- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Conservative shock-mistress Ann Coulter continues her pillorying of American liberals with a follow-up to SLANDER. In an argument that poses a challenge to conventional interpretations of the First Amendment, she argues that because liberals are wrong on every issue concerning political analysis or policy prescription, their politics amount to treason. Her analyses range from the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy to the Gulf War, from the Whittaker Chambers-Alger Hiss affair to the present war on terrorism, from ...
Conservative shock-mistress Ann Coulter continues her pillorying of American liberals with a follow-up to SLANDER. In an argument that poses a challenge to conventional interpretations of the First Amendment, she argues that because liberals are wrong on every issue concerning political analysis or policy prescription, their politics amount to treason. Her analyses range from the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy to the Gulf War, from the Whittaker Chambers-Alger Hiss affair to the present war on terrorism, from the Nixon presidency to that of Clinton, from domestic to foreign policy. Coulter's power derives not only from the consistency and thoroughness of her argument - that "Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half century" - but also from her over-the-top humor.
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...
|1||Fifty years of treason||1|
|2||Alger Hiss, liberal darling||17|
|3||No Communists here!||35|
|4||The indispensable Joe McCarthy||55|
|5||Victims of McCarthyism - the liberals' Mayflower||73|
|6||But were there Communists in the State Department?||95|
|7||Vietnam: oh, how they Miss Saigon||125|
|8||How Truman won the Cold War during the Reagan administration||145|
|9||Liberals in love: MASH notes to the Kremlin||167|
|10||Cold War epitaph: the Hiss affair at the end of the Cold War||191|
|11||Neville Chamberlain had his reasons, too: trembling in the shadow of Brie||203|
|12||North Korea - another opportunity for surrender||231|
|13||Celebrity traitors: "Now that I'm sober I watch a lot of news"||245|
|14||Modern McCarthyism: this is what it meant in the fifties, too||259|
|Conclusion: why they hate us||285|
Posted January 3, 2009
No text was provided for this review.