The Terrible Truth About Liberals Reviews

• The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

  
  By A1DTOHMM2Y5KY0 on 1999-11-15
  When people think conservative talk radio, they immediately think of Rush Limbaugh. The next thought that springs to mind is racist, evil, cold-hearted republicans. Well all of that is about to change with this book.

  What Boortz conveys in this book is a simple, common sense approach to the differences between liberals and conservatives. Boortz spells out how the public has been mislead for so long and how the media aids in this game.

  You'll see a clear picture of why we do not live in a democracy. You'll understand why social programs have perpetuated themselves for so long. You'll even understand how and why taxes are collected.

  In the 166 pages of this book you will begin to understand what separates the liberal left from the conservative right. You can't lose by spending the [money] and by the way Neal is a Libertarian not a Republican, which makes the book all the better to read!
  
  

• Liberal Myths Exposed

  
  By A3JPFWKS83R49V on 1999-07-31
  In "The Terrible Truth about Liberals", Neal Boortz uses his direct, Libertarian style honesty to spell out the primary differences between liberals and conservatives. He exposes many liberal myths, several of which will surprise the average reader at first. But, in the end, the entire book makes more sense than many people will want to admit.

  Boortz attacks the liberal thought process head-on. He shows how the liberal thinks with emotions rather than sound logic, how the liberal often cannot defend his positions, and how liberals will resort to deception, if necessary, to promote their agenda.

  This book is a quick, easy read that will thrill conservatives while driving our left- leaning friends crazy with its blunt honesty. As you read this book, don't be surprised if you find yourself continuously nodding your head in agreement.

  And don't forget: VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
  
  

• Bingo!

  
  By AKL8423OZIUAE on 2000-12-27
  This book should be required reading for every American- It serves so many wonderful purposes: Learn what makes Liberals tick and how to diffuse such nastly little bombs! Learn the truth behind America's most popular Liberal myths! It doesn't quite slice-and-dice, but it does give the reader a good introduction into Liberal and Conservative thought.

  Boortz starts with the most concise, clear explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives I have yet to find anywhere. Though unfortunately short, it does manage to give you an excellent insight into the mindset of each group.

  From there he proceeds to debunk classical liberal myths left-and-right, and offer up to the reader several suggestions on how to diffuse Liberal arguments without the slightest effort. Probably the best part of the book is a chapter in which he dictates his ideal college commencement speech to the reader. If only all graduates could listen to this thing, it's a perfect summary of Boortz's political thought, and better, a perfect lesson on why not to become a Liberal.

  He tosses in a lot of humor and factual examples to accentuate and enforce his point, it's quite an easy and enjoyable read actually. And it's message is very powerful- if every Liberal were to read this book, i firmly believe their species would die out. It's a book they'll never read though, I'm afraid.. no pictures. One of the most efficient books I've ever read, in terms of strength of argument to shortness of length. You could read it in a couple of hours, but enjoy it's lessons for a lifetime. Bravo, Neal, bravo.
  
  

• Simplistic and One-sided

  
  By A17C983NK87VWX on 2005-11-15
  Neal Boortz, the right-wing radio show host from my hometown, has written a book on what he doesn't like about liberalism. This book is written in typical Boortz style- it is a very quick read that will excite conservatives but annoy the heck out of liberal readers.
  
  Boortz case against liberals fails for many different reasons, chief among them is that it is written much too simplisticly and one-sided to be taken at all seriously. Boortz is great at narrowing down complex topics into a single, sound-bite sized slogan and reapeating it endlessly.
  
  In the first chapter, Boortz explains the basic differences between liberals and conservatives. He starts by claiming that liberals operate on emotion and feelings, and conservatives operate on reason and logic.
  
  The problem with this premise is that it fails to explain why both conservatives and liberals act on reason AND emotion. Many liberals feel that conservatives act too emotionally, as evidenced by conservatives opposition of gay marriage and thier knee-jerk militarist reaction to 9/11. Likewise, liberals believe that conservatives illogically vote against thier own self-interests when it comes to economic matters (see the book: "What's the matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.)
  
  Next, Boortz explains that liberals see people as memebers of groups while conservatives see people as individuals. One wonders if Boortz realizes the obvious irony in this statement: he claims that he sees people as individuals, and yet lumps liberals and conservatives into groups.
  
  Boortz's entire line of argument here is straw-man. Liberals believe that individuals are naturally social animals, and that group survival is better than survival of the fittest. Liberals also believe that individuals live in an environment called society which forces us to interact and co-exist in groups. Boortz doesn't even get close to adressing these arguments.
  
