoting a younger sibling's 12th grade history book. Those weren't my words. Read my entire post and you will see.


My mistake. I apologize.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Qaddafi's Daughter
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:24 pm
Posts: 2
It is disturbing when a sane adult is taken in by the wackos of the leftist media. Ann Coulter is one of the sharpest observers of our current malaise. It is unfortunate that she was taken in by the leftist nonsense about Qaddafi’s daughter. (In April 1986, Reagan retaliated with air strikes against Qaddafi’s living quarters, missing Qaddafi, but killing his daughter. p. 142). Edward Schumacher in the New York Times reported that Qaddafi’s 15 month old daughter, Hana, had been killed in the raid. Time reported that she was an 18 month old adopted daughter. The Washington Post’s Christopher Dickey reported that she was one year old and her name was Hanna.
Time had done a cover story on Qaddafi prior to the raid showing a photo of Qaddafi and his family. There was no adopted daughter in the photo. No reference was made to an adopted daughter. On June 19 Qaddafi granted an interview to Marie Colvin of UPI. He talked about the raid but made no mention of his daughter. I put my faith in Caspar Weinberger’s interpretation of events. In an interview with Dan Rather two days after the raid he stated, “The reports that you’re giving credence to – for example, that Qaddafi’s children were killed – those are Libyan reports. There’s been absolutely no confirmation of that.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:38 am
Posts: 157
Why the Cold War?

Why not push it back to the Republican-Democrat split, where Democrats were pro-slavery, and Democrats engaged in acts of treachery against the United States by doing such things as say, forming an illegal confederacy, creating their own armies, coining their own money.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:34 pm 
When I read books I'll often read three or four at a time. I'll read five to ten pages of one particular book for a few days then put it down for a week or so while enjoying another book. Then I'll pick the original book up again and continue with the cycle until all the books are done. Then I'll go out and get several more books. The other day a friend gave me Treason and I couldn't put it down. I read it in four days (I worked two of those days) which is totally out of character on how I read books.

I am ashamed as to how illiterate I am (was) about certain aspects of our history. Ann opened my eyes to FDR and Truman regarding their affection for communists while shedding light on McCarthy and Reagan regarding their passion for our sovereignty. I have always fallen victim to the Left's views on McCarthy and believed he was an idiot. I knew Reagan kicked butt however I was blind in marijuana during most of his administration and failed to see his vision clearly. Ann lifted me out of that miry pit that I did not even know I was in. Thank you Ann. God bless America!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:24 am 
This seemed the most appropriate place to post this.

I caught just the end of an interview of long-time Conservative voice M.Stanton Evans on the Glen Beck radio show. Mr Evans has written a new book entitled Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies . Herewith a summary of the books contents:

Quote:
Product Description: Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History has judged him such a loathsome figure that even today, a half century after his death, his name remains synonymous with witch hunts.

But that conventional image is all wrong, as veteran journalist and author M. Stanton Evans reveals in this groundbreaking book. The long-awaited Blacklisted by History, based on six years of intensive research, dismantles the myths surrounding Joe McCarthy and his campaign to unmask Communists, Soviet agents, and flagrant loyalty risks working within the U.S. government. Evans’s revelations completely overturn our understanding of McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the Cold War.

Drawing on primary sources—including never-before-published government records and FBI files, as well as recent research gleaned from Soviet archives and intercepted transmissions between Moscow spymasters and their agents in the United States—Evans presents irrefutable evidence of a relentless Communist drive to penetrate our government, influence its policies, and steal its secrets. Most shocking of all, he shows that U.S. officials supposedly guarding against this danger not only let it happen but actively covered up the penetration. All of this was precisely as Joe McCarthy contended.

Blacklisted by History shows, for instance, that the FBI knew as early as 1942 that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the atomic bomb project, had been identified by Communist leaders as a party member; that high-level U.S. officials were warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy almost a decade before the Hiss case became a public scandal; that a cabal of White House, Justice Department, and State Department officials lied about and covered up the Amerasia spy case; and that the State Department had been heavily penetrated by Communists and Soviet agents before McCarthy came on the scene.

Evans also shows that practically everything we’ve been told about McCarthy is false, including conventional treatment of the famous 1950 speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, that launched the McCarthy era (“I have here in my hand . . .”), the Senate hearings that casually dismissed his charges, the matter of leading McCarthy suspect Owen Lattimore, the Annie Lee Moss case, the Army-McCarthy hearings, and much more.

In the end, Senator McCarthy was censured by his colleagues and condemned by the press and historians. But as Evans writes, “The real Joe McCarthy has vanished into the mists of fable and recycled error, so that it takes the equivalent of a dragnet search to find him.” Blacklisted by History provides the first accurate account of what McCarthy did and, more broadly, what happened to America during the Cold War. It is a revealing exposé of the forces that distorted our national policy in that conflict and our understanding of its history since.
link

Ann's favorable comments about Senator McCarthy were the first I had seen in a number of years. As usual (no surprise) she was right, as Evans demonstrates using documentation, not Leftist's misrepresentation and slander.

Senator McCarthy is an unsung hero of our history, and one of the first examples of how Liberals refuse to recognize America's true enemies; instead, they viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them politically. (That continues today. Ask yourself:whom do liberals hate more, President Bush or Al Queda?)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 2216
Location: Directly over the center of the earth!
I am just now finishing Treason, and looking forward to Slander!

History has been a hobby of mine, and I never considered looking into the McCarthy hearings or the rest of what this book presents!

Wow I am impressed!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:37 pm
Posts: 1
I recently read Blacklisted by History: The untold story of Senator Joseph McCarthy by H. Stanton Evans. This books is one of the best books that i have ever read. He does an amazing job of documenting every important point he makes as well as making a nearly incomprehensible subject (at times) very understandable and readable. After finishing this book I went back and reread Treason. Ann, you are truly amazing. If we could get 1/100 liberals to read Stanton's book it would mean the end of liberalism. I used to think that Democrats began undermining this country in the 60's. Now I realize that it is in their DNA. God certainly has a strange sense of humor!
Big Daddy


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group