BN.com Gift Guide

Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

( 119 )

Overview

Liberals’ 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 rational discussion?”

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 ...
See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (248) from $1.99   
  • New (22) from $1.99   
  • Used (226) from $1.99   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 3
Showing 1 – 10 of 22 (3 pages)
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$1.99
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(127)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

New
1400050308

Ships from: North Dartmouth, MA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$1.99
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(61)

Condition: New
1400050308 New - Light shelf wear - Bumping to corners - Great reading copy!(Shelf 66 row 1)

Ships from: washington, NC

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$1.99
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(15)

Condition: New
New 1400050308 New-Light shelf wear-Bumping to corners-Great reading copy! (Shelf 66 row 1)

Ships from: washington, NC

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$2.00
Seller since 2009

Feedback rating:

(97)

Condition: New
Minor wear.

Ships from: Baltimore, MD

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
$2.49
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(1853)

Condition: New
1400050308 Has some shelf wear to dust jacket. A portion of your purchase of this book will be donated to non-profit organizations. We are a tested and proven company with ... over 900,000 satisfied customers since 1997. We ship daily M-F. Choose expedited shipping (if available) for much faster delivery. Delivery confirmation on all US orders. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Nashua, NH

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$2.85
Seller since 2009

Feedback rating:

(63)

Condition: New
New New as pictured-clean, excellent condition-Ships from legendary independent online bookstore in Murrieta, California. Thousands of satisfied customers. We ship promptly and ... Worldwide. We work hard to earn your confidence. Orders are fully guaranteed, includes free Tracking and Delivery Confirmation and normally ships the same business day. We use bubble wrap lined heavy Kraft envelopes. Reliable customer service and no-hassle return policy. Why pay more? Read more Show Less

Ships from: Diamond Bar, CA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$2.99
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(79)

Condition: New
1400050308 Special holiday sale! Only 1 copy left. Clean, unmarked copy. Hardcover with dust jacket - in excellent shape. I can send expedited rate if you choose; otherwise it ... will promptly be sent via media rate. Got any questions? Email me; I'm happy to help! During the holiday season, we recommend selecting Expedited Shipping to get your book as fast as possible. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Los Angeles, CA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$3.00
Seller since 2009

Feedback rating:

(1649)

Condition: New
This is a brand new book. Fast Shipping-Safe and Secure Bubble Mailer!

Ships from: fall river, MA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$3.99
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(150)

Condition: New
Excellent condition. Interior is tight, bright and clean. Hard covers are tight and stiff. Complete with original paper dust cover. Minor scuffing on the paper dust cover from ... shelf wear. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. All items are carefully enclosed with bubble wrap. We ship promptly and worldwide via US Post and will email you a tracking number. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Emigrant, MT

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$4.89
Seller since 2007

Feedback rating:

(1018)

Condition: New
2003-06-24 Hardcover New NEW-IT IS BRAND NEW-clean text, tight binding, It is free from any foreign markings.

Ships from: Rockford, IL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 3
Showing 1 – 10 of 22 (3 pages)
Close
Sort by
Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$11.99
BN.com price

Overview

Liberals’ 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 rational discussion?”

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.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

The New Yorker
Coulter's thesis has the force of simplicity: liberals detest America and prefer to side with the "Third World savages" who attack it. In her view, American critics of the War on Terror are the intellectual progeny of the Soviet sympathizers rooted out by Senator McCarthy and HUAC. Joe Stalin may have given way to Osama Bin Laden, but the fellow-traveling habit is unchanged. The result is a strangely lopsided book, which spends a lot of time going over ground -- the Venona transcripts, Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs -- that has been well covered in recent years and asserting, for the umpteenth time, the guilt of people whom few liberals today would try to defend. Coulter does better when sending up the post-colonial pieties of liberals and "their cheese-tasting friends," and probably owes her widespread popularity more to her skill as a social satirist than to any real acumen as a political commentator.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781400050307
  • Publisher: Random House, Incorporated
  • Publication date: 6/24/2003
  • Pages: 368
  • Product dimensions: 6.32 (w) x 9.64 (h) x 1.21 (d)

Meet the Author

Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter's books Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right and High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton were New York Times bestsellers. Look for her latest book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), available from Crown Forum. Read Ann Coulter's column and contact her at www.anncoulter.com.
Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

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.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

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
Notes 293
Index 341
Read More Show Less

First Chapter

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 likefriends 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.
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 3.5
( 119 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(64)

4 Star

(7)

3 Star

(6)

2 Star

(3)

1 Star

(39)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 119 Customer Reviews
  • Posted February 12, 2012

    Excellent book to read!

    I enjoy history since I was a child so I was aware of a lot of facts that had taken place in history. Reading this book was a eye opener.
    I was amazed by how much was true facts were hidden by the press, Democratic Party, and those who considered themsleves the liberal elite.
    I came away with learning how much we really don't know because it was hidden.
    You have to read it!

