Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism




НазваниеLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism
страница1/44
Дата17.02.2013
Размер0.98 Mb.
ТипДокументы
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   44
TREASON

LIBERAL TREACHERY FROM THE COLD WAR TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM

ALSO BY ANN COULTER

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS The Case Against Bill Clinton

SLANDER Liberal Lies About the American Right

ANN COULTER

THE NEW BLACKLIST: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Deserving of the most hysterical liberal blacklisting for helping me with this book are: M. Stanton Evans, the world's leading authority on Senator Joseph McCarthy, who gave me - gratis - original research for my brief version of a topic he will cover in meticulous detail in his forthcoming book; Allan H. Ryskind, who gave me an enormous amount of historical material for this and the next several books; Tom Winter and Human Events, for their decades of relentless truth-telling; and Jim Jerome for many things, including brilliant editorial assistance.

The next tier of blacklistees helped me with this book beyond the call of friendship, giving me invaluable jokes, historical facts, editorial advice, and arguments: Trish Baker, Robert Caplain, Andy Devlin, Jim Downey, Ted Forstmann, Melanie Graham, James Higgins, Merrill Kinstler, Jeremy Rabkin, Ned Rice, Jon Tukel, and Younis Zubchevich.

Also deserving of Senator Schumer's crusading wrath for being thanked in my book are friends who have helped me in various ways, sometimes intentionally, including: Hans Bader, Jon Caldera, George Conway, the Danahers, Miguel Estrada, John Harrison, Mark and Kara Joseph, Mark Kielb, David Limbaugh, Jay Mann, Gene Meyer, Jim Moody, Mac Owens, and Dan Travers.

Finally, the most blameless and important group, worthy of at least a cocktail party snub, are the people who did a lot of work, but are stuck with me: my magnificent agent, Joni Evans; my truly amazing editor, Doug Pepper; my brave publisher, Steve Ross; and the long-suffering production editor, Camille Smith.

Also, long-overdue thanks to my superb editors at Universal Press Syndicate, Greg Melvin and Alan McDermott, who have edited my contemporaneous arguments about the war on terrorism in my columns since 9-11, some of which I have expanded in the terrorism chapters of this book.

And always, with special thanks to my family - my parents, John and Nell; my brothers, John and Jim; my sisters-in-law, Pam and Diane; and my precocious Republican nieces, Kimberly and Christina. Also God, but He's already on the liberals' blacklist.

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 EHD OF THE COLD WAR 191


11. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN HAD HIS REASONS, TOO: TREMBLING IN THE SHADOW OF BRIE 203


12. NORTH KOREA - ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TREASON 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

1


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 "McCarthy-ism." 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."
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   44

Похожие:

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBooks on the Cold War

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconIn the decade after the end of the cold war

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconCold War Development of Scalar Interferometry

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconEast Asia in the Post-Cold War Era

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism icon1 New Approaches to Cold War: History and Current International Politics

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconThe Otherworld War (The Multiverse War) Cover Blurb

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconPaper presented at the International Conference on The History of the Cold War, Cortona, Italy, October 5–6, 2001

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconWar and peace? An agenda for peace research in geography. Nick Megoran, Newcastle University. Needs – engaging war. Maybe as crit geop section Abstract

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconAnTir/West war was lots of fun! The fighting was great! The results of the war met with an unfortunate accident so we can only assume AnTir won! (of course, we can as easily assume the West won!)

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBiography
«terrorism, war, internal and external security» "terrorisme, guerre, sécurité intérieure, sécurité extérieure", unanimously awarded,...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница