Republican Books

Most Americans are good citizens who work hard and pay their taxes. Therefore, many of them falsely believe that THEY don't have anything to "worry about" when the government ignores or circumvents its' Constitutional limitations. They are especially prone to accept the government's constitutional abuses when the government proclaims that its' actions will make its' citizens safer or more prosperous. This book will open their eyes and enable them to see how unrestrained big government has ALREADY negatively impacted their lives in many ways and how it will continue to do so if we, as citizens, continue to tolerate its' encroachments on our freedoms. This book shows how the constitutional abuses we were told would make us safer and more prosperous have actually had the opposite effect.

This is an excellent book, I've read it several times. Just wanted to add my rating.

Paul writes clearly and seems to believe what he says, a rather refreshing departure for a politician. I am in any event naturally biased in his favor, as I agree with a great deal of his program, including no intervention in other nations, no sanctions on Iran or Cuba, no foreign aid, no sugar quotas, no draft or compulsory "national service," no executive orders except for administrative matters, no signing statements, no federal drug war, no NEA or Dept of Education, no Patriot Act or limitations on habeas corpus, no FISA violations.

My one problem, but it is major, is Paul's failure to even address, in the context of abolishing most federal programs and regulations, such issues as child labor, minimum wage, OSHA, FDA, food labeling, anti-trust, &c. None of these issues is mentioned in the Constitution, so under Paul's philosophy, none should be addressed by federal law. But are we really upset that a 14-year-old child may not work for more than a specified number of hours, or a 10-year-old child work in a factory, or a 6-year-old child work at all? Yes, the states can provide for child labor laws and all the rest, but states, especially small ones, can more easily be corrupted than can the federal government, so a state with, say, one significant industry might be persuaded - that is, bribed and intimidated - into allowing child labor and abolishing workplace safety regulations. As for, e.g., food labeling, who but the federal government could order and administer it? I suspect Paul would allow the federal government to deal with some of these problems, but his book is so anti-regulation that he should have at least discussed the subject and specified which regulations are appropriate and even necessary.

As for abandoning the incorporation doctrine (where the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states) and returning civil rights issues to the states, which Paul strongly supports, I don't think most Americans really want to allow Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire or South Carolina to create a state church (all of these states had established churches at the time the Constitution was adopted - the only thing that prevents them having them now is the First Amendment, which Paul would argue only applies to the federal government, and it does indeed start "Congress shall make no law ... "), or tortured confessions (Fifth Amendment), or a single state-controlled newspaper (First Amendment), &c. Original intent sounds good, it's easy to make fun of a "living" constitution, but some things have been settled over the years which might best be left settled.

Of course there is no chance that any part of Paul's program will ever become law. As he himself says, repeatedly, the governmental policies which have led to our most serious troubles, especially regarding the economy, are pursued by both parties. Since there is no viable third party, and none in prospect, there would appear to be no hope at all of realizing any of his major policies - we will not return to the gold standard much less abolish paper money, we will not abolish the Fed or limit its power to create money "out of thin air," we will not bring our troops home from all or even most of the 130 countries they are now in, we will not abandon the possibility of a draft, we will not cancel foreign aid, the incorporation doctrine will not be reversed. Paul has often been the sole dissenting vote in the House, unable to persuade a single member of his own party to vote with him - an admirable adherence to principle, no doubt, but not a harbinger of change.

What, then, is the message of this book? Realistically, it is that the American political scene is a hopeless mess, and that our economic future, even hope for the retention (or return) of our freedoms, is grim. We simply have no way of returning to the constitutional scheme which held us in such good stead for so long - after all, as Paul notes, our Founding Fathers warned us that if we ever lose the protections they put in place for us, we will never get them back. Well, we have manifestly lost many of them - that is the central theme of this book - so ... so, what? Get used to it? Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow the dollar collapses and the federal government starts rounding up dissidents?

I'm too old to be worried for myself, but I surely am worried for my children, but Paul has no useful advice for them. You can't keep people who want to be free down? Of course you can. Plenty of people in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Wahabbi Saudi Arabia and many other despotisms wanted (want) to be free but were (are being) destroyed by the system - arrested without cause, tortured, starved, murdered. The Founding Fathers were surely right - a republic, they said, if you can keep it. We have for a long time been negligent about keeping our government under control. The Bush Administration, led by Cheney, believed we would not take any effective steps to protect our freedoms no matter how egregiously they were violated; so it violated them, egregiously, and we proved Cheney right. Will McCain put a stop to these violations of our freedoms? I doubt it. Will Obama? I hope so, but I won't hold my breath; after all, a Democratically controlled Congress has utterly failed to do so.

So, a fine book, a good man, but not, I fear, a prophet.

This year will be my first time to be able to vote. I have just started to research politics, and I found that I agreed on a lot of what Ron Paul believes in. I purchased this book in an effort to learn more about what this country needs. I was shocked by a lot of subjects in this book (particularly the abortion segment), and it has given me a clear view of the problems in this country.

I should have, after reading this book.

I had already voted for Dr. Ron Paul, a pro-life and -liberty candidate...in 1988.

Friends and family castigated me for it, but I remain convinced that this first voting endeavor was my best one.

But over the years I've been inculcated in the belief that I "can't throw my vote away." I want mine back!

The book surprised me by its clarity and vigor of thought. Coming off the heels of the banking mess, which the book predicted was amazing accuracy--the FED printing easy money, providing for easy credit--makes our paper money system unsound.

Sound money, limited (constitutional!) government, rights given by God and not bequeathed to us at the behest of some government bureaucrat who live like parasites off the body politic, non intervention in foreign policy, and letting states decide on abortion are some of the highlights of this political apology that will live on long after the election.

Some of us sentient Americans who haven't been too addled by the government schools or who aren't sucking furiously off a gov't teat, realize that our liberties have been far too eroded away. Ron Paul filled the vacuum, taking a principled stand for freedom, which is after all truly the American way.

Dr. Paul, a Congressman from Houston, Texas, reminds us we are far better off trusting markets and people than government.

I just wish I had voted for him, and not listened so carefully to others. The Revolution was a wake-up call.

