Rating: 
Summary: Dumb, Dumber, Really Stupid And Then There's Ann Coulter.
Review: There are only two words that describe conservative Annie's book: Beyond Stupid.Her premise that it all the liberalism that has pervaded U.S political life since the end of WWII is Treason is just about the stupidist thing anyone has ever said. And even if were Treason, give me more of it. First of all, we are all still here. More than once during the last 60 years the whole of human existence came seriously close to being extinguished in a nuclear holocaust. Equating Osama and Sadam with Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao is ludicrous. These two fools are nothing compared to Uncle Joe and Mao. Worrying about the harm those two idiots can bring upon us, to the extent we do, is, even since we rooted that fierce old Sadam from his hole in the ground, simply absurd. Saying that her hero is Joe McCarthy is also the rant of some totally deluded ignoramous. McCarthy was an egomaniac, a closet gay, an alcholic, a fascist and the most pathethic person ever to serve in the US Senate. Lucky for humanity, the liberals prevailed or Annie wouldn't even be here. She suffers from the same delusions as Wisconsin Joe - acute paranoia that people will find out who and what she really is - Gestapo Ann, Dumber Than Dirt Neo-Nazi. Secondly, her premise is simply a lie based on the following facts: Today our citizens have the highest standard of living in the world. We have the most powerful military in history. We have highest gross domestic product of any nation in the world and hundreds of millions of people in the world would give up everything they have to come to our country and partake of our incredible success. All things considered, Gestapo Ann should get a clue and just come out and say her bible is "Mein Kampf" and her God is Adolph Hitler. Better yet, she shoud take part in a NAZI like eugenics experiment and have a kid with Sean Hannity. Then we'd all have something to look forward to - the first human being to be born with a negative IQ. However what is even more bizarre than Ann Coulter's views is that Democrats haven't yet figured out that people like her, Hannity and George W. are the greatest thing to ever happen to the Democratic party. Give them time and these neo-fascists fools will become beyond relevant. Books like this peice of garbage simply speed up the process.
Rating:
Summary: 1 star for effort, 0 for facts.
Review: Recently, I began putting together the major errors in Ann Coulter's Treason that have been found by many resources. So far, I have posted 20 major errors. I added some of my own commentary and research on these claims and have put them together at this blog site:
http://treasoncoulter.blogspot.com There are more posts to come on my blog, but this will have to do for now.
Rating:
Summary: A sad state of affairs
Review: As a career active duty military officer and a proud Democrat, reading Coulter's latest book is perhaps the saddest I've ever been. Those of us in the military sweat, sometimes bleed and sometimes die in order to protect the Constitution and protect America's freedoms--for both Republicans and Democrats. After nearly 20 years of service to God and Country, it truly saddens me to see this particular author so vilifying the 40% or so of the country who are Democrats. Further, she tries to take away through innuendo (it's "unpatriotic" to say this or that) that what those of us in the military are willing to die to protect. What's worse, she does so with unsubstantiated claims, some of which are down right false--too many to even begin addressing in a forum such as this. But that's the hard thing about freedom--we Democrats in the military fight to protect this author's right to say these things, too. I just wish she'd realize that.
Rating: 
Summary: Provocative, But Incomplete
Review: This is probably the hardest book I have ever had to review: on the one hand, Coulter tries to counter what she perceives as Liberals controlling US History and media by providing an unabashedly Conservative viewpoint; on the other hand, her scholarship leaves something to be desired. This book was given to me by a former student, who thought I would find it 'interesting'. I did.
