Government Books

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!

This is an outstanding book that every American should read. The chapters discussing the economy and the constitution rang especially true to me. By the end of the book, I was basically mad at what all of our current "servants" in Washington D.C. have done to our country. Dr. Paul makes some recommendations on where to begin the change (at the end of the book). I'm just not sure we can get enough people interested in making real, possibly painful, change.

Like that guy in the Matrix who wanted to get plugged back in, I sometimes wonder why I took the red pill. Now that I have read this book, I feel like I have been unplugged from the Matrix, and I see things clearly for the first time.

The book itself was a winner - a gift for my husband. He "devoured" it. The only disappointment was how cheaply and poorly-bound the paperback was. Even with extreme care, it fell apart within the first 70 pages. The replacement nearly made it to the end, but not quite. Buy and read this book, but go for a better-bound version unless you like handling it in pieces.

Author David McCullough gives us an in-depth look into the life of President Truman. He shows how he evolved from a simple farmer to become the President of the United States. McCullough pulls no punches in his biography, and yet, Mr. Truman comes through as a simple man who rose to the challenge of becoming a true statesman and world leader. A Very compelling read.

This is one of those rare biographies which pulls you in from the beginning and never lets go. It is an excellent look at one of the truly under-appreciated presidents. Truman was an amazing man and an incredible public servant. The sense of history that this biography brings makes it a must-read for anyone interested in American history and/or American politics.

An absolutely fantastic biography. McCullough not only gives us an incredibly in-depth account of Truman's role in such momentous events as the decision to drop the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Potsdam Conference (Truman's only face-to-face meeting with Stalin or Uncle Joe as he called him), the Truman Doctrine, The Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War, the firing of General MacArthur and so on, but he also succeeds wonderfully in injecting joviality into this rather thick tome through his unsurpassed ability to recount the human side of Truman, the quirkiness, the common trials and errors of a human being and the like.

I am not an American, but I always tell my friends that if I were Truman would be my favorite president. This book only serves to reinforce my view. Overall, one of the best biographies I've read. If I ever became famous one day, I'd really love someone of McCullough's caliber to write my biography. Highly recommended.

I have read most of McCullough's books, and so I knew that after reading this I would understand Harry S. Truman more deeply than I ever had. What I didn't know what was that I would learn so much about 20th century American history. McCullough is a great story-teller. His use of historical details to recreate the man and the times is magnificent. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

I was delighted by the reading of such a good novel packed with a lot of suspense and actions.
Bob Lee Swagger (also called Bob the Nailer) was a top sniper in the Vietnam war. Stephen Hunter inspired by the biography of Carlos Hathcock depicts a brave man, alone, who looks like Rambo (from "First Blood" by David Morrell). In every book of the saga, we learn to respect Bob Lee Swagger. "Point of Impact" was made into a very good film titled "Shooter". Here the hero comes from Iraq and not Vietnam.
Have a nice time.

Shooter Movie Versus Point of Impact Book:
The Bob Lee Swagger story lines in the book and the movie are different in character building, action, and political satire. Very understandable, screen productions can rarely replicate a book.

Although I hesitate to "spill the beans" on the movie or the book, but the movie is so entertaining that I watch it over and over and the Point of Impact book is one of the few books worth reading over and over again (sorry Clancy, Koontz, Coontz, and Ludman).

Shooter Movie:
The movie from director Antoine Fuqua takes the world after 9/11 (El Salvador is not of much interest, but oil is) and he pumps oceans of well oiled political satire, which is at its very best: "there are only have and have-nots (Iraq ref)", "I didn't much like the President before him", "I still have the shovel (JFK ref)," "its just human weakness, and you can't kill that with a gun," "Exactly!...Bang!"

Although the Shooter movie character building could have used another half-hour or more, the character-action building of the movie (if there is such a thing) was superb. Anyway, more time on character building would have put the brakes on the movie. It was one lightning action sequence after another that not even a Die Hard or a Tom Clancy movie could match or even top (and I loved the Hunt for Red October, the Sum of All Fears, Bourne Trilogy, and so on).

