Liberty and Tyranny
A Conservative Manifesto
Mark R. Levin - ISBN - 9781416562856

Men in Black
How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
Mark R. Levin - ISBN - 9780895260505

This is quite a pair of books. I recommend both as informative and scholarly, yet readable. He intentionally expounds upon classic liberalism; liberalism in the mould of Adam Smith, whom our founders consulted as they wrote the constitution.

Modern "Progressives" appropriated the appellation "Liberal" in the early 20th century, having exposed progressivism for the disaster it actually was. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson soured the American public on the concept. Liberals represented themselves as being those who "liberated," as opposed to "conservatives" who, by default, were represented as those opposed to change. Neither, of course, was accurate, but we've been stuck with the names ever since. Hence our founding liberals would now be conservatives, and progressive-socialists are now liberals, who are again calling themselves progressives in the hope that Americans are short-sighted enough, and sufficiently ignorant of the facts to miss the parallels. Fortunately--for those paying attention--Obama is exposing progressivism/liberalism/socialism for what it has always been. The attempted name change is too contemporary to avoid recognition that they are interchangeable terms, and unattractive as a concept of governance, having been demonstrated to fail on numerous prior occasions.

Levin is a brilliant. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude from Temple University, and subsequently graduated with honors from Temple's law school. As young man he worked in the Reagan administration where he quickly worked his way up to Chief of Staff to Attorney General, Edwin Meese. Thereafter he entered private practice, and, in addition is now president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm. He also has his own conservative talk show about politics and culture. While dogged and dedicated, he carefully builds his case against modern government as he pushes to return to the original designs of the constitutional republic which our founders created. He is one of the preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers in the U.S.

Men in Black is a treatise on the Supreme Court; how far it has pushed beyond original intent. He demonstrates that the court is no longer one of the co-equal branches of government; rather, it now legislates from the bench. He provides appropriate examples, developing what is considered one of the finest books on the Constitution and the judiciary in many years. It combines history, law and current events into a simple whole which any interested reader can understand.

Levin emphasizes the progressive assault on our constitutional process by a power-hungry judiciary. In each selected example he reviews the constitution and the events which have been undertaken by the "men in black" to intentionally alter the clear meaning of the document. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, represent the most potent threat to American freedom. They have reached the point where they actually dictate national policy. It is a compelling read.

Liberty and Tyranny, similarly, explores the results of historic--and particularly recent--governmental directions and their disservice to liberty. He reminds that the Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis wrote "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."

The Statist, he observes, seeks to impose on individuals a governmental and economic structure contrary to human nature, and attempts to control the individual by subverting his spirit and punishing his natural impulses. It never works, but those in power are trying again. The fact that the New Deal was a dismal failure seems not to be acceptable as fact to those in Washington.

He recalls that Edmund Burke famously asked "What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics." (Put the em-PHA-sis on the right syl-LA-ble, as it were.) This is always the problem with the Statist and his insistence upon positive rights as opposed to those negative rights provided for in our constitution. One cannot provide for the right to a good job without demanding that someone provide it; nor shelter, food or medicine without causing others to supply it, either directly or through taxes. All are contrary to the American ideas and ideals.

He works his way through education, energy, immigration, regulation (right down to CAFÉ standards), jurisdiction, foreign policy, and most every subject of moment, offering the existing situation as opposed to the original intent. Each topic is explored diligently, cogently and intelligently, and he totally debunks "global citizenship," the current goal of the Left is the idyllic European or the North American Union; agreement between friends. Won't work; can't work; is presently being shown not to work with the contraction of the European common currency, but he, amongst others predicted it. Imagine trying to get it to work, "globally" by including our friends in Iran, North Korea, China, etc.

If one goes beyond what "feels right," what "ought to be," and remains determined to consider what works, what does not . . . and why . . . it is difficult for me to comprehend how anyone reading these tracts could honestly disagree with Levin; unless, of course, one is a progressive with totally different ends in mind.

What the Left is doing to the country, assisted--or at least not opposed--by the Right, is frightening, dangerous, and amongst other things unconstitutional.

Read on. If you disagree I encourage you to justify the reasons you hold contrary opinions . . . at least to yourself, and HONESTLY!

Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists
Aaron Klein - ISBN - 9781935071877

This may sound like another rant by some nutty birther, convinced of some wild Russian conspiracy to take over America. It is not! It is written by a responsible, sober journalist in association with a "wicked smart" and effective blogger named Brenda Elliott.

The book is both fascinating and frightening, documenting that "Barack Obama is backed by and deeply tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that . . . was instrumental not only in mentoring Obama and helping him to build his political career, but essentially in overthrowing the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and in securing and powerfully influencing Obama's presidency." It isn't a work of opinion. Throughout it is documented and footnoted, confirming original source materials, and it plainly makes the case that the problem is the real reasons they do what they do: for power, pure and simple. And for all the problems with the Bush administration and evidences of corruption, the boys from Chicago could give anyone lessons in corruption. And cleverly hiding it from those who'd rather not find it (which does not include the authors of this tract.)

