Rating: 
Summary: Student at liberal university
Review: I just started this book and am already half-way through it. I think it is great and extremely well-presented. I attend a very liberal university where I am forced to spat out some of the most nonsensical, liberal points of view from certain teachers in order to make the grade. This is an empowering book - get the information you don't find in mainstream media. It's great to be enlightened once in awhile and this book does just that.
Rating:
Summary: NOW AN ANN COULTER FAN!
Review: I read this book and thoroughly enjoyed it - Ann Coulter has a laser for a pen and a cannon for a mouth (she holds her own quite well on all TV interviews that I have seen).Almost as entertaining as the book itself was reading these reviews. The vast majority of the bad reviews insulted her - calling her writing style poor, referring to her as a racist, or even stooping to call her ugly and a skank. How can reviewers expect to be taken seriously when all that they do is lash out - I want facts! Of note, NONE of the adverse reviewers (I only made it through the first 100 reviews) contradicted her most damning assertions - that the Verona project fingered numerous Democrats as Soviet spies. Al Franken hates Ann, but I listened to his arguments (CSPAN2) to try to get the other side of the story - as a fan of Al the comedian I was disappointed in his lack of substance. His "big take" on Ann was that even his conservative friends think "that she is just not right." Not sure what I am supposed to get from that... I plan on reading his book to see if he has anything more substantive. I strongly recommend this book no matter if you are conservative or liberal. It is well written, VERY blunt, funny in places, and most importantly - very thought provoking. Due to my appreciation for this book I am now going to read Slander.
Rating: 
Summary: WHO'S THE REAL TRAITOR?
Review: As a "liberal" I care deeply about things like free speech, and support Coulter's right to state her views, even if I think they're trash. What bothers me about this book is not that she despises liberals, that's her problem, it's that she accuses people of different viewpoints of being "traitors." For years liberal groups like the ACLU have worked hard to protect the Constitutional rights of everyone, including right-wing hate-mongers like Ann Coulter. How can someone who protects and defends the Constitution be called a traitor? And what does that make someone like John Ashcroft, a man who has worked tirelessly to undermine the Bill of Rights? If it were up to Coulter the Democratic Party would be banned, and political dissent would be a thing of the past. There's a word for this type of government and it's called Totalitarianism. I've always heard people jokingly refer to die-hard conservatives as Nazis but I didn't realize until now it was no joke. Thanks for clearing that up, Ann! Some of the people who have given this book a positive review have dared anyone to dispute Coulter's assertions with the facts. Well, that's pretty easy to do given all of the errors, misrepresentations, distortions, and omissions contained in this work of fiction. They're far too numerous to address in one review so I'll focus my comments on the ludicrous assertion that conservatives are somehow tougher on terrorism than liberals. (For those of you who want more examples, there are numerous web pages dedicated to the subject. I'd recommend starting with the non-partisan website spinsanity.org) The Republican track record on fighting terror is nothing short of abysmal. When Ronald Reagan was in office, repeated, brazen terrorists attacks against Americans went unpunished time after time. When the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hizb'allah blew up the American Embassy in Beirut not once but twice, and then blew up the Marine barracks, killing 241 soldiers, Reagan did nothing. That's right - NOTHING. Worse, he inspired the Bin Ladens of the world by pulling the Marines out, demonstrating unequivocally that terrorism works. , No actions were taken against Hizb'allah, Iran, or terrorist mastermind Imad Mugniyah, who to this day remains on the FBI's most wanted list of terrorists, and, until Sept. 11, 2001, was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist in history. When the CIA pinpointed the Sheikh Abdullah barracks in the Bekaa Valley as the terrorist compound where the attacks had been plotted, Reagan waffled and eventually a planned airstrike was aborted. It was up to the French, yep, you read that right, THE FRENCH, to finally launch a retaliatory strike against the terrorists. The icing on the cake? Reagan turned around and sold thousands of high-tech Hawk and TOW missiles to our enemies in Iran. If you want to talk about impeachable offenses, forget Monica-gate and take a closer look at Iran-Contra. Reagan's successor, Bush Sr., was no better, letting Syria off the hook for it's role in the bombing of Pan Am 103 (which killed 270 people) in order to persuade them to join the coalition that was forming to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Despite President Bush's assertions, terrorists didn't declare war on America on Sept. 11. They'd long since declared war on us, as demonstrated above. But fighting terrorism doesn't require expensive boondoggle projects like a missile defense shield, so it's always been a low priority for them. Republicans like big expensive weapons