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, after reading this book, you will have come to know Sarah Palin's life in a way that is certain to make you like her as a person, daughter, wife, mom and productive member of society. She is definitely a "mover & a shaker" as records of her time of public service in Alaska will easily testify.

The book is an easy read and can be completed in one evening. It is factually based, well written and takes a no-nonsense approach. You find out that Sarah is as real as she seems on tv and the book shows that what we see now is how Sarah has always been. You feel like maybe she's the gal next door. Gerry Hall

This book was great. A very easy read. I thoroughly enjoyed learning about our next VP! GO SARAH!

This book might be thin--but it packs a bunch of important information into its pages! I found it very helpful to fill in some of the background information that the mainstream media doesn't want to tell you about Palin. It provides material on how she has stood up against government corruption and abuses in Alaska. Isn't that what we need someone to do in Washington, D.C.?

I found it interesting to read that some of the Alaska media also started running unfair news attacks against her in their attempt to keep the crooked Alaskan politicans in power--but that strategy didn't work up there. I hope and pray it doesn't work down here.

A very well written book about a woman that wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth. The word 'can't' does not fit in her vocabulary.

**For you, Sarah:

From an American hero in the lower 48' an urgent call went out to the governor of a far northern state, "Our country needs a great VP, will this position you fill?"
A quick answer came back from the governor of a state known for its Permafrost, "Yes, I will."

The two stood in unison, one a Vietnam vet, the other a Hockey mom, known for her true grit.

A campaign was raging, one to decide the vote. Would it go to a man of courage, or to one known for his association with those who support violent revolt?

The American people watched as this new VP candidate took the stage, "Who is she, what does she stand for? For our troubled country can she turn a new page?"
Without a moments hesitation Sarah went into battle, challenged by a biased press. After all, they said, "She's a woman and even wears a dress."

To defeat the accusations, many of them morally sick, she countered with a question, "What's the difference between a Hockey mom and a Pit bull? Lipstick!"

Mainstream media still refused to accept her as a viable VP choice, using lies and innuendos in an attempt to silence her voice.

Her chance to prove them wrong came with a vice-presidential debate. A nation watched with apprehension as she spoke with surety and articulateness, giving intense support to her running mate.

History will reflect how effective she was. However, this much we know we need more Sarah Palins'. Moreover, yes, she has proven Alaska has more to offer than ice and snow.

Written by,
Richard Neal Huffman
Saint Joseph, Michigan, USA.
(Author of, Dreams In Blue: The Real Police)

Dreams in Blue: "The Real Police"

This is a nice little book in a series of little books about Alaska. This is why I call it a "Chamber of Commerce" book. It is just one book in a series intended to show-off Alaska. Many states do something similar. It is not intended to be a scholarly insight into Sarah Palin's life. Critics who do not like this book are entirely ignorant of its purpose, or they are politically motivated and dishonest.

For its intended purpose it is a good read.

Why hasn't the Obama people said anything about this book? I know a lot of Democrats that don't want him to win .......... and have a lot of political connections, but are between a rock and a hard place and are supporting him even though he's not qualified.

Wake up people before its took late. He's not who he pretends to be.

Its a shame more people don't actually learn the facts behind things. This is certainly the case here, as anyone with a spare 30 seconds could quickly find that this book, according the highly-reputable [...], is "a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods."

[...]

"Corsi cites opinion columns and unsourced, anonymous blogs as if they were evidence of factual claims. Where he does cite legitimate news sources, he frequently distorts the facts. In some cases, Corsi simply ignores readily accessible information when it conflicts with his arguments."

There's more to read there, and its pretty disturbing that such a complete and total hack job could have a book on the NYT best seller's list.

Read with all the salt in India.

I read this book after reading Obama's memoirs in an attempt to obtain a fuller understanding of him. As I was reading Corsi's book, I had the troubled feeling that either he was not telling the truth or that Obama was not telling the truth. While one can discount what Obama says in his autobiography, it is difficult to imagine that Obama does not believe he espoused in Audacity of Hope. I have since read MANY who state that Corsi is an outright liar and that much of what he states in this book is WRONG. There is much proof of Corsi's lies. These are lies propagated solely for the benefit that the republicans win the presidency (just as Corsi wrote the Swift Boat book to discredit Kerry). I wonder how he gets away with this trash. This book is a waste of money and time.

Jerome Corsi has provided a very insightful work on the Politician We are evaluating as potentially the next President of Our United States. There are many questions on Mr. Obama that is not being provided thru normal channels.
It is insightful and very helpful in understanding Who Senator Obama really is beyond his campaign generated persona.

I don't believe anyone who gave this 1 star--actually READ this well-documented, totally researched, awesomely detailed book.
I suspect the Obama-Robots logged on just to 'diss' this book--just like they've been going to Homeless Shelters in Ohio--to get the 'numbers' up!?
Reading this book was a TOTAL eye-opener.
I changed political parties (was a Democrat for 30 years) andwill vote accordingly.
WHY?
I'm dismayed at the way the entire DNC and the Mainstream Media has ignored and brushed aside so much about this candidate (Get All the details by reading this book!) Any Conservative, aka, Republican, would have been dropped from the ticket, in a heartbeat, if they had HALF this much 'bad' history!
StephanieThe Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality

The Wrecking Crew is one of the best books I've read this year. Many events of the last 30 years that seemed unintelligible at the time are now explained. I've been engaged in my own sphere of influence with like-minded people, paying no heed to conservative talk-shows. After reading The Wrecking Crew, much is now clear. I recommend it highly! I bought three more copies for friends and family.

