Farce or Not: Birthers, Truthers, Doubters, and Liars
Or, How Can Any Truth Be Found When Interpretations Conflict So Violently
By Joseph Andrew Settanni
A philosophical discussion is given as to whether or not certain beliefs or accusations are truly worthy of substantial credence concerning allied allegations, assertions, insinuations, indications, and intimations.
Where is George Orwell, when he is so needed in this contemporary era, that reeks very heavily of the ideological stench of the politically correct, which is freely added to much doublespeak, doublethink, and, of course, memory hole reverberations echoing harshly throughout the nation’s politics, culture, and social order? Things look quite queer. Political reality often appears inverted or, at least, obscure. Can truth be found, especially in a national climate of opinion that is only now supposed to be terribly dominated, quite substantially, by massive public incivility?
An Alice-in-Wonderland atmosphere exists, moreover, whenever either the Birthers or Truthers come forth and are challenged, with no reference as to whether or not truth is a real value. People, thus, seem to only mean what they say when they say what they mean, and not otherwise. Things can get extraordinarily perplexing, one assumes, beyond being merely confusing. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
Doubters generally equate Birthers and Truthers as, thus, both being equally obsessed and absurd people annoyingly intent upon oddly believing and propagating dubious, absurd, or just plainly false suppositions and accusations that, by definition, lack any true credibility, according to the ardent disbelievers, to the political infidels as it were. Birthers, in turn, almost always doubt the Truthers and vice versa; many do believe that Birthers, Truthers, and even many doubters are liars.
But, public discourse, argumentation, and debate, in a free country, are supposed to be fully open and positively tolerant of disagreement. In politics, ballots are to exist, not bullets. Attempts to suppress free speech, in the benevolent name of encouraging assumed civility, will encourage more, not less, violence; this is because such suppression would ignorantly and wrongly try to contain a buildup of tensions (read: violent disagreements) that would then find no legitimate outlet for verbal expression, only degrees of physical mayhem.
Thus, as ever, the old proverb proves surely true that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Public discussion is, thus, best for the proper maintenance of free government, as is so appropriately understood by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, of course.
Why the Strangeness?
Michael Medved, Ann Coulter, and many others conservatives and, especially, neoconservatives have, e. g., denounced those that the liberals and leftists have denominated as the idiotic Birthers who do doubt that Obama is a natural-born American citizen, meaning specifically according to the explicit provisions stated, in the US Constitution, concerning mandated eligibility established for the office of president.
And, that is the issue concerned. Is there, however, any means of attempting to try to get at the truth? Or, is everyone entitled to his own selective interpretation of the facts and any reasoning so applied thereto? Does subjectivity reign? Should anybody care? All of this seems rather strange.
The Truthers, as they have been called by conservatives and others, say that they really do know the actual truth about 9/11 in that George W. Bush and/or his supposedly corrupt Administration was then truly responsible, either directly or, at least, indirectly, for what had terribly happened; the (alleged) terrorists were, thus, mere tools of an enormous and complex presidential-level conspiracy of certainly vast and profound proportions. That is the amazing assertion, held as gospel truth, set against all those who may impiously question such a towering faith held forth beyond all doubt and supposedly exempt forever from any lies.
There are, of course, as is noted, many persistent dedicated doubters who are ready, willing, and able to considerably dispute with either the Birthers or Truthers; some, furthermore, would so eagerly contend with both groups. It can then become a quite interesting point of philosophical contention, however, to try to scrupulously, meticulously, discern, with a sense of certainty and clarity, those who may, in fact, be fairly accomplished liars among any of the Birthers, Truthers, and (even the) doubters. All of the above is set in the context of a severely ideologically divided America, with the supposed independents, moderates, and centrists being a now quite distinct and shrinking minority.
Each side claims that it alone possesses the real truth and the opposite point of view is filled with only or mainly lies. There are, in effect, two nations merely occupying the same territorial region claimed to be the United States of America having a fundamentally disunited people split on the issue of what is or is not the truth, inclusive, of course, of political veracity; this is within the overall sphere of the now quite significantly divided country’s highly troubled politics.