The movie plot deviations from the book were very well thought out and made the movie rip and roar through one satisfying scene after another. The long distance shot at the Presidential podium was superior to the book and did a very credible job of integrating Nick Memphis's role and his timely flow throughout the movie.

Antoine Fuqua exploits what I define as the Al Qaeda mind-set (AQMS), which is the same brain dysfunction that people everywhere are wired into, but just use different means that cause different results: the church killing Islamic people and women centuries ago, and raping boys in this century, web video murders/suicide bombers of today's Islamic Terrorists, the previous decades of killing by the KKK, Hitler's killing of more than 6 million Jews...the never ending human carnage, no matter what millennium, from the beginning of testosterone beings or until the end of testosterone beings...I doubt that Homo Sapiens will ever change.

AQMS applies to political character assassinations in DC, where multi-millions (billions this year) are spent by political candidates attempting to destroy the reputation of all other candidates, Congressmen writing bad checks not so long ago, paying for sex, and sucking soft money at the expense of all American citizens.

AQMS applies to Enron and many others, to Mortgage banks and their infamous ARMS (the Fed is now rewarding them at our expense, with proper spin), and the Medical establishment in the movie "Sicko" by Michael Moore. It is one-sided negative-news from the media, harping on one murder after another. It is the negative consumption syndrome of the general common-denominator population that tunes in for all the sick TV shows (most of them), puts up with depraved commercials (especially those commercials that depict greed, drugs, new car decadence, and people being hurt)...almost nothing positive in the news, ever. Most AQMS folks probably never heard of and never tuned to the commercial-free Arts channel (there is some hope for Homo Sapiens even though we may yet kill the planet Earth).

Even if everyone on the Earth knew about the overwhelming genetic evidence (The Journey of Man, by Spencer Wells) that makes every person on the Earth (without exception) a child of the Bushmen of Africa, the world today would probably be the same and nothing would change. Denial is incurable, unbeatable, and an unstoppable plague on our planet.

Denial is about "No input, Stephanie...Number 5 is alive" and making it all up as he/she goes, "Short Circuit" or not: from ridiculous royalty delusions of Kings/Queens, back to Hitler's despicable Arian race, to Religions that murder people, and on and on.

Denial at the individual level is just smoke and mirrors, devoid of reality, and founded upon "What's in it for me," but more precisely "It's mine all mine!" Denial is the mother of all that is wrong with the human race.

Compared to the book, I found Antoine Fuqua's version more satisfying. Swagger being pulled down the river by a barge was a lot more believable than the book's Swagger holding onto a log for 18 hours, with two bullet wounds. It is a more believable for the sniper action on the Glacier and in its ending when Bob Lee Swagger (not his lawyer) demonstrated why the gun would not shoot. The icing on the cake was when Swagger fired his last shot into the most corrupt and well deserving Senator's head. What followed was even more explosive.

Point of Impact Book:

Stephen Hunter illuminates the world before 9/11 (El Salvador was of interest, it just after the first Gulf war) where he guns genocide and greed into political satire, which is very good but not as satisfying as the movie's one-liners which underscore greed, corruption, and other negative attributes of us Homo spaiens (means wise men, yeah, right)!

There is not much I can say about the book that can top several hundred other reviewers. However, I wished that the book had been twice as long. It was a terrific read. Hunter "the psychology nailer" knows political infighting of Government agencies.

Hunter's character building of Bob Lee Swagger was superb, starting with cutting off Tim's antlers the day before deer season to letting Dr. Dobbler cop out at the end.

For me, the book was a physiological thriller that was absolutely on target. Stephen Hunter's grasp on how the mind works was well orchestrated by the evil psychiatrist, Dr. Dobbler. Hunter's technical prose on weapons was no less impressive than Clancy at his best (I read most of Clancy's books). Hunter's prose matched the five senses Dean Koontz can conjure up, including the sixth sense (I read most of Koontz's books).