Its easy to confuse "research" with persuasive writing. Peeling back the onion, the facts are 1). The author has a clear agenda 2). the author entered in to the book deal with a clear bias and agenda 3). he spent quite a bit of time to gather anecdotes to prove his already decided mind 4). he spent some time to string together carefully chosen stories, weaving a web of persuasive writing around it. 5). any view can be supported by such efforts, in defense or offense about any issue one chooses. 6). If you want to read about how awful conservatives are, this is fun reading 7). if you want unbiased facts, don't bother to pick this one up

I've still done little more than scan "The Wrecking Crew" during this week of deciding if the "wreckers" should be given $700 billion. I come from Hofstadter's time and find my eyes blinking at the audacious ugliness that envelops us in so many ways. I'm old and the caretaker of an 80-year-old totally disabled husband. I have too many books already. However, I saw Thomas Frank intervewed on CSPAN--his honest self-assessment about his own changing political orientations led me to order his book. I find it difficult reading, but it is not because Frank isn't an excellent, lucid writer--it's because we're in the midst of the mind-boggling results of the "The Wrecking Crew".

I was almost finished reading this book when the current wall street crisis came to a head. Everything I had read in this book helped me understand how we got to this point in history. Thomas Frank is a great writer. His stories of the college republicans and the rise of the neoconcervative movement is written in a fair, funny and compelling way.

This is a fascinating, extremely well referenced work about the neocon rule book. It explodes all the rumors that Bush is not smart. He has actually just been following this rule book.
Rule One: Government services are bad and business services are good. Attack big government.
Rule Two: Weaken government services so you can declare them incompetent and subcontract out the government services to private businesses.
Rule Three: Replace personnel in key government service positions with your friends, whether or not they are qualified to do the job.
Rule Four: Run up the debt, declare a crisis and cancel social services.
Rule Five: Demonize and demoralize the liberals. Blame them for whatever goes wrong.
Rule Six: Strengthen the ties between businesses and government by hiring only "business-friendly" people and by encouraging business to help write the bills to be passed by the congress.

It does not surprise me that neocons are accusing Liberals of being fascists. It simply implies that neocons have recognized that they themselves are promoting fascism in government.

One of Karl Rove's mantras is to accuse your opponent of your own worst failings.

It is very unfortunate that people use the review process to attack a book which they are very unlikely to have read. It is always fascinating that the very same people who so often lecture to all of us about "tolerance" are the least so. It is particularly bothersome that Amazon chose to use one short, positive review and one very lengthy negative review. Despite some of the reviews, Mr. Goldberg's book is fair. Kool-aid drinkers from both sides of the aisle need not bother because neither side would much like what they are reading unless they are interested in truth. Whoever you are, whatever your notions, if you are opened minded, you will likely realize some of those notions require re-examination. This book is particularly helpful if you have been trying to educate yourself as much as possible about American history, have done much other reading, and are sincerely interested in seeking the truth. If you've been asking yourself: Just when did this country start to "go off the rails", you will find a lot of answers. Other well-written books about the history of Progressives, socialists, and Marxists support the documented information in this book. A couple of others I have read, and I have no idea from what political persuasion these gentlemen come, would be the very well documented book by Ronald J. Pestritto, Professor at the University of Dallas Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (American Intellectual Culture)and another, by Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Again, despite all of the partisan reviews, if you read at minimum, the three books noted, you will see the dots connecting. Mr. Goldberg is not about finger pointing or name calling, he's about laying out, step by step, point A to point B, etc. Michael Mann's review, in itself, is to be disregarded because he accuses Goldberg of leaving out labeling so-called "Conservatives" as the "f-word", like Richard Nixon. Mr. Mann has revealed his own lack of knowledge of historical facts or that he didn't read the book closely, or well. A number of so-called "conservatives" are mentioned, including Pres. George W. Bush. Many aspects of Pres. Bush's policies, do have, in fact, elements of the "f-word", as Mr. Mann calls it. It is a fallacy of the left or perhaps a lack of much contemplation, that every individual with an "R" behind their title in elected office are automatically conservative. Richard Nixon was not conservative, he was a "liberal" Republican. Pres. Bush's fiscal policies and "compassionate conservatism" alone disqualify him from being considered truly conservative. In order to make that assessment, as a conservative, I did much reading, but didn't arrive at my conclusions until I read this book. Until or unless people are willing to start "calling out" the wrong they see in their leadership, regardless to which political party they belong, it's hard to imagine how much, if anything, will come about to change the high amount of dissatisfaction and distrust most Americans feel about their government. To fully get one's mind around the definition of fascism, how it has weaved its way through history, and most importantly, what it means for freedom, this book is vital.

I liked the picture on the dust jacket. I opened the book; read the introduction, and even understood it. So far so good. Then I started reading a bunch of words in the chapters with all kinds of names of people I've never heard of. They influenced Mussolini, Wilson, Hitler, FDR, LBJ. And it kept going like that. I was looking for more one-lined Ann Coluteresque zingers like: Wilson imprisoned more political dissidents than Mussolini; FDR detained many times more non-enemy combatants (Americans mostly) than has GW Bush detained guys with guns found in combat areas; it takes a village to raise an idiot. Those kind of one-liners. Perhaps they could have been deployed at the start of each chapter to focus my meager attention span. Ultimately this book was just too smart for me. At least when I watch the Glenn Beck Show and see Jonah Goldberg as a guest, I understand what he is saying. Perhaps those thousands of Lefty Liberal College Professors should read this book, but they won't (can't be caught with it and risk tenure). As for me, I'm waiting for Mr. Goldberg to come out with a pop-up picture book.

I have been looking for more indepth study of liberalism written by someone who isn't one. This works well for me.

Over the past decade, the ideological battle between liberals and conservatives has been fought on the internet and in the local bookstore. Whether it is Al Franken calling conservatives liars, or Ann Coulter imploring her followers to refrain from speaking to liberals, the public has been inundated with many opinions from which to choose. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg has recently joined the fray with Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Though Franken, Coulter, and others like them are long on opinion and short on truth, Goldberg's contribution is well thought out and based on facts. In Liberal Fascism, Goldberg traces liberalism from its origins in the nineteenth century through its maturity in the twentieth century while cleverly showing how it fed off the European Fascism movement. He then brings the reader to the Liberal Fascism of today.

Although this is Goldberg's first book, he is no stranger to the written word. According to his biography on the web site National Review Online, where he is an editor,Goldberg is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and his syndicated column appears in the Chicago Tribune, New York Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and many others. He also appears as a political commentator on a number of television shows including "Good Morning America," "Larry King Live," and "Special Report with Brit Hume." Though a writer since his college days, his big break came when he wrote about the media frenzy surrounding his mother, Lucianne Goldberg and her role in the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton scandal of the late 1990s. She advised Linda Tripp to tape record her conversations with Lewinsky and to convince her to save the now-infamous "blue dress."

