Skip to comments.McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberal Lies (Ann Coulter Upsets Liberals Again Alert)
Posted on 11/07/2007 3:22:31 PM PST by goldstategop
When I wrote a ferocious defense of Sen. Joe McCarthy in "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism," liberals chose not to argue with me. Instead they posted a scrolling series of reasons not to read my book, such as that I wear short skirts, date boys, and that "Treason" was not a scholarly tome.
After printing rabidly venomous accounts of McCarthy for half a century based on zero research, liberals would only accept research presenting an alternative view of McCarthy that included, as the Los Angeles Times put it, at least the "pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity."
This week, they got it. The great M. Stanton Evans has finally released "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." Based on a lifetime's work, including nearly a decade of thoroughgoing research, stores of original research and never-before-seen government files, this 672-page book ends the argument on Joe McCarthy. Look for it hidden behind stacks of Bill Clinton's latest self-serving book at a bookstore near you.
Evans' book is such a tour de force that liberals are already preparing a "yesterday's news" defense -- as if they had long ago admitted the truth about McCarthy. Yes, and they fought shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan to bring down the Evil Empire. Thus, Publishers Weekly preposterously claims that "the history Evans relates is already largely known, if not fully accepted." Somebody better tell George Clooney.
The McCarthy period is the Rosetta stone of all liberal lies. It is the textbook on how they rewrite history -- the sound chamber of liberal denunciations, their phony victimhood as they demean and oppress their enemies, their false imputation of dishonesty to their opponents, their legalization of every policy dispute, their ability to engage in lock-step shouting campaigns, and the black motives concealed by their endless cacophony.
The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in "Blacklisted by History," is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.
In the face of the Democrats' absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.
Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn't like Communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.
Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day. In hiding their own perfidy, liberals were guilty of every sin they lyingly imputed to McCarthy. There were no "McCarthyites" until liberals came along.
"Blacklisted by History" proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:
-- That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II; -- That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night; -- That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs; -- That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of Communism.
Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories -- the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. -- when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.
Then as now, liberals protect themselves from detection with wild calumnies against anybody who opposes them. They have no interest in -- or aptitude for -- persuasion. Their goal is to anathematize their enemies. "Blacklisted by History" removes the curse from one of the greatest patriots in American history.
“blacklisted by history removes the curse of one of the greatest patriots in american history...”
thank goodness. (liberal treachery has been nothing but an unbroken time line to the present moment; and it will continue because the “american electorate”, or at least the most obnoxious part of it, will keep the timeline going into the near future, with no end in sight. heil hillary!!!)
Naw, she only dates 65 year old LIBERALS.
I still to this day cannot figure out what was so rapturous about communism.
FDR was a Communist sympathizer. He referred to Josef Stalin as "Uncle Joe." He got along with Stalin better than he did with Winston Churchill. This did not go unnoticed by Churchill. The modern Democratic Party is a creation of FDR.
I think we can say with certainty that whether or not McCarthy was a drinker, there would be media stories attesting to his alcoholism. I haven't seen an official autopsy but if he did die of a destroyed liver, and wasn't a drinker, it still wouldn't be hard to imagine that something poisoned him...that was a pretty dramatic decline of someone the Soviets dreaded. Just saying.
His vilification at the hands of the media (ironic, no?) coupled with an ambition which was the stuff of greek tragedy, brought his career to an ignominious end. He became increasingly erratic and depressed, and ended up pickling himself. A sad ending, to be sure, but if he had been Ted Kennedy, the media would have circled the wagons and excused his excesses until he finally decided to retire of his own volition.
I love it when Professor Annie holds class like this...telling so much truth that the rug is literally jerked out from under the libs. After Ann takes a jackhammer to their bedrock fictions their eyes spin in their empty heads; soon they begin to rant mindlessly and drool profusely bwhahahahaha. They then call her research a pack of outlandish lies.
This time ...a respected scholar wrote a meticulously researched tome proving her right in every respect...
Check the obits in the morning papers boys because there are gonna be a lot of libs cashin in their chips over this one......bwhahahaha sayonara folks.....
Alger Hiss was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, held in April to June 1945. The convention resulted in the creation of the United Nations Charter, which was opened for signature on 26 June.
You are technically correct. However, Hiss did serve as the secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (the United Nations Charter Conference) in San Francisco in 1945.
For someone to say he was "UN Secretary General" is more of a slip, or a memory lapse, then a purposeful deception. Your reaction is a tad harsh for a minor error.
OK, I am willing to wait 11 years, but I refuse to become a liberal, even for her.
***If the AMERICANS that were involved in creating the U . N. were Communists,***
And yet, the UN did call for a police action in Korea after the Russians walked out. The Commies never walked out again on a vote.
That was where about 100 million East Europeans were sold out to Stalin.
“Hiss was jailed for purgery, not for being a communist. You sir, have no credibility.”
Uh, first of all, it’s “perjury”. Second, yes, he was convicted of perjury - for lying when asked if he was a communist spy.
I googled this to clarify this point:
Hiss held the official job title of "Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on International Organization". Apparently before the UN actually formed and had the first "Secretary-General of the UN" itself.
McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberal Lies
(Ann Coulter Upsets Liberals Again Alert)
Posted by goldstategop
On News/Activism 11/07/2007 3:22:31 PM PST · 53 replies
Ann Coulter.com ^ | 11/07/2007 | Ann Coulter
MCCARTHYISM: THE ROSETTA STONE OF LIBERAL LIES
Posted by Syncro
On News/Activism 11/07/2007 3:05:59 PM PST · 33 replies
AnnCoulter.Com ^ | November 7, 2007 | Ann Coulter
14 people were ready to fly on the OK airline to Paris.
We were sent to a small hotel on the outskirts of Prague and were not allowed to leave for several days.
We were given several different excuses for not flying all different.
You sir, have no credibility.
Sorry, robooted. The lack of credibility is all yours.
Here was the statement that you said was wrong:
"The first Secretary General was the AMERICAN Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss served time in prison pursuant to his involvement in a Communist spy ring
Here is your reply:
Wrong. And wrong. No American has every been secretary General of the UN. Hiss was jailed for purgery, not for being a communist. You sir, have no credibility.
Now as I have found in research, Hiss was a Secretary-General (of the UN committee) before there was a Secretary-Genral of the UN. I note that Huntsville said that he was "The first Secretary General", but did not distinguish between the Committee and the UN itself. So within the context of the UN his statement is both technically truer then yours, and is certainly less misleading then your reply which would have the reader believing Hiss had no such association at all.
Secondly, Huntsville did not state that Hiss was convicted of being a Communist, he said "Hiss served time in prison pursuant to his involvement in a Communist spy ring". Noting that indeed the perjury he was convicted for was indeed pursuant to his involvement, Huntsville is again both more technically correct then you, and is certainly less misleading then your reply which would have the reader believing his being in jail was unrelated to communism.
You sir, have destroyed your credibility here on three counts:
1) You falsely accused someone else of being wrong.
2) You were being overtly technical in order to pull it off.
3) Even when being hyper technical, you were wrong both times you said Huntsville was wrong. Although your other two statements were technically true, Huntsville's entire post was technically true.