  Next Boortz claims that liberals think America is great because of the government, but conservatives think it is great because of freedom. This is an illogical argument. Liberals believe that government is essential to create freedom. Liberals think America is great because our form of government has proven successful and has given us liberty, democracy, freedom and human rights.
  
  Boortz counters this by explaining that government cannot give us freedom, it merely protects the freedom we already had. If this were so, then what does Boortz think of Somalia? There is no central government in Somalia, so using Boortz's logic, the residents of Somalia have the same freedom we have in America. This is far from true, considering the fact that Somalia is one of the most violent and dangerous places on earth.
  
  What makes American freedom different from Somalian "freedom"? If American freedom is better, then isn't it because America has a better form of government than Somalia? If Boortz was to acknowledge that American government gives better results than Somalia, then he would find himself arguing against his own point.
  
  Boortz spends an entire chapter attacking the evil that is Democracy, arguing that America is really a republic and not a democracy. In doing so, Boortz ignores the fact that a republic, by definition, is a form of democracy. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval.
  
  In an argument against welfare and taxation, Boortz explains that liberals think it is ok for government to levy taxes to pay for welfare programs for the poor. He then asks if liberals would think it ok if an individual broke into someone's house, held a gun to his head, and forced him to surrender his money to help a "lazy" poor person.
  
  In this argument, Boortz ignores that taxpayers agree to exchange thier money with the government for goods and services. This is called a "social contract". To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Thus government is not forcing someone to give up thier money at gun point, but actually enforcing contract.
  
  Boortz might object that he does not agree to the social contract. If so, he should simply stop consuming the government's goods and services. Stop using the water and energy supplied by the government...the food inspected by the government...the highways and roads provided by the government...etc. Let us know how you make out without government help, okay Neal?
  
  Boortz may also object that welfare payments to the poor are theft. However, this is also untrue. Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life insurance. The same applies to social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes for social insurance buys everyone a private good: the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. It buys us a public good as well. If workers were allowed to starve and die during temporary setbacks, the economy would frequently be disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to have some help over rough times and gives everyone else a smooth-running economy.
  
  The rest of the book is filled with more nonesense like this (and many examples of Boortz calling poor people lazy!!!) This book earns Boortz the title of "High Priest of Idiocy." Congrats Neal! You sure did earn it!
  
  

• Try Milton Friedman's book instead

  
  By A16JA3UIMTS00D on 2000-09-04
  I am a so called libertarian. However, I would not recommend this book as this book is simply dreadful.

  From the back cover, he stated that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membersip in groups and Conservatives view people as individuals.'. If he is really a conservative, then he has already shown that statement is wrong as that statement has already viewed people in groups.

  He also insisted that he, as a libertarian, operates on logic. However, many of his analysis is simply inaccurate. In the article "Your paycheck: Your employer 'contributes' nothing", he simply completely misunderstood the idea of tax incidence, which is a basic concept in economics.

  In his whole book, he portrayed liberals as a bunch of mindless people making decisions based on emotion and feelings. Although I never agree with liberal ideas, I think the intellectual rigour of liberalism should deserve more respect than those of Mr. Boortz. Just read John Rawls' "a theory of justice" and you will know what I mean.

  He also spent a lot of time in saying "poor people"'s misfortune is perfectly predictable and so does not deserve help. He perhaps should know that using a negative income tax to help the poor to get out of perpetual poverty is justifiable on libertarian ground.

  Many of the arguments in his book are based on one or two quotes made by politicians, or completely unrelated metaphors. In other cases, his ideas are often repetitive. For example, the idea of "less fortunate" has been appeared in the book more than once.

  Therefore, I would not recommend this book to laymen. If you already have a good idea about different political systems and economics, there is no harm done for you to read his book. For laymen, Milton Friedman's book 'free to choose' is infinitely better as an introduction of libertarian ideas.
  
  

• Gary Chapman got it wrong. Borrtz is better than that
  By AJHMFQKF67H08 on 2001-07-26
  Gary Chapman reviewed this book. These are my comment on his review and the book itself.

  "I am a so called libertarian."

  Libertarians are "so called"? Seems that you are calling yourself such without basis (see the rest of this review).

  While not the best book I have ever read, Mr. Boortz does a far better job explaining his views than Mr. Chapman gave him credit.