From the introduction, entitled "Everything You Know About Fascism is Wrong," Goldberg grabs the reader's attention. He quotes the late George Carlin, "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts...It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts." (1) This statement should remove any question about the artistry of the book's front cover: a large yellow smiley face complete with a Hitler mustache. While lengthy, the introduction spells out exactly what Goldberg is going to tell the reader in the remainder of the book. It is no mystery that he believes we are living in a time where the fascistic bent of Italy's Mussolini and Germany's Hitler are being blended with the quasi-socialistic policies of presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

After the introduction, Goldberg leads the reader through a fascinating history of the rise of fascism in Europe. Although Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy, has been vilified, mostly due to his association with Hitler and the Third Reich, we are reminded that for the good part of a decade, he was considered a great leader. In 1923, the New York Times boasted that, "Mussolini is a Latin [Teddy] Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home." (27) Noted Americans such as humorist Will Rogers, Hollywood mogul Lionel Barrymore, and legendary journalist Lowell Thomas proclaimed his greatness. On the international scene, Sigmund Freud and Winston Churchill were quite smitten with him. In addition, James A. Farrell, the president of U.S. Steel Corporation, said he was "`the greatest living man' in the world." (29) Goldberg concludes the Mussolini chapter with a brief description on how Mussolini gained his beliefs, first as a socialist then as a fascist, ending with his ill-fated attempt to flee to Switzerland in 1945 when he was captured by Italian partisans and executed.

Mussolini might have been remembered more favorably had he not associated himself with the subject of the next chapter, Adolph Hitler. Goldberg leads the reader on a brief history of the rise of Hitler and how he became so enamored with socialism. Students of history will be familiar with the 1923 "Beer Hall Putsch" and his subsequent imprisonment where he wrote the infamous Mein Kampf, as well as the efforts to promote Germany in the 1936 Olympics and the murderous "Kristallnacht" of 1938. Here, Goldberg begins to paste together how today's liberals use the term Nazi to describe those who call themselves conservatives. He says that the left "cherry-pick[s] the facts to form a caricature of what the Third Reich was about...[with] the desired effect to cast Nazism as the polar opposite of Communism." "[The] roles of industrialists...[are] greatly exaggerated, while the very large and substantial leftist and socialist aspects of Nazism..." are minimized. (57) Rather than being a right-wing conservative as many on the left would proclaim, Hitler should be considered a leftist because Nazism "...emphasized many of the themes of the later New Lefts...the primacy of race...an emphasis on the organic and holistic - including environmentalism, health food, and exercise - and...the need to `transcend' notions of class." (59)

Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are the subjects of the next two chapters and each provides a bridge from which fascism in Europe crosses over to the United States. One could argue, as Goldberg does, that Wilson was the grandfather of modern liberalism in America. Back then, liberals were called progressives and Wilson led the way with a progressive agenda, including proclaiming the Constitution's series of checks-and-balances as outdated and by furthering the Darwinian cause of a "living Constitution." Wilson also formed the "West's first modern ministry for propaganda" in the Committee on Public Information (CPI). This group implored Americans against protesting the country's involvement in World War I. Another Wilson organization, the War Industries Board (WIB), was fascist in that it dictated to the business community what would be produced by the nation's industries under the banner of nationalizing the people for war. Throughout the section on Wilson, Goldberg paints a bleak picture of how America was nearly swallowed up by a type of benevolent dictatorship. Goldberg is equally repulsed by the Roosevelt years. He reminds the reader that Roosevelt was the only president to break with the tradition of George Washington by serving more than two terms. Moreover, he compares Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration with Wilson's WIB, saying that the former was modeled on the latter. Throughout these two chapters Goldberg deftly cites example after example of how these two presidents, considered great by many - Wilson for his Fourteen Points and Roosevelt for supposedly ending the Great Depression - did more than anyone up to that point to introduce socialism and fascism into American culture.

Before bringing the reader into the latter half of the twentieth century, Goldberg shifts to the decade of the 1960s. On its face, the chapter is important because it lays the groundwork for upcoming criticism on John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Unfortunately, for the reader, it is here that he provides minutia that keeps an otherwise informative and entertaining book from flowing by chronicling the histories of radical organizations such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Black Panthers, and the Weathermen. If one were to skip this chapter, however, one would miss the author's wry sense of humor that was disbursed throughout the book. For example, Goldberg laments the fact that one of Fidel Castro's closest compatriots, Che Guevara "...has become a chic branding tool... [representing] a disgusting indictment of...American consumer culture." (193) He goes on to say that Guevara's likeness has made its way onto shirts and even toddler onesies. Depending on one's viewpoint, Guevara could be described as a misunderstood revolutionary or a mass murderer, but he is popular with the left because he is associated with an idol of the left, Fidel Castro. He arguably killed more people than Mussolini and was as despicable as Nazi SS Chief Heinrich Himmler. Nevertheless, Goldberg wittingly asks, "Would you put a Mussolini onesie on your baby? Would you let your daughter drink from a Himmler sippy cup?" (194)

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the two presidents from 1961 to 1969, are thoroughly dissected and each given their own chapters. Johnson's "Great Society" certainly gives Goldberg plenty of fodder for blasting a program that was built upon the New Deal. No political commentator who wants to keep his conservative credentials supports Johnson's program in any way, and Goldberg lives up to the task of describing how the Great Society has been detrimental to the country.

