REFUTES BOOK 'TREASON'

TheTimesRecordOpinion ^ | 06/27/2003 Weekly | Eliot J. Chandler

[fight_truth_decay]

To the editor:

"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy," writes Ann Coulter in her new book, "Treason," subtitled "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorists."

Wrong. Our nation is presently "under attack from within" by the group known as PNAC, the "Project for the New American Century,"[1] which now inhabits the Bush White House. Liberals are certainly not siding with this enemy. The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace. Desperate because the White House and both houses of Congress have sided with PNAC and its goal of empire.

Coulter accuses Democrats of "hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America." How does she explain Ronald Reagan supporting Saddam Hussein, and George H.W. Bush supporting the Saudi royal family and friends from which the 9/11 terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden, emerged? And then there were the despots and dictators of Central and South America.

"Liberals want to be able to attack America," she writes. Ann Coulter cannot distinguish between attacking America and criticizing President Bush. The two certainly are not synonymous. Criticism of a president has never been considered treason, or else the entire Republican party, plus the press corps, would have been guilty of treason in criticizing Clinton. Certainly, criticism of this president can be considered synonymous with defending America.

"Fifty years of treason," she writes. What happened in 1953 to originate her distorted theory of "liberal hatred of America"? Eisenhower, as president, ended the Korean War in July of that year. He was providing France three-fourths of its cost for conducting the Indochina War. SEATO was formed. The Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in 1954. Eisenhower's administration was charged with Communist subversion by Joseph McCarthy. And that same year the French lost the battle of Dienbienphu in Vietnam. In December, McCarthy was condemned by the U.S. Senate for contempt. So what was the event that, according to Ann, first poisoned the liberals' thought processes?

Or was it, as a friend said, like a "typical Fox News tactic — 'We distort, you decide.'"

Eliot J. Chandler, Bowdoinham

letters@TimesRecord.Com

[fight_truth_decay]

{friend says}.."like a "typical Fox News tactic — 'We distort, you decide.'

..and finishes the round with a 'Low Blow' hitting the midsection.

[Lysandru]

I have gotten about 100 pages into Treason, and I can feel my blood pressure rising. 95% of what "everyone knows" about Sen. Joe McCarthy is a lie. Liberals have been selling us out for decades because they are willfully blind and stupid-- and then they are too petty and venal to admit it when they are proven wrong.

Moderates and liberals may not like Coulter's tone, but they can't refute her research.

Maybe I need to pick up Mona Charen's book on liberal sell outs during the Cold War as well.

[clintonh8r]

Eliot Chandler must be a DUmbass...

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

"Liberals want to be able to attack America," she writes. Ann Coulter cannot distinguish between attacking America and criticizing President Bush. The two certainly are not synonymous. Criticism of a president has never been considered treason

Ever notice how they always like to frame the debate that way? Then attack the strawman arguement THEY created? Watch out for that, they think they really got a "zinger" in on you when they try that "they calling unpatriotic" canard.

[Moonman62]

I think he really hates America, too.

[x1stcav]

The creeps on the left certainly have their panties in a bunch lately.

Smell the fear and panic. They're being exposed for the rats they are.

[Billthedrill]

Well, if you don't like what you see in the mirror you can do one of two things: change it, or stop looking in mirrors. This poor sap has chosen the latter course.

But, of course, I could be wrong - perhaps Chandler and the "progressive movement" are in favor of individual rights and the Consitution...let's hear 'em cheer for the Second Amendment! Ready? Hip hip -

[Sound of crickets chirping in the silent evening air...]

[Reagan is King]

The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace.

Ha! The progressive movement (aka liberal/socialist movement) cares nothing about the Constitution except to destroy it. They are more dangerous than any outside foe. Thank you for printing the truth Ann.

[jigsaw]

As per http://www.liberalslant.com/ejc033003.htm , Eliot J. Chandler is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant.

[tbpiper]

Criticism of a president has never been considered treason

Does that include doing it from enemy territory?

[fight_truth_decay]

Thanks detective 'jigsaw'. I like that discovery.

[sarasmom]

They "progressive" faction of the Democat party is a socialist platform.
Socialism is obviously anti-constitutional, hense anti-USA.
It is impossible to love freedom and espouse socialism.
It is impossible to love socialism/communism and love freedom.
What I have a hard time understanding, is why socialists and communists pretend to understand democracy and freedom, and/or claim they have any relationship with the concepts.
History and Logic are not difficult subjects to grasp, unless one espouses socialism and communism.
To prefer socialism or communism over freedom and democracy, only requires suspension of logic, and ignorance of history.
Stupid people should not breed.

