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.
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.
Just went to my local Barnes and Noble to buy the new book. After unsuccessfully looking for it, I asked the young girl at the counter where I could find it. She looked it up on the computer and told me they had no copies. I asked when they would arrive and she told me they were not getting any in. Staring at a huge stack of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s books, I told her I didn’t understand why they had so many of those and none of the other. You can go take it up with someone else she said and turned away. Typical lib garbage still after 50+ years. Oh well, Amazon has it cheaper anyways.
He has been plugging away on this issue for many years.
Interesting Info. Makes all the sense in the world.....
I seem to recall hepatitis.
This was such a good article, I feel compelled to post multiple pictures of Ann:
where does your information come from? Is it in the book mentioned here?
Will read. Thank you and much Aloha.
How did this confuse you? Rush is a boomer, and he slams them all the time. I’m a boomer, and a lot of his criticism is valid, although I think we were only “the most self-centered generation in history” until the next generation came along. The youngest generation is always the most self-centered.
What confused me was she kept saying, “them” when she should have said, “us.” I know it’s no big deal but it kind of made me wonder. I wish I could remember exactly what she said but I can’t remember what I had for dinner!
Waves of immigrants who came to the USA from 1880-1920: the poles the italians the irish the jews. Most of them voted for FDR by large majorities in 1932, 1936 & 1940. Today only the jews still vote democratic by hefty majorities. Why? The reason for this dates explicitly to the McCarthy period from 1950-54. The reason this is so is because Hollywood still strenuously maintains the communist lie about that era. This lie is maintained by movies in the last years called A Beautiful Mind, and Good Night and Good Luck.
There are various reasons given as to why Stalin initiated the Doctors Plot in the early 1950s before he died. The KGB hated Israel. Many Americans who were enthusiastic supporters of the UN were Jewish.
Edvard Radzinsky in his book Stalin argues that while at one time Stalin hoped Jewish financial capital would help rebuild the Soviet Union after the WWII, Stalin hated the prospect of suborning himself to the Baruch Plan and he flat out rejected IAEA nuclear controlspresented in 1946. The Russians were working on their own abomb based on stolen US designs. (Stalins attitude is not entirely dissimliar to that of Iran today.) The Russian Communist party was so top heavy with Jews-Stalin himself a Geogianwanted to insure that the Russians saw a Russian face to the the communist party.
Whatever the reason, Stalin fomented the Doctors plot hysteria and broke off diplomatic relations with Israel. He was within days of preparing to exile the Soviet Jews to the Gulag (as was done previously with various other ethnic minorities such as the Crimean Tatars, Chechens, etc.), and initiate another great purge along the lines of 1938.
The important thing to recall is that the Doctors Plot happened at the same time as the McCarthy anti communist business from 1950-54
Stalin already had the concentration camps set up. And some of the preliminary accusations had gone out for the Doctors Plot.100 or so Russian jews had already been executed when he died in 1953.
At the same time the Rosenburgs were tried and executed for treason in the USA in 1953and this less than a decade after the Holocaust. This naturally caused fear and suspicion in the US Jewish community. This fear and suspicion was played upon by knowledgeable communists and leftistslarge numbers of whom were jewish. These folk not only knew about what Stalin had done in the 1930s and was about to do with the doctors plotbefore he died but also saw the McCarthy trials as show trials american style ... that is, a prelude to an american pogrom. For which the rosenbergs were exhibit A.
What Stalin had planned to do in a brilliant piece of jujitsu leftists and communists imputed to Americans on the right. But it was done soto voce. Basically a blood libel was perpetrated on Americans without their knowing it. Worse, protestant america were painted as tribal enemies tooth and claw of the US jewish establishment without protestant america even knowing it. Never again! Was the battle cry. But there werent any such enemies of Jews in the USA. If there were protestant tribal enemies in the USA Meyer Kahane would have provoked them into a bloodletting. Why? Because he heard the same thing as everyone else. He also heard about enemies of the jews in the heartland. When he went to give battle, the only sorts of fights the JDL could find resulted in unintelligible court disputes in places like Idaho. In the end, Kahane married an american woman & helped expedite Stalins last wishto rid Russia of Jews. When the american woman committed suicide Kahane lost interest in the USA and focused instead on Israel. When Kahane died it was at the hands of a Moslem in 1990.
While the American public outside NY/LA were generally given the view that the McCarthy era was an age when innocent men were unjustly tried by suspicious anti semites like McCarthy & Nixonthe NY/LA Jewish establishment was given a very different story. They were given to understand that the democrats/liberals had prevented the US from visiting a holocaust on them. And that therefor American Jews owed their loyalty to the liberal democrats because the liberal democrats were the protectors of the Jews.
And this Meme went on untouched for decades after McCarthy.
