The Politically Incorrect Guide to...

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/1596980117.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V50671847_.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/96/227441308_8ca035ed4f.jpg

Not PC, but all true:

How colonial quarrels give birth to American religious freedom
PC myth demolished: the Puritans -- racists? Not quite
No, the Puritans didn’t steal Indian lands
Why self-government is non-negotiable
How the American Revolution was not like the French Revolution, with which Leftists love to equate it
Why “providing for the general welfare” doesn’t mean that the federal government gets to spend money on whatever it wants
The forgotten secret of the First Amendment to the Constitution: how states tell the federal government what it’s allowed to do — not the other way around
The cardinal importance of the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Just because it’s not in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean it’s not a right — and whatever the states didn’t let the feds do was left to the states
The tiny, easily overlooked clause in the Constitution that proved to be the source of the unhindered growth of big government
Did the states have the right to secede from the Union? A frank examination of the evidence
Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery
Reality check: Lincoln’s views on race
Why the soldiers fought: the Civil War, in the soldiers’ own words
The Fourteenth Amendment and states’ rights: the truth about this much-misunderstood Amendment
How government promoted waste and corruption in railroad construction
How “fairness” crippled American farmers in the late nineteenth century
Why government is itself the true source of monopoly
Antitrust idiocy: Should antitrust laws be repealed?
World War I: why Woodrow Wilson favored war
The post-World War I peace conference: The disaster Wilson pretended not to notice
How Woodrow Wilson’s much-heralded “idealism” paved the way for World War II
The long forgotten truth about the Roaring Twenties
Herbert Hoover: A “do-nothing” president? If only he had been!
How the Left in the 1930s cravenly presented the “Soviet experiment” as a model for America
The New York Times reporter who had full knowledge of Stalin’s crimes but covered them up
The lunacy of New Deal policies: let’s help starving people by destroying food!
How FDR’s anti-business zealotry delayed America’s recovery from the Great Depression
World War II: did it lift America out of the Depression?
FDR’s imperial presidency: did the architect of the New Deal break the law?
How FDR got Americans into World War II — and may have made war with Japan inevitable
FDR and Uncle Joe: the full story of just how friendly President Roosevelt was toward Stalin
The Cold War: Yes, Soviet spies were a problem in America — contrary to Leftist myth
Joe McCarthy: a paranoid idiot? No: the facts about this much maligned figure
A shameful and forgotten episode: American Presidents send a million Russians back to Stalin
The Marshall Plan: a great success or another failed giveaway program?
How President Truman disregarded the Constitution
Who was the real John F. Kennedy? Straight talk about a figure who has been elevated to mythic status by the Left
How Chicago mobster Sam Giancana bankrolled JFK’s campaign in return for promises that Kennedy would help his mob dodge federal investigations
Lyndon Johnson: his terrible legacy of failure
How the liberalism of the 1960s discouraged all the right things and encouraged all the wrong ones
Ronald Reagan: how he differed from all other modern presidents
“Decade of Greed”? How charitable giving grew 55 percent faster during the 1980s than it had grown over the previous 25 years
How Bill Clinton abused power, abetted Islamists, lied, and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars for nothing
Affirmative Action lunacy: how, on Clinton’s watch, special permission was needed at the Pentagon for the promotion of all white men without disabilities

Okay, sorry, a dozen tries later and I still can't come up with an appropriately sarcastic or funny response to this. Just ... yeah.

* Muslims reproduce SEXUALLY, the filthy freaks

Not in Alabamy they ain't, for shame.

oh yeah, and last but not least:

The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Science

Science is neutral, right?

Of course it’s reliable, based on fact, unprejudiced, and trustworthy, isn’t it? Well, guess again. A lot of what passes for science these days is pseudo-science, and a lot of scientific fact is hidden from public view because it’s not politically correct.