[BenLurkin]

Typical that the "Masters of Deceipt" claim to support the Constitution, when in fact it has long been targeted for destruction by the so-called "Progressive Movement".

[DannyTN]

"Does that include doing it from enemy territory? "

Not treason, but about as tactless and wrong as you can get.

[xm177e2]

Or was it, as a friend said, like a "typical Fox News tactic — 'We distort, you decide.'"

What an idiot. It's "we distory, you comply"

[CyberAnt]

Ya think ...??

[Spiff]

The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace.

Sure...the progressive movement is "defending" the U.S. Constitution to make it safe for every unconstitutional socialist scheme they can defecate upon it and every distorted, tortured Supreme Court decision that can pervert our foundational principles. What a crock of sh**!!

[dagnabbit]

George H.W. Bush supporting the Saudi royal family and friends from which the 9/11 terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden, emerged?

He's got a point there.

[Teacher317]

Criticism of a president has never been considered treason.
Does that include doing it from enemy territory?

Probably.
It also would include obstructing ports to hamper the flow of military goods.
It would also include going to enemy territory to act as a "human shield".
It would also include supporting literally hundreds of programs that work to destroy the Constitution.
It might even include zealously promoting lifestyles and immigration that work to destroy American culture.

[Teacher317]

Criticism of a president has never been considered treason.
Does that include doing it from enemy territory?

Probably.
It also would include obstructing ports to hamper the flow of military goods.
It would also include going to enemy territory to act as a "human shield".
It would also include supporting literally hundreds of programs that work to destroy the Constitution.
It might even include zealously promoting lifestyles and immigration that work to destroy American culture.

But they conveniently forget to include those parts when they weigh their "patriotism".

[Teacher317]

Add a few hundred million to Arafat and pals, even after 09-11-01.

[rwfromkansas]

That's it, I rarely get political books, but I am about ready to just get out and buy this sucker.

[rwfromkansas]

What the heck is PNAC anyway?

[HighWheeler]

I have showed parts of the book to semi-liberals, and pointed out their last president compared to Bush43.

So far, I have two of them asking a lot of questions. Thanks to Ann.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

How can one page of criticism refute an entire book filled with thoughtful research and excellent writing?

[Lancey Howard]

Clearly, college kids do not write very well these days, but even the author of this embarrassing piece will grow up someday and have to live with the knowledge that his piece is probably archived on the www somewhere, lol.

[Woahhs]

The vanity of the liberal never ceases to amaze me. Who but a petulant child, or a liberal is so self-absorbed as to think any sophomoric disagreement constitutes a refutation?

[DPB101]

Governor Al Smith gave a speech on January 25, 1936 sounding the alarm over what his Democratic Party had become and where it was heading. It is worth a read. Can't find a plain text version of it on the net, but it can be read on line by copying this URL:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/smith36.pdf

and pasting it in to this PDF translator:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_simple_form.html

Excerpt from "The Facts in the Case":

I am here tonight . . . because I have a great love for the United States of America. I love it for I know what it has meant to mankind since the day of its institution. I love it because it has grown to be the great stabilizing force in world civilization. I love it above everything else for the opportunity it offers to every man and every woman that desires to take advantage of it. No man that I know of or that I probably ever read of has any more reason to love it than I have . . .

I am here because I am a Democrat. I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it, and furthermore that no group of men owned it, but, on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people of the United States. I must make a confession. It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. That is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger---I say "danger," that is, the "Stop, look and listen" to the fundamental principles upon which this government of ours was organized -it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.

NOW, what are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class . . .

[PhilipFreneau]

The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace.

The U.S. Constitution places strict limitations on government, in particular on the general (federal) government. Progressives created the myth that "the U.S. is a Democracy" (the founding fathers despised democracy) so they could get around those limitations the Constitution placed on government. In other words, the author is both stupid and a liar! But, in all fairness, to become a progressive, one has to be stupid, and to talk anyone else into becoming a progressive, one has to become a good liar. So the author had no choice in the first.

[nuconvert]

"progressive" Not recognized. The tag will stay LIBERALS whether you like it or not.

[alwaysconservative]

Typical liberal whining. This yahoo thinks his disagreement and a couple of smarmy insults constitutes "refutation"! Arrogance, thy name is LIBERAL!

[Trajan88]

I tried to find Coulter's book today in Barnes and Noble (Plano, TX on 15th St.), but couldn't find it displayed; however, I saw that witch senator from the Big Apple gazing at me from every corner.