In terms of 'stirring the pot', she more than succeeds; for example, she extols Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communist activities during the period known as "McCarthyism". She even states that although McCarthy began "drinking more than usual during the hearings, often working in his office all night sipping straight vodka...he was better than his adversaries." (111) This is just one of many moments that, after reading all 292 pages, seems to boil down to the idea that "All Democrats Bad; All Republicans Good". Nothing is that simplistic. In addition, there are times when you can read a paragraph from her point of view (see above), then re-read it with the opposite POV, and both times it's a little ridiculous. One example is the famous Annie Lee Moss case (62-64); Coulter brings up Moss stating to McCarthy and crew that there were three other people with her name in the Washington phone book, and she was not the person they were looking for. Although Coulter does raise a good point about activities this Moss may have engaged in, her statement:"There was an Anna Lee Moss and and Annie Moss. But there was only one Annie Lee Moss..."(63) So Coulter knows for sure that Anna never went by the name of 'Annie'? I know this may seem ridiculous, but I read the paragraph several times, and it seemed a little thin -- Coulter makes a good case for at least re-examining this incident, but paragraphs like that made me question other statements.
The scholarship issue is more troubling. I noted at the beginning of the book the following statement: "One year after Osama bin Laden staged a massive assault on America, a Democratic senator was praising bin Laden for his good work in building 'day care centers'." (2) This is not cited; in other words, the reader may ask, 'who was this senator?''where did this occur?' Was this reported in a newspaper? We don't know. At first, I thought that maybe information not directly quoted wouldn't be cited. I was wrong: there are numerous times Coulter cites unquoted information. However,there are also many instances she does not, and that distracted me from the veracity of her statements.
Where does this book succeed for me? I enjoyed the chapter entitled 'Now That I'm Sober, I Watch a Lot of News', which skewers celebrities who maybe should NOT weigh in on certain issues. I think Coulter presents a good argument for better discernment when listening to one's favorite performer. However, I also though it interesting that although Coulter has issues with Hollywood (evident throughout the book),and her skewering of groups like the infamous 'Hollywood Ten' is frankly mean, she neglects to mention individuals such as Walt Disney, Gregory Peck, and John Wayne (you'd think she'd laud his effort 'Big Jim McClain', a wild anti-communist movie where Wayne single-handedly wipes out communism on Hawaii [and all the commies are lawyers, professors, and other people Coulter does not seem to like]), who were all for ferreting out communists in the 1950s. What I also enjoyed was the Venona Project, which I will definitely investigate further.
I could go on, but I will leave it at this: I would recommend this book, purely for its 'in your face' repudiation of what the author deems is ruining America. However, you have to read the book with an eye to what information is quoted, how it's quoted, and what isn't cited, then make up your own mind as to the validity of her POV.
Rating: 
Summary: Bizzaro Coulter
Review: As a Democrat and liberal, I read Ann Coulter to see what the 'dark side' thinks (or doesn't think) of 'us' and I would recommend this book to all liberals, but with one word of advice... ...Ann Coulter is like Bizzaro Superman. When Bizzaro Superman entered a room, he said "goodbye!" Bizzaro Coulter is the same - when she writes "liberals are traitors" what she means is "liberals are patriots." Her research and reasoning are sloppy and sometimes meaningless and her need for the invective attack, rather than argument based on logic and factual information, dilutes her assertion that liberals always resort to the invective. An extraordinarily bad book from an extraordinarily bad author - but worthy of reading if only to catch a glimpse of the 'new right.'
Rating: 
Summary: The Reality of Communism
Review: What many people fail to realize about communism is that the modus operandi of the party was to infiltrate key positions within governments and other political parties and then take over from within. In Russia, the overthrow of the Tzar was done not by the bolsheviks but the mensheviks. In the Spanish civil war, the communists usurped Republic control with Stalinist aid. In America, it is entirely plausible, and probible that members of our government and press were communists or even KGB agents. Even today, the stated foreign policy objectives of many countries include breaking American power. Yet this is rarely if ever discussed in the mainstream media. Why is that? Why is this so hard to believe for many people? Elia Kazan was told by many people in Hollywood that they were communists and he is still hated by many in Hollywood to this day for trying to help his country. People need to understand that being a communist didn't just mean that you were some idealogue. It meant that you were either in contact with Soviet agents, or someone you knew was. The truth of the matter is that communists had infiltrated many levels of our government. Henry Wallace, Vice President under Roosevelt, once said that if he had been Vice President at the time of Roosevelt's death, he would have named Laurence Duggan Secretary of State, and Harry Dexter White the Secretary of the Treasury. Both of these men were Soviet agents. For those of you who think I'm some right-wing whack-job, do some research on Mitrokhin. I think you'll find some interesting facts.
