Treason: Horowitz v. Coulter

Mensnewsdaily.com ^ | 7/11/03 | Bruce Walker

[HISSKGB]

The news coverage is sickening. If Bush had done nothing, he would have been criticized as ineffectual. We are even being told that the US should have set up an Iraqi government within hours or days of landing there.

The very ones in the US who now have more defense against terrorism are now complaining about efforts made in their behalf.

[DPB101]

How many times have we seen this played out? We darn well knew the day of the attacks that liberals would try to make our response, no matter what it was, into another Vietnam. We also knew they would use "civil liberties" as a cover for attacking Bush as they have done to others who tried to protect America since supporters of Lenin were popping off bombs across America in 1919.

[HISSKGB]

When the Japanese-Americans were granted reparation money for an assault on their civil rights in WW11, why didn't these funds come the estates of Earl Warren, FDR, Frankfurter or Hugo Black who engineered the program?

The ACLU is most interested in the civil rights of those who attempt to destroy the US. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer from the damages caused by the ACLU. Little Polly Klaas would be alive today if the ACLU had been defanged.

[DPB101]

Did you see that J. Edgar Hoover opposed interning the Japanese? The ACLU awarded him an award for his stance.

That little factoid has been erased from liberal history.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the Left's gander is smarting from Coulter's brisk application of its own favorite sauce. It ought not to receive aid or comfort from our ranks.

. . . Along with those on-target those citations, Ann's references are impeccable, every one. They all check out, and not one is lifted misleadingly out of context.

I bought and read Treason, and I have to say that so far as I could see there were no misstatements of fact in it, obvious hyperbole asside. But then, she does refer to things that I don't remember or never knew. Is it your assertion that you have in fact gone to the primary materials she cites, and can vouch for them?

My favorite tidbit in it is in the last paragraph of an early chapter, where she quotes a 1954 description of "McCarthyism" to the effect that

From all across the country come loud cries saying, "I am cowed. I am afraid to speak out." And from all over the nation come even louder responses saying, "Look, he is cowed. He is afraid to speak out."

That reminds me of my own feeling at the time, tho I was young enough to discount the possibility that I just didn't fully understand the situation. And also of a deadpan statement by a favorite '50s comedian, Herb Shriner:

My sister was handed a note in the lobby of a hotel saying, "You are the only woman I have ever loved. Please come to me in Room 115." (pause) . . . She wasn't sure it was sincere, though--it was mimeographed!

In both cases, the medium denies the message--people who are afraid to speak out do not in fact get megaphones and join a chorus declaiming that fact, any more than a man who sees his one true love across a crowded room will produce a mimeographed declaration of dedication and devotion. Rather, if CNN is cowed, it doesn't say a word crosswise to what Saddam Hussain wants. And parrots his line for years--including not mentioning their fear to anyone, for as long as he remains in power.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The person who maintains the site can't distinguish between a "fact" and an opinion. Example:

SLANDER. Journalists are, on the whole, biased to the left. FACT. To help prove this, she says that Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk don't count because they are commentators, not journalists, but does quote liberal commentators such as Maureen Dowd to demonstrate journalists' bias.

Oh, man, Ann, yer busted...

NOT!!!

My definition of a "journalist" is, a member of the clique of writers who explicitly or implicitly conspire to convince the public that some particular person "is not a journalist." Notwithstanding the fact that under the First Amendment anyone can own and operate a press, so if you want to be a journalist then in fact you are one (probably an unprofitable one, but . . . ).

That definition would probably include just about every liberal writer.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The person who maintains the site can't distinguish between a "fact" and an opinion. Example:

SLANDER. Journalists are, on the whole, biased to the left. FACT. To help prove this, she says that Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk don't count because they are commentators, not journalists, but does quote liberal commentators such as Maureen Dowd to demonstrate journalists' bias.

Oh, man, Ann, yer busted...

NOT!!!

My definition of a "journalist" is, a member of the clique of writers who explicitly or implicitly conspire to convince the public that some particular person "is not a journalist." Notwithstanding the fact that under the First Amendment anyone can own and operate a press, so if you want to be a journalist then in fact you are one (probably an unprofitable one, but . . . ).

That definition would probably include just about every liberal writer.

[nopardons]

Good for you !

lately, there have been a spat of " oral history " books done one the first 1/2 of the 20th century. I'll give you a list, if you're interested.

I have detested the Kennedys, since I was a teenager. I've read EVERYTHING about them, that I can. I've done the same thing with the Clintons. For some reason or other, I tend to read about those I hate and not much about the recent American political figures I like.

The term " THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST ", used for the Kennedy & Johnson administrations was hyperbole at the very least...outright propaganda !

[nopardons]

No, the RATS don't " play fair ". The " best " doesn't always win. Being polite, civil, and a milktoast in the face of thunderous onslaught is a recipe for defeat !

No, Ann is NOT the problem; she's part of the answer. Bush is NOT the problem; is is the antidote for eight years of poison.

Our side should have taken the white gloves off decades ago. Those, who think this is wrong, don't understand the enemy, nor the rules of the game. This " playing nice " , in politics, is NOT the way it was...not even for the FFs.

[nopardons]

Oh, I see. Thanks for the info.

[fporretto]

That's right, Lynn. I've been to the primaries. I had a little help, a friend who works for M. Stanton Evans who pointed me in the right direction a few times. Ann Coulter has done her homework honestly and well. She may be strident, but she's no liar.

While we're on the subject, don't neglect to Google the Malmedy Massacre, and Senator McCarthy's role in the sequelae. You will be appalled.