Trajan88

[nuconvert]

"and finishes the round with a 'Low Blow' hitting the midsection." For your info: a "low blow" is BELOW the midsection (Duh). And your low blow wasn't even a decent jab.

[nuconvert]

"and finishes the round with a 'Low Blow' hitting the midsection." For your info: a "low blow" is BELOW the midsection (Duh). And the low blow wasn't even a decent jab.

[ladyinred]

Our liberal rag paper is full of BS like this daily. I read it, yell a little, and then do as the Clinton's say, "Move on." The guy is an idiot and there is no cure, so I would just stay away so you don't get kooties.

[votelife]

you definitely need to pick up Charen's book. It's a great read, but I'd visit your internist before and have your BP meds appropriately adjusted!

[HighWheeler]

"How can one page of criticism refute an entire book filled with thoughtful research and excellent writing?"

Good question, but if you are desperate to refute the book, and you don't have the time nor ambition to do any research, and you would be afraid of what you might find out anyway, then this is plenty good enough.

[TexKat]

Ann Coulter Cries "Treason!"

Contact: Daniel Borchers

(240) 476-9690

DanielBorchers@yahoo.com

Ann Coulter Cries "Treason!" Best-selling author Ann Coulter's third book ­ "Traitor" ­ is already in the publication pipeline.

You might be surprised to find out exactly whom Coulter considers a traitor. It could be your spouse or family member, your co-worker, or even you! The Executive Director of Citizens for Principled Conservatism (CPC) is available for interviews and commentary regarding Ann Coulter's extremist views and her perplexing embrace by the conservative establishment. In addition, he is available to offer insight into what can be expected to appear in Coulter's next book, why her rhetoric is destructive and how Conservatism can survive Ann Coulter. "Ann Coulter is mainstreaming extremism within the Conservative Movement," said Daniel Borchers. "About five years ago, Coulter joked about being a member of a hate group ­ the `right-wing haters.' Now she is their chief cheerleader." CPC rebukes those who embrace Coulter as an "exemplar of the Conservative Movement" and exhorts conservatives ­ from leadership to rank and file members ­ to uphold the principles and ideals of Conservatism and reject Ann Coulter, who is nothing more than an extremist in conservative clothing.

Besides stereotyping the media, Coulter lambastes liberals with epithets such as "America-haters," "elitists," "liars," "communists," "terrorists," "traitors" and all sorts of other nasty things. What Coulter and her defenders don't realize is that it's not liberals that she harms with her invidious remarks - it's conservatives. Pursuing her self-described fatwa against liberals, Coulter recently lamented that Timothy McVeigh did not bomb the New York Times building. (And conservatives roundly defend her!) Coulter is considered right-wing, but there's nothing right about the message she sends for conservatives or for America. Coulter's extremism alienates not only those who lean left, but also the young, the undecided, and moderates - all potential members of the Conservative Movement. Her black-and-white perspective actually inhibits political dialogue between conservatives and liberals, and her destructive criticism loses much of its moral force as biting personal attacks. While there's no doubt that "party politics" play a role in our government, there's also no reason to exaggerate party differences into a silly soap opera. Indeed, Coulter's columns often cross the line between politics and personality, ending in unacceptable expressions of racism and hatred.

Coulter's greatest fault, however, is not her provocative policy ideas or discriminatory remarks. Ours is a country of free thought and free speech, and Coulter is entitled to her opinions. Coulter's offense is rather that she portrays herself as a Christian conservative, a representative of the views and principles of the Religious Right, and then uses that adopted identity to spread hate and fear, thus stigmatizing all those who embrace Christian conservatism.

[Redwood71]

I sincerely doubt if you will either. Here is a short history of Mr. Barnes and Noble, himself, a devout New York liberal:

LEONARD RIGGIO


Founder and Chairman

Barnes & Noble, Inc.





Leonard Riggio is the founder and chairman of Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE: BKS), the parent company of Barnes & Noble, B. Dalton, and Doubleday bookstores. Barnes & Noble also operates GameStop (NYSE: GME), the nation’s largest operator of video game and entertainment software stores. Mr. Riggio is also the chairman of Barnes & Noble.com (www.bn.com), the number one electronic-commerce site of any retailer on the World Wide Web. In addition, he is the chairman and major shareholder of several privately held companies, including Barnes & Noble College Bookstores, the largest operator of college bookstores in the country, serving more than 400 universities and colleges across America; and MBS Textbook Exchange. In all, the companies controlled by Mr. Riggio operate more than 2,400 retail stores and employ more than 80,000 people.