This dual track story line didnt crack until the early 1990s when the kgb/nkvd/gru opened up their files on the WWII-McCarthy Period. In 1995 the USs NSA agency opened up their Venona files. Both Russian and American spy agency files showed that McCarthy was right. The US government as well as the Manhattan Projecthad been at one time soaked with Russian Spies. The Rosenburgs were guilty. While McCarthy was wrong in most the details he got the general outline of the story right. Why did McCarthy get the outline right and the details wrong? The reason is McCarthys relationship to Hoover was the same as Hoovers relationship to the NSA.The NSA told the FBI about the Venona intercepts but insisted that the FBI could not use NSA intercepts as evidence in court. The FBI had to develop their own leads. As a result most of the spies escaped prosecution. The FBI did not get their man.
In 1950 J Edgar Hoover began weekly meetings with Joseph McCarthy. Those meetings ended in 1954. The beginning and end of those meetings coincided with the beginning and end of McCarthy star turn in the national spot light. McCarthy got most of the details of the spy story wrong but he got the general outline of the story right. His predicament was the same as that of the FBI. Whatever Hoover told himMcCarthy could not use in the senate hearings. To this day the FBI denies that Hoover told McCarthy anything about the Venona Cables and maybe Hoover said nothing explicit to McCarthy for which Hoover could be liable in court.
Needless to say, an American style shoah was never in the cards.
The reason that hollywood hated Ronald Reagan so much was that he was an anti communist in hollywood during the McCarthy period. During this period to be staunchly anti communist in Hollywood or NYC was to be at least vaguely anti semitic because in the 30s to the 50s communism was considered to be almost a secular form of Judaism in the Jewish communities of NY/LA. Why? In Russia, communism was a way to get ahead for the jews. As well, there was a biblical antecedent for jewish communists in the bible in the person of Joseph in Egypt. Why? Because the relationship between jews to josephs Egypt maps over well to jews in Russia. And the history of the jews from Joseph to Moses looks very similar to the rise to prominence of many jews in the soviet communist bureaucracy from the 1917-1970 and the decades long expulsion of Russias jews after 1970 when it became clear that communism was not working. The Russians blamed Russian jews for the failure of communism.
Reagan was among the first wave of FDR democrats to switch parties. Reagans star turn in Hollywood ended after McCarthy. However, his experiences in Hollywood served him well when he went into public service. He always understood the jujitsu of media talk of the age. Something that cannot be said of Nixon.
When I hear American based Moslems talking about McCarthyism being visited on them. I have to laugh. They dont know that they have pronounced themselves guilty in the eyes of many Americans.
The history of the McCarthy period now is forgotten among american jews except for the vague idea that somehow republicans are bad and somehow democrats are good.
As for the democrats, part of the reason for the loss of their inner coherence in the last decade has been that part their foundational raison dÃªtre stemming from the McCarthy era was revealed to be based on a lie. So now the core of the democratic party is the sodomites. Those folks are not just confusing. They are confused.
David Horowitz interviewed by Rush Limbaugh a couple months ago talked about how his parents were communists and he was a communist in college. He said when he was in college his views were always treated respectfully by his professors. But he said recently a young christian college student told him that his homosexual college professor had singled him out in class and asked him Why do you christians hate queers. Asked why he continued to do what he did in the face of all the abuse he gets, David Horowitz said like Rush he took public political positions because he had to. But also he said he did it as a matter of atonement.
He gets it.
Venona Historical Writings that include comparisons of venona and russian spy lists and the changing venona story in the academy.
Great post thank you.
That is one fascinating post! I'm glad you pinged me to it, and I'm so impressed that I am presuming to ping Jim Robinson to it. Highly informative; makes sense of a lot of things.
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: Treason is one heck of a great book. I suspect that Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.” is more like a history text book. Whatever, I will have to check this out, and I’m likely to buy it. If I don’t buy it, I’ll be asking my public library to acquire it.
Looks like rebooted is correct. The above is from the UN site - http://www.un.org/aboutun/milestones.htm.
I think what Ann is saying is that this guy - Evans - has uncovered facts concerning McCarthy that are different than what is printed about him. I remember in Treason, she wrote that when she was researching McCarthy, she found out that newspapers would use as sources what other newspapers wrote. That she would have to dig and dig to try to uncover the original source, which in fact turned out to something somone made up. I think what Ann is saying about this new book is that what we post and state about McCarthy are in fact, the lies printed about him in over fifty years of the liberals smearing him.
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.
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.
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.
Great post! Thanks for the links.
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.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Liberal History.
That explains a LOT. THanks.
My info came from some on line biography's of Alger Hiss which explained his key role in the formulation of the UN.
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
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.
Where is that bookstore?
Bump to read later
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.
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.
I agree, and also want a ping.
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.
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.
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.