However, the book's version about Swagger's woman being an actual nurse and not a third grade teacher (where is a teacher going to get antibiotics or surgical skills for deep wounds?) made significantly more sense. The movie left out the need for antibiotics, the book was right on target for gangrene candidate wounds.

The book's version about Swagger's hilltop battle was good, but not as totally satisfying as the Movie's shootout with 24 child killers that got their just dues from Swagger and Nick. The book did not have a nasty nemesis inside the VA cabin commit suicide, a child and woman killer that deserved to die. This shooter's suicide stayed within his evil character, denying Swagger the satisfaction of killing him. And even rubbing it in with "They've got your woman...Bang!"

The movie changed Colonel Shreck's name to Colonel Isaac Johnson. The title of the movie "Shrek" kept popping up in my mind every time I read the Colonel's name in the book. I was glad that the movie changed it to Johnson.

Unlike the movie (probably no sequel is planned), the Bob Lee Swagger books are a trilogy. Thank you, Stephen Hunter, I've got two more Swagger books to savor, "Time to Hunt" and "Black Light!" And after I'm done with these, there are books about Bob Lee Swaggar's father, plus other great books by Stephen Hunter.

Arguably the best book I've read in 2007. The movie follows the main story line, although a decade or two behind. The movie was great, the book was better. It was full of action/suspense from cover to cover. I was impressed with Hunter's writing and will definitely get the second book.

This is a great book that kept me up all night, several nights. Hated to see it end, but fortunately, I had Time to Hunt.

I would usually give a longer review but I see the 100 plus on here and all are good. Same would come from me. If you want a great thriller and well written book this is it. If you haven't read a Stephen Hunter book this would be the one if any to read. I just started on his other books and am enjoying all of them. So if you have $8 laying around and want a good few hours of entertainment this is the way to go.

Robert Caro's The Power Broker, a biography of Robert Moses, contains every attribute of a Shakespearean tragedy. Moses was brilliant, driven, an over-achiever, but possessed a deeply flawed character which aroused feelings of both esteem and disgust. Like all of Shakespeare's tragic protagonists, he was capable of both good and evil. Fully able to redeem himself, he instead moved unheedingly towards his doom. That 30+ years of unquestionable power within New York State's political, corporate, and labor elite forestalled this doom speaks to the measure of the man. Indeed, it took a Rockefeller to push him from the mountaintop.

One of the best biographies I've ever read, The Power Broker's 1,163 pages artfully and suspensefully tell the tale of a man for whom the words great and ignominious qualify as adjectives. Initially an ardent reformer, Moses was increasingly corrupted by power. At the apex of this power, Moses answered to no one and ran a wide reaching web of political commissions and public authorities as his personal empire.

His transition from reformer to elitist provides the backbone of Caro's epic. Once a voice for the common man, Moses eventually attained what can only be described as aristocratic contempt for the mob, the rabble, the lower echelon of economic achievement. The reader may marvel that such a powerful man was heretofore unknown to them, but the reader will certainly grow increasingly disenchanted at such a man's venality.

The Power Broker is a classic deserving the attention of every student of history. Despite it's heft, it remains a page turning pleasure throughout. As such, it most assuredly merits the highest ranking I can give it: 5+ stars. Trite though the term may be, Robert Caro has authored a masterpiece.

This book, written by Robert Caro - probably the best living biographer, was his first book. It is a massive, thorough, detailed, engaging study of how one man - Robert Moses - planned, shaped and built - the modern city of New York.

It is about the acquisition of power and its utilization by one man in order to bring his vision of New York City to fruition.