  "From the back cover, he stated that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membersip (sic) in groups and Conservatives view people as individuals.'. (sic) If he is really a conservative, then he has already shown that statement is wrong is that statement has already viewed people in groups."

  Acknowledging that groups exist is logical. Basing liberal "social engineering" upon someone's group membership is not.

  "He also insisted that he, as a libertarian, operates on logic. However, many of his analysis is simply inaccurate. In the article "Your paycheck: Your employer 'contributes' nothing", he simply completely misunderstood the idea of tax incidence, which is a basic concept in economics."

  His point, briefly, is that your employer would be paying YOU that money if it were not already nicked by the government. Thus, it comes out of your pocket. This seems easily understandable to me.

  "Although I never agree with liberal ideas, I think the intellectual rigour of liberalism should deserve more respect than those (sic) of Mr. Boortz. Just read John Rawls' "a theory of justice" and you will know what I mean."

  Mr. Rawls is a very consistent thinker. And very liberal. He is a great read if you want a liberal view on how to construct a "fair" society.

  "He also spent a lot of time in saying "poor people"'s (sic) misfortune is perfectly predictable and so does not deserve help. He perhaps should know that using a negative income tax to help the poor to get out of perpetual poverty is justifiable on libertarian ground."

  This is the most controversial statement of all. Libertarians do NOT believe in the income tax to redistribute wealth. We allow that SOME form of tax (not income) is necessary to provide for common defense and other national concerns, but there is no such thing as a "negative income tax."

  "In other cases, his ideas are often repetitive. For example, the idea of "less fortunate" has been appeared in the book more than once."

  His repetition was pointedly made to highlight areas where people have the most serious problems. "Fortunate" implies that it was luck, not hard work and determination, that brought a person success. For the VAST majority of successful people, this simply is not the case: Less than 5% of today's millionaires inherited their money. So where does the rest of the money come from? Hard work. Long hours. Dedication. Boy, that sure sounds like they were "fortunate" to me.

  "For laymen, Milton Friedman's book 'free to choose' is infinitely better as an introduction of libertarian ideas."

  I am not familiar with Mr. Friedman's book, so I cannot comment on its worth. But I do know that Mr. Boortz' book is much better than Mr. Chapman would have you believe.
  
  

• Putting the 'boor' in Boortz
  By ADWUO5RDZZUJN on 2005-08-24
  Boortz claims to use sound logic and facts to justify his arguments, but he relies on horrible stereotypes and unfounded half-truths. This book is not written by someone looking for common ground or trying to solve society's ills. Rather it is a hateful spew by someone trying to justify the fact that they have a good life and some others don't.
  
  
• Amazon.com Scoops Boortz!
  By AQYXYYOFWQ21I on 2000-09-20
  Finally, a place where people can talk about Neal without being cut off and swept under the carpet. Boortz never has the gonads to let people talk on his program that have an iota of knowledge b/c that would make him look dumb. He's even got his token black guy and white woman to back him up in the radio studio.

  This book is just like Neal's show: it is entertainment - that is all. He machine guns anything in his path and pulls mundane shock-jock tactics in order to appeal to the vapid masses out there who are too desperate to have someone's approval that appears to be in a position of authority.

  Neal Boortz is a carny balker - he is the man behind the curtain. Period.
  
  

• Liberty for Libertarians
  By on 2000-04-29
  I don't believe many people would disagree that it is time to rethink many of our approaches to social and political problems. After all, things are rapidly changing and we've never had a complex, highly-technological, multi-cultural world economy before. We're all making this world up as we go along. Yesterday's bright idea is tomorrow's headache. Boortz and the libertarians have some good ideas--as well as Republicans, Democrats and even socialists. We all need each others help and feedback. We're all in this together. That's where I'm disturbed by the arrogant, know-it-all, derisive tone that Boortz and his true believers often take. Using distortions, misquotes, statements out of context and uproven accusations, Boortz creates ridiculous, weak, stereotypical opponents: the "bed-wetting liberals" and the "liberal media" and then neatly proceeds to dispatch them. An actual dialogue of mutual respect between Americans with differing ideas is never established--not in this book; not on his radio show, where people of opposing viewpoints are rarely allowed to express themselves. If they get on the air at all, they are put on hold while Boortz "re-educates" them, and others are rudely cut off the air. Look in the book, listen to the radio show and read the reviews of his fans and look at how freely "moron" "idiot" and worse are used to describe people of differing ideas. One has to wonder about a government with people like Boortz and his followers in charge. What would happen to all those "illogical" "underacheiving" "morons" unable or unwilling to be put on hold and reprogrammed? Would liberty exist on for Libertarians?
  