We have been deceived with a thoroughness that renders ludicrous all explanations except an outright effort to sabotage the national memory.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[u-89]

For some reason or other, I tend to read about those I hate

Yeah I know what you mean. I'm a radical individualist yet somehow totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union draw me in ..... to read about that is. My grandparents were all born in the 1890s and my parents in the '20s so I grew up with certain types of stories on a regular basis that made me want to learn more about what happened before my time. While I am addicted to the news and current events the whole era of my times repulses me in a way - I guess it has something to do with aesthetics - the goofy custumes of the "beautiful" people in the '60s and the god awful fashion of the '70s - to me it looks like the smart set of those decades were dressed in circus clown outfits - and actually believed they looked good! Then there's today's body modification trends and scroungy attire - no sense of dignity. Sorry I got side tracted. I'ld be glad to hear of any book recommendations that you have to offer - doesn't matter what political stripe it is either. Do you like Studs Turkle?

The term " THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST ", used for the Kennedy & Johnson administrations was hyperbole at the very least...outright propaganda !

Having a natural contrarian nature I have developed a keen eye for propaganda and most history is writen by the winners i.e. court historians. I suppose regimes need legitamacy to retain the support of the people and the people by nature seem to need myths and heroes so I suppose the lies serve everyone's interests in the long run.

[Sonny M]

Ditto. I've been a Horowitz fan for a long time. But lately, he seems to be going back to his roots. I wonder what's up with him?

I like Horowitz, but I also know what he is. He has alot of liberal friends and backers, he's a nice guy, who is as neo-conservative as they come, but he tends to be naive at times, and in his honorable attempt to be objective, which he does go through painfull lenghts, he makes hard mistakes and winds up attacking his own. I don't think he attacks conservatives because he wants credibility for when he attacks liberals, but I think that he believes that he is a true conservative, and that everyone else is hurting his cause with bad P.R.

To put it nicely, he's a little out of touch, his heart is in the right place, but all the liberals around him, are starting to probably make him think they are mainstream.

[johnb838]

This is a non sequitor, but it us such a lovely remark that I had to post it:

"Actors are constantly engaging in conspicuous fighting to distract from the fact that they are sissy-boys who put on lttle-girls plays" Treason, p. 249 Ann Coulter

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Indeed, DPB. Along with those on-target those citations, Ann's references are impeccable, every one. They all check out, and not one is lifted misleadingly out of context.

Please see also Sauce For The Goose.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto

Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

4 posted on 07/11/2003 12:58 PM EDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

the Left's gander is smarting from Coulter's brisk application of its own favorite sauce. It ought not to receive aid or comfort from our ranks.

. . . Along with those on-target those citations, Ann's references are impeccable, every one. They all check out, and not one is lifted misleadingly out of context.

I bought and read Treason, and I have to say that so far as I could see there were no misstatements of fact in it, obvious hyperbole asside. But then, she does refer to things that I don't remember or never knew. Is it your assertion that you have in fact gone to the primary materials she cites, and can vouch for them?

145 posted on 07/12/2003 10:29 PM EDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

That's right, Lynn. I've been to the primaries. I had a little help, a friend who works for M. Stanton Evans who pointed me in the right direction a few times. Ann Coulter has done her homework honestly and well. She may be strident, but she's no liar.

While we're on the subject, don't neglect to Google the Malmedy Massacre, and Senator McCarthy's role in the sequelae. You will be appalled.

We have been deceived with a thoroughness that renders ludicrous all explanations except an outright effort to sabotage the national memory.

151 posted on 07/13/2003 8:35 AM EDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[MEG33]

Thanks for the ping and the reference.I am reading the book and Ann's ability to clear the fog is amazing.I am still wondering what got to Rabanowitz.An extremely poor outing!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Seems to me that independent confirmation of Ann's citations is worth a bump to all concerned. IMHO Ann should put her citations and the primaries up on a web site to go with the book.

The story about Nuremberg is pretty ugly. But then, there is plenty for Americans to question if they really look at Roosevelt-Truman foreign policy history. According to The New Dealers' War by Thomas Fleming (a self-professed Truman Democrat) FDR planned for Stalin to be in control of Europe after WWII. And had our forces doing some things their mothers wouldn't be proud to hear, along the way to that objective. Well worth a read, if you haven't seen it.

We have been deceived with a thoroughness that renders ludicrous all explanations except an outright effort to sabotage the national memory.

. . . which raises the issue of Slander--the fact that journalism is so monolithically anticonservative that it is as a whole capable of a big lie propaganda campaign. Which is also illuminated by

my still-developing thread about the reasons for that situation.
(all bumps gratefully accepted)

[First Amendment]

We are in a cultural war at home. If we lose that cultural war, we have lost this country and what it stands for.

The war on terrorism is not any more important than the war on traditional morality.

What is concerning in America at this point, is not only Marxists per se, but how all sorts of materialist, egocentric philosophies and motivations have crept into our national life -- ever pushing out the God-based reality understood by our nations's founders.(Post 131)

I completely agree with both of you - the war on simple God-based human life, based on the laws of nature (notice sodomy used to be called "crime against nature") authored by God - is not really separate from the war against islamofascists. But if we think the only enemies are Muslims who want to kill us, we are deluded.

Killing the body is actually not as dangerous as killing the soul of a nation and people.

[hoosiermama]

Thanks for the ping. Agreed Have read TREASON and here 42 pagesof references). Currently working of Dick Morris's OFF WITH THEIR HEADS which reinforces what is said in SLANDER (and BIAS). Make sure you get and read it too!

[hoosiermama]

Can you tell how tired this typer is.....yes it was proof read. My apologies....and off to bed.