Robert Moses - the primary subject of the book - together with the notion of power, and New York City itself as well as its residents being the other subjects - was trained in urban planning England, was a visionary, a planner, and a "Power Broker" - and thus the title, whose materials where New York City, planned, designed, built modern New York by stamping his vision in the form of new parks, spaces, roads and parkways, new neighborhoods, new subways/rail-lines, new beach and recreational facilities and areas, had an impact on the way millions of New Yorkers as well as visitors to NYC experienced NYC - experienced NYC - for decades. His shape of NYC is still shaping how humans experience reality in such city.

This is a tour de force. This is a good book for those interested in New York City, local and state government politics, the modern bureaucratic / administrative aparatus of government and those who wield the helm. Whether you agree with Robert Moses vision of NYC or not, he had a tremendous impact. The impact was not limited to NYC. Seen as the expert on urban planning, his model, his vision, his views, spread throughout the entire field of modern urban planning. Thus, his impact is not just local or state. It is in fact national and international. Modern cities - the leadership of which visited or modeled their cities on NYC - where shaped by his creations.

A long book. A detailed book. A hard book. But excellent, very interesting, and well worth the effort and time. Probably the prime example of what an excellent biography is and should be. It made Robert Caro, its author, into the preeminent biographer of the last several decades. It set the standard. I don't know if it has or will ever be matched.

I have been waiting to read this book for a very long time, and the wait was well worth it. Mr. Caro presents a massive, well-researched piece on one of New York's most influential (and controversial) public officials. I am a sucker for great detail, and so I enjoyed Caro's painstakingly detailed portrait of how a young, idealistic reformer evolved into the ruler of a huge bureaucratic empire. What Caro makes very clear is how Robert Moses became so corrupted by power (and self-importance) that he failed to grasp how his projects were not always in the public interest. Moreover, Caro paints a vivid picture of Moses' cynicism and shrewdness, and how he parlayed those into greater and greater power. For instance, Moses realized that most state legislators were political hacks who never bothered to read the fine print of the laws that they passed. He played on this to insert such fine print into legislation which made him virtual Tsar of development in both New York State and New York City. In addition, Moses was able to convince most New York politicians that he was indispensable to them, and so had them virtually eating out of his hand (i.e., his tactic of threatening to resign, unless he got 100% of what he wanted). At once fascinating and frightening as to how one man could harness such a degree of power!

While Robert Moses' achievements are the main focus of this book, Mr. Caro also devotes a great deal of attention to the political situation that existed in New York during the era of Moses. In doing this, he gives readers a fine education on how New York and its municipalities were governed at that time (and in many ways, are still governed), along with an in-depth look at other contemporary political figures (i.e., Al Smith and Fiorello LaGuardia). I would equate reading this book with taking a college-level course, as you learn and think so much while reading it.

On a critical note, not all of Mr. Caro's conclusions about Robert Moses are universally accepted. For instance, Mr. Caro accuses Moses of single-handedly wrecking the Bronx with the Cross Bronx Expressway. However, many people have argued that this was only one of many factors that destroyed the Bronx, and not all of these things were brought by Moses. Perhaps Mr. Caro should have given space to opposing viewpoints regarding the Moses legacy. Overall, though, I think that it is a great book: required reading for anyone interested in the development of New York during the 20th century.

After 40 years of writing biographies, Robert A. Caro deserves an all time winning award in history. In 1974 he wrote the biography of Robert Moses, Big Bob the Builder in New York. It is an incredible biography. By focusing on one person, Caro succeeds in revealing the peculiarities of this particular epoch in New York. It is a detailed account of how power works in New York between 1934 and 1968. The book is about personalities, Robert Moses of course, but also about the Rockefellers, Al Smith (the governor of New York), La Guardia (mayor of NY). And the book is about building. Every student in building ought to read this book. Robert Moses was a genius in obtaining power, preserving it and ruthlessly exercising it. The resuls are dazzling. Nowadays New York shows a multitude of Moses battlefields. The high ways, the parks in and outside New York, the playgrounds, the tall apartment houses. Robert Moses, Big Bob the Builder once was a celebrity in New York,. His fall after so many years of exercising of power could be no surprise,. His legacy is in doubt. Did he neglect the possibilities of mass transport and were his investments exclusively focused on cars? Did he have solid preferences for the middle class and did he try by all means to neglect the needs of the lower class? Every builder, urban planner, politician, municipal employee, developer, student of history shoud read this book. It is a big big six star
luuk oost

[...]