It is a critical indictment of Obama, his advisors and their quest to forever alter--ya know, fundamentally change--the American landscape, a goal they have pursued since the 60s. They plan to turn us into their version of what the Soviet Union was supposed to be, until it was taken over by . . . ah . . . well . . . er . . . people like them. Maybe the Russians were more vicious, but give it a while. Many of today's principals went underground for decades, shot cops, bombed public buildings, etc; a majority remains unrepentant, convinced of their wisdom and propriety. Obama's supporters are a Who's Who of radical (often rabid!), left-wing people and organizations, including but not limited to: Communists, communists, socialists, ACORN, the Tides Foundation, the Apollo Alliance, SEIU, MoveOn.org., Ayers, Dohrn, Stern, Soros, Ehrenreich, and Van Jones.

The authors document intimate contacts with Ayers (you remember, the guy from the neighborhood that Obama just happened to meet at a block party) as far back as 1988, and definitively rebut Barack's denials they'd worked closely together over decades. As well it has been confirmed, insofar as possible, that Ayers wrote Obama's memoir (that'd be the one which convinced the world that Barack was an eloquent and creative genius.) "Only in America could an America-hating terrorist [Ayers] conspire with an unskilled writer of uncertain origins [Obama] on an untruthful memoir and succeed in getting the man elected president. This plot is so absolutely rich, so thoroughly cinematic, that the literary gatekeepers refuse to believe it is true." (emphasis mine.)

A majority of leaders in today's non-profit world began in one of the Marxist sects of the 70s; many were trained in the methods of Saul Alinsky--mentor to and icon of left-wing radicals for decades, and the author of Rules for Radials. This is why the vast majority of foundations funded by prominent capitalists such as Rockefeller, Ford, etal. are now so left wing. These radicals have been quietly preparing, and waiting for decades for the emergence of a front man for their movement. Obama is that man. Surely you remember: "We are the people we've been waiting for." In 2008, L. David Alinsky, commented in a letter that "Obama learned his lesson well. . . . I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully." Indeed. Obama was so effective he became a favorite instructor in Alinskyite tactics for other up-and-coming radicals.

The first time Obama ran for office he did so within the (socialist) New Party, which party was founded by radical Noam Chomsky, Marxist Carl Davidson, black activist Cornel West, Frances Piven, the theoretician behind ACORN, Maoist Bill Fletcher, and radical feminist Barbara Ehrenreich. Great company, right? And, of course, he was fronted and supported by Ayers.

An article in the Socialist Review (Dec 2008) observed: "A lot of the people working with [Obama] are, indeed socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party, or as independent Marxists. . . . Obama is not a Marxist or a socialist--he is a progressive liberal." Makes me feel a lot better? How 'bout-chew?

Serial and long-term contacts with ACORN and SEIU are documented, as is the intent of that collaboration: to "take down capitalism." Project VOTE is touted as working "within the system" to register poor voters, but their true agenda is to "overwhelm, paralyze, and discredit the voting system through fraud, protests, propaganda and vexatious litigation."

There is considerable exploration aid exposure of Obama's numerous "Czars," along with their backgrounds and intended functions, not least to be able to "advise" (and act) without any scrutiny by Congress, and even less, it seems, by the press. The vast majority are extreme radicals, with most having involved themselves in Marxism and/or Socialism years ago; this while Barack and they deny in public that their agenda is socialist . . . they just want to make it right for all of us. Yep. Noble folk, they is. All of 'em.

Tax "plans" are explored along with "clean energy" and "green jobs;" fig leaves to conceal the far-reaching agenda of progressive social and economic "justice." An entire chapter is dedicated to the Apollo Alliance and the Tides Foundation. Tides is a "public charity" which launders money from people who contribute, but wish to remain separated from what their money actually does. Tides funds the (subsidiary) Tide Center, which in turn (probably) funds Apollo, though "it is nearly impossible to follow--or even find, if you knew where to look--the Apollo Alliance's money." Apollo is very powerful; its stated agenda is the environment, but it actually uses the environmental movement to advance its left-wing political and economic schemes. Several of its originators have been displaced by people more interested political control. We're talking heavy duty hanky-panky here; deeply corrupt and almost certainly illegal. One of its contemporary principals "watched [in horror] the Reagan revolution stall the march toward economic and social justice, and began to hatch sophisticated theories for 'reinvigorating American democracy'."

Needless to say, there is extensive discussion of the evolutionary planning of the Health Care take over recently engineered. That part of it is also scary. The book closes with a prominent "progressive" blogger who takes apart the healthcare bill, herself damning it as dangerous, expensive, and inadequate.

