Policy Books

In a time when corporate welfare is out of control due to the pseudo-conservative Republicans in power , it's refreshing to hear real conservative ideals that truly come from deep inside the heart of someone who ran for the Republican party.

Ron Paul is one of the few conservatives out there actually advocating real conservative values. This book is small, but all his ideas are very simple and clear....so they don't need to be in a large book...because it is all obvious information to a true conservative.

26 June 2008 - This Manifesto derives from decades of principled defense of freedom, peace, and sound money. It convincingly and eloquently advances the Libertarian philosophy. Ron Paul covers liberty, Austrian economics, the Federal Reserve, the free market, the welfare state, and the warfare state. I think he brilliantly covers each of these topics expect I have doubts about removing the military from overseas. I do agree that we can not afford to keep the troops at their present levels but do think the security risk is greater than we current could imagine.

This book is incredible. Regardless of who you are going to vote for, you should read this book first. I don't think the name is appropriate.
It may make people think the book is angry and inciteful, but it is just the opposite.

Have you been wondering what is causing the problems in our economy?
Have you been wondering how far we should go to fight terrorism, and what effect our interventions have on the radical islamic mindset in the middle east?
This book answers those questions and more in an easy to understand way that also teaches you more about those subjects than you will ever get in the news.
I was surprised to find that Ron Paul is as great a thinker as our founding fathers in my opinion, and has done a great service to this country by writing this information down.
Read how this country is no longer controlled "by the people", and how Ron Paul doesn't blame any particular group or generate hate in any way, but simply calls for an end to long-standing politics that has taken our government away from the people and the values set down in the constitution.
I feel so empowered and patriotic reading this book.
It solidifies feelings I've had for a long time about the government, but just couldn't quite put all the pieces together.

A concisely written platform for the movement behind the message of 2008 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, MANIFESTO diagnoses American sicknesses, and proceeds to offer sensible solutions that can work NOW. I have come to believe that Paul's brand of conservative policy are the only way. He is my personal hero.

This book will confirm beliefs that you have already held, much like Winston reading "the book" in 1984, as well as give you more examples of government driven schemes, scams, and broken promises to contemplate that you have never before pondered. The main difference between Winston's book and Ron Paul's is that Paul's gives clear, simple remedies to the problems that our government has gotten us all into. Touching on topics from foreign policy to oil prices to the abuse of executive powers, Dr. Paul parcels out his pearls of common sense wisdom. Listen to the previous reviews! This book is a MUST READ!!! Everyone knows that the best form of advertising is word of mouth; I will be spreading the word and getting as many friends and relatives to read this book as possible. Its time to open our eyes, America!

Firstly a warning, this is the second edition and covers Windows 2003. There is a third edition that covers the newer OS. I bought this book by mistake and it's too big (postage would be too expensive) to return. So buy with care.

This is a big book in terms of pages but the content is less than stellar. Don't expect to find too much on designing AD in real world situations such as integration with networking topologies and devices. Nor expect to find details on integrating AD with other Microsoft technology such as SharePoint. No this cookbook is really an administrator companion, and I think it does a pretty decent job in that but not more.

Very handy cookbook reference for my office bookshelf. I've used it a number of times, and it's more than paid for itself in expediting regularly-scheduled inquiries of our AD structure here at GEICO HQ.

Excellent reference if you work with AD on a regular basis either as an admin or a developer. Each "how to" offers methods for manually performing a specific task as well as (where possible) how to automate the task using code. Should be on every Windows admin/developer's desk.

Overall, this is a great book for reference.

There are a number of areas where I think the book falls short - all of the scripts are very hard coded scripts that don't tell you how to do some functions that would make their scripts actually useful (like "pull the list of users with attributes from a tab-delimited file and create them" or something similar, this would make mass creation of users actually useful, instead of "create user1, user2, user3, etc..."). I think that the writers expect you to be a VB expert (or at least close to it) if you're going to actually make the vb scripts useful.

Most of the scripts are "How to use a script to do the same functions that you can already do in AD with ADUC or another MMC", but I think that the most important thing for me about the book is what it inspires me to think of doing. Things that MS doesn't necessarily expect you to do. I'm still not seeing a way to add sidHistory to an object (MS does it with another applet - there is a way...), but there are so many things in the book that just have me thinking about how you can implement changes to an environment that MS says you can't do. What they really mean is "You can't do that with the GUI tools that we provide you".

I am so glad that this book was recommended to me by a guy I took a class on scripting from. I use this book everyday (almost). I even took it on vacation with me for light reading.

I read this book last semester for a Criminal Justice class and it is amazing. It opened my eyes to exactly how wrong the war on drugs is. This book is my #1 recommended book. If more people would read it I think we'd finally be able to find our way out of this fruitless war.