Tying fascism to modern liberalism is the task of the remaining third of the book. Chapter Seven discusses the subject of eugenics. One of the staples of modern liberalism is the support for unfettered abortion. Margaret Sanger, the woman credited with the founding of Planned Parenthood and who is one of the heroes of the Left, "...sought to ban reproduction for the unfit and regulate reproduction for everybody else." (271) In 1939, she created the "Negro Project" where she attempted to control the black population's ability to reproduce. Her plan was to eventually allow the black race to die out. One could find similarities in her ideas and those of Hitler's Nazi Party.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the current junior senator from New York, former first lady, and recent presidential candidate, is the focus of Chapter Nine, "Brave New Village." When this book was published in 2007, she was the likely Democratic Party nominee for president. As of this writing, it does not appear that she will meet that goal. Her competitor, Barak Obama, a senator from Illinois, will take her place on the ticket. Goldberg must have been sure that she would get the nomination (Barak Obama is only mentioned on two pages) as he chronicled her history and picked apart her designs on moving the country even farther to the left. It would be a stretch to call her book, It Takes A Village, her version of Mein Kampf, but Goldberg does emphasize that part of her plan for America includes early governmental involvement with children and reeducating them in the elementary and secondary public school system, similar to the plan that Hitler used in 1930s Germany.

For the student of the period's historiography, Goldberg does an excellent job of highlighting the ways that liberal scholars have been able to slant history in a way that puts the New Left in the best light. With over fifty pages of notes and hundreds of references, his documentation is sound. He has successfully demonstrated that much of what has been accepted American history has been distorted. Students of an earlier generation were taught that Woodrow Wilson died of a broken heart because the Senate did not ratify his League of Nations. Goldberg teaches us that we nearly went down a path that changed the Constitution. Similarly, we had been taught that Roosevelt got the country out of the Great Depression. Again, we learned here that Roosevelt's initial plans were not that much different from those of Hitler and Mussolini. In Liberal Fascism, the myths are exposed and the foundation upon which modern liberal fascism has been built is shown. Goldberg, of course, is an anti-Liberal Fascist and would like to bring the country farther to the conservative side. He is saying through his book that the only way to understand how to dismantle the New Left establishment is to know how it was first put together.

The Champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul is someone one day you will tell your grandchildren about.

Want to know more about whats really going on that the mainstream news doesn't tell you? [...] because there is a war on for your mind. Listen to the Alex Jones radio show everyday for real news updates.

A great, independent book that's neither to the left or the right in politics. This book was my favorite read of the year, and worth reading regardless of political or philosophical beliefs. Approachable and easy to read, but not "dumbed" down.

I could hardly get through this ponderous tome. Unlike his book "The Revolution: A Manifesto". This is not concise. Rather it is prolix. This book consists of nearly every speech given by Ron Paul from the house floor. Although I am not sure he is correct in his beliefs, he has shown a remarkable consistency through the years.

This book is not an easy read. It contains a very large portion of Ron Paul's congressional speeches and his own post-speech commentary on the meaning of the speeches and comments on the timeliness of them. This book affirms his stellar voting record and is interesting to see his forecast of current problems we are facing on every front as a nation. If only congress could slightly awaken to these types of founding principles that our nation was built upon, maybe we would have a much healthier nation today. This book is an excellent resource for anyone who wants a historical look at Paul's congressional actions.

In A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Ron Paul presents his thoughts on foreign policy in a very logical manner substantiated by both reason and history. Paul provides a collection of his statements to congress over the last thirty years that will be eye opening as many of Paul's cautions that went unheard later came into fruition near exactly how he predicted.

Whether one agrees with his views and is in search of validation, or completely disagrees yet is willing to test one's reasoning against some weighty questions, one will find this book fully delivers. I have always believed that if I truly am committed to any position, entertaining the thoughts of an opposing position will serve to strengthen my views as it holds up under full investigation. What I found is that when fully scrutinized, Paul's position on foreign policy is the only logical position that leads to a stronger and safer America in the long run.

Paul prefers armed neutrality to international intervention, leaving many of his detractors asking whether armed neutrality equals isolationism, which could not be further from the truth. Critics of this policy who consider an international military presence essential to our safety will discover many revealing details throughout history that suggest otherwise.

For those tired of the hypocrisy of the right wing that views government domestically as incompetent and dangerous yet somehow able to bring freedom and democracy to any other land (or conversely the hypocrisy of the left wing that prefers the polar opposite), Paul's message will resonate with you immediately. Paul displays an understanding of history that few politicians can match and aptly displays the negative results of continuously supporting "our enemies' enemies as our friends" over the last half century. Consider that "for decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us?" It is interesting to note as Paul points out that we have had the same vision for decades regarding the Middle East and yet things are as dangerous and precarious as they have ever been.

Is it so unexpected that we should at the very least be asking ourselves critical questions about our foreign policies? If we disagree, would asking such questions not merely strengthen our resolve? Ron Paul poses these questions that every voter and taxpayer in the US should be asking themselves; and Paul addresses all of them.

"Most Americans do not want to appear weak; they enjoy expressions of strength and bravado. They fail to understand that self-confidence and true strength of conviction place restraints on the use of force, that peaceful solutions to problems require greater wisdom than unprovoked force." Are you among those that place pretense over result, or are you willing to get passed the foolish notion that any opposing ideas to mere aggression are unpatriotic or weak. If you find yourself in the latter, there is no book I am aware of on the issue of foreign policy that I recommend higher than A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

When I was young and foolish, and lived mostly abroad, I took John McCain at his own word -- and the media's word, or course -- as an independent maverick, an up-to-date Goldwater. That image has long since been tarnished by his shape-shifting efforts to place himself at the helm of power. I now regard him as a dangerous, out-of-touch egomaniac with dubious connections, and a very poor choice for President.

"The Real McCain" addresses the senator's character and behaviour rather than his ideology and vision for America. The portrayal is brutally hostile, emphasizing McCain's allegiance to lobbyists, his opportunism, and his life experience as a consummate Washington insider. Anyone even vaguely inclined to support him in the coming election should have the courage to read this book and learn the worst, at least from one writer's perspective.

McCain has also increasingly aligned himself in foreign and economic policy with the neo-conservative disciples of Milton Friedman. To get an understanding of what that implies for the future, I strongly suggest the book "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, which recounts the sad story of CIA development of torture and isolation into standard interrogation techniques used by the USA right now. It is almost beyond belief to contemplate John McCain, whose chief claim to heroism is based on his prisoner-of-war suffering, redefining himself as an advocate to the brutalities of Bush and Rumsfeld.