Within are many fascinating asides, some of which are just beginning to be circulated on the net. One which I received only last week appears as a sub-section of this work regarding Obama's invisibility. A fellow graduate from Columbia--same day, same major--insists that he never met Obama, and has never spoken "to a single former Columbia student or faculty member who remembered [him]." Barack claims to have holed up at the library, often missing classes, but no one, regulars or staff at the library, remembers him; there is not a single picture of Obama from that period, not even one where he is mentioned as absent. While he claims to have been active in the Black Student Organization, the former vice-president of that organization was "shocked to learn of his membership." Why all the mystery? Who is he? Obama's Columbia transcript is kept under tight wrap; perhaps he had a "less-than-stellar record, which might raise questions as to how Harvard Law accepted him." Anyone out there concerned about who Obama is or what he represents?

Bill O'Reilly - ISBN - 9780767928830

Just out in paper, O'Reilly's memoir is as anticipated: effusive, informative and helpful, on point and with the expected attempt to mask his hubris. He refers repeatedly and almost reverentially to his attempt not to appear, shall we say (to be nice), "self-indulgent." But he is. Will Rogers once commented that "if you're as good as you say you are it ain't braggin'." So, maybe it's O.K. for Bill to just belly-up to the truth, but he always offers the caveat that at heart he's really a humble person. Balderdash.

But the book is good. The man came from nowhere, and has achieved more than the vast majority of people ever do. He has done it honestly, with hard work and little grousing. He is amongst cable TV's most prominent figures, counsels wisely, contributes mightily to honest reportage along with the rectification of human error and evil, and he donates heavily to charity.

In this tome he relates how he did it, how he does it, and what he recommends to aspirants, but admirably shies away from virtually anything to do with his personal life. It is not a how-to manual. Rather, as in his book for kids, he uses himself as an example of what, and what not to do: his personal manifesto, chockablock full of relevant personal experiences, what he learned from them, what he might have done it differently, what he avoided and why.

Raised Catholic, he still adheres to the dogma of the church and does not apologize. He apologizes for little, and appears to have little need, in any event. He recommends a life of sobriety, hard work, felicity to one's origins and maintenance of contact with old friends this to keep you sane, humble and honest. And he seems to have achieved this . . . or at least two out of three, which ain't bad.

It's a worthwhile read for the interested, and maybe even for those who think they're uninterested; ya might actually learn sumthin'. His fans have no doubt read it in hardback. I waited for the issuance of the paperback . . . "cheeeap!"

Oriana Fallaci - ISBN - 0395252237

Fallaci was, without doubt, the greatest political interviewer of modern times, and thought of as one of the most gifted, determined interviewers of all time.

She came of age working in the Italian resistance during WWII, an organization in which her parents were active. Thereafter she became a journalist. During her long career she is said to have interviewed anyone and everyone "who mattered." Because of her fame and uncanny abilities, she could--and did--approach the powerful and gain access to them. She was intrepid.

She was a fully emancipated and successful woman in the man's world of political journalism, and antagonized many feminists (my kind of woman) by her championship of motherhood and her idolization of heroic manhood. She was a believer in historic European civilization, and deeply moral, though a-religious (she referred to herself as an "Atheist Christian".)

Her critics felt that she outraged the conventions of interviewing and reporting; she didn't care. From her experiences she concluded: "Whether it comes from a despotic sovereign or an elected president, from a murderous general or a beloved leader, I see power as an inhuman and hateful phenomenon. I have always looked on disobedience toward the oppressive as the only way to use the miracle of having been born." She trusted no authority. She was most adept at influencing prominent people to say things during her interviews which they wished ever after they had not said. Many would plead with her to edit their statements, or forgo publication of them. She always refused. Hence she leaves a record of incredible interviews with the most important people in the world from the 60's into the 90's. So famous is she, that her writings have been translated into 21 languages.

She is particularly well known for an interview with Henry Kissinger in which he agreed that the Vietnam War was a "useless war" and compared himself to "the cowboy who leads the wagon train by riding ahead alone on his horse." He later grumbled that it was "the single most disastrous conversation I have ever had with any member of the press."

The book, Interview with History, is an anthology of her best and most important interviews, led off with the infamous Kissinger tract. It is sensational both in style and content. She brings to the table, from preparatory research, a formidable knowledge of history, and demonstrates in classic fashion why the world is a mess, painting word portraits of famous people who have made it so. While no longer in print it is available, used, from $2-100. (Try ABE books)

The Islamic attack on the U.S. so enraged her that she emerged from retirement to write three books viciously critical of Islam and, most explicitly, Islamic extremists. The first--The Rage and The Pride--was written in 4 days, beginning on Sept. 11th, without a break; no sleep, just coffee and cigarettes. It is a masterpiece of both rage over wanton destruction by a barbaric culture, and pride in western civilization from the time of the Greeks to the 20th century. Not long after that, she completed The Force of Reason. Both became mega-best sellers and have been translated into many languages, including English. I'm still hoping for the third. The first two are indeed superb, and I have reviewed them on this site long ago.