Q: What is the difference between the Prohibition and America's war on drugs? Mike Gray's overall answer is "very little," but the one glaring difference is that when Prohibition failed, the country repealed the Constitutional Amendment which had created it. Alcohol use remained at about the same level before, during and after the Prohibition years, but the murder, official corruption and gang battles that accompanied official proscription came and went. DRUG CRAZY analyzes the upshot of that distinction and its enormous worldwide effects. The U.S. led anti-drug effort has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement efforts alone, not to mention the cost of prisons, imprisonment and court proceedings and has succeeded in creating an international drug consortium with an annual income higher than the U.S. defense budget. Thousands of innocent bystanders have died in sprays of automatic fire and bomb blasts. It has made pot easier to get than alcohol for most American teens and brought Colombian, Bolivian and Mexican democracy to the brink of collapse. Damningly, Gray reports that every refereed study since the 1890s has suggested that marijuana is harmless and that the opiates and cocaine are no more dangerous than alcohol (perhaps less). Even the infamous "crack babies" we heard about for a few years turned out to be an unsubstantiated myth. In every country where legalization and controlled prescriptive availability of harder drugs has been tried, addiction rates remained stable or fell, crime decreased and most addicts proceeded to live normal workaday lives. The U.S. has forced other countries to quit such programs through fiscal pressure and outright lies, insisting that all adopt our abolitionist stance. We have managed to export violence, crack cocaine, corruption and other benefits to numerous other nations along with our failed policy. At the same time, and to make matters worse, the nature of enforcement has become a defacto racist effort. Cocaine in Wall Street boardrooms is harder to see than crack runners on Main Street and while whites are the disproportionate users of illegal drugs, blacks are the disproportionate arrestees. In this country, one in four black males is either in prison, under probation or on parole, mostly as a result of drug or drug related crimes. Small wonder, as the author points out, that blacks think O.J. Simpson was framed: it is their daily experience. Police routinely lie in court to make drug charges stick. (Since private deals between consenting parties are very hard to actually witness, when police claim that a perpetrator dropped a bag or in some other way made evidence visible it is understood by judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and defendants that it is "acceptable" false testimony to cover an illegal search. So perjury is permitted in the name of enforcement.) Amazingly, the whole morass of current drug problems and policies could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. Minus prohibition the drug cartels would be defunded. If prices fell, many farmers would find other crops more appealing. If currently illegal substances were distributed by prescription or through state-licensed stores, kids would be infrequently exposed. (How many pushers are selling beer in front of your local elementary school these days?) Mike Gray has brought his story telling skill (The China Syndrome and other screenplays) and his investigative/documentary bent (American Revolution and The Murder of Fred Hampton) to bear on an urgent national and international problem. His recommendations and observations are difficult to refute and his is a well considered voice in a growing debate which affects us all. Even now, the genie released when California and Arizona approved medical marijuana use is being clumsily stuffed back in the bottle by Federal mandate, disenfranchising voters and creating a rising uproar. As former U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson observes: "Anyone who thinks the war on drugs is succeeding should read this book. It shifts the burden of proof from the critics of existing policy to its defenders."

This is one of the best books I've read on the drug war to date (and I've read a bunch). The book carefully went through the origins, history, and effects of the drug war in a captivating and easy to follow manner. When finished, the reader will be left with an iron-clad indictment of the drug war which has covered all angles. This really is one of the most comprehensive and well written books on the drug war, and I highly recommend it.

When it became clear that the medicines called opiates were highly addictive and caused health problems, they were dealt with as nicotine and alcohol are dealt with today. There were honest and realistic public service messages warning of the dangers of opiates, and there was medical help that greatly limited the damage they did to the individual and which had a chance of eliminating his or her addiction. These methods worked, and where they are applied they work today. Then in the second decade of the twentieth century the country took a nose-dive into authoritarian attitudes and corruption, and people got the strange idea that you could eliminate a practice you didn't like simply by passing a law against it. Alcohol, and the opiates were completely banned, as was marijuana which was now designated a "drug" because of its association with minority groups. Alcohol use, which had always hovered between widespread and universal, had been declining but now became more common than ever before. Worse, the alcoholic drinks that were taken became much harder and not being regulated they might contain enough alcohol to be dangerous. Worse still, an untold number of criminals were created, crime of all kinds increased radically, organized crime came to control whole districts and corruption reached heights never seen before. "Public service messages" regarding what were now illegal "drugs" became simple expressions of hatred having very little to do with the "drugs" they were about, and everyone actually familiar with those "drugs" knew it. Medical treatment by doctors who were actually trying to help their paitents was declared illegal, and a number of doctors went to prison. The lives of opiate addicts had usually been no worse than the lives of nicotine addicts, but now those lives became impossible. Addicts could no longer hold jobs raise children or do anything else but concentrate on their addiction. Current "rehabilitation" for opiate addicts is an expression of hatred for those addicts and makes no attempt to help them. It mostly consists of telling them they are evil it they don't break their habits, and for those addicted to opiates or nicotine, breaking the habit altogether is usually not possible. Opiate use had always been an insignificant phenomenon nationwide, and in the early part of the century when it was being dealt with intelligently, it was declining. But then the hate laws were passed, and now a measurable percentage of the population is addicted and condemed to ruined, useless lives, organized crime is more powerful now than at any time in history, and whole countries like Columbia are completely dominated by corruption-- as are large sections of others like the United States and Mexico. None of this needed to happen. The things we call "drugs" were handled intelligently at the beginning of the twentieth century or were never a problem in the first place. If realistic laws were passed, the worst of the damage would be fixed very quickly since it is directly caused by bad laws. The rest of the damage would take a decade to undo, but if we begin treating the opiates as we treat nicotine and alcohol we will gradually undo it.
I think that is a pretty good thumbnail of what Mike Grey had to say, and he is completely right. Everyone in the country should read this book. Our real addiction is to hatred.

Author Mike Gray tackles the failed drug war in this book and effectively shows how the present war has many similarities to alcohol prohibition in early part of the twentieth century. Gray begins his discussion of the subject of drugs by taking the reader back to 1925, in the city of Chicago, during the height of the nightmare of prohibition. Gangs ruled the streets. The air was filled with the smell of cheap booze and the sound of gunfire. Police were defenseless to the total chaos going on all around them. They simply could not stop the manufacture and consumption of alcohol. There was too much money to be made by selling this "forbidden fruit". There was no possible way that this "war" on alcohol could ever be won.

Does this sound familiar? It should, because the same thing is going on right now. The government's failed attempt to eliminate alcohol is now being attempted a second time with the war on drugs. These laws are discussed in the book with a history lesson on the various court rulings and congressional decisions that led to the present prohibitions on drugs. These laws have some of their roots in the U.S. Congress. According to the book, marijuana itself became illegal as the result of a lie told to congress by Fred Vinson, a man who would later become the U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Vinson was sitting in a congressional hearing one day, just before congress was about to vote on whether or not marijuana should be made illegal. The American Medical Association knew of the benefits of marijuana in medical treatments, and was strongly against such a law. But when Vinson was questioned by congress, he lied and said that the AMA backed the proposed law 100 percent to make marijuana illegal. This was enough to help push the law through congress. Vinson's lie, coupled with the onslaught of government propaganda against marijuana, marked the beginning of America's second nightmare with prohibition.