Know your man! You won't get acquainted with John McCain by reading his evasive "Hard Call" -- ghost-written anyway -- so take a look at "The Real McCain". If you can honestly find flaws in its reportage, then you'll feel much better about voting him into power, won't you?

As the cover aptly shows here is McCain embracing Bush and everything he stands for. McCain supporters have clearly shown that the truth is the last thing they want to hear. Important topics are ignored by these people while they spin a most dismal ticket trying hard to hide the holes in it. The McCain/Palin ticket will be a litmus test for the sanity of the American voter. Read this book if you want a clear picture of McCain. He has gotten plenty of mileage out of his service record but what about the fact that he is not suited to lead a troubled nation? We need more than spin.

This is about the worst garbage printed I have ever read! If you thought that the Swift Boat garbage written about Kerry or the Obama Nation book were bad....then save your money. It is obvious from start to finish the author is reflecting base talking points to garner news and earn $$ by selling his tales!

The book contrasts McCain's heavily airbrushed media-engineered image to facts, testimony and reports available in the public record that are not so favorable. There are no 'anonymous sources' as far as I can tell. All is well documented and, in fact, for anyone who's been around for the past 15-20 years, reading this book is more like a trip on the political memory lane. My own reaction was "yes, I DO remember that" - McCain's numerous 180's and than back on just about any important issue.

I am not going to cover the book's contents. All I can say is that it was a good read for me but I have a bias - I didn't think much of McCain before reading this book and I think a bit less of him after finishing it. Like I said, I was familiar with most of the events covered by the book but it was good to have them all in one place at this point in time where we are coming close to election day and McCain could become the next US president.

Good things about 'The Real McCain':

- well researched
- well sourced
- relevant to the current presidential race
- some humor
- not too long

Aspects that some may object to:

- not too many 'good' things (not balanced)
- the humor COULD be interpreted as 'sarcasm' by someone who had a favorable view of McCain
- the cover, while 'funny' is likely to turn away anyone who doesn't already agree that McCain is a bad person/politician
- the subtitle advertises the conclusion, something that should emerge from the process of reading the book
- the author does leave the impression (especially to current McCain supporters) that he is 'after McCain'

To conclude, this is a book worth reading in the second half of 2008 and will stay an important book for a while IF McCain wins the presidential election. If McCain loses, then McCain will quickly disappear from our public memories and this book will be as irrelevant and uninteresting as the accounts on Geraldine Ferraro or Bob Dole are today.

Footnote
If anyone is wondering why am I granting 4 stars to a book for which I listed a few 'negatives', my defensive explanation is: this is 'my' review. I tried to be objective and think of reasons why some readers may object to this book's contents or approach but 'my' own view is that it is a well-written, well-researched, fact-filled, relevant-in-2008 tome.

This kind of book comes out every election campaign. It's like Obama Nation, except there are no obvious lies and distortions.

The tonality is snipey and churlish, but most of the facts he cites appear to hold up. Unfortunately, like all these books, the author is mainly addressing people already determined not to vote for McCain. So for partisans, it's a fun read, but for anyone else it's hardly worth the time.

It's not what you say, it's what they hear - it's an insightful perspective, and Frank Luntz have done a great job of illustrating his point through numerous in examples in 'Words that Work'. Not surprisingly, a lot of people interpret 'rhetoric', and the entire process of positioning a concept as manipulative, but let's face it, all of us have our biases and because of that, the choice of words matters.

Frank Luntz offers some great examples of how language affects our interpretation and reactions. Likewise, he also offers some good advice on 'words that work' - imagine, efficient, etc. My only complaint is the lack of generalization of the concepts beyond the political (left) examples from Frank's own experience. All the same concepts apply to businesses, and our personal lives, but there is little to none discussion on either.

The ideas that are written about in "Words that Work" are classic and timeless - some of these principles go back to Dale Carnegie (learn the person's name) and such.

Language is everything and if it is focused inward, you're just talking to yourself. If you focus your language to your audience you will have much more success and broader impact.

I loved the way he presented his examples using corporate slogans and political speeches, it illustrated each point very well.

He also talks at length about being a republican, and I'm a democrat, but he remembered his listener and presented his position based on facts, not on personal biases.

I can't wait for the sequel to hear what he has to say about Obama and McCain and their languaging. It will be fun!!!

Need to sell a product or service? Need to convince an audience of your POV? Need to make a case for a raise? This book provides invaluable ideas, tips and concepts for everyone who communicates in writing or in person.

Great book for people who's work depend on a lot of comunication.It contains lot of useful knowledge and explanation how to orginze ur words to get the message throu. Very well writen(not that I know anything about writing)but I found it easy to read and hard to put down.

This is a deeply cynical book by an author who never tires of telling you he was the main genius behind the "Contract with America" that helped the Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.
He starts by quoting George Orwell bemoaning the misuse of language. He then proceeds to misuse language, and purports to teach the rest of us to do the same, for the rest of the book.
According to Doctor Luntz, who has no doubt tested every word in polls and focus groups, changing the name of an activity from gambling to gaming, transforms not just the image but the activity itself, from a destructive and risky behavior to good clean fun.
Doctor Luntz has probably also tested the fact that his books sell better if he always refers to himself as "Doctor." Never are we told what he is a doctor of and where and when he earned his doctorate.
How can a corporation smash a strike? Ask Doctor Luntz (Answer: by changing the language with which the corporation communicates. Not by addressing the workers' concerns (God forbid) or improving pay or work conditions but by subtly undermining the union.
How do corporations like Enron deal with scandals and avoid government oversight? Not by reforming themselves but by changing the words they use.
Doctor Lunz praises Ford for its successful communications strategy and use of the correct buzzwords while tearing down GM for failing to use them. However now both of them are stuck selling huge gas guzzlers that nobody wants to buy.
How does big oil justify its massive profits? With words like, "Working together -- consumers, government, industry -- we'll insure diverse, relaible energy to live our lives and keep America going strong."
Doctor Luntz says he deeply respects the American people but also goes to considerable lengths to argue that most Americans are uneducated, ignorant, do not read, are not happy and are still freaked out by 9/11.
Doctor Luntz never loses an opportunity to get in a sly dig at Democrats.
To conclude, let me quote from Orwell's "1984" because the following paragraph seems to me to perfectly capture the ethos of this nasty little book:
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?...The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think."