I recommended, and still do, that those two books be read critically by all westerners who value civilization, and especially by those who cannot--or refuse to--discriminate between good and evil. I also recommend "Interview" for the sheer pleasure of reading an heroic journalist in her prime, insisting upon answers from the powerful, to critical questions most journalists would not have the cajones to ask . . . then or now.

She died several years ago from breast cancer. RIP !!

How the Past Can Improve Our Future
Neil Postman - ISBN - 9780375701276

Neil Postman was a humanist, professor, media theorist, cultural critic and dynamic author for over forty years, and most famous for Amusing Ourselves to Death--a critique of television. But he also wrote numerous other tracts, my favorite of which is here introduced. He adamantly observed in Technopoly, that "new technology can never substitute for human values." His most dynamic reinforcement of this belief, however, is in his study of how and why the 18th century was the pinnacle of achievement, and how it might guide us in the 21st century if we would but explore, understand and implement the wisdom of those who made it so.

He is certainly one of the most astute and knowledgeable social commentators of this or any era. I submit the following quotations from this man as evidence, and an entrée into this informative little tome:

• "We live in a world of too much information, confusing specialized knowledge and far too little wisdom."
• "Knowledge is organized information. Wisdom is the capacity to know what body of knowledge is relevant to the solution of significant problems."
• "Any fool can have an opinion; to know what one needs to know to have an opinion is wisdom."
• "The problem to be solved in the 21st century is how to transform information into knowledge, and knowledge into wisdom."

This is an example of my re-exploration of a book which I devoured a decade ago. I read it again recently, and recommend it highly. Brilliant and incisive, he is a critic in the best sense, and not one to grouse so much as to describe what he sees and convince the reader that it is so. I believe that his writings--all of them--should be required reading for everyone at the college level, and certainly by everyone who feels compelled to pursue any activity within the public sphere. I often treat myself to such a volume from the past which I remember as fulsome, if not why; to re-explore how my attitudes have been molded in ways which I cannot specifically recall. If you have read this tome in the past I encourage you to do so again. If you haven't, I'd like to introduce you to one of the most important people of the 20th century . . . in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

His opening quote is subtly savage: "Soon we will know everything the 18th century didn't know, and nothing it did, and it will be hard to live with us." We will, he emphasizes, overwhelm 18th century knowledge with new information about which we shall crow in insolent delight as we overlook the proverbial forest because the damned trees are in our way. On nearly every page is an observation, theorem, quote or statement sufficient to produce a gasp from the reader. One is often thunderstruck into silence and reflection.

History's purpose is "to remind us about our better dreams." It was in the 18th century we discovered a humane course into the future; "ideas [to be carried] with confidence and dignity across the bridge to the 21st century." Enlightenment: the provocateur of ideas of how to approach reality and to rediscover truth--even that there is such a thing as truth. He suggests not that we return to that century, but that we study and use it for "what it is worth and for all that it is worth." Adopt its principles, not its details.

To be sure, during the period known as the enlightenment--the age of reason--we were (especially early on) still burning witches, using torture, embracing slavery, oppressing women and benefiting from child labor . . . BUT the very idea that these things were wrong emerged during this period as well.

Contrary to received modern wisdom the rationalists of the era were not God haters; rather, they rightfully mistrusted organized religion because of what the churches had become. They stripped the world of superstition and were unafraid of the articles taught to be alien and dangerous. Christianity, they believed, offered valuable lessons, raised serious moral questions and delivered most of the answers! In this they represented nothing less than "radical reorientation" in the way we thought about the world. Still, they maintained their humanity. Shelley commented that "reason, unaided and untempered by poetic insight and humane feeling, turns ugly and dangerous."

We have become a people without Gods to serve . . . hollow, empty and anxious. We distrust language, are uncertain about the most obvious features of reality, and lack conviction as we doubt the existence of truth. We are so utterly lost that we lack even the suspicion that we might have gone astray. His attack on 20th century hacks who dissemble is scholarly but unrelenting and almost vicious as he quotes some humorous and wonderfully imbecilic paragraphs to make his point. He is not one to suffer fools, gladly or otherwise. In exposing modern deconstructionism for what it really is, Postman opines that, "Derrida, in defending deMan, is saying that telling the truth should be avoided because it is time consuming."

It is a thought provoking read; especially so in this current period of radical change . . . without much apparent hope, in my opinion. I encourage you to do so ASAP.

You're welcome !!