The lying and deception by government cooled off a bit during the 1940 to 1960 period. But then, the lying and deception continued when President Nixon decided to revive the anti- drug crusade, in part to cover- up his own problems with Vietnam and Watergate. George Bush then escalated the damage even more by scaring the public into backing his anti- drug package and his "get tough" policies against drug dealers and drug users. Gray talks about these and other political maneuvers; why they happened and the true motives behind these so- called "moral" crusaders.

The present- day situation looks pretty bleak. Gray points out that the United States is now the largest jailer in the world with roughly half of all prisoners being non- violent drug offenders. We have also corrupted our police officers, with many of them actively taking part in the drug trade; cutting special deals, accepting bribes, etc, because of the allure of easy money. Respect for law enforcement is low, and violent criminals have been allowed early release to make way for non- violent drug offenders, thanks to mandatory minimum sentences.

This book is an easily manageable length: about 198 pages and fairly easy to read. There are a total of eleven chapters and two appendices. Appendix "A" details the changes in the U.S. murder rate, showing how it peaked during alcohol prohibition and during the present- day drug prohibition. It also shows graphs depicting the U.S. prison population and the Federal Drug budget. And to give the book some balance, Appendix "B" contains a listing of activist organizations, both pro- drug war and anti- drug war, along with a brief description of each and their respective websites.

As Mike Gray points out, the War on Drugs is one of America's greatest failures. Gray never specifically condemns the war. He wrote this book as a means to educate the reader on the motives behind drug prohibition and the reasons that politicians continue to fight a losing battle when they know that the war is not winnable. Gray never resorts to name calling or any form of moral persuasion. He really doesn't need to. He lets the facts speak for themselves, illustrating the endless problems created by a war of prohibition and why it is so important to stop this insanity once and for all.

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 concept 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 on the issue of foreign policy that I recommend higher than A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

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.

This book explains in Ron Paul's own words the reasoning for avoiding "entangled alliances." It is absolutely amazing how for 30 years this man has beat the same drum for our liberties here in our homeland. It shows just how tireless Ron Paul is in spreading the message of peace and liberty. His speeches given on the House floor are full of history (showing how we got where we are today) with a bit of almost "prophetic" wisdom of where this country is heading with the continuation of our poor foreign policy. In one speech in particular (NEOCONNED!) he names names. His personal diary entry at the beginning of the Iraq invasion...well it shows the man. Ron Paul will be in the history books. That is unless WE allow those who are in charge of writing them now to remain in power.

No one could accuse Ron Paul of flip-flopping. His statements of 1983/1984 are almost a word-for-word echo of his 2008 presidential campaign speeches and publications.

Much of what was foreseen has come to pass, with the collapse of the American economy taking longer than originally suggested because of the fall of communism and the rise in wealth of far eastern states, which has permitted the use of off-shoring as a way to reduce costs for western manufacturing, and the ability for Americans to enjoy a period of cheap credit by way of dollars paid being returned as loans for incidental purchases and to create the unsustainable housing bubble. A housing bubble which has had an international impact of catastrophic proportions in the form of the credit-crunch because of bad mortgages being monetised into unrecoverable debt. A consequence of this is that, anything not manufactured in China, such as oil and food, for example, is showing an inflation rate of at least 30%, and not the under 5% that is more politically acceptable.

As Ron Paul pointed out, the degeneration in the purpose of politics has a negative impact on Americans. Most recently, Hilary Clinton, in spite of gaining the most votes in the presidential primaries, was forced to concede to Barak Obama because the Democratic Party Super-Delegates reckoned that this was strategically the better choice to win an election for the Democratic party. In 2000 the Supreme Court overrode the popular vote for Al Gore and decided the election outcome. No government by the people for the people here, it would seem, but many Republicans were content.

The Truman doctrine was mentioned with regard to its undermining of the Congress's ability to hold a president in check. The errors of the Wilsonian WW1 era predicated on the doctrine of 'making the world safe for democracy' were mentioned.

Herman Goering is quoted, and it is interesting to note that the 'slob on the farm' can now hope to get back in one piece, with the added incentive that he/she may now be eligible for free college funding so that they can become good socialists-cum-stakeholder capitalists, and be better able to subvert the constitution for future generations.

This book by Ron Paul is straightforward to read and follow, and may be the basis for the launching of a debate amongst the American people, including non-Americans who are affected by American policies. For example: Did American foreign policy develop as a counter to European imperialism from 1823 onwards, and simply not as a way to expand the power of the Federal Government. Perhaps the publishers of this book could divert some of their profits towards a good Internet discussion board for this purpose.

This book has given me a framework with which to evaluate my role as a citizen of the United States and an ideal to grow towards.

The book consists of congressional speeches, journal entries, and a few transcripts of committe meetings by Ron Paul in chronological order. I am in awe of the energy, intelligence, and character Congressman Paul exhibits.

I draw three conclusions from the book:

1. Our founding fathers fought for our freedom, it is ours to defend.

2. Congress has willingly and unconstitutionally ceded its authority to the Presidents over the past 60 years.

3. Non-intervention in the affairs of other nations is the just and moral policy that protects our liberty.

In an age when architects and planners were spouting all kinds of brave-new-world nonsense (or mindlessly absorbing it, or even worse - building it), Jacobs burst onto the scene with an incredible dose of sanity mixed with common sense and wisdom, carefully observing the urban environment and drawing a host of remarkably sensible conclusions. For some reason we architects seem always at risk of believing our own nuttiest fantasies. Jacobs is a perennial corrective.

Still relevant, still useful....and still ignored by the common city engineer. Our city's planners need to re-read this sucker.

This is a book that relates to designers, and city planners as well as the "un-educated". Reading this book will certainly inform one on the purpose and importance of city planning.

This book will give you a reason to want to go visit the city, or to go out and get into the city you already live in. Her reference to the "ballet of the sidewalks" gives a whole new twist to what is going on in a busy downtown. City planners, take note!

If you are interested in community building, urban planning, and city life in general, this is a must-read. Though the book is older, the themes and ideas stand the test of time.