This guy obviously burned some bridges when this book came out, but it makes for a fascinating view inside the world of high-stakes politics.

This was a very short, entertaining, and enlightening book about a man who's managed campaigns for guys one level from the very top (The Steve Forbes and National Senate level) of U.S. government. He's candid and talks about some of the dirty yet entertaining tactics he's used over the years, such as conducting an annoying phone poll during something important like the Super Bowl or Easter Sunday while pretending to be working for your opponent. Allen's not just a smart guy, he's a funny guy, and that definitely comes across in the book. One complaint about this book is that it was too short. The 240 pages are small, and the print is big, so I was (and still am) wanting more. Also, keep in mind that although immoral tactics are discussed often, illegal activities are only lightly touched on. But don't worry, there's enough unsavory activity here to make you lose a considerable amount of faith in the democratic process as it exists today. It's fun, it's educational, and it makes for great conversation during election years, so it comes highly recommended.

This is a great book for the lover of politics. It makes you realize just how evil the Republicans truly can be (I'm an independent). He tells tales of dirty politics and even their own infighting. Fascinating reading.

Allen Raymond has written a witty but cynical view of politics as "played" today. He basically portrays the superiority of the Republican party to play "hardball" and shows the Dems as mostly whining about the "system".

Virtually nothing has changed. This is a great read but it will make you cynical about our political process. Raymond does throw down the gauntlet at the end of his book and challenge citizens to make a difference.

But to make a difference, citizens would have to read this book and understand the fallacy of having millionaire pundits and news readers shaping the political landscape.

This is not dry reading. Raymond and his co-author have made this view of our political sewers most entertaining. Maybe the man is bragging about how he played the game. But most citizens don't understand the game. If we did, we would demand a meaningful dialog of public policy issues. But any politician who tries that is lampooned by the media as boring. Our culture wants to be entertained. Mr. Raymond shows how dangerous that can be.

Allen Raymond gives us an insider's view of how one has to operate to work up the career ladder of the modern GOP, and it ain't pretty.

If not for the amorality involved, a number of the episodes would be even funnier, with how language is narrowly and lawyerly parsed to claim legality for ethically dubious actions, for example.

Suck-up-itis toward GOP higher-ups combined with various forms of shivving and back-stabbing toward equals is also funny. At the same time, it increases the pressure to produce results, such as what Raymond did.

Also interesting, just as an aside, was his observation about the cliqueishness and status-conscious nature of the Village of insider Washington, such as Congressional chiefs of staff dine only with other chiefs of staff, and not legislative assistants, etc.

The biggest thing I found missing was a bit more on the post-prison Raymond. Is he still a Republican? Independent? Democrat? Is he now apolitical? As someone in a position to know, does he have recommendations on how to further reform the current campaign and campaign finance situation?

Also, although he expressed some degree of regret at his resentencing hearing, how does he feel now, with more hindsight? And, what exactly is he doing with his life and career?

The second biggest thing that's missing, which may align with another reader's impression that this was a bit of a rush job? No index.

Overall, a pretty informative work on the "sausage making" of campaign politics, but could have used some more depth.

I've read all three of John Dean's recent book trilogy, and this one is great, too. Being a former "Raypooblican" as some call it, he can put his finger on the basic flaw in Republican thinking, and then demonstrate how it works/doesn't work "on" the American people. Authoritative fear-thinking is demonstrated once again.

This book was disappointing, especially after reading Dean's previous book, "Conservatives Without Conscience," which was much more on point and accurate.

The main problem with Dean's analysis is that he blames almost every government malfunction on the GOP, with the most emphasis on the last 8 years, but also on Reagan. While Bush and his party lap-dogs have done a lot of damage and deserve to be criticized, it is irresponsible to blame them entirely for all the deception, crony-ism, and corruption in D.C. And that's what Dean does - He deducts that everything will get back to "normal" when democrats regain control of congress.

Dean must have a short-term memory, because the practice of hiring party hacks and cronies to run government agencies for political expediency and power goes back to Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, and exploded under FDR. And the trend has continued ever since. Has Dean ever heard of the Bay of Pigs or the Branch Davidians at Waco? And the Clinton's... I guess Dean believes that everything with that Administration was on the up-and-up without any conflict of interest.

Dean is constantly asserting that he's a "Goldwater Republican," but he continually belies this by questioning the very foundations of Goldwater conservatism, and accusing the basic philosophy of conservatism to be counter-effective to efficient and civil government. That opinion is fine if you believe in more liberal approaches, but to say you're a Goldwater Conservative and then espouse liberal talking points is talking out of both sides of your mouth. (Especially in the last chapter where he gives hypothetical scenarios where conservative principles are played out in policies leading to the demise of what he believes is holy. God forbid the supreme court defend the 2nd amendment!!). Dean is clearly confused if he thinks he's anywhere near conservative.

This doesn't mean that some of his points aren't well taken - his criticism of the Bush administration is on target, citing abuse after abuse from things such as general White House procedures in communicating with the opposition party in Congress, to by-passing Constitutional protocol and the system of checks and balances.

But Dean missed badly with his blasting of Republicans stacking the Supreme Court. He seems to think that it's okay for Democrats to nominate liberal judges, but it's some sort of crime against the people for Republicans to nominate conservative judges. To call it a double standard is a gross understatement. According to Dean, liberal politicians are always fair and civil, never resort to crony-ism, never make back-room deals, and always, always have America's best interest in mind - they are lily-white and without sin.

Of course, history says otherwise.

For a more interesting and accurate take on the current GOP debacle, I would recommend "Impostor" by Bruce Bartlett, and "Conservatives Betrayed," by Richard Viguerie. Also worth mentioning is "The Elephant in the Room," by Ryan Sager.

The GOP deserves to be lambasted, but honestly so.

I just finished reading John Dean's latest book, "Broken Government, How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches". It is not light reading, but it is enlightening.