Thus, the Left absurdly condemns the Right for what had happened in Tucson, Arizona concerning that genuine nut case [not any sort of supposed rightwing fanatic] who (“allegedly” according to the law) had then committed, quite undoubtedly, a most terrible, appalling, and damnable massacre. It is an us versus them mentality, however, of a true fight to the death, according to the Left.
One easily sees this in such incredible propagandistic books as Gerry Spence’s Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power: The Rise and Risks of the New Conservative Hate Culture in which he explicitly condemns the alleged cultural divisiveness of the Right. As a former leftist who knows that they view politics as the conduct of war by other means, David Horowitz, e. g., doubts, meaning he laments, that the Right really has a (needed) similar attitude.
However, the “truth” of the conservatives is not, according to observed political divisiveness, the same as that of the leftists and vice versa, of course. So, philosophically speaking, the basic contentions in this article are then highly problematic at best, if people are supposed to only believe in the subjectivity of the attempt at veracity; objectivity becomes, in effect, impossible to obtain, by definition, if ideology is to axiomatically govern all human thought, instead of a honest effort to attain what ought to be just simple or plain objective truth. All of this acquires strangeness, as with a real belief in a “vast rightwing conspiracy,” as Hillary Clinton had once openly pronounced it.
To the Left, the highest truth is always only ideological truth, which condemns Sarah Palin, the Tea Party Movement, conservatism, talk radio, rightwing internet websites, conservatives, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Savage, Mark Levin, etc. for what happened; they never care to see their extremely real hatred, vitriol, wrath, rage, fury, etc. as being any true cause for great alarm or resulting divisiveness, of course.
All conservatives, meaning especially those who are nationally prominent, are routinely denounced as being homophobes, racists, fanatics, sexists, Islamophobes, extremists, radicals (a rather puzzling designation or charge), etc. A “second reality,” as was so noted by Robert Musil long ago, firmly exists for them that is forever progressively superior to normal reality.
In such a world, there is only absolute division and no compromise whatsoever with the enemy, with the bunch of fiends always only to be found on the Right. Conservatism rightly insists, however, that there is, in fact, an objective truth totally independent of politics or, moreover, its transformative reification as is truly seen in ideology, meaning the secularist (read: nominalist) attempt at an ersatz modernist (or postmodernist) religion. The Left is, thus, naturally allied to both modernism and postmodernism in thought, which, ironically, is, in practice, the worst statist form of reactionary thinking, as is tyranny by any euphemism.
Even 18th century enlightened despotism, a product of Liberalism, was still, after all, very despotic, by definition. And today, America is divided basically between the enlightened versus the unenlightened, the statists versus the freedom lovers, meaning the friends of American liberty.
This monumental divide was, most recently, noted by Daniel Henninger, in an interesting article, in The Wall Street Journal. It was, moreover, extensively commented upon by Rush Limbaugh. Of the thinking of the Left, Henninger revealingly says “What happened in November has to be stopped, by whatever means become available.”1 What, however, is ideologically meant by such a statement? Conservatives and conservatism must basically be, somehow or other, exterminated, in one way or another, for the glorious sake of progressive enlightenment to save the world from evil reactionary forces determined to bring about a fascist regime in this country, or so the progressivists actually do believe.
This weird demonology of the Left, in existence and substantially growing since at least the 1960s, is absolutely for real and is insanely directed at such targets as the Tea Party Movement, which is being equated, in paranoid minds, with either the Klu Klux Klan or, at the least, the John Birch Society. “This isn’t just political calculation. It is foundational belief.”2 Unsurprisingly, the progressivist demand now for much ever heightened civility will create a kind of convenient censorship, by euphemism, which then would be so PC in its origination, of course.
But, if a nation can be divided upon the philosophical question of truth, can it ever be practically united on an issue such as what constitutes civility? And, does it still include the First Amendment guarantee pertaining to free speech in this nation with such a wide diversity of people?
Any anti-government conservatism is simply held to be morally reprehensible—why?—because only the Left is supposed to be anti-government whenever a Ronald Reagan, not a Barack Obama, is in power. This is readily perceived, e. g., in the leftist Dana Milbank’s Tears of a Clown viciously denouncing Glenn Beck as an extreme enemy of American democracy and liberty or in the hyper-excoriating attack so ferociously unleashed in Going Rouge: Sarah Palin—an American Nightmare by R. Kim and B. Reed.