I have read all of the reviews that have been uploaded as of 5/23/2008, and the purpose of this filing is to summarize the points that were made AND to provide a perspective that has not yet been uploaded.

I have been carrying-around this book for a year, having learned about its author after I listened to Michael provide a speech to a Republican group in the Philadelphia suburbs. My only complaint is that it does not easily slip into my pockets, because there is so much concentrated information that I would want to reference during conversations.

It contains more than a "string of pearls"; it conveys "history with an attitude" which renders it easier to recall, and observations therein have subsequently been noted in other sources, notably the strong civil rights record of the GOP that indubitably dates-back to Lincoln...threading throughout the "narrative" that Republicans have generated for ~150 years.

COMMENTS:

Bruce Rheinstein's review serves to reinforce the history-lesson provided by Zak, amplifying and amending; it is engaging itself, and essentially the book is shown to pass muster when it emphasizes the contributions of the Radical Republicans.

Aaron Z. Gadouas's review emphasizes that Zak provided a timely manifesto and historical overview of the ideas that define the Republican Party, vital reading for activists and thinkers.

Michael Miller's review focuses upon the need to show the GOP has been anti-racist, and it recognizes the ability of Zak's book to help "recalibrate GOP compasses."

Former Diplomat observes that this book has been cited in a Supreme Court Opinion (as a DC "cult favorite") because it debunks myths and probes "simple truths." It should be noted that it has a treasure-trove of references, reflecting the extensiveness of the research that yielded it.

American laments that too few blacks appreciate the GOP's civil rights legacy. That the turning-point occurred in 1964 is probed, for Zak provides insight as to how their current D-orientation could/should be countered.

Patrick D. John considers it to be a GOP-Infomercial, claiming it oversimplifies and elides over key-points (some of which are discomfiting); the author aspires to compose a text (as a Black Republican) that emphasizes the former ("Black") more than the latter ("Republican"). His review should be consulted for myriad details that weren't included in the book, although some are more arguable as quasi-facts than are others.

George L. Lyon praises Zak for telling us the story that mainstream academia would rather just ignore, namely, that the Radical Republicans were courageous and accomplished.

PJ Hunger "Peej" praises the book because it renews excitement, corrects the course and calls for an engaging vigor not seen for a terribly long time; regarding the GOP, we can dust it off, polish it up, get it working again and show it off. The pivotal observation, however, is that the book conveys essential truths that are as relevant now as they were when first articulated and implemented.

Publius condemns the book because, to him, it represents a self-fulfilling prophesy. Allegedly, it starts with a premise and then creates supportive facts. As examples, it suggests that stereotypes applicable 100 years ago are no longer relevant. He forgets, however, that ideologies that generated those behaviors have evolved over time...but have not dissipated. The reviewer recommends Gould's "GOP" for history, but he fails to dispel the thrust of Zak's presentation of the GOP's strong Civil Rights legacy.

Jonathan Jenkins considers it to be of textbook quality, best perceived as serving as a compendium of the GOP's rich history and as a motivator for budding activists.

Karen B. portrays it as brilliantly concise, an observation recalls that Hemingway--when discussing "The Old Man and The Sea"--invoked this short-book as a model for how the best writers know what to edit OUT as much as what is necessarily included.

Jorge Roque praises the book for reminding him of why he's a proud Republican.

Ann Kotelman writes (simply/eloquently): "My friends, particularly the Democrats, are calling me a born again Republican. The book is inspiring, informative and cemented my affiliation with the party and my belief in Republican ideals." This captures, assuredly, the experience of most who have experienced Zak's efforts.

A Customer emphasizes both how replete the book is with nuggets and how well it conveys fundamental Republican principles that he tries to convey as often as possible.

S. Gershberg considers it a must-read because, by tracing the history of the Republican party, it show us where the political system needs to go at the start of the millennium. It contains so much fascinating detail that the reader must remember to try to remember all the concepts that it conveys so effortlessly.

Cathie Adams claims the book will put wind under your wings. As timely as the book may appear now to be (pre-Presidential Elections), it also has a timeless quality.

Bill Carroll says it all: "Michael Zak's book, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party," is at once a splendid history lesson of our nation and an illuminating dialogue of our political system. Mr. ZaK begins with the events and the ideas that gave rise to the Republican Party. He goes on to explain how the fundamental tenets of the party enabled the Republicans to save the Union, rid our country of slavery and lay the foundation for the modern American economy. Mr. Zak then discusses how the GOP strayed from its principles, allowing the Democratic Party to gain the advantage. Finally, the author provides, through his own incisive analysis, the framework by which the Republican Party can regain the moral and political high ground, and lead America to even greater accomplishments. Nonetheless, this book is neither a dry nor a pedantic study. It is a thoughtful, well-written, compelling and entertaining discourse in the realm of politics. Most importantly, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party" is a clarion call for the GOP to return to its roots. I highly recommend this outstanding book."

*

I had planned to encompass all the reviews, but the last one was so concisely correct that it cannot be bested by any other reader.

If you're a dedicated Republican and want Sean Hannity style content, Sean's your guy and Michael Zak is not. Back To Basics is truly a brilliant work, chronicling the history of the Republican party from its inception to the present.

As a moderate, I do not always agree with my party line, and am often skeptical of the volumes of political hyperbole to which we are subjected. Zak makes a laudable effort to incorporate information sources, evidenced by a 10 page bibliography, single spaced in 6pt type, and a plethora of footnotes through his book.

This is not a quick or casual read. Zak's attention to detail in his investigation of the past 150 years is evident in every paragraph, though his writing style is universally fluid. It's a hard book to put down, especially if you are not well versed in this topic.

His objectivity is evident in his persistent criticism and evaluation of significant individuals and events that have shaped the Republicans to what we are today. Zak does not hide his disappointment in several aspects of the current state of Republicans, however his admonition of returning to the basics on which our party was founded is the most compelling theme in the book.

Readable, informative, research-based, and a clear call to action, Back to Basics for the Republican Party is not only a chronicle; it is a guide for us to re-energize and to once again become the Grand Old Party.

