WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE BEING CENSORED (Ann Coulter)

Ann Coulter ^ | 7/0903 | Ann Coulter

[ChadGore]

WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE BEING CENSORED

By Ann Coulter

Earlier this year, the Screen Actors Guild (news - web sites) issued a statement lamenting that "those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views. Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation." Feeling the lash of a right-wing blacklist, the Dixie Chicks (news - web sites) recently played to an adoring, sold-out crowd at Madison Square Garden.

Ann Coulter

But earlier this week, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., denounced a radio corporation's decision not to play the Dixie Chicks as similar to Nazism and McCarthyism. The Dixie Chicks lead singer ridiculed President Bush (news - web sites) before a foreign audience. That was constitutionally protected free speech. The decision of radio stations not to play the Dixie Chicks, however, is not a matter of their own free speech.

Conservatives are openly blackballed in all the liberal professions -- publishing, Hollywood, the mainstream media, education and college faculties. Apparently, that's not "blacklisting." It is churlish for conservatives to complain about private censorship. True blacklisting occurs only when someone scowls at a liberal.

Ronald Radosh is one of the nation's pre-eminent historians, but he is blacklisted from American universities because he wrote a book concluding that the Rosenbergs were guilty -- a few years before decrypted Soviet cables were released proving they were guilty.

Inasmuch as Radosh had once been a "progressive" himself, a fatwa was inevitable. Radosh marched for the Rosenbergs. He attended candlelight vigils for the Rosenbergs. He was even personally acquainted with Pete Seeger! But after setting out to write a book proving the Rosenbergs innocent, his research led him to conclude otherwise. He was a liberal who rejected the faith. Under strict fatwa procedures, Radosh had to be banned from academia.

As has been copiously detailed by John Judis in the liberal New Republic magazine, whenever Radosh is on the verge of being hired by a major university, the liberal wolf pack bays and suddenly the position disappears. Anonymous critics were quoted "question(ing) his credentials." One historian told Judis: "I wouldn't hire a red-baiter like Ron." Another said Radosh was "not a historian at all."

Columbia history professor Eric Foner claimed Radosh's book on the Rosenbergs violated the canons of historical scholarship. As any infant knows, one of the canons of historical scholarship is to mindlessly hold as an article of faith the manifestly absurd belief that the Rosenbergs were innocent. It is an affront to good scholarship to suggest otherwise. Most devastatingly, Foner -- once president of the American Historical Association -- accused Radosh of "liberal anti-communism." Other historians have even stooped so low as to call Radosh a "conservative." One editor said he believed Radosh was a CIA (news - web sites) agent.

American college students are learning history from people who believe the Rosenbergs were innocent idealists and Radosh is a CIA agent. (How are the grades for students who write term papers saying the Rosenbergs were guilty?)

Obtaining a teaching position was not so difficult for Joel Kovel, who holds the prestigious "Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies" chair at Bard College. With superb timing, in 1994, just one year before the Venona cables were declassified, Kovel published a book describing anti-communism as a psychiatric condition. Appropriately, Kovel dedicated the book to his chair's namesake, Soviet spy Alger Hiss. Making paranoid accusations based on his own neurotic impulses, Kovel explained that America's anti-communism was a form of anti-Semitism.

He should know. In a 2002 article, Kovel called the West Bank "a huge concentration camp," and demanded to know: "Why does the Zionist community, in raging against terrorism, forget that three of its prime ministers within the last 20 years, Begin, Shamir and Sharon, are openly recognized to have been world-class terrorists and mass murderers?"

But in his book "Red Hunting in the Promised Land" -- dedicated to uber-WASP communist Hiss -- Kovel raved: "The Communist became ... the archaic blood villain of Western civilization -- the Jew who killed Christ, the black Hamitic son of Noah, the howling savage beyond the gates reminding 100 percent Americans of the terrors of the dark." (Now that's serious scholarship.)

When the Venona Project was declassified one year later, it turned out there was another likely explanation for America's anti-communism. To wit: the fact that the government was crawling with Soviet spies feverishly passing atomic technology to America's mortal enemy. But right up until the Soviet cables were declassified, Kovel's lunatic psychological theory was accepted in the journals of mainstream opinion. His book describing anti-communism as a mental defect was one of The Washington Post's recommended books in 1994.

Unlike Radosh, who did not need to read Soviet cables to figure out that Julius Rosenberg was a spy, Kovel has encountered no difficulty in landing any number of teaching positions. In addition to holding the coveted Traitor Chair at Bard College, he has been an anthropology professor at the New School for Social Research; a professor of political science and communications at the University of California, San Diego; a lecturer at San Diego State University; and a professor at the Saybrook Institute in San Francisco.

People who have dedicated their lives to exposing lesbian imagery in "Moby-Dick" are more prevalent on the nation's campuses than serious scholars. The nation's colleges and universities have become a Safe Streets program for traitors and lunatics. At least Tailgunner Joe got them out of government work.

[annyokie]

We had free speech at my (Catholic) university.

Ann has become a characature of herself, IMO.

