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

List Price: $15.95

Save 30.0%

You Pay: $11.17

Want this eBook?Our eBook Library Software is required to purchase and download eBooks. Download it here.

Tell a Friend

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.

Editorial Reviews

No one can accuse Coulter of timidity when it comes to voicing her political opinions. In a follow-up to her book Slander, she continues her attack on liberals, calling them among other things "traitors, Soviet lovers, stupid, and weak." She lays waste to Democrats such as FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and (here's where her knife is especially sharp) Clinton. The author is particularly venomous when discussing the dim-wittedness of Hollywood celebrities who dare to give their views on matters of foreign and domestic policy. Reader Kathe Mazur provides just the right amount of sarcasm and humor to mark Coulter's take-no-prisoners style. Many librarians will have to overlook their personal political philosophies and offer this book to their customers. What Coulter has to say is not always pretty or "politically correct," but it is always well documented and intelligently stated.-Joseph L. Carlson, Allan Hancock Coll., Lompoc, CA Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information. -- PUBLISHERS WEEKLY.

Author Information

Bio of Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent. Her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, was a New York Times bestseller. She lives in New York and Washington, D.C.

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews available at this time. To add your review, Register or Sign In to your account using our free eBook Library Software.

Additional Info

Imprint

Crown

Filesize

956.31 KB

Number of Pages

368

eBook ISBN

9781400051700

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.