Michael Zak's book was fascinating and made me wish it was a textbook used for high school and college students. In reading the comments, I see that some things did not appear in his book that were unfavorable to Republicans. That is unfortunate, and more study should be placed beside this book. It is a good read! It'll open many eyes.

As the chairman of the fastest growing and most active Young Republican group in my tri-state area I need books like this to more quicky educate conservatives. Whether candidate, supporter, or voter it is pertinent to understand the core values of Republicanism as well as our rich history. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is a terrific book about our values and history. It is in a must-read for all Republicans. Our principals are ever lasting yet without knowing and applying them we cannot truly unite and maintain the way of life our forefathers fought for. My challenge to every individual and campaign: Purchase, read, and pass around Back to Basics for the Republican Party.

I myself am a Black Republican, so I agree with Mr. Zak that the GOP's history on civil rights has not been fairly told. However, this book makes the same 2 errors that most GOP loyalists make when discussing Blacks and the GOP: 1) they oversimplify the ideology of the early Republicans and abolitionists. For example, notably missing from Mr. Zak's book are the following facts:that Herbert Hoover (Republican) was the first president to refuse to address the NAACP's convention, that Carter G. Woodson-the Founder of Black History Month-became so disappointed with the GOP that in the late 1920's he publicly stated that Blacks should stop being blindly loyal to the GOP, that soon after Reconstruction the GOP condoned the formation in the South of racially segregated GOP organizations, called the Lily Whites and the Black & Tans;that beginning in the 1870's Republican candidates lost elections in some Northern states because the Radical Republicans' idea of perfect equality was not embraced by most Whites, not even by most Republicans; that Lincoln was NOT a Radical Republican, he was a moderate who had ALWAYS discussed freeing the slaves ONLY in conjunction with deporting them to another country, for Lincoln openly declared that Blacks were inferior to Whites; that after the Civil War the GOP was weak nationally-since the founding of the GOP America has had 4 presidents who won by electoral vote but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republicans (Harrison, Hayes, Garfield, and Bush); that not all Republicans or abolitionists believed in racial equality, in fact most did NOT, they believed ONLY in ending slavery, and even on that issue they disagreed on the reasons, some were against slavery for moral reasons, others because they feared slave revolts, others because slavery competed with White labor, others because they wanted the good farmland used for more than just cotton. 2) they leave out much of how/why Blacks left the GOP in the first place: Mr. Zak's book does lay blame at the feet of Barry Goldwater, but overlooks the fact that Goldwater's victory in the GOP presidential primary obviusly says something about the views of rank and file Republicans in 1964-national civil rights legislation was clearly not a priority for most Republican voters in 1964, else Goldwater could not have won. Goldwater was just the icing on the cake. Beginning in the 1870's, the GOP began taking the Black vote for granted precisely because the Democrats were such vicious racists. Mr. Zak's book points out how the Democrats were at one point synonymous with the KKK, but he overlooks the obvious political implication for Black voters-if their only 2 choices were between the GOP and the Klan, it was an easy decision. Blacks voted for the GOP because they feared voting for the Democrats, this led to the GOP taking the Black vote for granted as the GOP moved further away from civil rights issues in order to attract more White voters, feeling confident that in doing so it would not lose Black voters. Today, it's the Democrats who take the Black vote for granted, because most Black voters are afraid of the GOP-the tables have turned.

As a Black Republican who is pro civil rights, I think what we need is a balanced review of history. This book is not balanced. Throughout history minorities have been used by the dominant group like a political footbal, and Blacks in America are no different. I'm working with some other Black Republicans to prepare a balanced view of Blacks and the GOP told from the Black perspective, not the perspective of a party loyalist.

About this time, 20 years ago I filed for divorce from my wife of
7 years. At that time I worked as a Chief Electrician at the Fulton
County Courthouse where my divorce would be held. I knew most of the
Superior and State Court Judges on a personal basis; but, I did not
know how most judges handled divorce cases so I went to Kim Warden
who handled abused kids and abused women to ask her opinion of the
judge who would handle my case.

As best I remember, this is what Ms. Warden said: "Your divorce has
been assigned to Superior Court Judge Ralph Hicks? Good luck. While
Hicks has tried to mitigate the horrendous way Child Support payments
is handled in Fulton County by creating 'The Fulton County Child Support
Receiver's Office, Hicks is extremely biased against men. For example:

"Bill, if you were a combination of Jesus Christ and Santa Claus and
you wife were a Convicted prostitute, a Convicted drug user and a Convicted child abuser and you and her both wanted custody of your child? You, Mr. Claus would have a 50-50 chance that you would get
custody. I suggest you try to get Judge Hicks recused from your case;
but, don't cite bias against men as your reason. Be creative."

Drat! My wife was not a convicted drug user, etc..., so I was creative
in my attempt before any hearings to get Hicks recused and have an out
of county Judge who did not know me to handle my case.

My first attorney refused to file a Motion to Recuse! (Should have
dismissed this attorney right then and there. Unfortunately, 1st
attorney eventually stabbed me in the back; but, that's another story.)

Judge Hicks lived down to Ms. Warden's low opinon---and then some.

Long story short, it took over 3 years to get my divorce here in Georgia. Judge Hicks finally, FINALLY, recused himself after charges
of incompetence were made against him in YR 2 of my divorce. My case was then heard by 4 other judges.

The last judge, a woman named Frank Hull, wouldn't put up with my
wife's attorney's shenanigans, reduced my child support from $850 per
month to $700 for one child and quickly granted me a divorce after
Judge Hull threatened my wife that she might reduce child custory
payments even further and, maybe, grant me sole custody.

During these 3+ years of monetary and judicial agony, I joined Fathers
Are Parents Too and Children's Rights Council of Georgia. If I thought
I'd had it bad, a goodly number these members had divorces that made
mine look like a cake walk. Both these groups really helped me
cope and I will be forever grateful.

Sincerely!
Bill Bryan
EducationChoiceActivist at yahoo dot com

"America's kids (K-12) can have Olympic Quality Education at
Low, low Wal-Mart prices if the kid's' parents could send
their kids to Public, Private or Parochial Schools (K-12) using
taxpayer funded vouchers."