Dean carefully details the long slow demolition of our government by the Republican Party. He starts with Regan and works carefully up to the current administration and the evidence is very startling. Though they may have moved at a glacial pace, the GOP has systematically dismantled the three branches of our government and molded them into something our founding fathers would scarcely recognize.

At least one quarter of the book is notes and appendices chocked full of facts that support Dean's premise. Starting with the legislative branch, which he calls "broken but on the mend", he shows how political rancor and ham handed politics has replaced the collegial attitudes that the legislature once had. The Republicans, once in control, shut out the democrats and any opposition to an extent that is shocking. Only now, with the Democrats back in the seat of power has some of the bipartisanship returned.

In the Executive branch, one that Dean lists as completely broken, the powers of the President have expanded enormously. The "unitary executive" theory has governed the GOP's ideology for many years and steadily the executive branch has become primary in the governmental process. This is extra-constitutional and not at all the role you might have learned in school. The president, through use of signing statements and raw power grabs resembles more of a dictator than the second branch of our government.

Finally the Supreme Court and the judicial branch is in sore need of repair. The shift of judges especially on the Supreme Court toward a judicial fundamentalism has and will change the freedoms of our country. The next president will most likely be appointing one of two justices and their ideology, which was once not supposed to be an issue, could change everything. This alone is a strong argument against John McCain.

Dean's book is not an easy read, but for anyone who has been following the process of our government, it is a must. He is scholarly yet readable. Unlike his previous books, this one has an earnestness of a man on a mission. His mission is to pull our country back from the brink of something very different from the democracy we grew up with. That alone should make you nervous and willing to devote a few days to reading his book.

John W. Dean does the reader an immeasurable service clearly articulating his biases at the very beginning of "Broken Government" by saying (1) that he was a Nixon administration insider; (2) that Republicans cannot be trusted with the levers of government; and (3) that "Broken Government" is really part of a trilogy (including Conservatives Without Conscience and Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush) which is meant to be read together as one whole. The thesis of Dean's book is that the Republican regime has in the period from 2001-2007 subverted the processes of the three branches of government. Dean's daignosis: government is broken but under repair.

The most illustrative example of this "Broken Government" was the decision to go to war in Iraq. Dean contends that the deliberative process of the Legislative branch failed and it was due to that failure that the Country was led to war. I agree with that assessment but contend that the explanation was incomplete. The deliberative failure extends not only to Congress but to the so-called "Fourth Branch" of Government: the Press. While there has been no end in the Press of the post-mortem of the War in Iraq, there was very little debate and thoughtful reflection prior to war. And while many may claim that the Bush Administration's run-up to war with Iraq was rapid, it became abundantly clear in September 20, 2001 in Bush's speech to the Joint Session of Congress that Bush contemplated invading Iraq.

But perhaps the most note-worthy breakdown with our government may have come when "We the People" became "They the People," when "our" government of "our" representatives became "those" people in Washington. Our society has become more escapist and disenfranchised that perhaps at any other time in its history. Al Gore touches on this subject in The Assault on Reason. It is at this point that I part ways with Dean's contention that "Republicans can't be trusted." Accountability in a democracy is (allegedly) with THE PEOPLE. If government is broken, it is OUR fault. If the Republican regime "broke" government, they did so on OUR watch. Indeed, it is difficult to say that government is "broken" without saying that OUR democracy is "broken." And while it can be both useful and edifying that WE watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Indecision 2004, if all we do is laugh at the foibles of the government we do nothing.

"Broken Government" wisely addresses an extremely powerful issue: Process. Without Process, you cannot have democracy and those who pervert Process pervert democracy. Process is what separates democracy from the arbitrary and capricious dictatorship. By focusing on Process and its failings during the Republican administration, Dean cuts to the heart of the issue and, therefore, makes an invaluable contribution. "Broken Government" cannot stand on its own however because too many times in the text, Dean refers the reader to his other books.

John W. Dean has worked in government at the highest levels, has stellar credentials and credibility, and is definitely qualified to discuss this Republican administration's actions. Being Republican himself, I consider his views even more objective and valuable than those rants I hear from established contrarians -- on both sides. Dean is a republican who dares to speak the truth to power, even if it means being criticized by his own party. Dean's assessments are sober and fair, and not overly emotional... I was thankful for the detailed analysis provided here (again, because I value facts more than emotion), and was captivated in this reading from beginning to end.

Given the rhetoric and propoganda flying about these days, the seeming increasing notion that party affiliation also requires absolute, unquestioning support, it's refreshing to me whenever someone like Dean speaks up. I don't know what kind of civics education the party fervent received, but I was taught never to give absolute trust or power to any politician for any reason, under no circumstance, ever. Period.

I'm so disappointed by my fellow Americans who would say that questioning the leadership of a political party is akin to treason. I'm saddened by those who blindy follow, and who actually consider it simply unthinkable that their leaders - politicians - could ever abuse their power.

In the end, even the best of us is still human, and imperfect. Anyone in power is susceptible to abusing that power, failing by their own human weakness, taking advantage of the weak or powerless... It is simply part of our human condition...

John Dean rightly reminds us, Americans, that our government exists to serve us, and that no one in power should ever have more power than can be controlled by the people. That is the form we have chosen in our American democratic republic, and that is the ideal which we must defend - even from ourselves.

And so, here we are. Dean provides facts and insight on an alarming trend in American politics, where party support and pursuit of power seems to be destroying the very core and ideals of our system.

I'm a bit more an optimist than he, and can see the metaphorical political pendulum always has, and will continue to swing back-and-forth, going wrong sometimes, but eventually being righted again. But nonetheless, Dean's research and analysis are solid.

He is right to be concerned at this administration's efforts, their marketing and manipulation - all pushing us towards a potential future where one branch of American government has unlimited authority, free of any restriction or checks from the other branches.

I was taught about checks-and-balances in school. My family taught me about fairness and equity. I was taught about right-and-wrong by them, and my church. At what point in my lifetime, did the leadership of the Republican party decide that the pursuit of their narrow interests were more important than the founding principles of our American dem