Science has been politicized—not by the Right, but by the Left, which sees global warming, Darwinism, stem cell research, and innumerable other issues as tools to advance its agenda (and in many cases expand the reach of government).

When liberals trot out scientists with white coats, debate is supposed to be silenced. But many of the high priests of science have something to hide—from blind intolerance of religion to jealous guarding of their federally financed research budgets.

I'm kinda wondering if authoritarian types just misrepresent other sides, or actually figure that everybody operates under their same bullshit way of fact-free declaration(e.g. not understanding how peer review works).

It's like with Peggy Noonan's "all scientists are political" or some rightwinger going on about the Death of Science in his blog...

Global conquest being kind of a zero-sum game at the best of times!

same thing as on the Iraq threads; it helps to get an idea every once in a while of what they're talking about. Ned used the example of it demonstrating the rot inside, with which I agree.

oh look, more are on the way:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HmwreWFSL._SS500_.jpg

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51nJyT2fziL._SS500_.jpg

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/61xToRbzrdL._SS500_.jpg

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/513Ta7AvVuL._SS500_.jpg

I like that you don't even have to open them up to know their contents, although it might be interesting to read how hunting is safer than table tennis.

one could make a crude joke about how these guys knew too many dudes who somehow choked on "balls in they mouf", but that would be unseemly.

OMG I hope hunters incur a lot of mutual nut-sucking injuries.

I also like the others complaining about Roe v. Wade & the hunting one's all repping for the songbirds.

good ol ron paul.

the hat on the stag horns leads me to believe these are all onion jokes.

they're not, that's the fun/scary bit

When predators aren't hunted, they prey on people?

Um, really? Are there documented cases of bears/wolves/etc. actively seeking out human prey? Mountain lions and coyotes, etc. attack people when we start encroaching on their habitat, but I don't recall a rash of man-eaters or anything.

The reliance on straw men for so much of what fills these books is staggering. I often find myself reading a right-winger's rants about what liberals think about this and that, and I think, "I don't believe that, and neither do any of my liberal friends." When was the last time, for example, that any prominent liberal claimed that separation of church and state is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (as opposed to, you know, being established fucking precedent and a cornerstone of free societies for centuries)?

Part of it is the standard three choices:

1) disingeniousness
2) projection
3) cluelessness

take yer pick

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51K5vh7k9dL._SS500_.jpg

the author sued the freakonomics authors for defamation. the suit got thrown out of court really quickly.

For some reason "Freedomnomics" + pie makes me think

NOM NOM

nooo it are my free market!

freenomnomics

Conservatives can't think in terms of systemic causation, only as simplistic, linear causation, which is why they wouldn't believe it for years possible that we could fuck with the climate

oh, shut up and get a job.

the supreme court bit is blowing my mind.

i don't get that baseball one

The bible one is interesting, in that actually if you reverse the statements, the truth can emerge.

e.g. The enemies of true reason and tolerance are enemies of the bible.

Take that, Religious Right!

The hunting one is BAFFLING. "without hunting deer, songbird populations plummet". Err... since when did deer eat birds!? WTF?

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51nYmW1w22L._SS500_.jpg

Horner (an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today's environmentalists, dubbing them "green on the outside, red to the core."

Anti-human?

But doesn't the Penguin look much happier in Hawaii?

The hunting one is BAFFLING. "without hunting deer, songbird populations plummet". Err... since when did deer eat birds!? WTF?

-- Trayce, Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:56 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

As I understand it the argument goes that hunters preserve habitats that songbirds like and therefore if they stopped hunting those habitats would becaome walmarts. or something.

They used the same one over here about hunting foxes. Interestingly they have tried the 'predators eat people' one too. Foxes snatching babies from prams, that kind of thing.

"green on the outside, red to the core."

I think I might get a t-shirt with this on.

'predators eat people'

I initially misread that as "hunters kill people"

funnily enough...

I wd like to hear stories of aulde of antelope eating people.

It'd certainly have made Northern Exposure a more interesting TV show!