Quality Education for Kids, Empowerment for Parents, and
SAVE AMERICA!

Stephen Baskerville has written a detailed and fully documented expose of how the family court system has grown into a frightening and destructive system of corruption, terror, and unchecked governmental power. It is a must read for all Americans, professionals, journalists, and politicians. You cannot walk away from this book without the disturbing feeling that America is slipping away from all of us.

This should be a mandatory read for all first year law students. This book shows how easy it is for a person to 'steal' another persons child(ren) and be criminalized for doing nothing more than wanting to be a loving parent. It cuts through all of the media propaganda and backs it up with facts.

This should also be a mandatory read for anyone thinking of getting married..

Outstanding book. It explains what is wrong with the family court. I would not have believed it, if I had not seen it for myself.

Awesome and factually backed up.

Have you ever read a book that you just can't put down? Well, this book is beyond that. Everyone I talk to that has read it or is reading it just has to put it down, very often, due to the shocking thought provoking nature of presenting the truth in the most believable way. Great job, Dr. Baskerville!

Dr. Baskerville sees that the real root of the war on dads (which is the war on families and society) isn't just selfish feminism, media and our "learning" institutions, or even just the barrage of parasitic greedy attorneys, judges and all their "full court" of hangers-on who profit immensely and gain unlimited power from this. It has become government at the center and root of destroying the family, and all of our rights, for these same reasons. Our forefathers warned us often that this would happen every generation/20 years, lest we be aware and prevent it.


Becoming aware can sometimes be tricky when attractive hysteria prevails so strongly. The healthy, intact traditional family is indeed the number one enemy of government becoming in total control, put above the citizens and thus decaying into corruption. People will readily support family-destroying lies and anti-male/father hysteria propaganda if it has been warped into "protecting" women and children. People have always supported hysteria propaganda and lies when they are craftily twisted around to look so important and good. But supporting anti-father agenda and hysteria isn't just hurting but is destroying women badly too, and especially children. After all, that's what government generated hysteria is all about, milking the masses, not just one group. Remember, where there's hysteria, there's fire, for all!

Like Dr. Baskerville points out - fathers are the weakest link to taking down the whole family, not just dad. It's ironic that while fathers are the weakest link to destroying the family, that they are also in fact the keystone and guardians of not just the family, but the keystone and guardians of any healthy society. The true patriarchy puts the family, the group and society before themselves. This isn't what you hear in the news or at school? This is what has always built and preserved healthy families and society. We'd still be in the stone age without this selflessness which feminists and government have discovered in men and fathers and have now exploited for only their own interests and "good." They use this to get men and fathers to help destroy themselves and take themselves down as protectors of society and family, against abuse and evil. Anything to prove they are not guilty of all the horrid atrocities which men and fathers are falsely, rampantly and hysterically accused of.

Fathers are the most important part of protecting and keeping families and children most protected and intact, from being ravaged by the many wolves in sheep's clothing. This includes fatherhood's main rival to truth, equality and justice for all (government). The classic signature of all totalitarian governments is to cleverly pretend to be putting up a valiant fight for these good things while doing the opposite. This is also the selfish radical feminist agenda, "Me first and only; it's all about ME, me milking you and everyone around me with my drama, while I pretend and dramatize doing the exact opposite."

Many just don't fully understand (they will benefit greatly from this book too) that it's not that fathers have abandoned their children or are bad, abusive and any more evil than mothers are. Government and their hangers-on would like you to believe dads are bad, more risky and suspect or guilty, until they can prove their innocence, which isn't even allowed anyway. These lies and hysteria just help them do more business than ever, and look like the good guys while raping and pillaging you and your family, and of course the whole village. They easily do this with the fully support of a largely happily ignorant village itself, because they can hysterically point the finger at those they have set up as villains.

Thanks for helping "our" government "help" us all so very much: Hillary, Obama, McCain, Pres. Bush, legislators on both "sides," governors, AG's, prosecutors and so very many "friends" of the family - very attractive wolves in sheep's clothing. There is little if any distinction between republicans and democrats when it comes to this subject and a few others.

Dr. Baskerville documents and backs up what he writes in this book. And, thanks for the quote from Dickens in the opening of chapter 1:

"The one great principle of the ... law is to make business for itself."

- Charles Dickens, "Bleak House"

A serious book calls for a serious review and I will try to provide that. Zubrin covers a lot of ground so I will take this by chapter. First, the author has a PhD in nuclear engineering so he knows the science. The first two chapters provide the rationale for his campaign to replace petroleum with methanol, and to a lesser degree ethanol. The book was written a year ago and the effects of food crop diversion to ethanol have now emphasized the negatives of ethanol. Methanol is made from non-food, non-sugar, sources and is a better compound for fuel. The first five chapters provide his argument that Saudi Arabia is an enemy funding terrorism and the Wahhabi heresy of Islam. He makes good points but is a bit more excited than I would be. Another review makes the point that China will still be buying oil from the Saudis no matter what we do. Still, the price will fall as methanol, nuclear fission and fusion technology provide alternatives.

Chapter 6 tells the story of flex-fuel technology and the remarkable life story of Roberta Nichols, a woman engineer who succeeded in adapting alcohol to motor fuel and doing it cheaply. She was a great pioneer and died too young to see her accomplishments recognized. Chapter 7 tells the story of several politically supported alternatives and explains why they are not practical. One section of this chapter tells the story of a professor whose poorly done research survives as a major argument against ethanol as a practical alternative to petroleum. There is a good deal of technology in this chapter but it is well explained.

Chapter 8 discusses the potential for under-developed countries to benefit from a change to alcohol-based energy production. Methanol can be made from agricultural waste products and offers these societies a future that cannot occur if poor countries are beholden to the OPEC oil cartel. There is some economics and politics in this chapter but I agree with it all. Chapter 9 discusses the Brazilian experience, in which Brazil has freed itself from dependence on OPEC oil. An issue of Time magazine from this spring has a feature story that misrepresents the Brazilian experience so it would be good for those interested to read this as an antidote to the lies of what Zubrin calls the "Malthusians," those who do not want us to solve the problem. They prefer a smaller population, no matter how that goal is achieved. Al Gore is the most prominent member of this group.

