No one has a stronger command of the English language when attacking the evils of unbridled liberalism than Ann Coulter.
Her analytical, strongly logical, vituperative commentary is as much remarkable for its content as its delivery.
Kudos to her for the first time equating liberalism with treason and worse - stupidity.
Far from being a party platform or ideology, liberalism is painted as a deep-rooted disease that has all but undone, if not shaken, the foundations of our great nation.
The United States succeeds in spite of liberalism, not because of it.
Despite the betrayals and coverups by a liberal governing body through the Truman and Roosevelt administrations, the nation has somehow managed to remain strong and get back on course.
One wonders, though, how much stronger it might have been.
Coulter rightly questions the strange bedfellow relationships between Hollywood, the media and politics.
Why Hollywood has never created a major motion picture depicting the horrors of the gulag and the Stalin 'show trials' is a question that most likely may continue to go unanswered.
Liberalism in the media, motion pictures and politics, seems to be the safe road for imbeciles.
We now know positions of high power are reserved for those of limited brain power of the privileged class, and Coulter paints a gritty, alarming picture of how and why this is so.
Liberals do not only not believe what they see, they don't see things correctly.
Perhaps this is a byproduct of the innate persistent desire of rose-colored sensibilities, a reluctance to see things for what they really are.
A most representative sampling, from P.
81 of Treason: Owen Lattimore, poor beleaguered victim of "McCarthyism, hailed Stalin's murderousshow trials as "the sort of habitual rectification" that would encourage others to tell thetruth.
As he put it, "That sounds like democracy to me.
" Russia was awash in the bloodof this Felliniesque hoax.
But Lattimore gushed with admiration.
Lincoln Steffens saidfamously after a visit to Stalin's Russia, "I have been over into the future - and it works.
"Theodore Dreiser wrote of the abject povertyin the Soviet Union: "There is poverty.
There are beggars in the streets.
But, Lord how picturesque! The multi-colored andvoluminous rags on them! From his hideout in Mexico, Trostky denounced the show trials as a 'frame-up,' sayingthe confessions "contain such inherent improbabilities" as to convince "anyunprejudiced person that no effort was made to ascertain the truth.
"American liberalswere not the "unprejudiced" witnesses Trostky had hoped for.
In 1992, the Timesreferred to "recent revelations about Stalin's purges and other Soviet deeds.
" Who washiding that from the Times? While tens of millions were being executed, torn from their families, subjected toforced starvations as a matter of government policy, packed on trains, and sent toSiberian gulags in the glorious USSR, about two hundred people in America wereblacklisted from a single frivolous industry.
They could still go to Paris or sell realestate or do any number of things.
They just couldn't work in the movies.
That was theonly price they paid for shilling for a mass murderer.
- J.
Wilson, Vegas Buzz