Rating: 
Summary: Libs.....
Review: "according to Merriam-Webster: it is "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the political and civil liberties." Now that *is* evil, right?"No, but that definition is centuries old, and it applies to Classical liberalism. It hardly applies to modern day liberals which is exactly how Coulter is using the word. That old definition also says: "individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" Does anyone know any liberals who believe in lack of "government regulation in all personal economic activity"? "Allow me to quote her in one instance that perfectly embodies the entire aim of the book; it's from the very first page, and it's fully accessible from Amazon: "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence. The left's obsession with the crimes of the West and their Rousseauian respect for Third World savages all flow from this subversive goal." Is she serious? And, furthermore, does she know that if one were to substitute the word 'liberal' in her book with the word 'Jew,' she would sound like Joseph Goebbels?" And here we have the typical liberal tactic of dragging in the "nazi" comparisons. "(Here's another sampling from Treason, complete with a simple substitution written in brackets: "Whether they are rooting for the atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao, satanic suicide bombers and terrorists ... [Jews] always take the side of savages against civilization" (pp. 285-6)). As a Jew myself I find it interesting that a simple substitution like this can reveal so much about the cruel, sadistic nature of her book." Your analogy is wrong. The Jews never constituted an actual threat to Germany. They were merely scapegoated. Liberals, on the other hand, are a clear and present danger to our Republic. These people have ripped apart the Constitutional limitations of the Republic and the social fabric of our society. You are exactly what you are bashing. Coulter has been completely logical. The assertion of liberals "taking the side of savages against civilization" is not exactly an emotional one as much as it is a logical one. You inject anti-semitism to the equation so as to bring emotion into the debate, because you cannot win on the facts (suggesting we rewrite what she said by replacing the word "liberal" with "jew". That is not winning with the facts. It cannot be denied that modern day liberals have sided against their own country, with American enemies, even at times of war). Because LOGIC leads to conservatism. Conservatism is the result of logic.
Rating:
Summary: sure...
Review: "Come on. To assume that to disagree with the Republican party line is treason is not only simplistic it is insulting." No. What is insulting is for the left to keep on trying to mischaracterize the authors point of view in the book as "disagreeing with the Republican party line is treason" "Factcheck.org has a good analysis of both Coulter and her detractors." Factcheck has no such analysis. "But, I'm sure the converted will pass non-partisan analysis off as liberal media spin." Oh, since they call themselves non partisan, then it must be true.
Rating:
Summary: If it were not true...
Review: ...Wold the left be so quick to attack it with nasty little lies? Get a clue you fools.
Rating: 
Summary: Obnoxious but sometimes thought-provoking
Review: 2.5 stars. I didn't expect to find anything of value in this book. We're all familiar with Coulter's deliberately provocative style (a tedious mix of hyperbole, sweeping generalization and hypocrisy). Her approach isn't nuanced enough to be called satire. Al Franken had it right when he called her a political pornographer, catering to her audience's basest instincts. Nevertheless, some of her underlying arguments appear well-supported. She makes some interesting points about the relative merits of diplomacy and military intervention, and she's obviously correct in stating that some liberals reflexively oppose everything that a Republican president does. (Of course, there are plenty of dogmatic conservatives as well- note some of the five-star reviews for this divisive, nasty book...) Her bias is always obvious and she often cherry-picks facts to support her position, but I sometimes had difficulty refuting her arguments. The bottom line is that this book helped me pinpoint some gaps in my knowledge and some possible flaws in my reasoning. "Treason" is a reminder of the importance of an informed opinion. All readers of this book, knee-jerk liberals and knee-jerk conservatives alike, should use it as a catalyst for re-examining their own biases and seeking out multiple points of view.
Rating: 
Summary: Politcal Hate Speech at it's most Best
Review: A vitriolic, hyperbolic polemic, guaranteed to please those who can only see the world in black and white, and who think everyone who fails to believe as they do is a treasonous, evil, brainless idiot. This book is a screed, a shrill hate-fest riddled with errors and outright falsehoods.....which Coulter simply shrugs off when confronted. It's particularly amusing to see complaints about the uncivility of those who dislike President Bush when folks like Ms. Coulter make money publishing such uncivil and hate-driven efforts. Perhaps they've forgotten (all too conveniently) the amount of nastiness they've been unleashing for more than a decade? Seems, in the mind of Ms. Coulter and her syncophantic fans that there is only room for one point of view in this country. Theirs. Anything else is "treasonous." As for the book's content, there's not much to say. Anyone can pull together a one-sided, accusatory list of alledged evil-doings and present them to the public (and conservatives hardly have a monopoly on this sort of thing). There's no effort or intent to be balanced, nuanced, objective or intelligent here. That's not the point. This is angry, destructive, devisive propaganda at its worst. And having written such a critical commentary about Ms. Coulter's broadside, I will no doubt be dismissed as one of the vast legion of evil, treasonous, liberal-leftist, wimp, socialist America-haters. So be it. It should be an honor to reject this kind of divisive, angry politics, no matter what names one is called.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Exactly Treason.