Chapter 10 is almost the best part of the book as he describes the true role of CO2 and global warming. He shows the present levels of CO2 are actually rather low when compared to previous epochs, such as the Holocene Maximum, a warm period when humans emerged from Africa and spread across the globe. He does warn that CO2 will become a problem as other societies move to an economic model similar to ours. As they prosper, their CO2 production will rise and that does constitute a risk for the planet. That risk will be reduced and eliminated by the suggestions made in the book.

Chapter 11 goes on to discus other forms of energy, especially the promise of nuclear fusion which, once harnessed, will ensure the future of the human race for millions of years. This is his field and he knows it thoroughly.

Chapter 12 is a well-done discussion of the role of the petroleum engine in the history of the 20th century, from the "Miracle of the Marne" in 1914, when a French division was rushed into battle in a thousand Parisian taxicabs, to the origins of World War II. Chapter 13 finishes up with a summary of the history of Islam and the plans of the Wahhabis to conquer the world and establish a new caliphate to replace the Ottoman Empire.

This is a serious book with a lot of information, some of it rather technical for someone who never studied chemistry. His opinions on political issues are strong and, at times, a bit intemperate. The fusion program has been mishandled. The ethanol lobby has distorted the market, for example maintaining tariffs on Brazilian ethanol that would otherwise lower the price for American drivers.

He is absolutely right on the big issues. We need to get off our addiction to middle eastern oil. He does not get into the production of oil in our own territory and I want to know more about that. I have ordered another book to do so. Bacterial engineering to produce oil and other carbon compounds, as Craig Venter and others plan to do, is not covered. This is a big field and there is a lot of misinformation. This book is a big help and should be read by anyone seeking information on alternatives. I'm not sure methanol is the only answer but it is a big piece of it and this is the place to learn about it.

I was recently sent a preview copy of an upcoming publication, "Energy Victory," written by Robert Zubrin. The book attempts to layout a plan for America to break free of its oil addiction ­ a path that, he claims, current US Policy will never achieve. Although the book's main focus is on energy solutions, Zubrin does spend a significant amount on time on the genealogy of terror, America's tumultuous relationship with OPEC and debunking myths.

Having not paid much attention to the history of terrorism (although I would argue that Americans, should spend more time learning about this), I found this section interesting. It brings to light a little more urgency for Americans to find solutions to replace oil that is purchased from the volatile Middle East - an area that is obviously not friendly to Americans.

So what are the solutions, sensei? Renewable fuels such as ethanol and methanol. Before you start arguing that ethanol is not a solution because it has less energy, this is not true. Ethanol has a positive net energy. Updated in 2004, the most definitive analysis (by USDA) concludes that for every 100 BTUs used to grow corn and process it into ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In other words, ethanol generates 67 percent more energy than it takes to produce. Zubrin explains that the misinformation has been fueled by ethanol detractor David Pimentel, in conjunction with Tad Patzek, whose research is so out of date and scientifically unsound that his own university, Cornell University, discredits the research.

As ethanol is gaining traction, with the support of the Big Three, especially GM in bringing Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) to market, and more than 50 percent of American's fuel being blended with some percentage of ethanol, and more than 1300 E85 stations across the U.S., Zubrin says that many people are not happy with the developments. "Not everyone is happy with this development, of course, and the reasons are plain to see. The 4.9 billion gallons of US ethanol produced in 2006 took ten billion dollars away from the oil cartel. Thus it is hardly surprising to find the ethanol program regularly denounced by journalistic hired guns and other business analysts associated with oil industry funded think tanks, as well as by ideological libertarians whose sensibilities it offends." Ha, take that!

Zubrin continues in his book to layout long­term plan for reducing America's energy dependence on foreign oil using an "alcohol economy," and spends some time ruminating about how the world can help defeat global warming while simultaneously reducing fossil fuel use. Interestingly enough, he supports raising all countries' Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which may come at the short-term expense of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but over time, as fossil fuels are phased out, greenhouse gas emissions would decrease.

This is not a lighthearted reading for those who want the top line view of an issue. This is a very technical book (scientific terms, chemical equations, etc.) that delves fairly deep into each topic he covers but there are moments of humor that keep the book moving. Ultimately, I liken Energy Victory to the famous 1776 book, Common Sense, by Thomas Paine. Paine authored the first book on freedom from British rule, and Zubrin has authored the book on freedom from foreign oil.

For more reviews like this go to [...]

Brilliant ideas for solving the recurring energy crises once and for all! Must-read for every American, especially politicians. Thank you Mr. Zubrin!

Great historical information on the middle east. Lines out the strategy to become energy independent in short order. Fabulous book.

Gas is $3.80. OPEC continues to bleed us. The Saudi's continue to export radical Islam financed by our oil dollars. Environmentalist continue to obstruct. To counter these factors Zubrin lays out a solid, cogent plan utilizing METHANOL not corn based ETHANOL. This plan uses existing technology not pie in the sky maybe here in 10 years hopes and dreams.

I heard about Paul Hawken few weeks ago and I decided to buy his book. I just feel that I learnt so much, the information is clear, the writing is great. Loved the image of the immune system as a comparison of the reaction of people who fight for Human Rights, Environment, Culture, Language, etc. I just want to read more now about these subjects. (sorry for the mistakes)

I am giving this book to many friends who care about social justice and the critical issues facing the environment. Paul Hawken has made a clear case for citizen activism that combines a commitment to both, noting that planet Earth is an endangered species, particularly from global warming but also from the exploitation of its resources. His history of the environmental movement and the appendix, which lists a myriad of groups doing important environmental justice work, makes this a very important book.

A book anybody who cares about living creatures and our universe should read. It shows how an amazing number of people in both small and large groups are getting together to try and make a difference. Inspiring and filled with hope which in these often dark days is uplifting. As good and important a book as will ever be written.