They used the same one over here about hunting foxes. Interestingly they have tried the 'predators eat people' one too. Foxes snatching babies from prams, that kind of thing.

-- Ned Trifle II, Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:02 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

um no they didn't

They did. We had letters to our local paper about just such things. Both things.

they used the "we will now kill more foxes with guns" and "lol enjoy having foxes in cities" arguments. as well as the less persuasive "hells yeah i enjoy killing things" argument.

sorry i confused "they" with opinions people give a shit about, not letters to local papers.

We live on the heart of hunting country and are constantly bombarded with this crap so please do not tell me what I have or have not been told.

Fuck a Hunt Sab, basically.

For the benefit of that one guy. Here is the hunting fraternity arguing that they protect habitats.
http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/hunting-campaigns/hunting-the-facts/hunting%27s-contribution-helps-environment-thrive/

They're right. I don't see many crusties out cultivating anything. Maybe weed.

And here are the fox attacks people story that get repeated ad nausem around these parts.

Fox attacks pensioner
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=586&id=1016862004

Fox attacks baby
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=586&id=713602002

As I understand it the argument goes that hunters preserve habitats that songbirds like and therefore if they stopped hunting those habitats would becaome walmarts. or something

But capitalism defeats racism, improves the environment, and is essential to a free society! If hunters stop Walmarts then capitalism won't be able to save the world and the songbirds will die anyway.

Oooh! a free chapter!

http://www.regnery.com/books/pigmiddleeast.html

http://images.booksamillion.com/covers/bam/1/59/698/051/1596980516.jpg
Filled with historical lessons and essential facts, this controversial new “P.I.G.” demonstrates why knowing the Middle East’s past is vital to understanding—and solving—the region’s problems today. Discover why:

* Western-style democracy will not fix Iraq’s problems
* President Bush’s quest for Israeli-Palestinian peace is misguided
* Islamic fundamentalism isn’t ancient—which is why it’s so dangerous
* Bush Sr.—not Bush Jr.—should have invaded Iraq

Everything You Need to Know About Western Heritage — But PC Professors Won't Teach

http://images.booksamillion.com/covers/bam/1/59/698/059/1596980591.jpg

The glory that was Greece...the grandeur that was Rome" — not so long ago, Western culture was the foundation of every educated American. But not anymore. Plato's teachings? Irrelevant. Roman culture? Chauvinistic. If there's one thing liberal professors and pundits can't stand—it's Western civilization.

Coming to its rescue is The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Western Civilization—the essential sourcebook for defending everything from Christianity and the Classics to Sophocles and the Founding Fathers. And who better to defend our heritage than one of America's foremost Western civilization scholars—Professor Anthony Esolen. Esolen takes on the "PC police," revealing what they don't want you to know, including:

* How the "Dark" Ages were full of learning, invention, and art—and the Renaissance was rather backward
* How the Enlightenment yielded tyranny and violence, and encouraged the devaluation of the individual
* How the "progressive ideas" of the nineteenth century led to the fascism, communism, and two world wars of the twentieth century

Esolen's The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Western Civilization brings the battle for truth, tradition, and morality to the doorsteps of leftists who dismiss our heritage and disown our country's foundation. With the West threatened by global jihad, China, and more, defending Western civilization has never been so important.

Uhm, presumably these PC Professors are all the ones teaching all those courses on Latin, Greek, Western Civ, and the Classics? Or are those different liberal professors? What about the ones teaching Liberal Arts?

Since they've already lost, why not re-fight 40-year-old culture wars some more:

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7384

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51tudW7ZWDL.jpg

You think you know the Sixties. But did you know...