Rating: 
Summary: Revisionist History at its Best
Review: Every year, my brother and I exchange one books just before the holidays. We have to read whatever that book is that we each get. He got me Treason, I think he did it to piss me off. We are both Republicans but he calls me a traitor to the party because I am much more moderate than he is, though I own 87 guns. As I read this, I was first beaten down that I had to read something by a Michigan Grad, God I hate the Univ of Michigan. Then I was amused. So all Democrats from the late 40's, 50's and 60's were either communist spies or traitors by the fact that they protected communist spies. The Democrats worked hard to discredit Joe McCarthy and marginalize him, I am pretty sure he did a good job of that every time he opened his mouth and stuck a glass of Burbon in it. What about all the Democrats who fought and died during WWII and Korea and Vietnam or was it only the Republicans who did that??? Also she, at least I think she is a she, "she" does have kind of a adam's apple though, has whole litany of complaints about FDR and how he failed America. See, I am pretty sure he was directing this country in a WORLD WAR and was willing to do anything, including sacrificing Eastern Europe, to keep Russia in the war and get help against Japan. He didn't know the atomic bombs would work, the first fruitful tests didn't happen unitl 1945. Anyway, there are too many other things for me to go on about. Personally, I think any politician or political pundit should be forced to pay for the replacement of all the trees they cut down to print their books. It doesn't matter who, Al Franken; Moron Michael Moore-from the Oscars, "Fictition" is not a word, the word is Fiction; Cannity or Holmes, who can tell them apart anymore; President Bush, President Bush Senior, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Paul O'Niel, Henry Kissinger, tabloid TV boy Bill O'Rielly; Chris Mattews and so forth. For that matter lets throw Oprah and all the movie and TV stars and British Royalty into this mix. That's what is really wrong with our civilizaton - just about any moron can get any damn thing they want published.
Rating:
Summary: Treason is an accusation not to be made lightly
Review: Why is disagreement now 'treachery'? Why is criticism an act of treason? Ann Coulter could easily become the target if our country accepts her use of these powerful words. Just because you are on top today does not mean you will still be there in twenty years when the knock on the door comes in the middle of the night. Better to live by law rather than lip. Just look at the supporting reviews of this easy accusation:
"That Sen. Joseph McCarthy was right!"
or
"far left lunatics...radical anti-semitic...feminist whacos...hate America first...mental midgets..." what is one to make of such words in place of evidence and analysis in a discussion of good will?
or
"Thin-skinned, closed minded liberals NEED NOT APPLY." This is the age old language of exclusion and abuse of the Irish, Italians, Poles and so many other groups who were not allowed to participate safely in the American discussion at one time or another.
The punishment for treason is death. Be careful how you determine who a traitor is.
Rating:
Summary: Liberals are un-patriotic?
Review: It seems to me that one of the best ways an American to express his or her patriotism is to actually give a damn about where the country is going. If "America-hating liberals" happen to disagree with the goals of a President who is primarily concerned with having his way with America in a dark alley, why should anyone on the other side of the aisle try to silence the Nation's screams for help, and then claim to be a patriot? It's not like conservatives were any less vocal under Clinton, and I for one didn't think them any less "patriotic" for it. I happen to consider myself a liberal, and I also happen to love my country. Shame on anyone who would say different. ...Oh, and Ann Coulter is hot.
Rating:
Summary: Telling the TRUTH about American Liberal history!!
Review: Perfectly stated, this Republican stands for common sense and patriotism. Something that Liberals lack.
| 