    3 out of 4 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 21, 2008

    An important book for all Americans

    Finally, somebody has the nerve to show those liberals that they can't just lie their way into power! I'm glad that somebody finally went outside the liberal-biased history books to do some real research on the topic of McCarthy. What's important in this book is that not only did Ann Coulter challenge the liberals to prove their points; she also made some easy-to-see comparisons to the way they operate today. They stick to a single script, one with simply a few good lines. Back then it was based on McCarthyism. With president-elect Obama, it's "that's racist", "you can't drill your way out of the problem", or, my personal favorite, "uh... uh... uh..." Without being able to back up their lies, the liberals are nothing. And by the way, to whoever said that 15 minutes of research disproved her book, the only way you could've done 15 minutes of research is on Google or Wikipedia. You seriously expect that to indisputably prove your point? Get out your library card or grumble angrily to yourself about how much you hate Ann Coulter, but don't proclaim that nobody on the Internet is capable of lying. That's asinine.

    2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 10, 2003

    The Wrong Genre

    Ann Coulter's book is amazing. She spends a lot of time 'pointing out' things that were already known and acknowledged(there actually WERE some communist party members is state dept and entertainment, the Hiss story, etc.)Then she starts attacking liberals. She 'supports' this with footnotes. As an old professor, I just had to look into a few of Coulter's notes, and, if she were a student, she would really be in trouble.Many of the 'facts' are supported by 'notes' that might as well be on the last page of insurance policies. They DO NOT support what Coulter implies. I only spent an hour on this, but I found what freshman call 'a plethora' of 'mistakes'. If Ms.Coulter has a fact-checker I think he/she has problems with concepts like 'true'. In short, this book has more errors than a Detroit double header. If you enjoy child-like fantasy, this is the book for you.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 22, 2003

    Treason Is As Treason Does

    If anyone should be accused of treason, it is Ann Coulter. She attacks her own countrymen (liberals, after all, DO make up half of this nation- just look at the last election), and makes blanket accusations like 'Liberals hate America' and 'All they want is a bunch of 9/11's'...all horrible, inaccurate and highly insulting, even to those on the right. This shrill harridan is making millions off the ignorance of the American public and I'm stunned that anyone could enjoy this hateful screed.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 28, 2005

    Thanks Again, Anne

    A tremendously important text. You will not find a single ¿reputable¿ history that covers this ground with real dispassion and balance. Coulter¿s ¿Treason¿ certainly doesn¿t do it or pretend to. It slices like a scalpel through carefully nurtured and cherished myths about McCarthy, the Red Scare and the HUAC hearings. It isn¿t neutral because there is absolutely no room for neutrality when the facts are laid bare. ¿Treason¿ is admittedly shrill and repetitive on occasion but it¿s a small price to pay to get at the truth of the matter. The rancor that occasionally shines through is insignificant compared to the vitriol and viciousness of liberal pundits like Frankin and Moore. Coulter is dead-on and her references are indisputable. For the record, just saying you dispute something does not render it brilliantly superfluous (a common liberal conceit). It is vital that this frightening period of our history and its implications be examined with brutal honesty. The left and the right should come to grips with the mistakes and complicit behavior that permitted a network of foreign spies to flourish at the top levels of our government for decades. It¿s crucial that the historical fallout of Hiss¿s influence and the revelations of Venona be studied and the resulting lessons applied, reputations and social status be damned. There won¿t be any social status if it ever happens again.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 27, 2004

    Read it before you rate it!!

    Who are these idiots who keep giving books one-star ratings without having even read them?! 'Treason' is an excellent read. Ann Coulter shows us taht the liberals in this country have an uncanny knack for being on the wrong side of history, whether it be by siding with Communists during the Cold War, or by siding against America during the War on Terror (Those who say we deserved to be attacked on 9-11-01). It's okay for the Libs to savagely attack and criticize America, but if anyone tries to call them on it, these drama queens scream 'McCarthyism!' (That myth is also debunked here.) Nearly a decade after the declassification of the Venona cables, American liberals continue to insist that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent! Yes, this book and its author have become targets of lot of rage from the al-Quaida cheering section (a.k.a. the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and the Hollywood Left.), but Coulter should be thanked, not despised, for shedding the light of truth on these people.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 22, 2004

    Guess LIberals Don't Like This Book

    Highly recommend if you are open minded and ready to hear the truth. Funny comments from the liberal left who gave this book a poorly written critique.

    1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 7, 2004

    Outstanding lesson in American History

    The name of the book is 'TREASON liberal treachery from The Cold War to The War on Terrorism'. It should be called TREASON, A history of The American Democratic Party. Ann Coulter is a lawyer by trade and as such she makes her case. The Defense rests and The Verdict is in. P.S.: 'Remember what the 'H' stands for' (A quote from the book).