And yet, dissent, even radical dissent, though short of actual treason, is supposed to be fully part of the true American tradition of fierce, lively, open debate and vigorous disagreement; however, it is only conservative dissent that is to be held, purportedly, as being, by definition, entirely uncivil no matter how verbally expressed or, perhaps, done in print. This is because there are no enemies on the Left, according to all enlightened beings, all true progressivists, the literati, the cognoscenti, the intellectuals.
What they essentially want, in effect, is only a one-sided monologue, never any real or very uninhibited dialogue with opponents, with the dedicated opposition. As a then fairly predictable consequence, the existence of extreme public incivility is, thus, defined as any open support for political conservatism, meaning by whatever name. The following is, without any question, an example of such presumed and, one might guess, rather deliberate incivility.
Birthers and the Confrontation with Obama
It seems incredible but true that Obama’s lawyers have now spent over $2 million Federal government dollars making sure that no pertinent documentation demanded by the Birthers be made public. The entire controversy, as Obama supporters such as, e. g., Christopher Matthews and many other friendly commentators and pundits have openly said, would be entirely ended, meaning if only the particular records were made public.
Is the nation’s Chief Executive the only person telling the absolute truth and those who doubt are then to be considered all liars? Or, perhaps, just ignorant doubters? Somewhere, true knowledge exists as to the correct facts, contained in a document, which could and, thus, should fully resolve what is held in contention.
But, that is the entire tantalizing, provoking, enticing, fascinating, beguiling, mesmerizing, mystifying, and, thus, highly troubling issue. It seems to be, therefore, an imponderable enigma fully wrapped, quite thoroughly, in a weird puzzle hiding a presumably strange mystery. Obama, as is well known, will not, under any conditions whatsoever, make any of the requested documents public.
What is the then assumed monumental difficulty here? To objective observers, it seems too idiotic and, moreover, an insane and unjustifiable allocation of public funds oddly expended toward no good public purpose. If there is nothing to hide, then there is, in fact, nothing to hide. Q. E. D. No other kind, type, form, or degree of argumentation, of cogent ratiocination, ought to be needed or required concerning this matter that should be, if logic prevailed, an open and shut case.
Farcical speculation, as this absurdly preposterous saga has continued, necessarily abounds unendingly. Some have suggested, for instance, that what is only being hidden relates solely to his illegitimate birth, though that is really not any kind or type of grave or great “sin” in contemporary America; equally, as is or ought to be well known, e. g., Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury; such a consideration, obviously, did not at all disbar or, thus, hinder him from holding such a Federal office. Illicit nativity cannot, thus, realistically be the true or actual issue at stake.
Others have related this issue to his pride or arrogance in not wanting to satisfy his critics since he ought not have to prove anything about his birth; however, the total flip side of that same speculation would be his (equal) pride or arrogance in knowingly denying his ineligibility by having the power, as president, to hinder any investigation of his being, in fact, a noncitizen. What is now fairly needed is what’s called, in logic, Occam’s Razor.
Thus, all the fantastic, implausible, unusual, and other kinds of odd explanations, requiring excessive or, perhaps, extraordinary amounts of mental gymnastics as attempted products of elaborate elucidation, must be logically and reasonably rejected. The simplest and most reasonable, meaning so plausible, explanation for something usually answers the question.
If there is absolutely and positively nothing to ever hide, which is exactly what Obama’s followers always freely contend as to just the simply assumed plain truth, then why are the said records being then kept totally, completely, hidden? Why has $2 million dollars, covering increasing and voluminous litigation, spread over at least the past two years, been clearly devoted so intensely toward not allowing anyone access to the pertinent materials to help forever settle, to finally end, the constitutional controversy in its entirety?
Why has such a manifestly disproportionate effort, monumentally extreme endeavor, been so expended directly on behalf of making utterly sure that the paper(s) in question will never see the light of day? Winston Churchill, in one of the war-related sayings attributed to him, had said that truth often needs to be protected by a bodyguard of lies. Is this the specific case with Obama’s highly questioned birth? Another recent historical case pertaining to a much legally scrutinized birth can be cited for instructive purposes that are both uniquely and critically apposite, supremely pertinent, to this grave discussion.