Robert Caro's biography reads like an extraordinary work of investigative journalism - damning, erudite and compelling - that surely would have been appreciated by Robert Moses had he not been the subject.

It is a fascinating study of the evolution of government in New York City and Robert Moses' ability to shape laws as the "best bill drafter in Albany" and to seize upon prevailing trends and work the levers of the City, State and Federal governments to his advantage. It is during the Great Depression when Moses is able to mobilize maximum resources, largely from the Federal government, for some of his most ambitious projects.

While at most times a scathing indictment of Moses and his methods, Caro does credit Moses - New York City's first Parks Commissioner - for his contributions to green spaces in the city and his creation of a premier state park system.

Caro insists that judgment about Moses' legacy is premature and that one can only say New York would be a very different place without Moses. New York was indeed a very different place at the time of publication of the Power Broker; Caro has recently commented that some of Moses projects, such as the Triborough Bridge, have been a boon for city residents. Although he never cared for mass transit, it's a shame Moses couldn't come back to start work on the stalled new Penn Station.

nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.

I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.

Far and away one of the best biographies I have ever read. Massie masterfully gives life to the doomed, tragic last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. I was absolutely rivetted from page one by this outstanding work. The book gives a sympathetic portrait of Tsar Nicholas, his wife Empress Alexandra, and their ongoing struggle to cope with their haemophiliac son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne. Alexei's illness indirectly leads to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the family's murder. An astonishingly good read, and one I highly recommend to all who are interested in this era of history.

Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a biographical study centered on the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia. Massie's portrayal of the last ruling Romanavs is like many other works on the subject in that it is poignant, dramatic, and vibrant; but never dull. However, Massie's work stands out above other works on the subject for its thorough account of the lives of the imperial couple and most of all, its sympathetic portrayal of them.

Nearly all works of the period agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not the blood-drenched despot the Bolshevik revolutionaries claimed him to be, and although he may not have been as benevolent as his contemporary Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, he at least lacked the bellicose nature of his German counterpart (and early advisor), Wilhelm II. Massie's account demonstrates how Nicholas II was ill-prepared to ascend the throne in after Alexander III, but unlike the contention of other historians, Massie makes a reasonable case in defending the intelligence of the fallen autocrat.

Massie's account of Nicholas and Alexandra does not absolve the couple from their failure to prevent the collapse of the reign and ultimately their country, but it does partially excuse their inflexibility and fatalism on the serious of misfortunes that continued to plague Nicholas from the very day of his coronation; when hundred of Russian peasants were stampeded to death in a overzealous crowd on Khodynka Meadow. Yet, no Romanov apologist can ignore the detrimental influences on Nicholas's reign, including his wife Alexandra, a German Kaiser, and especially a corrupt starets. That such an array of persons from various strata of society could at times impose their will on a man raised to be an autocrat was a tarnish on Nicholas' character.

Despite his habit of being easily swayed at times, Nicholas is not one-dimensional in Massie's account. It is noted how Nicholas ignored the advice of able ministers and most of all; remained unyielding to grant the masses of his subjects the representation and constitution they desired--until it was too late. Even Massie can be counted among the historians who muse whether the Romanov dynasty might have survived had the Tsar been more accommadating to the popular demands of his people--or if war had not erupted in the manner it did in 1914.