* The Sixties the media celebrates wasn't the decade most of America lived -- the most popular movie of the decade was The Sound of Music, the biggest star was John Wayne -- and the teen pop band Herman's Hermits outsold the Beatles and the Rolling Stones combined in 1965

* Most people voting for Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire in 1968 wanted a more aggressive war policy in Vietnam

* The principal motives of the radicals leading 1960's street protests were casual sex, avoidance of military service and dreams of power in a future Communist state

* Draft deferments provided a motive for anti-war radicals to stay in school, get their doctorates and take over the universities

* The desire to prevent students from getting C-averages which would cause them to lose their draft deferments led to the beginning of "Grade inflation"

* 200,000 Communist troops switched sides during the Vietnam War to work for the South Vietnamese, and the Viet Cong only had 25,000 troops in total left when the U.S. left South Vietnam

* The U.S. army won every major campaign it fought in Vietnam, and the Vietcong never recovered from the debacle of the Tet offensive

* The abandonment of South Vietnam after 1973 by Democratic congresses led directly to the Boat People and the bloodbath in Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge

* The leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society admired the medieval Vandals: They considered naming themselves after them

* The leaders of the Berkeley Free Speech movement opposed free speech and believed in totalitarian Communism

* Many of the leaders of the "anti-war" movement took their orders direct from the Communist Party

* The riots at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention resulted from months of planning by radical leaders whose goal was to provoke a violent police response -- to which end, the radicals threw urine, feces and concrete at the police for hours before they police lost their calm

* The Black Panthers killed hundreds of their own members and supported themselves by drug-dealing -- mostly to black ghetto kids

* Malcolm X hated whites right to the end of his life and had supported himself through gay prostitution

* Gloria Steinem opposed the life of marriage and childbirth because she's emotionally crippled by her own father's abandonment and her mother's insanity

* Bobby Vinton had multiple #1 hits in the 1960s -- and Bob Dylan didn't have any

* The civil rights movement was mostly opposed by Democrats, not Republicans

* In passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congressional leaders promised that "affirmative action" would never be permitted

* JFK promised the anti-Castro rebels who attacked at the Bay of Pigs that the U.S. would supply air support -- then left them stranded

* Kennedy was a "supply-sider" before the term existed and his one real achievement was his tax-cuts -- these kick- started a decade-long economic boom

* The Kennedy administration tried to force NASA to place a less qualified black astronaut into the Apollo program; NASA administrators refused

* U.S. Census data proves that the collapse of the Black family largely followed the Great Society's War On Poverty -- and didn't precede it

* Great Society social programs facilitated illegitimacy and thereby served to keep poor those it claimed to help

* The unfunded liabilities on Medicaid and Medicare programs initiated in the 1960's has created a huge risk of future government default

* Great Society programs consistently benefited politically-connected liberals

* LBJ's tax increases and money-printing set the stage for the stagflation of the 1970s

* Crime skyrocketed during the 1960's, and violent crime rates more than doubled -- and guess what? This change took place right as courts drastically reduced punishment and weakened the hand of the police

* Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas regularly spoke with and advised LBJ about political affairs (a clear violation of the idea of separation of powers) and took secret payments from a wealthy Wall Street client

* The most enduring intellectual legacy of the 1960s may have been that of Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman

* Studies of Sixties radicals show that they were much more sexually neurotic than the "uptight squares" they mocked

* The drug culture of the 1960's destroyed the minds of many of Ken Kesey's so-called Merry Pranksters -- and hundreds of thousands of others

* The advent of no-fault divorce laws led to a culture of transient relationships, widespread illegitimacy, a generation raised without a norm of two-parent households and a much increased problem of child molestation

* The freedom that women were supposed to have found in the Sixties largely boiled down to easy contraception and abortion -- things to make life easier for men, in fact

Draft deferments provided a motive for anti-war radicals to stay in school, get their doctorates and take over the universities

Damn that Dick Cheney!