It almost always happens, when I speak in telephone conferences with university classes or with larger groups, that someone will ask if I have hope for the future and, if so, why. My answer has always been an intuitive one, the intuition being that in the last fifteen years or so awareness of the perils we face in the immediate future has expanded explosively-and that this in itself provides authentic hope for the future.

In Blessed Unrest Paul Hawken, with his extraordinary passion for information, has transformed my mere intuition into a reality. Acting on the same "hunch" as mine, he "began to count. . . . I initially estimated a total of 30,000 environmental organizations around the globe; when I added social justice and indigenous peoples' rights organizations, the number exceeded 100,000. . . . I now believe there are over one-and maybe even two-million organizations working toward ecological sustainability and social justice."

He concludes this encyclopedic work with these heartening words: "There is no question that the environmental movement is critical to our survival. Our house is literally burning, and it is only logical that environmentalists expect the social justice movement to get on the environmental bus. But it is the other way around: the only way we are going to put out the fire is to get on the social justice bus and heal our wounds, because in the end, there is only one bus. Armed with that growing realization, we can address all that is harmful externally. What will guide us is a living intelligence that creates miracles every second, carried forth by a movement with no name."

A few years ago, activist author Paul Hawken set out to create a database of every non-profit in the world categorized into a taxonomy, which is now on the web in a sort of Wikipedia community format at wiserearth (dot) org - This had never really been done before and he was surprised by the sheer number of organizations working independently to make the world a better place. He found a common thread that all were concerned about the environment and human justice. From this he concluded that there is a global "movement" (a word with many qualifiers) the likes of which have never been seen. He compares it to the "Industrial Revolution" - at the time everyone knew something different was happening, but no one had a name for it or even described it as a unique event, it was both everywhere and unrecognized. Likewise, according to Hawken, this global movement is from the ground up, with no core ideology or leadership, it's an historical mass movement that has snuck up on us and only now being recognized as a major shift.

I think Hawken's message is a powerful one and will appeal to the millions of people working in small groups in isolation against large and powerful forces. Hawken does in fact describe a new trend that has been observed by others: the recent rise, proliferation and influence of NGOs. Hawken contends top-down organizations led by ideologies are old school 20th century, the future is distributed small organic holistic, sort of like how Wikipedia is made, millions of individuals (small and large NGOs) contributing expertise on a local basis that has the net effect of global human and environmental justice.

I had some problems with the book, it is clearly a one-sided manifesto and much of it is historical anecdote of well known incidents (the Bolivian water wars, the India coke pesticide case, etc..) and presents a single side. These issues are extremely complex, it is rarely so easy to say there are good and bad guys, it is harmful IMO to present these controversial issues so one-sided and hold them up as poster children for reform. Why not look at the real undisputed success stories that everyone can get behind? He does in some cases such as Rachel Carson's fight against DDT. Overall I was touched by Hawken's passion,
vision and (ironically) his idealism.

My father, a well-intentioned school teacher who never met any situation that couldn't be turned into an object lesson, gave me this book to read when I was 14. There was no preamble, just, "Here." To this day I remember several passages in horrific detail, so I can safely say that the writing was clear, effective, and moving.

I somehow doubt my Dad thought I was going to become a child abuser someday, but this book certainly fixed in my mind the horror that a child can endure at the hands of adults and I believe in my heart that I would never do anything like this to a child. I don't know if it could have that effect on everyone, but perhaps it should be assigned reading--it certainly couldn't hurt to try.

I'm in the Navy. I'm 32 years old with a 3-year-old girl. I think I read this book about a year ago and it touches me every day. I think about it all the time. I picture Ursula, I pray for her, I pray to God she's with him. I look at my little girl with her long, blond locks and think that in around two years she will be Ursula's age. It breaks my heart to know she is learning the alphabet as Ursula did. It causes me to cringe deep down to imagine such an innocent, lovely creature such as a small child would endure torture at the hands of those she was supposed to be loved by and who should have cared for her. The truth is that I finished it in spurts, crying and yelling at the bathroom ceiling when my husband was at work and my daughter at preschool, the only time I could find to devote to little Ursula's story. I see her picture in my mind's eye. I have a BS in Business Admin, and not in Social Work, but I hope to retire from the military someday and find my place in the world helping children instead of residing in the business world, as I had previously planned. I owe it to Ursula, and I owe it to my little girl so I can help her see that people should care for each other and try to make a difference.

How can you read this book and NOT feel compelled to help a child who is suffering...? Children can't protect themselves. Even as strict as our laws are, we need them to address, above all, crimes against children as the most heinous of our society. Protection of all children should be our #1 priority. It's the only way to make our future bright.

I read this book and it took me about a week!! Why??? Because everytime I started to read it the tears just started flowing! It is unthinkable what this poor child went through. I cannot even imagine what the mother was thinking or should I say "monster" because she is by NO means a mother! I can just feel for this little girl, she was so wanting to please her monster to no avail. Right up to the end thats all she wanted to do. HOW can people do THIS??? There is barely a day when I don't think about Ursula and wish SOMEONE had done SOMETHING to stop this! To me it's ridiculous how people can just ignore it or not see it. This world just gets worse day by day. For you URSULA I say the world is cruel. I love you!

I grew up and still live in Central Florida and when this book came out, it was required reading in high school. I will never forget how the book made me feel. It's a very hard book to read and has many emotions all wrapped up into such a small package. I highly recommend this book. It's basically the authors recreating the last days of this little girls life.

This book is the true story of a woman who allowed a live in boyfriend to abuse her child - to death. It shows also how many people the child tried to reach out to (next door neighbors) and how many people witnessed her suffering (doctors, teachers) and did not do anything. It is a horrifying account of a man's desire to control a child's behavior through evil and dehumanizing tactics. Children need to be understood. It is wrong to expect behaviors from children beyond their years, comprehension, abilities. This little girl was a normal child with normal behaviors, and unfortunately her mom chose someone to be with that was unable and unwilling to cope with having a little girl around. It is tragic. Please read it.