Sen. John McCain, because he was, in fact, born in the Panama Canal Zone, had to be completely vetted and investigated thoroughly to then properly and appropriately ascertain correctly if he had met all the constitutional requirements for being president. Such an important process was simply thought to be acceptable and logical given the obvious fact that such a high office was a stake, meaning potentially becoming the Chief Executive of the United States of America.
But, Obama was exempted, as to the fairly normal magnitude and range and depth of the fully typical requisite vetting, as to the proper yielding of whatever evidence was justifiably needed to satisfactorily verify his total eligibility to then occupy the White House. One standard, however, was quite studiously applied to McCain; another and lesser one (strangely) used for Obama and was found to be acceptable, one assumes, to almost all Americans who had actively engaged this subject.
Thus, in reiteration, the same standard was not applied equally to him as it was done, as it was true, for McCain. So, doubts necessarily and reasonably arose, not surprisingly, regarding the true eligibility of Obama. Those various and tantalizing doubts, uncertainties, qualms, reservations, and suspicions have not, of course, left; they have, substantially and substantively, multiplied during the past two years of litigation that, seemingly, appears so endless.
It is, furthermore, greatly doubted that anything will be at all finally resolved, to any significant degree of true satisfaction, during Obama’s entire presidency and, perhaps, not even after that period of time. How can this matter ever be resolved? It is a quite genuine quandary of a gargantuan magnitude. If someone, prior to Obama’s ascendancy, had thought up such a scenario at the presidential level, the rational chances are that such a situation would have been reasonably laughed at and sensibly dismissed as to ever being a real-world possibility. And, that needs to be fairly faced by the ardent doubters.
If Obama is, assuredly, a natural or native-born American, as all or almost all of his dedicated followers and supporters axiomatically believe without question, then why has the strange task, the project, of defending the absolute privacy of the documents been kept up so strenuously, during the course of his presidency? This entire incredible issue or subject or topic is then definitely frustrating, suspicious, bizarre, weird, odd, fantastic, peculiar, and, yes, extremely ludicrous to behold—if the occupant of the White House has really nothing at all to conceal from the American people or, at least, from his many detractors, critics, accusers, etc.
Until the requisite records are finally produced and made completely public, there will be no satisfaction rendered concerning the important constitutional question of Obama’s certain eligibility to be president. That is the matter that remains a kind of gaping festering wound inherently and unquestionably unable to ever heal itself. And, the body politic of the nation will be continuingly disturbed, regarding this quite fantastic issue and its deliberate irresolution, because the ongoing pursuit of the full truth will not end during his entire presidency and, perhaps, even beyond that point in time.
It has, proverbially speaking, become the $64,000 question. The American public, due to the attitude of absolute resistance adamantly taken by Obama and his Administration, is, in effect, to be bizarrely held hostage by the continuous legal antics and skullduggery displayed to always avoid, evade, revealing the repeatedly and legally requested documents. This situation, at a minimum, is entirely disproportionate.
It is insane beyond question. If the person involved was a Republican and especially if that man were a political conservative, the mass media, as is known, would be leading an endless drum beat until the documents were rightly disclosed. Bias, to a massive extent, in absolute favor of Obama really exists. The drive-by media seeks to protect him at any cost to the greater public good, even if, constitutionally speaking, he may be, thus, a genuine usurper by being legally and totally ineligible to hold his office.
Let this particular matter be, appropriately, put into some really needed perspective. The mechanical combination, e. g., to the Fort Knox gold vault is not being requested. The United States Armed Forces top-secret codes for initiating a potential world war, carried in the special object called “the Football” in possession of every American president, are not being demanded.
All the top-secret specifics, as to the Federal officers’ escape routes, in case of the existence of nuclear war (or a great national emergency) are not being asked for at this time. Thus, some equitably fair and responsibly reasonable perspective ought, therefore, to then just plainly exist pertaining to this simple matter, meaning what normally would be only a simple matter.
Excessive protection, therefore, for positively guaranteeing the complete, the comprehensive, secrecy of Obama’s birth, by not properly allowing public access to the particular revealing records, is so absolutely ludicrous beyond description. It is a truly gigantic farce, a terrible travesty, which ought not to have to be supinely tolerated, by a people living under a presumably free, constitutional republican government in the 21st century, who certainly do deserve the plain truth for the proper health of the body politic, of constitutional government, in America.