Bobby Vinton had multiple #1 hits in the 1960s -- and Bob Dylan didn't have any

take THAT nineteen sixties!
i also like how the wording on the cover just peters out at 'The Black Panthers killed hundreds of their own members (and supported themselves by drug-dealing to ghetto -- i mean, maybe the scan is just messed up but it's like a mixture of bile and bad logic killed the guy's flow

* JFK promised the anti-Castro rebels who attacked at the Bay of Pigs that the U.S. would supply air support -- then left them stranded

droppin t-bombs

weird amounts of 'well that is technically a true statement' in the past few of these posted on the thread - i mean, i guess the kent state shootings are technically the most violent a protest on an american campus has gotten

"the Viet Cong only had 25,000 troops in total left when the U.S. left South Vietnam"

that one's kind of just a lie, though

most of the claims on the cover of the middle east one aren't crazy, although they indicate a fairly wrongheaded way of looking at things — first two are just fairly straight up truths, though

otoh chapter headings include 'The Persian Empire: When Iran was good' and 'How liberal busybodies sparked the Islamic Revolution'

i like the ones that seem to celebrate racism and slavery.

It takes some balls to turn something that disadvantages the poor (if you're rich, you can go to college and avoid the draft) into something pro the left (ergo, everyone in power positions in college is a lefty draft-dodger) But none of them stand up to scrutiny, so any time we spend thinking about them is more than they deserve.

"The Sixties the media celebrates wasn't the decade most of America lived -- the most popular movie of the decade was The Sound of Music, the biggest star was John Wayne -- and the teen pop band Herman's Hermits outsold the Beatles and the Rolling Stones combined in 1965"

1965! The most important year ever!

"The Nineties the media celebrates wasn't the decade most of America lived -- the second-most popular movie of the decade was The Phantom Menace, and Lou Bega was the most popular pop singer of 1999."

most of the claims on the cover of the middle east one aren't crazy, although they indicate a fairly wrongheaded way of looking at things — first two are just fairly straight up truths, though

The second is at least a non sequitur though? I don't know how something, just by virtue of it not being ancient, could be dangerous. Of course I haven't read the authors detailed analysis of the situation.

yeah, true

so what's the lefty equivalent of these, and does it have anything to do with counterpunch

they've already pitted themselves against the "lefty" equivalent of this, which is, you know, actual facts and science.

"Democracy is not America's friend in the Middle East" is just a fun-house-bizarre statement. Who said it was? And if they did, why were they personifying democracy? And why are they implying that democracy is already a resident in the Middle East? One who won't have America as its house guest? Is this statement merely bad worded, or is it up to something? I almost want to read more to find out. What a weird thing to say.

badLY worded, I meant. Speaking of things that are badly worded.

people should just slap a big "DNFTT" sticker on each of these books.

yeah, the middle east one is v much that - i do ALMOST want to see if those arguments come out with a measure of logical consistency. would love to find a free copy /:

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=%22politically+incorrect+guide%22&cat=0

Heh just saw this thread -- is hunting considered very right-wing crazy in the US or something?

is hunting considered very right-wing crazy in the US or something?

not really, but the gun nut/"obama's going to send ACORN to take away our guns and put us into FEMA death camps" folks sure are

For example:

http://www.newsday.com/sheriffs-woman-arrested-at-air-base-had-guns-in-car-1.1345260

* Kennedy was a "supply-sider" before the term existed and his one real achievement was his tax-cuts -- these kick- started a decade-long economic boom

* LBJ's tax increases and money-printing set the stage for the stagflation of the 1970s

hmmm

*Iran can't be reformed—but the Saudis can.

lol

not really, but the gun nut/"obama's going to send ACORN to take away our guns and put us into FEMA death camps" folks sure are

Ah I see. Gun control thingy. Didn't think of that. It's not that unusual to have (hunting) guns at home over here, y'see. Also, home guard mandatory weapons. Very well recorded in governmental registries of course.

Is it the crazy-right "by ancient amendment we shall have guns WITHOUT gvnmt knowing and we're gonna use it" that makes the ahem US "left" laff and scoff at hunting?