Although Massie's work is very thorough, it only briefly touches the clandestine operations of the Tsarist police state in rooting out revolutionaries and assassins from its masses prior to 1917. Indeed, other works (e.g. Edmond Taylor's "The Fall of the Dynasties") are careful to point out that Tsarist police included a host of known double agents whose loyalties were perpetually in doubt. While Massie makes note of that insecurity in his account of Prime Minister Peter Stolypin's assassination in 1911 by a Tsarist agent, he fails to explain how widespread the problem actually was. Indeed, Taylor describes as monarchy's slide to collapse as a "suicide", not because they were unable to stop that slide, but rather because they were unwilling.

Just as it is difficult to excuse the corrupt system of Tsarist counter-revolutionary activity, historians are also unable to justify the Russia's policy in WWI of placing the needs of France above that of her own. The disaster at Tannenburg early in the war is described in detail by Massie, and is correctly portrayed as a premature offensive launched by Russia (with the support of Nicholas) to rescue its beleagured ally from the German onslaught through northern France. Indeed, even after his abdication and arrest, Massie notes how Nicholas pleaded with Kerensky to continue to support the Russia's allies in the war effort--a mission with which the Provisional Government leader would complete in the summer of 1917 with disastrous consequences. Although Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not outright label the monarchy as a principle agent of its own destruction, his book nevertheless provides a strong case to the conclusion that the last rulers (and their ministers) of the Romanov dynasty practiced an inexplicable policy of self-immolation.

It is perhaps this mystery--or lunacy--of the Romanovs that continues to fascinate so many readers 90 years after their unglorious deaths in their Siberian imprisonment. Undoubtedly, the story of the last Romanovs will continue to perplex students of history for decades to come, and Robert Massie's work will will remain the foremost account of the twilight of Imperial Russia.

Massie has written a masterpiece.
Graceful, informative ,never boring.
One of the best introductions into the insanity
of the Red Revolution and the rise of communism.

"The Law" could be printed in today's editorial page, and most would believe that Frederick Bastiat was speaking to today's events. But this little classic shows that the plagues of statism, class interest, and majority tyranny were just as timeless in 1850 as they are today.

Mr. Bastiat establishes that all rights are individual rights. A group, consisting only of individuals, has none inherently. Proper law, derived from individual rights and made effective by force, steps in for the individual when others overwhelm him and attack his rights. Had society simply stuck with this, its issues would be empty.

"But the law is made, generally, by one man, or by one class of men. And as law cannot exist without the sanction and the support of a preponderating force, it must finally place this force in the hands of those who legislate.

"This inevitable phenomenon, combined with the fatal tendency which, we have said, exists in the heart of man, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. It is easy to conceive that, instead of being a check upon injustice, it becomes its most invincible instrument."

And in come the activists, the planners, the egotistical, the greedy, and the law is turned on the individual and perverted into a tool for group power; division, group conflict, abuse, resentment, and law-worship result. Society's issues are legitimized only when the law is treated like this. And so Mr. Bastiat challenges the planners' blueprints for law as organized charity, organized welfare, organized commerce, etc., with his own definition: LAW IS ORGANIZED JUSTICE (capital letters are his).

Mr. Bastiat follows with his theory that statism is ubiquitous in Western history, even among the influences of the founding fathers. He offers many historic examples of ideas that man is passive, or must be made to be so. Robespierre was the worst: "The principle of Republican Government is virtue, and the means to be adopted during its establishment, is terror." You'll be surprised by the totalitarian talk of many figures we celebrate: we'd find it revolting if it were about foreign invaders. Yet it's about their own people.

Mr. Bastiat presents a solid challenge to democratists, universal suffrage, republicanism, any tentacle attached to state government. Socialism is merely the overt version of this problem.

Proper law is only about the individual. It isn't about creating anything. It isn't activist. It is reactive. Justice steps in for one's protection, not for one's profit.

Read this classic and be a little more free.

The author is able to eloquently define Law as well as the role of law and law-makers in any society. Although written for another country and another time, the content is just as applicable to this country today. This is a testiment to the fundamental truths expoused.