[dennisw]

You have a lot of nerve trying to "slander" Dorothy Rabinowitz. You prolly are right about the Loeb business but Rabinowitz is hardly a defender of liberals. Not as long as I've read her. She's done more good for the conservative cause and common decency than you can hope to in 10 lifetimes.

I may be wrong but are you trying to slime Rabinowitz due to your animus for neocons?

[HISSKGB]

The claim is that McCarthy was evil. Where is the proof? Where are the hard facts? Each time people are asked to name a person unfairly harmed by McCarthy, they present no real evidence.

[DPB101]

And Truman and Ike KNEW it, but did nothing about it.

Think Ike tried to smooth things over much as Bush did with the Clinton scandals. The Soviets were getting great propaganda mileage out of the execution of the Rosenbergs and the McCarthy hearings. America was just like Nazi Germany! Persecuting and killing Jews. Ike was in a no-win situation. He tightened up security. He worked with Goldwater to shut down the Ft. Monmouth Army lab where a few dozens of Julius associates worked and quietly moved the lab to Arizona. Democrats, privately, told Ike they would take care of the traitors in their midsts.

Had JFK not won in 1960, things may have been OK. The CPUSA had been knocked down. But the Reds, and their children, came roaring back in the 1960s.

[HISSKGB]

Are these the rules? McCarthy can be slimed without any proof but his opponents are exempt from criticism?

[alloysteel]

You're uncommonly perceptive. Those are exactly the rules. Kind of a one-way ratchet.

[mil-vet]

JFK may not have been a traitor, per se, but he wasn't the knight in shining armor he is supposed to have been, either. Along with the bay of pigs debacle, he didn't back the USSR down in the Cuban crisis, he traded US missles in Turkey for Soviet missles in Cuba. Additionally, he WAS a liberal, and the point is that liberals are defenders of communism, haters of truth and, ultimately haters of America.

Based on your remarks, it is easy to assume you are one of "them". You apparently "don't believe" documented facts, after all.

[DPB101]

Go pick up the NYC phonebooks of the 1950s and you will find many, many Rabinowitzs. I would guess 1000 in all of NYC back then...

Treason page 101:

(In 1954)..Americans told pollsters they approved of the job McCarthy was doing by 50 to 29 percent...his approval rating was 63 percent. ..Catholics supported McCarthy by 56 to 29 percent.; Protestants supported him by 45 to 36 percent. Jews opposed McCarthy 82 to 3 percent.

That 3% approval is nationwide. Includes those who were in the military fighting communism. What do you think the approval rating was in NYC?

Just my opinion of course, but I think Rabinowitz's distaste for Coulter's book is emotional, not factual.

[Republic]

Could be. Good point.

The Jewish were also heavily into the motion picture industry which was such a strong target of McCarthy (with good reason, as history has shown) and had the means to publicize their viewpoints at the time.

Ann Coulter is my heart when it comes to all things political. My interest is always 1000% when anyone is able to condense strong points into burning words that sear and wake up the mind.

Ann has the background, has done her homework, is sharp and is very prone to reduce ideologues and euphemizers into so much mush I find myself cheering. Bout time the right had such a dynamic, intelligent, female spokesperson who not only tells it like it is, but tells it like it was!

(Besides, with our beloved FReeper BKO-Barbara Olson-gone in a flash in the Pentagon terrorist attack of Sept.11, Ann has had to do double duty-something she has done and will continue to do with exquisite professionalism and dedication!)

God Bless this terrific FReeper!!!! BRAVO, ANN!!!

[Common Tator]

Anny as far as Harry S Truman's position on Alger Hiss is concerned, Harry refused to fire Alger. When asked about Alger Hiss during the congressional hearings, Truman said the accusations about Hiss was just a Red Herring thrown out by Republicans to smear a good loyal American.

You can argue that Harry was stupid or too lazy to order an FBI investigating of Hiss, or that Harry was just ready to believe that Congressman Richard Nixon and Senator Joe McCarthy were just playing politics. But it can not be said that Harry Truman lifted even a little finger to get rid of real provable and known communists in our government.

We now know the following:

 
   1. Alger Hiss was a Russian spy.
      The Soviet Union records contained the secret 
      information he sent them with Hiss listed as a
      soviet union spy.

   2. We know that Congressman Richard Nixon and Senator 
      Joe McCarty had a heck of a time getting Hiss out of 
      the State Department and away from our national  
      secrets.

   3. We know for a fact that both Dean Acheson (Truman's 
      secretary of State) and President Truman defended 
      Hiss and accused Nixon and McCarthy of conducting a 
      witch hunt after an innocent man.

   4. Truman in a recorded and filmed press conference 
      called the attack on Hiss a Red Herring tactic 
      designed to ruin the reputation of Alger Hiss. Hiss
      was described as a loyal american who had served our 
      nation well under both FDR and HST. Truman's position
      was that he knew HIss was innocent and he was not 
      going to waste any time looking at evidence that 
      said otherwise. Sort of like the Senate's position  
      on the Clinton evidence.

   5. Saying that Nixon and McCarthy were bad Americans 
      for trying to force Acheson and Truman to fire Hiss
      is a big stretch. 