Review: Ann Coulter is a heroine to many conservatives as she writes voluminously and is a ubiquitous figure on television where she can be seen championing our cause several times a week. Regardless of the media venue, she'll stand up to any foe that the left brings before her and unflinchingly debates firebrands like Gloria Allred, James Carville, Paul Begala, and Eric Alterman. She is more Green Beret than Hessian mercenary. Ann Coulter is simply the best sword that we on the right possess. With this in mind, I joined thousands of others who bought her new book the first week it was released.
Coulter's theme is that although "the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security." To this particular reviewer, a better title for the book would have been "Negligence" as it is a more accurate description of the positions taken (or not taken as the case may be) by the left. To have focused on negligence rather than treason would have been less inflammatory, and it would also have decreased the breadth of her critics' argumentative ground.
Coulter has some very valuable and timeless observations apart from the controversial Senator McCarthy. She argues that, "[h]istory is an endless process of liberal brainwashing," and I find much truth in this statement. I've read over 100 books on Hitler and Stalin but I'd be hard-pressed to tell you which one was more evil. They were both a level of sadistic monstrosity that makes comparisons arbitrary and meaningless. Yet, to embrace the Soviet Union is still a socially acceptable (or really socially neutral) act, but to embrace the Third Reich is the act of a pariah. Why is this true? Unfortunately, it is because communism is thought of being on the left side of the political spectrum and Nazism is thought of being on the right side of the political spectrum. Of course, such perceptions are not accurate. In my opinion, both are pathologies of the left but I'll save that argument for another time. Regardless, I believe that Coulter's statement about history is quite insightful.
The fundamental premise of Treason, that leftist-liberals care little about this nation's security and often display an anti-American bias when analyzing world events, has considerable evidence behind it. She states that the only part of government that the left ever wants to reduce in size is national defense. Whether America has a right to defend itself is central to this work. It is also a very topical discussion. This reviewer just penned a piece about Liberia and my belief is that their struggle does not advance America's interests in any way, so it seems an unworthy use of force. In Treason, Coulter provides the microscope through which the left would examine my arguments. She stated, "The left's theory of a just war had evolved to (1) military force must never be deployed in America's self-interest; and (2) we must first receive approval from the Europeans, especially the Germans. Good thing we didn't have that rule in 1941." Indeed, the left never expects us to act in our own interests because defending the nation is something that ironic and rational adults would never consider.
Treason is a polemic and thus is imbued with a great deal of hyperbole (as if I have any room to talk). This has not been lost on any of Coulter's critics and they have, and will, spend considerable time attacking her politically incorrect speech. I acknowledge that name-calling weakens her case as the use of "Oriental beasts" will offend practically everybody. She further describes America's defeatist male liberals as being "women" along with labeling professors: "sissy-boys in academia."
People will make much of this non-PC talk, but I don't think it's anything more than the purposeful desire to blow the veneer off the edifice of society's submission to leftist dogma (a.k.a.-PC). Coulter, like many other conservatives, knows that calling grown men "girls" irritates the recipient to no end and horrifies the radical feminists who despise everyone that refuses to obey their commands. Ann Coulter is guilty of too much zeal but considering the lies and deceit that the left foists upon those of us who defend western civilization, it is nearly warranted. Given our times, I am not surprised that venomous invective is so much a part of this book. I agree it would be a more scholarly work without it but I think it unlikely she would willingly sanitize her own words even if one hundred million people requested it. It's not in her nature. This book will be a huge money-maker for all involved and I recommend it without hesitation to my brothers and sisters on the right, yet I acknowledge it will have little appeal to those in the center.
Rating:
Summary: Cite, Cite, Cite
Review: Ann Coulter speaks for many when she finally points out that the liberal left and Democrats since Truman provide only antagonism to major events in recent history. The book is written with the same dry humor as Slander but is a little more dense. Coulter spent too much time focussing on McCarthy than I felt was necessary--but in her defense, she was trying to clarify an indoctrinated lie regarding the Red Scare. I also wish she spent more time speaking about current politicians but when she wrote the book perhaps the level of invective propaganda the Democrats are now spewing was reasonably less. I look forward to her next book.
Rating:
Summary: Just the facts . . . with provocative opinion
Review: Ann Coulter, an effective legal scholar and political commentator, has marshalled the facts regarding the question, "Which party is more patriotic?" Using definitive scholarship on Joseph McCarthy from primary sources (the original transcripts of Senate hearings and his speeches), the Verona papers (the translation of intercepted Soviet cables), and a plethora of newpaper quotes, she shows that:
1. There were spies in the State department, as Senator McCarthy said.
2. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman did nothing about them, other than promote them, after being notifief of their communist sympathies.