    1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 16, 2004

    Smart, quick-witted, funny, important

    Facts, (VERY well researched), laid out in order are eye-opening! It is scary to have liberals take the world relations in their arena, because they obviously look though idealistic glasses that have shown to be ones that are not 'in touch' w/the realities of global relations. This topic is serious, and to take the liberal leaders to the task of our world issues will prove to be a big mistake, again. It's hard to grasp that the liberal leaders who are supposed to be FOR America aren't. They are more concerned with winning elections at any cost, knowlingly wrong, at the expense of Americans. A true sign of a party leadership who is anti-american. They choose winning over American welfare.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 13, 2004

    The Sultan(ess) of Spin

    ¿Treason¿ is arguably the most important book of our time. Revisionist historian and satirist Ann Coulter updates ¿Mein Kampf¿ with hilarious effect, substituting the terms ¿liberal¿ or ¿Democrat¿ for ¿Jew¿ and ¿conservative¿ or ¿Republican¿ for ¿Aryan.¿ The end result is simply astonishing. ...................................................................... . ............................................................. Anyone who has ever wondered how Adolf Hitler succeeded in bewitching the German people with rhetoric will find this work fascinating. With this level of spin-doctoring, the reader gradually comes to understand that ¿it could happen here.¿ Along with the companion volume ¿Slander,¿ Miss Coulter uses ¿Treason¿ to demonstrate that: ....... -- The Religious Right doesn¿t exist. ............. -- All liberals are traitors; all conservatives are patriots. ......... -- The only victim of McCarthyism was McCarthy himself. ........... -- If the Army had been competent in rooting out spies, the Soviet Union would NEVER have developed nuclear weapons. ............. -- Much, much more. ......... Miss Coulter cherry-picks the historical record to illustrate the art of spin-doctoring at its best. All of the usual logical fallacies are included, along with emotional but fact-less arguments, conveniently omitted facts, sweeping generalizations, baseless attributions, quotes with reversed context, opinions disguised as facts, and others that haven¿t even been named yet. ...................................................................... .................................................................... As with its intellectual ancestor, Jonathon Swift¿s ¿Gulliver¿s Travels,¿ many readers of ¿Treason¿ aren¿t aware that the book is satirical. My understanding is that this problem will be rectified in an upcoming annotated edition, where the argument fallacies will be explicitly indicated. The new edition will probably be used as a text in schools for decades, both for civics and logic classes. ...................................................................... ...................................................................... My only regret is that the new edition is not expected before the elections in November.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 27, 2004

    Lies????

    I believe that if her sources were all lies, a liberal magazine would be bashing her skull in right now. Don't you think they checked everyone of her sources before they said it was good? She does a great job of exposing the liberal party for what it is--a traitorious bunch of snakes who are unpatriotic. I used to be liberal, but after reading this book, I have seen the light. Thank you Miss Coulter.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 27, 2004

    To the point

    Ann is straight up right in this book. She tells us allhow it was/is. Our history books dont always tell us how history actually happened. Ann did a good job in this one.

    1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 25, 2004

    Excellent and Factual!

    Being a History major, Ms. Coulter has just exemplified how our History books don't always show the true picture. Many facts she states I have already known, but only from doing my own research. Bravo to truth and Ms. Coulter. Looking forward to your next book!

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 27, 2004

    Excellent!

    Ann Coulter uses her razor wit to slice through years, decades, possibly even a century of media bias. Unlike many political pundits, she also provides plenty of verifiable references to support her conclusions.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 24, 2004

    AMAZING BOOK AND AUTHOR

    Once again Ms. Coulter points out the obviouse truth and even fully backs it with references. I'd like to see Mr. Moore do that. HIGHLY RECOMENDED

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 20, 2004

    A factual history lesson

    Isn't it amazing what you are never taught in school and thanks God that someone will tell you the truth then back it up with facts, not quote other liberals from left wing newspapers as sources. These are the things that people that write out text books won't tell you and yet her is factual evidence to subvert the lies and half truths liberal miseducators try to pass off as gosphel. Ann Coulter did everyone a service by writing this book, A+ Job.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 23, 2003

    Great!

    Excellent! A masterpiece! Judging by the reviews here, the book is worth every penny and then some. Despite the lies, the deceptions, and the character assasination, Ann delivers home the facts which the haters and other leftists abhor. A true gem, this book belongs in the home of every American!

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 29, 2003

    its good

    I don¿t agree with MS. Coulter on all issues; however her case on McCarthy is very strong. This is a very good book. Being a reader of political books, Coulter at least backs up what she says with references in her book. I recommend it to anyone who doesn¿t read Michael Moore.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 6, 2003

    Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

    Take a close look at the negative reviews for this book. Most of the people obviously haven't even read it. All of their reviews are filled with the usual emotional language and name calling of the left, Ann Coulter gets all these reviews because her punches land accurately on the heart of liberalism. These negative reviews are the sputtering of a rudderless, fact-less ideology. If you want the similar conservative views, with fun flying stories, thumbs-in-the-eyes to arabs, and Saudis in particular, read COCKPIT CONFESSIONS OF AN AIRLINE PILOT, by Keshner. The book is an editing mess, but it is a rose from a dung-heap, brilliant.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 27, 2003

    One of the Most Important Books Written in the Last Decade

    Most of us were taught in High School and College that McCarthy was an evil man and destroyed lives. We were also taught that FDR was a great American who loved his country and despised Totalitarian Regimes. Ann Coulter brilliantly examines the under reported fact of the Venona Project and how many Communists were employed high ranking positions. You will never view Senator Joseph McCarthy and FDR the same way after reading Treason!

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 119 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)