The only rational conclusion, after so long a time plus litigation, is that the pertinent document does not exist and, thus, can never be produced; moreover, any attempted creation of a spurious “record” of birth would, eventually, be detected as a complete forgery and Obama knows it. And, that is the real crux of the issue as to why no such item can be made public; it simply does not and has never existed. That, after all is said and done, logically appears to be the one and only rational explanation (if such a matter had concerned almost any other person in the entire USA). And, if the foregoing analysis is, thus, actually the truth, there are definite indicated consequences as to what ought to be forthrightly said.
Obama is, according to the specific requirements of the US Constitution, ineligible to hold his office; he is, thus, a usurper whose (legally invalid) actions as president were/are all as totally illegal as he is. But, unfortunately, nothing will ever be done about that significant fact, due to the real racism that protects him from being exposed because the political establishment is afraid to do anything about this matter.
It would not be PC to then rightfully expose him as being just an obvious fraud, a hoaxer, because of him being the first African-American (or a supposed native-born “American”) to hold that office. And, that is how nations fall, when vanity rules consciences and necessarily tragically deforms and degrades the political order. Not surprisingly, many Birthers prefer to be called Proofers by their demand to see the proof, if it exists at all.
Of course, Obama’s loyal supporters do claim that all the needful or necessary documents have been released or, alternately, the significant or pertinent portions thereof are publicly accessible that ought to then convince any truly reasonable person that the current Chief Executive of the USA is a fully native-born/natural born American, without any question. And yet, with Chris Matthews, seemingly, now becoming the de facto leader of the Birthers, there is, therefore, an important dispute involved here that significantly continues, in the attempt to separate fact from fiction, on both sides of the continuing controversy, with no real end in sight.
The same can be said, interestingly, for those known as the Truthers versus those who clearly doubt their amazing assertions; the former are thought, on average, to be liars and, moreover, whether they know it or not. Believers in conspiracies often have a difficulty of distinguishing between fact and fiction, truth and lies, depending heavily upon what they may or may not be willing to believe.
Truthers and Their Alice-in-Wonderland Hysteria
Since they are, by definition, all totally committed conspiracy theorists, the Truthers suffer inherently from all the related logical and cognitive and ethical hazards and problems of all such people intensely dedicated to forever upholding a dedicatedly conspiratorial point of view set firmly against all rational criticism whatsoever.
If they do claim to be properly capable of revealing the full or, at least, basic truth of this particular conspiracy conducted against the American people and truth in general, then how can they be above suspicion as potential agent provocateurs who, logically, are themselves intimately part of this evil cabal. It is forever an integral conundrum of the first magnitude, though often not easily or readily recognized as such by the firm believers. Is, perhaps, paranoia involved to whatever degree? Yes, it certainly is.
However, the paranoid style in politics, made famous generations ago by the leftist historian Richard Hofstadter (well cited by Henninger), was supposed to be a definite political characteristic only of the people on the political Right, the cranks and crackpots, who, e. g., worried about collectivism/socialism, never the Left. But, Truthers, meaning the vast majority, are almost always to be found on the ideological Left, as could be reasonably guessed because Bush and his followers/henchmen are, thus, supposed to be only on the Right.
So, if all of the same standards of political paranoia that were to be “correctly” applied to suspected rightwing nut cases are, thus, equally attributed to such leftwing nut cases, then the definitely similar paranoid attitudes pervade the Truthers, an assortment of various cranks and crackpots, oddballs and weirdos, with and without, e. g., academic credentials, of course. So, a philosophical problem exists tied to politics. It exists in the fairly wide realm of doublespeak, doublethink, and, of course, memory hole reverberations. How so?
Otherwise, one can note that a necessarily disreputable double standard, hypocritically applied, exists when judging the political progressives who do then insist on being Truthers. But, there is a greater issue here. If a bona fide conspiracy really exists, however, genuine and explicit knowledge of it would be, by definition, of a seriously prohibitive or secret character for it to then be, in truth, a supposedly true-to-form cabal of a significant nature. It is always, therefore, a substantively major dilemma of a rather high order and quite cognate tautologous paradox as well because such knowledge presumes the opposite of its hidden qualities.
