McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberal Lies (Ann Coulter Upsets Liberals Again Alert)

Ann Coulter.com ^ | 11/07/2007 | Ann Coulter

[7thson]

I did post a line from the UN website stating who the first Secretary General was, and you are correct, that rebooted is technically correct. What I did find interesting in reading about the creation of the United Nations - from the UN website - is that Hiss’s name never appears. One would have to wonder why.

[7thson]

Let’s not forget who pushed that perjury charge. It was Dick Nixon, whom the liberals/communists never forgot or forgave. Even dead, they still hound him.

[7thson]

Hey Andy - and everyone else. I want to apologize for taking rebooted’s side. I fell for the being technically correct part. I’m sorry for doubting Huntsville.

[7thson]

Great post! Thanks for the links.

[sauropod]

get

[RinaseaofDs]

Seems consistent, actually. I’m not sure her membership as a boomer would stop her from hammering them.

However, I would like to point out that she’s 46.

I thought she was about 30.

Talk about good genes.

[IronJack]

One must be careful in sifting the chaff from the wheat. In this case, the smear of "alcoholism" is -- typically for liberals -- only partially correct. During the time when he was holding his Army/State Dept. hearings in the Senate, McCarthy was NOT a drunk. In fact, he was close to a teetotaler. It wasn't until his career was ruined by the media and his own blind ambition that he started hitting the bottle that hard.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Liberal History.

[subterfuge]

That explains a LOT. THanks.

[Michael.SF.]

Hiss’s name never appears. One would have to wonder why

Interesting point.

My info came from some on line biography's of Alger Hiss which explained his key role in the formulation of the UN.

Thank you.

[KnightRat]

How utterly PRAVDA-like of our media to absolutely ignore this whole U.N./U.S.S.R./communist connection... & how sad it is that Archie Bunker was right about so many things... & how sad it is that (as much as that show was made out to be seen as cutting edge humor) much of America’s population has become sypathetic to, and thinks like Meathead. Hitlary, a card-carrying Socialist sympathizer herself, is going to rise right into the highest office in the world because there’s no way to “burnthe phone lines off the wall” to stop her!! ///Amerika! Amerika! God shed His light on her!/// Yup.. back in the day, he did. In 2008 however, we will begin paying the piper for being slack about communists amonst our former home of the proud and the brave. Too much proud and not enough brave. JMHO

[BrewingFrog]

Let’s not fall for yet another lie that has been perpetrated by the Left.

Hepatitis is indeed a disease of the liver and can be crippling if not fatal.

Cirrhosis is also a disease of the liver, caused generally by extreme alcohol abuse.

By leaving out a bit of fact, the left has done a fine job of continuing a smear against a good man.

“He drank a lot and died of liver disease.” Implied lie: He was a drunk.

I hope that one day, the truth will come out and drive out the lies of the left on this and so many other events and people in history. We just have to keep plugging away.

[Syncro]

Where is that bookstore?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Bump to read later

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I’ll have to admit to not being aware of some of the movements you mentioned. The Doctor’s plot and Verona were both new ones to me. Being born in 1951, knowledge of the McCarthy era was never one of my strong suits.

It was a given that McCarthy had to be pretty close to the truth because the shaddow that was the Democrat party had to be caste by something.

If the Democrats were very anti-McCarthy, it was a no-brainer for me to thing McCarthy wasn’t all that far off track. There had to be some truth behind his efforts.

And this is basicly how I formed my opinion of McCarthy over the years.

Luckily, I’ve never bought into the idea that McCarthy was the evil person the Democrats played him off to be.

I may have doubted some of his tactics, but it has been obvious from the Democrats standings on issue after issue, even until this day that the enemies of this nation had infiltrated the party.

Thanks for the overview. It was appreciated.

[Albion Wilde]

...protestant america were painted as tribal enemies tooth and claw of the US jewish establishment without protestant america even knowing it....