I take a lot of what Horowitz says with a grain of salt. This is not the first time Horowitz has shaded the truth to attack Anne Coulter and others. I think Horowitz is jealous of Anne.

I have never caught Anne playing with the truth. I have caught Horowitz several times. YOu will notice HOrowitz says Anne goes off the deep end or goes too far.. He does not say what she writes is not the truth or that it is a lie. He just makes negative connotations about what she says and the way she says it.

You can do a google search on Harry S. truman and Red Herring to find the truth of what I say. And if you are not familiar with the term Red Herring and what it means, you can look that up too.

Tator

[DPB101]

I may be wrong but are you trying to slime Rabinowitz due to your animus for neocons?

I hate the word "neocon". No animus beyond that. (Hating the word is a recent development. Liberals and paleocons use it as a curse word, as you know)

Why not just take what I say at face value, rather than read into it? I am very glad that finally, somebody is making a lot of national noise over McCarthy, the Hollywood Ten and the rest of it. Coulter is saying what many of us have known for decades. Don't take kindly when Rabinowitz or anyone else trots out the same false victimology stories we've heard a thousand times before.

There will be no shortage of liberals bashing Ann Coulter. Rabinowitz, Sullivan and Horowitz should give it a rest and go after the real enemy--liberals.

[DPB101]

Why Truman did not fire Harry Dexter White is also a mystery.

The Prime Minister of Canada flew to DC and told him White was a spy. Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley (independently) pegged White as a spy. Instead of telling the DOJ to prosecute White, Truman put him in charge of the International Monetary Fund.

[Registered]

 

[annyokie]

Oh, nonsense! David is his own man.

You can't even spell Ann's name correctly. How can you assume that she is correct in all her assertions?

Read "Whitaker Chanbers" by Sam Taunenbaum, when you feel the need to learn the facts.

[annyokie]

Heal thyself, Anny: Whittaker Chambers, Sam Tannenbaum.

Passionate typing as reason.

[Itzlzha]

So now answer my question: "Why did Rabinowitz distort the history of Phillip Loeb when she attacked Ann Coulter?"

Because, like the Peter Sellers character in "Dr. Strangelove" that had to keep grabbing his arm to stop the Nazi salute...it's so DEEPLY implanted in all LIEberals to LIE...even when the truth is easier!

[Common Tator]

You ask me to believe a man who confessed to being a communist over my own eyes and ears.

I heard the press conference on the radio and saw the newsreel in which Truman defended Alger Hiss. Truman said Alger Hiss was loyal American and said Hiss was not a soviet spy. Either Truman was a fool or he was a liar. It can not be discounted that Truman was both. Truman defended Hiss in his memoirs too. You should try reading them instead of Chambers book. You should try reading the congressional record and the sworn testimony, not what a proven liar turned states witness said.

But I will ask you this:

Should I believe Whitaker Chambers when he testified under oath that he was not and had never been a communist or should I believe Whitaker Chambers when he testified under oath that he had been a communist but no longer was one?

It was Chambers lying under oath that allowed Nixon to break Chambers and make him turn states evidence. Chambers was no hero. He was a communist who got caught and turned on his fellow communists to save his own hide.

[Common Tator]

Why Truman did not fire Harry Dexter White is also a mystery.

Truman did not want to tick off his labor union boss base. A huge hunk of the Democratic party was very pro communism and pro Soviet Union. The head of the Auto workers, Walter Reuther, spent 3 years in the Soviet Union studying under Stalins minions and learning how to organize the United Auto Workers. He came back to the states and did just that. The labor unions were a big hunk of the Democratic party and the labor unions were full of communists.

They thought it was the wave of the future and would soon happen hear.

[Itzlzha]

Let me aid your point with some history of my own.

Up until 1999, I had friends I played in a band with out of NYC. I was the only "Gentile" in the band.

I have never heard more LIEberal claptrap than I did hanging with them. I as a Conservative, was naturally on the defensive in ANY argument, as they were compassionate LIEberals.

Anyway, one of the band members' wife was out on the town with us, and the subject of politics came up. I stated the Conservative position and was immediately harrangued by this Beeyatch, and she used EVERY LIEberal stereotype argument on me...the rest of the party immediately told her to stop, that she didn't want to start a political discussion/war with me, and that she wasn't prepared for the results.

I calmly turned to her and asked her "shall I now respond with every steroetype about LIEberals to you? I think not, as you are not prepared to think for yourself." and calmly walked away.

My point is...these former friends, all New York jews, were ALL involved in Academia, or Media in NYC. DEEPLY!

And they all blamed Netanyahu for any Pali violence, and wanted to surrender to the Pali demands! The stereotype of guilty LIEberals and self-hating Jews was in full view.

Needless to say, I now have had no contact with them since 9-11...as they STILL didn't want to believe that the Islamazis were ANYBODY'S enemy!

[DPB101]

All the time we hear how Republicans need to play to win. Ann kicks liberals in the groin and some conservatives say its not fair. She must have expected this because she does address it in her book:

"Republican elitists abhor demagogic appeals to working-class Democrats."--Treason, page 70.