Private information, facts, data, particulars, specifics, essentials, and details, etc., is to be publicly known and available to, one assumes, literally millions of people who do claim to be Truthers, those who know about what happened on 9/11 and its true aftermath. Ironically or otherwise, almost all Truthers have open contempt for the Birthers due to the former’s ideological predilections concerning favorable views of Obama; thus, they would openly deny that the Birthers have any real proof of anything whatsoever that they might or may wish to contend as to the true inability of Obama to actually be a natural-born US citizen.
The two different groups would, therefore, never make any common cause against the same political establishment, which seems rather strange on the level of presumably pursuing the asserted goal of the truth. The Truthers are ever prepared to believe the worst evils, all the horrible terrorist attacks of 9/11, about Bush, (most) Republicans, his past Administration, etc. and, in set sharp contrast, the best about Obama, etc. as to his absolute and permanent right to privacy, concerning his birth and all/any pertinent information, appertaining thereto in benevolent perpetuity, if necessary.
Nonetheless, what the above considerations yet amount to is the sickening kind of free-flowing, Alice-in-Wonderland political hysteria that dominates minds not open to contrary points of view. Their beliefs constitute a self-justifying type of verification and substantiation, through circular reasoning, of those matters that are to be assumed as being beyond any rational dispute, as is known to the true believers, as Eric Hoffer had referred to such (mindless) people. It would be interesting to find out how many Truthers also defiantly believe, e. g., that a flying saucer once really landed in Roswell, New Mexico in the late 1940s.
Farce or Not: Doubters versus Liars
Another interesting kind of confrontation, besides all the above, is between those who may be called the doubters facing off against varieties of liars, whether real or alleged. A presumably philosophical conundrum exists as to what may or may not be the applicable ethics or morality involved with the different groups of disputers, many of whom may be contending for the assumption of truth. On the other hand, ultimately speaking, either Obama and/or his intimate supporters are liars or those who constitute the Birthers are; both sides, logically speaking, cannot be communicating the truth.
Doubters must, as a consequence, think that one group of contenders is telling the truth and the other group constitutes the liars; both sides cannot, finally, be right. Without a doubt, the liars, in turn, are definitely fooling those doubters who wish to dispute whatever they think are not the relevant facts.
Conclusion
So, what exists is what could be called a classic Mexican standoff, meaning that absolutely nothing is going to be resolved because both sides are immovably opposed and nothing at all can happen to ever change the situation. In general, Birthers, being politically opposed, will continue to doubt the Truthers and vice versa. And, one might guess, perhaps, that different groups of doubters can only have a hard time trying to accurately discern who are really the best liars among either the anti-Birthers or the anti-Truthers, assuming that there are any, of course.
Until there are genuine resolutions to the various dilemmas raised, however, the real possibility for the attainment of truth will be held in doubt among many doubters, though not necessarily among the liars. Maybe, matters, as pertaining to national politics, have gone so far, by now, as to require the literary talents and cognate merits of a Lewis Carroll, not a George Orwell. Why? The American body politic is being reflected in the world behind Alice’s looking glass.
Notes
1. “Why the Left Lost It,” article by Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, January 13, 2011, page A15.
2. Ibid.
References
www.examiner.com/.../conservative-extremists-and-tea-party-are-destroying-the-unity-of-america
www.sodahead.com/...conservatives...destroying-america/blog-95475/
www.ourfuture.org/.../last-weeks-poverty-news-reagan-revolution-still-harming-us
voices.washingtonpost.com/.../how_the_conservative_media_har.html
jbm479.blogspot.com/2010/.../republicans-intentionally-hurting.html
conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/.../republicans-are-destroying-america-and.html
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../how-the-republicans-are-really.php
www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/.../true-conservatives-libertarians-tea-partys-destroying-america-2/
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../religious-right-figure-ge_n_105667_13560394.html
Bibliography
Jack Cafferty, Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream.
Timothy P. Carney: Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses.
Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
____. Treason.
Bernard Goldberg, A Slobbering Love Affair.
Jonah Goldberg, Friendly Fascism.
Martin L. Gross, National Suicide: How Washington Is Destroying the American Dream from A to Z.
James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.
Mike Savage, Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama’s Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security.
J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.
____. The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century.
____. Political Messianism – the Romantic Phase.
No comments:
Post a Comment