I'd venture to guess it's the urban/suburban vs. rural divide that leads to guns and hunting being more in line with conservatives. I grew up in rural place where hunting and guns were huge. My wife's high school had the first day of firearm (as opposed to black powder or archery deer seasons) deer season off, and everyone there was required to take hunter safety class. Even in my bigger, more high-falutin' school tons of people were into hunting and just grew up with guns around, in the house and it wasn't a big deal at all.

Most of the people I know from cities and suburbs have never held or even seen a real live gun up close, they're just horrible things that criminals or rednecks have, and the idea of using a gun as a tool for a hobby - hunting - is kind of baffling to them.

I went to a suburban high school, and think that every American kid should have to attend a gun/hunters safety class.

I totally agree - people seem to be both unnaturally afraid and simultaneously careless with guns. The hunters I know are generally super cautious about guns because they know how to use them and what they are capable of.

My youngest brother told me "it's a good thing [he] didn't pay attention during hunter safety class" bcz then he wld know how to load bullets into my dad's handgun that is RIGHT IN THE FUCKING HOUSE and shoot himself.

Not that that has any impact on things in the grand run, it's just funny that the hunters safety class failed = can't do suicide.

I'm not sure if that is true of city and suburban people, a lot of them might have relatives in less urban areas who owned weapons or who hunted on the weekends. My grandfather owned a business in a rural area where keeping a firearm on the premises was part of the culture, everyone had them - didn't make one crazy, illiterate or a gun nut.

Also lots of suburbanites own second homes where they hunt on the weekends or on vacations.

If that's not the case, many, many people have relatives who work or have worked in law enforcement.

It isn't safe to own a firearm in densely populated areas, especially in condominiums and apartments. It's often not part of people's urban lifestyle, no. But surely a percentage of those people grew up around firearms in some capacity.

I had no idea that the teen pop band Herman's Hermits outsold the teen pop band Beatles and the teen pop band Rolling Stones combined in 1965

I'm not surprised, US was still pretty conservative then - look at the charts!

I remember being a kid in the seventies when some kids' parents did not allow rock music in the house. Or their parents, though they were young, listened to nothing but mass produced orchestra music.

wanna poll some of these

* The leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society admired the medieval Vandals: They considered naming themselves after them

* The leaders of the Berkeley Free Speech movement opposed free speech and believed in totalitarian Communism

* The Black Panthers killed hundreds of their own members and supported themselves by drug-dealing -- mostly to black ghetto kids

* Malcolm X hated whites right to the end of his life and had supported himself through gay prostitution

* Gloria Steinem opposed the life of marriage and childbirth because she's emotionally crippled by her own father's abandonment and her mother's insanity

* The civil rights movement was mostly opposed by Democrats, not Republicans

* In passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congressional leaders promised that "affirmative action" would never be permitted

* The Kennedy administration tried to force NASA to place a less qualified black astronaut into the Apollo program; NASA administrators refused

* Studies of Sixties radicals show that they were much more sexually neurotic than the "uptight squares" they mocked

* The drug culture of the 1960's destroyed the minds of many of Ken Kesey's so-called Merry Pranksters -- and hundreds of thousands of others

* The freedom that women were supposed to have found in the Sixties largely boiled down to easy contraception and abortion -- things to make life easier for men, in fact

"abortion: it's all about men"

Where did you get this laughable rubbish?

I culled the most laughable ones from the long list posted upthread

I love the Middle Ages as the real "Age of Reason", what sort of propaganda is THIS? WTF do the middle ages have to do with conservatism? I thought true conservatives were pro-technology, pro-Enlightenment?

Some of the most evil conservatism is that which blatantly contradicts what it claims. Like defending the middle ages. Just because people go to church doesn't mean they want to live in the middle ages.