so they can give their fat-cat defense industry cronies lucrative defense contracts. And that's exactly what Bush was focused on when Sept. 11 happened, despite warnings from CIA Director Tenet that Al Qaeda was the single greatest threat to American security. After 9/11, every Democrat in Congress save one voted to authorize the use of military force against the Taliban, but when Clinton, was in office, the Republicans tried to stop him from going after Al Qaeda by accusing him of trying to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. After simultaneous bombings at our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed several Americans, the Republicans were more concerned about scoring political points against Clinton than catching terrorists. Those Congressmen are the real traitors and they should resign in disgrace or be impeached for undermining the national security of this country. Republicans are now trying to revise history and blame Clinton for 9/11. This is so ludicrous one wonders where to begin. It was the Reagan administration which trained, armed, and financed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (they became the Taliban and Al Qaeda) and gleefully supported their "holy war" against the Soviets. Clinton recognized the danger of Al Qaeda and became obsessed with capturing or killing Bin Laden, going so far as to sign a Presidential Finding authorizing his assassination. The last President to sign such a Finding was Kennedy, another Democrat, authorizing a hit on Castro. Clinton was the first President to declare war on Al Qaeda and to ask for Bin Laden dead or alive, not Bush. The Republicans need to attack liberals on this issue in order to distract people from their own dismal record. As Samuel Johnson so wisely said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." The Republicans can try to wrap themselves in the American flag all they want, but the bill of goods they're trying to sell us, like this book, stinks. Coulter's claims are so far-fetched they'd would be laughable if they weren't so offensive. Are we really to believe that Democrats like Senator and Presidential hopeful John Kerry, who fought in Vietnam as a Navy SEAL while George W. Bush was hiding out in the Texas Air National Guard, is a traitor? If it wasn't for thousands of so-called "traitors" who have fought and died for this country, Coulter wouldn't even have the right to publish vile garbage like this. Oh, the irony. Maybe I'll write my own book about this appalling hypocrisy. I think I'll call it "Slander."
Rating:
Summary: Crimes Against Reason
Review: Coulter is the current mistress of political theatre and given much more respect and air time by the so-called liberal media than she deserves. Like most conservatives, she lacks critical thinking skills, a necessary factor for those who share this skewed, faith-based school of thought. Moreover, accusing Democrats as being treasonous i.e. aiding and abetting a foreign enemy by proxy, borders on libel. Truman, a traitor?With an inuenedo-based thesis Coulter resurects Joseph McCarthy as a fair-minded patriot trying to rid the nation of infidels lest free thought be allowed corrupt the system. By blindly accusing all of those with opposing views as enemies waiting in the wings for a communist totalitarian takeover, apparently led by Hollywood entertainment writers, Treason takes paranoia to an all time high and reason to a new sub-basement level. A quick scan of the news today would support the need for the latter. This work should be listed under fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: Good research, bad presentation
Review: I give Ann Coulter 3 stars on this book for her basic research into how liberals have routinely sold out the United States for the last 60 years or more. But what I find unpleasant about "Treason" is that it's little more than a 300-page rant, so chock full of over-the-top anti-left insults that it actually loses its impact as it goes along. Because of the book's viciousness toward liberals, no liberal will ever read this book -- and they need to, because of the research it contains (Coulter, for example, blows the lid off how the left has re-written history to make Joseph McCarthy a pariah). I wish Coulter had written a book that was more thoughtful and less scathing...a book liberals could read and say, "I never knew that." But they won't, because she takes an attack-dog approach from the very first sentence and doesn't let up for the next 300 pages. As it is, "Treason" is a long, repetitive sermon to the choir that will achieve little or nothing to turn liberals from their traitorous ways.
Rating:
Summary: I'm a conservative, but...
Review: The book is so-so. My real problem with it is that Ann chops up far to many quotes, meaning you will see something like this "I think...Ann Coulter...is right" when the real quote could have been "I think conservatives have it wrong. Ann Coulter is never right" there are too many of those kind of quotes, but everything else is too soild to argue. If you are thinking about getting the book, get just for the sections on McCarthy, all her facts regarding him are very cut and dry. Overall liberals need to stop whinning about the title because that dosen't change the fact that they have been on the wrong side of histroy since WWII. In short read the book, but don't take everything to heart, read it carefully and know when the spin starts and stops.