3. Even when the communists were removed from government, their lives continued smoothly, either being employed by academia or by the Soviet or Chinese government.
4. The staunchest anti-communists were Senator McCarthy, President Nixon, and President Reagan, and they were the most vilified by the Democrats. Her provocative opinion is that since liberal Democrats consistently support Communists and oppose the U.S. defending itself, they are de facto guilty of treason, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If you want to read a challenge to the conventional interpretation of the Cold War and Senator McCarthy, be sure to read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Aryan Girl Tries To Appease Her Dominant Males...
Review: Ann Coulter, nationally recognized as the most accurate fountain of historical reference, launches an attack on the left wing throughout the last seventy years of American Life, explaining how they were wrong about McCarthyism (Of course they were! And to think, he almost had that Stalinist Subversive Lucille Ball and he let her go!), all matters of foreign policy (Truman really was lily-livered. Only dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Either one of the George Bushs would have deep-fried everything between Paris and Hawaii, given the chance) and basically writes between the lines that any opposition to her American Fascism views are nothing short of treason. In Dallas, on November 22, 1963, signs were held up that read "Wanted For Treason" with a photo of President Kennedy. They claimed he was soft on communism, after having saved the world from a Nuclear Holocaust in the Cuban Missle Crisis; I suppose she thinks we should have followed through with that as well. Coulter's claims that the American Left was wrong about George W. Bush is a matter of (imensley tainted) opinion; his family is responsible for the ascension to power of both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden's family, along with decades of ties to the Saudi Royal Family(17 of the Hijackers on those planes were Saudis, by the way). Soldiers are dying needlessly in Iraq, but anyone who champions peace instead of war is a dissident traitor. Little Orphan Annie should walk away from her attempts at actual journalism and settle back into her political love affair with Sean Hannity.
Rating:
Summary: Stop squealing 1-star stuck pigs; give some rebuttal
Review: Coulter has again reaped a bountiful harvest in this current pig-killing season; the bacon and ham hocks are hanging ripe in the smokehouse after her searing indictment of the Democrat party leadership during the 40's and 50s. But don't be misled, this book isn't pork, or any kind of meat at all. It is that wonderful and honorable (although quite rare these days) discipline known as HISTORY. The porkers on the left are squealing, and this time the wounds appear fatal to their corrupt, disingenous and treasonous ideology. With the revelations of the Venona Project, there can be no denying that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were filled with proven Soviet spies and Communist party lackies. Alger Hiss, Rosevelt's advisor at Yalta, was a Soviet spy. Julius Rosenberg, his wife and their cronies were Soviet spies who were responsible for holding the world hostage to nuclear Armageddon for 50 years, due to their providing of nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Of course Henry Wallace, former Vice President of the United States, was a Communist and Soviet sympathizer. And yet the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR et al continue to ignore the facts. But Coulter again (like her previous works) gives voluminous footnotes documenting the facts from which she demonstrates the truth about these matters. Yet note all the 1-star ratings this great book has received from other alleged "readers". They are by in large one or two lines of name calling. Read any 5 of them and see how many times the word "hate" and "fascism" is used. See how little reference to specific content of the book they cite. Liberal partisans are obviously projecting their own hate onto the source of their unveiling and downfall. It is the hard left wing that are the professional "haters" in our society, as Coulter amply proves. Often times, this hard left is called "mainstream" by the hard left press (NY Times, etc). Coulter demonstrates that liberal leadership has often been made up of wannabe totalitarians that are kept in check only by our Constitution and the liberty loving conservative patriots, like McCarthy, that rise up and stand in the gap at the critical times in history. But liberal leadership still has their shills in the old leftwing media. They are obviously staying up late at night to give 1 star reviews to this book they haven't read, and stating as "not helpful" all the reviews like this one. If you're interested in Truth about Communism and the legacy of the Democrat party, read this book. If you don't like seeing facts cremating cherished ideological beliefs, stay in the dark and go on believing the lies. If you consider yourself a liberal and a patriot, then most likely you don't understand the realities your leaders represent, or the treachery. Read Coulter's version of the facts, check her sources (don't just start name calling), and make up your mind based on reality. Read this book. Either believe the facts she's documented or do research and produce rebuttal. Card-carrying, rank-and-file liberals should look to their "great intellectuals" on the left to disprove Coulter's well-documented proofs that have destroyed what little credibility the liberal ideology represents. If she's making it up, prove it. Proving Ann Coulter to be a liar would be a strong move to the hoop for the left. But you'd best get better round-ballers than so-called comedian and minus IQer Al Franken, or crackpot autistic Michael Moore. Otherwise, prove your superior intelligence by demonstrating that brilliant intellectual function: change your mind to line up with the facts! And to you 1-star reviewers: give just 1 FACT clearly rebutting a footnoted documentation of fact in Treason. Just 1, come on. "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"...
| 