Also some people still worshipped trees or false idols in the Middle Ages. How is this propaganda advancing conservative causes?

cuz they were way into jesus

actually that middle ages one sounds like something a leftist post-structuralist theologian like terry eagleton would say. "science and progress and stuff is bad/an illusion cuz of nuclear bombs and consumerism... ahhh do you see?"

it's more output from the same mindset that runs so much of the GOP right now, of little else other than spite and resentment. Damaged or un(der)developed people going "oh oh OH YEAH?! Well, we're write our own books full of nonsense TOO!"

updates!

http://www.regnery.com/books/pigvietnam.html

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/51690000/51699229.JPG

Think the United States lost the Vietnam War?

Think again.

To listen to today’s leftist historians and liberal media, the Vietnam War was a tragic and dismal failure for the U.S. Yet, as author and Vietnam veteran Phillip Jennings shows in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam War, Vietnam was not a hopeless, highly-protested, useless fight we lost. Our soldiers were not intent on committing heinous acts against the poor and helpless women and children.

American soldiers were actually well-liked—as well as very well-educated. And the whole idea that we lost the Vietnam War? It’s completely false. By any traditional definition of war, we won.

In this controversial new “P.I.G.”, Jennings exposes the truth about Nixon’s Cambodia bombings, the Pentagon Papers, Kennedy’s waffling team of “whiz kids”, the Kent State Massacre, the real effect of the TET offensive, and more including:

* Polls taken throughout the war revealed an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the anti-war Left
* Returning Vietnam veterans are better off¬–financially, educationally, and psychologically–than their peers who didn’t serve
* Four United States presidents–two Democrats and two Republicans–supported and advocated the war in Vietnam. Only Nixon kept his promise to end the war
* Popular books on Vietnam virtually ignore the most important and successful years of the war (when we had beaten the North Vietnamese on the battlefield and pulled out 100 percent of our combat troops)

Without the sacrifices made and courage displayed by our military in Vietnam, the world would be a very different place today. The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam War at last reveals the truth about the battles, players, and policies of one of the most controversial wars in U.S. history.

--

http://www.regnery.com/books/pigfoundingfathers.html

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/39440000/39448781.JPG

What Would The Founding Fathers Do?

As July 4th approaches and President Obama "sells" his trillion-dollar health care reform package to the American people, equivocates on Iran, and faces a rising unemployment rate, you can't help but ask, what would the Founding Fathers do?

Author and historian Brion McClanahan knows what they would do: our Founding Fathers would look at President Obama's actions and do the exact opposite to solve our problems and ensure America's continued greatness.

In his new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to The Founding Fathers, McClanahan proves that the Founders had a better understanding of today's issues than our hopelessly liberal president and painfully self-serving Congress.

Tracing the key issues of the day, McClanahan shows how the Founding Fathers dealt with them and also details the Founders' deep faith, impeccable character, and visionary political ideals. Along the way he profiles Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, as well as other important Founders that are often over-looked—including Elbridge Gerry and John Dickinson.

The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to The Founding Fathers proves that if you want real and relevant insights into the issues of banking, executive authority, judicial activism, taxes, and more, you'd be better off reading the Founders than watching congressional debates on C-SPAN.

So what would our Founding Father's say—and do—about government today?

* They would be shocked by the amount of money our government spends—slashing debt would be their number one priority
* They would abolish income, payroll, and most excise taxes—while working to control or abolish the Federal Reserve
* They would seek to reduce the size of the military, end commitments to NATO and the United Nations, and stick with their original plan simply to seek good neighbors and neutral trading partners among foreign countries
* They would be appalled by the way the Supreme Court has twisted the words of the First Amendment—in its elimination all public displays of religion

Timely and clear-sighted, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to The Founding Fathers shines light on who our Founding Fathers really were—the pillars of American society—and how they would lead America today by holding true to our founding documents.

also,

http://www.regnery.com/books/pigdepression.html

http://www.regnery.com/books/pigcivilwar.html

Enemy body reports were actually underreported

http://robsmithjr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-0215-celebrate.jpg