Rating:
Summary: Overall good but one big problem
Review: The big problem is Coulter's belief that "America chose God and the Soviets chose Man" and it is this that makes America better and the USSR evil. This is the most asinine statement I've ever read. In fact, the opposite is true. America chose Man, i.e. reason, reality, the mind and it was the Soviets who chose god; god being Society (mystics of muscle as compared to mystic of spirit, see Ayn Rand). The Soviets worshipped Society (a collection of men) without worshipping the individual man. It was this that led to all the other problems. Coulter's aforementioned statement implies that she believes Man is inherently depraved and to "choose" Him is evil. Ann, Man is reason, success, achievement, values, creativity, thinking, etc. Chosing Man is the greatest thing a person can do. In fact, all successful people realise this, whether implicitly or explicitly, for if they didn't they would find to reason to put in any effort for anything. (Why should they if they believe Man is a depraved, gross being and thus they believe that is what they are. This equals low self-esteem and depression. "You have to love life in order to live," someone once said.) To say that America abandoned this view and the Soviets embraced it is a grave misunderstanding and an "intellectual crime." It was America's dedication to reality and reason, i.e. to the supremacy of Man's mind, that led them to become the greatest country in the world, both philosophically and existentially, (although some of that is changing.) Afterall, faith did not build spaceships and automobiles; reason did. The Soviets, having abondoned reason and Man's mind, witnessed nothing but despair, much like the Europeans in the Dark and Middle Ages when they abondoned reason for "faith" i.e. mysticism. The greatest periods in Man history has been times of Reason, e.g.: Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution. (If you believe the Industrial Revolution of harmful, reading some works by Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, etc, because you have been deceived.) That is the main problem with conservatives today. The belief the man is inherently depraved and that rights are given to Man by God, capitalism given to Man by God, etc. God did not give Man these things; Man's nature, i.e. reality, gave man rights and it is these rights that capitalism is derived from. To say otherwise is to say that socialism is the rational system, since if capitalism is based on God, you are saying it is based on faith. Faith is irrationality. It is the rejection of reason in favor of a man's feelings. So again, to argue for capitalism in this way is to say to the socialists that reality and reason is on their side and thus that they have the proper system. It's to say that rights are based on feelings when in actuality they are based on reality and Man's nature. In the same area where Coulter makes those implications, she also seems to assert that morality can only be derived from religion. So atheist have no morality, Ann? I am an atheist; I have strong moral values, probably stronger than most religious people. What are my morals derived from? Reality, Man's nature in the capacity of Man, Man as the highest being (an end in himself). It is a great disservice to suggest that the Soviet Union was immoral, criminal, despotic because they lacked religion. (Religion didn't lead to the formulation of individual rights or to democracy in the Middle Ages or Dark Ages, did it? When was America born? In the Age of Enlightenment, which perdominately was an Age of secularism in the sense that Man put reason ahead of faith. They still believed in God but they put Him in his place and did not follow Him blindly like we are seeing in a certain part of the world now. It was the recognition of reality by using reason that led to individual rights, democracy, success, achievement, creativity, prosperity, America.) The USSR was evil because they had a false philosophy, a philosophy that was not based on the facts of reality and on the Man nature. In summation, this book is pretty good. It sheds a lot of light on little known facts. However, after I read that statement by Coulter, I just couldn't enjoy the book as much as before. Maybe Coulter didn't look deeper into the philosophical meaning of her statement but I still can't over look it and I can't forgive it.
Rating:
Summary: History Teachers Take Note
Review: Another scholarly conservative work. For any teacher of history, this book is a must. While some may not agree with the political ideaology forwarded by Coulter her evidence, over sixty pages of it, is difficult to counter (though you are more than welcome to try). I strongly recommend this book on the basis of the presenatation of additional perspective and the scores of evidence it has amassed in order to answer some of our oldest Cold War questions.
Rating:
Summary: Treason: In Black and White
Review: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by Ann Coulter is an expose of an ever-growing threat to the American Way of Life. This is not, however, the threat posed by treasonous liberals who "hobnob" with our nations enemies. It is a threat from within, a growing plague of dogma that threatens to overwhelm and effectively cripple our nation's political process. In order to be objective, I will address no specific references of the book. Coulter brings up many historical and present issues, and relates a digest of both sides of the argument. Then, as quickly as they were brought up, she denounces one and champions the other blindly, while insulting any reader who may have foolishly held differing opinions. Coulter's logic enforces an apparently growing American belief that politics is a game with two players, one good, one evil, one right, one wrong, depending on ones viewpoint. In this belief there is no room for compromise. There will be a winner and there will be a loser. It is this belief, not either of the viewpoints in contention, which presents the true threat to our freedoms. Coulter's writing style, and her therein evidenced black and white ideology, is good for little more than landing television appearances and providing a pat-on-the-back to others who already share her sacrosanct view of the American Right. While the issues she discusses are viable, and both sides are with merit, her one-sided view sacrifices any hope of objectivity, and therefore, relevance. We can only hope that the practice of purveying dogma such as this will end up where it belongs; in the "unmarked grave of discarded lies."
Rating:
Summary: Those who are untalented tend to lean towards shock
Review: Its the truth, people who are untalented tend to lean towards shock. Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, Alice Cooper, not Ann Coulter. No right wing conservative in their right mind would listen to her tripe is she wasn't a blond bimbo.
|