Interesting post. I've had this discussion with American Jews. Most American Jews do not know that the core group of Protestants who founded America did so because they were persecuted in their home countries of Europe by the State religion of Anglicanism, Catholicism or some other group.

Christians believe themselves to be part of "Israel" — the grafted-on branch. Our interests are completely intertwined spiritually. The problem today is the non-believers. Among Jews, you can be a non-believer and still be a Jew. A Christian, however, is not an ethnicity. You must make the commitment. So we are not directly analogous.

Both groups have ethnicity-based suspicions. But those who are religious in both camps seem to recognize our common heritage. On average, a smaller percentage of American Jews are religious than self-identified Christians who are religious. Given the already tiny percentage of Jews, that leaves a miniscule number who are religious Jews. Their voices are just as silenced as those of Christians in the public square.

[Albion Wilde]

I respectfully suggest that you edit it one more time, to make it flow just slightly better in a couple of places, then post it as an article. And, of course, ping me to it when you do.

I agree, and also want a ping.

[Albion Wilde]

Let’s not forget who pushed that perjury charge. It was Dick Nixon, whom the liberals/communists never forgot or forgave. Even dead, they still hound him.

Regardless of his missteps on immigration, you have to give George W. Bush credit for simply ignoring the left's tactics. He has stood up to some of the worst abuse I have seen in my long life.

I have Ann Coulter to thank for illuminating the left's tactics in Treason. She showed how they have been used against every Republican president in modern times. If she never writes another word, she has already struck huge blows for regaining our (traditional Americans') freedom.

[Albion Wilde]

Again replying to your long post, I have often reflected that, in the years immediately following the Holocaust, Jews became persons who played the role Ann writes about -- liberal icons who are beyond criticism. She has mentioned the Jersey Girls and we have recently seen the 12-year-old boy used by the left as religious icons of liberalism who must never be questioned.

Thus the voices of Jewish intellectuals — in the New York intelligensia, in academia, in medical science, in the psychotherapy establishment, and in Hollywood — went unchallenged, no matter what they said. I'm thinking in particular of the New York literary establishment, led by Norman Mailer, who were involved in the Vietnam antiwar movement up to their eyeballs. They had a right to their opinions, but other voices were suppressed.

Few American blacks, Jews or other minorities realize the long history of slavery and oppression that infected all major societies at one time or another. The Irish were oppressed by the English for 800 years. It wasn't about skin color; it wasn't even about Christianity; although it was about Catholic vs. Anglican on the surface (it's always about money under the surface). Oppression is a universal human problem that the American experiement was uniquely able to confront.

Unless we regain a strict Constructionist judiciary and a free press, our great experiment in freedom will be history, and soon.

[mjolnir]

Boop, Ann Coulter's conclusion about Dean Acheson's record may be correct, but her ad hominem attacks on Ronald Radosh ("whiner") and perhaps even on Acheson still weaken her article by implying that anyone who differs with her in her assessment of McCarthy must be doing so out of ignorance, wickedness or foolishness. I learned quite a bit from reading Treason and consider it to be (by far) her best book, and Coulter is certainly doing no more than giving as good as she's gotten from Radosh, whose criticisms of Treason have been at least as crude. Yet, while she is more than capable of supporting her declarations regarding both he and Secretary Acheson with fact and argument, she chooses not to bother, leaving her article at a lower level of quality than it easily could have been. I'm glad she's informed me and the rest of the public about the M. Stanton Evans book, but for similar reasons as those above, I suspect his book will be, while far less pithy than Treason, far better.

Is David Horowitz correct in this assessment? Maybe, maybe not. But he at least attacks the argument rather than the person and doesn't simply assume malicious motives in those who disagree with him.

[AndyTheBear]

...but her ad hominem attacks on Ronald Radosh ("whiner") and perhaps even on Acheson still weaken her article...

As opposed to ad hominem attacks by leftist, which tend to strengthen their articles (being that they got nothing else). Look, in the case of Coulter, the hyperbole is there for entertainment. It helps the reader find humor in what is otherwise would make one rather angry.