A native New Yorker, Mr. Riggio opened his first bookstore in 1965, serving students at New York University and other local colleges. After opening several more stores, he acquired Barnes & Noble in 1971, then led the expansion of the combined enterprise into both the national college market and the general consumer book business. Today,

Barnes & Noble bookstores have become cultural and literary centerpieces of every large and mid-size community in America.

Mr. Riggio devotes himself to many philanthropic initiatives, having served on nearly two dozen not-for-profit boards. Currently, he is chairman of the board of the Dia Art Foundation, an internationally renowned art institution, and serves on the boards of the Children’s Defense Fund, the Black Children’s Community Crusade, the Brooklyn Tech Foundation, and the National Italian American Foundation. He has received numerous awards, including the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and the Frederick Douglas Medallion, and is the recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from Baruch College of the City University of New York and Bentley College. Mr. Riggio has been inducted into The Academy of Distinguished Entrepreneurs at Babson College. He also lectures regularly on college campuses, has delivered several commencement addresses, and has been the keynote speaker to numerous educational and business groups across the country.

___________________________________________________

As long as he is going to determine himself to be a champion to every middle class community in America for cultural and literary leadership, and being a devout liberal, you won't see many books that foster the idea that liberal/socialists are incorrect. This is not the first time conservative authors have been snubbed by them, and it won't be the last.

[Woahhs]

Dear Mr. Borchers,

Who are you?

What is this Citizens for Principled Conservatism (CPC) you are the Executive Director of?

I've heard of neither you, nor your organization, and nothing in your critique of "Treason" leads me to believe I should.

I find no substantive difference in your critique from what I might read from a liberal...unsubstantiated accusation, an offer to allow you to "massage" the frame of the debate, and supercilious predictions of dire consequence should you not be heeded.

It is not yours to define either "conservative" nor "Christian."

Should you care to actually defend your views before critical thinkers, I invite you to www.freerepublic.com for a review amongst peers.

Woahhs

woahhs@hotmail.com

[billbears]

What the heck is PNAC anyway?

Oh, well you had to go and ask that now did you? Perhaps a few of you would mind filling rw in? I'm not that in depth about it, but consider Bill Kristol (Fox News 'contributor') runs it, and what seems like half of the current administration belonged to it in the 1990s, well you decide. It's a nice little think tank that 'promotes' American 'leadership' worldwide. Part of the 'spreading democracy' campaign

New American Century

[billbears]

Of course you'll notice over half the posts here skip over the nasty little facts of the PNAC and the fact that in the 1980s the administration not only turned its eye but deflected some of the criticism from Iraq while they were gassing, what were the Kurds called back then oh yes, insurgents

[SkyPilot]

The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace.

I believe it was P.J. O'Rourke who said: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds."

Sorry Mr. Chandler, but if folks on the Left like yourself had condemned the unconstitutional (and inhumane) incineration of women and children at Waco--I would have said "Well, I disagree with them, but at least they are honest in their "progressive" label."

But you didn't: instead, the Left cheered because Janet Reno was a liberal woman..and one who 'accepted resonsiblity'--which meant she got to pose on the cover of Time smiling 2 weeks after the murders at the hands of the Clinton Administration in Texas.

The Liberals want to use high-falutin words such as "honor" and "human rights" and "liberty." In truth, they only stand for power to enrich themselves, and hatred towards God's authority.

[virgil]

Whoever this Borchers is, he will probably end up on CNN as an expert on how the public view is being twisted by Ann Coutler or anybody who doesn't agree with the Liberal line of idiocy.

[razorback-bert]

"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds."
Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[Tailgunner Joe]

How does she explain Ronald Reagan supporting Saddam Hussein, and George H.W. Bush supporting the Saudi royal family and friends from which the 9/11 terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden, emerged? And then there were the despots and dictators of Central and South America.

Because they were all on our side against the liberals' Soviet masters.

[DPB101]

Coulter recently lamented that Timothy McVeigh did not bomb the New York Times building.

Ann said just the other day she regrets that statement. She wishes she had said that everyone except the editors and writers got out of the building first.

The left has no sense of humor.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No he doesn't have a point except perhaps on his head. OBL and the 9/11 terrorist did not "emerge" from the Saudi Royal family. He has pledged to destroy it. Are you this perceptive with the other things you claim are true?

[Technogeeb]

He's got a point there.

Not really; as much as I question the Saudi-U.S. alliance, the fact is that Osama bin Laden has always been an adversary of that government (and even his own family, another source of distorted "links" between the Bush family and bin Laden).