This is a formative, classic work. If you are into politics, do yourself a favor and read it ASAP. This is really a light-weight primer to libertarianism, and yet it is very powerful and heavy-duty at the same time. If more people would read (and adopt) these ideas, I think our political environment would slowly move in the right direction!

I think that other reviews have done a fine job of praising the importance and genius of Bastiat's work. And I thoroughly enjoyed his reasoning and clarity as well. But I was pretty disappointed by the quality of this edition. The book has misplaced punctuation and typos in it -- the kind that would be caught by a simple spell checker. Maybe I'm picky, but I find such errors to be rather distracting when reading. When I buy a book, I expect that someone has carefully proofread it, but somehow that seems to have been overlooked here.

So, 5+ stars for Bastiat, and a generous 2 stars for the publisher.

In 1850 a French guy wrote this little essay on the Law. It could have been written today in the US, in Europe, because we are certainly not progressing in terms of common-sense, politically. Here are some ideas:

-Justice is the absence of injustice. Nothing more than that.

-What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than Him. The fact that this rule is almost universally broken says much about our level of hubris.

For Bastiat Law is a minus, it takes away. His subject is so relevant today that we can see the results of the States' false philanthropy, just as Orwell warned us in his Animal Farm. Western governments certainly know how to belittle us... we couldn't do without them. In Spain we have this government commercial encouraging drivers to drive well: "We can't drive for you!" They wished. The only idea that they think about it tells how far they've got under our skin.

This book is dynamite. Makes one see the world today in a clear and detached way. Who are the philanthropists that we "owe so much devotion to"? Take Gore's greedy schemes with his mineral mines behind his climactic facade. Take another homeless, Soros, the preacher of the Left, whose God is money.

To be a Pharisee is indeed to love the Law while hating man, to use the Law to make Injustice legal, to pervert Justice, to become a new god to modern State worshippers, wellfare addicts. Yes, Bastiat would sure be ashamed to see what the West has become: the legalized plunder by the State.

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.

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.

Tommy Tomorrow is a genious! His comics do an amazing job of summarizing just what's wrong in politics, while making the situations incredibly humorous at the same time. Very highly recommended.

Ruled by incompetent right-wingers for the last 8 years, liberals like me need an injection of humor. Here we get it, with sharp sarcasm from Sparky the Penguin. Funniest part is when Sparky, the leftist Bush critic, get hits by a toilet and becomes a Republican for about 50 pages. I highly recommend this book to anyone depressed by the current state of America and needing a good laugh. Thank you, Tom Tomorrow!

Tom Tomorrow has done a fantastic job of putting humor into a political situation that one would think impossible to find humor in. "Hell in a Handbasket" is a further example of Mr. Tomorrow's ability to mix biting political satire with the funny bone. He can cut through much of the non-sense that is allowed to float around out there and make that hypocrisy painfully evident. God, I hope he gets some joy out of his own writing and cartooning, because I would very much hate for him to disappear from the shelves. Buy this book if you are leftie, just to keep the insanity away. Buy this book if you are a winger, just to cure yourself of the insanity.

This book is a must read for all the Limbaugh-listening, neocon, Bush-backers out there! Every page is filled with poignant scenes of the Bush administration. The real humor lies in the irony involved--the jokes are so "tragically true" that they make you snicker, rather than laugh. My fellow Bush-BASHERS will agree...the book is a capsulized summary of the darkest period in American politics. Hope you learned your lesson--next time, vote for Democrats!

Kudos to Tom Tomorrow for a very funny chronicle of Life During Bush. I've never been a fan of his penguin character, but the hilarious drawings of the 1950s types that reflexively support Bush and the monsterous GOP agenda is worth the price of purchase.

Whenever events and outrageous revelations of torture, incompetence, cronyism, lies, illegalities and arrogance surface about the Bush administration (seems like it's two or three times a week lately), I often browse though Tom Tomorrow to soothe the outrage with some laughter. Sometimes it's all you can do.