  
• Not for Conservatives
  By on 2001-09-07
  I am not a fan of Mr. Boortz. I listen very rarely, and he usually offends my sense of etiquette and courtesy when I do. Nevertheless, as one who spent more than a decade as a liberal and moving amongst them before becoming a conservative after an agonizing 18 months of soul-searching, I must admit Mr. Boortz is on to something in this book.

  Liberals (certainly the ones I knew, including myself) consider themselves a superior form of homo sapiens, even though their record is nearly blank. Progressives have done much in the world, especially in the last 40 years. But the "progressives", now, are, ironically enough, labelled "conservatives". The right is where the great new ideas to advance society have come since the 1980s, and liberals, in their defense of liberal establishment status quo, have been rigid reactionaries, their "progressiveness" being merely a genius for finding new ways to redistribute taxpayers' money and undermine the free-market economy.

  In fact, liberals are driven mostly by hate. Some, like me, realize that what they really hate is themselves, and they make adjustments where they pull their weight in society -- but the only way a liberal can be made to pull his weight is for him to become a conservative.

  I may sound harsh (or, if you're not a liberal and therefore have a sense of humor, tongue-in-cheek), but it's true enough. But there's no reason for anyone not a liberal to read this book. It's not a great book, but Mr. Boortz, who has been on all sides of the political spectrum except the far left (and I've been on the extremes of either end, so I have a little more insight through experience), is able to glean some very good points by the use of logic and perception of the liberal political spectrum. And therefore his book, and other similar titles, would be useful for liberals to read. Since they are their own worst enemy and problem, it would be good for liberals to read what Mr. Boortz says about them, whether he's (as he often is) right on, or merely hits a glancing blow. It may cause liberals to think and be introspective about their inner failings.

  Liberals too often are like religious fundamentalists: when the first enthusiasm of conversion starts to wane, they try to force themselves to be "ultra-religious" and legalistic, rather than trying to advance to a new phase of their walk with God. Liberals usually are liberals to fill a void or lack in themselves, and pursue legalistic "fundamentalist politics". If Mr. Boortz can at least begin the intellectual process of introspection on liberals, which may be painful (it was for me; it was like self-surgery, without anaesthetic), then his book will do some good. But if it becomes merely a way for conservatives and libertarians to get a chuckle out of the foibles of the illogical ultra-left, then who needs it?

  I would urge liberals to purchase this title or check it out from the library or steal it or force a taxpayer to buy you one at gunpoint. Even though Mr. Boortz's prose may occasionally be heavy-handed, and he isn't always correct, it's a good starting point for liberals who genuinely are interested in hearing out opposing views (admittedly a small number); from then the liberal can move on through more intellectual voices, like David Horowitz, Thomas Sowell, William Bennett, Harry Stein, etc.
  
  

• the right for dummies
  By A7R6JFGUQJ6TS on 2002-10-29
  I'll keep it basic. The book is basic and up front. An informed reader doesn't learn from this book. They are only reminded of how much some people care about the left/right battle. Come up with some new material neel. he's not a writer, he's a talk show host. that being the case his book is half assed and he even admits his lack of writing skill and interest..on the other hand if you have minimal knowledge about the subject you will think he's the man.
  
  
• Excellent
  By A361IVZJGU97X on 2005-11-18
  Folks, this is truely a great read, and a no holds barred, unapologetic look at the hypocracy of the far left in this country. I only give it four stars because I believe Boortz wrote this book in such a way as to put any liberal readers on the defensive by not also pointing out the hypocracy of the far right. I understand the book was intended to focus on liberalism, but I wish Boortz had taken the opportunity in this book to educate people that there are more than two choices in the political spectrum, and could well have won far more converts to the Libertarian perspective if approached somewhat differently. Nonetheless, this is an excellent and entertaining read.
  
  S. Brown from Alpharetta; I feel sorry for you, and I'd like out of your so-called "social contract". I prefer contracts where all parties contribute something beneficial.
  
  
• Awful
  By A16475ONAFRIOI on 2000-04-28
  This is the first book I have ever truly regrettedpurchasing. Amazingly, I can honestly say the piece was not worth the$$ I paid for it. While the author addresses a number of libertarianissues that would be interesting in any other forum, his rudimentary vocabularly and woefully crude delivery spoil the show. I understand that there is a popular market for authors and public figures who are straight shooters, but this was really disappointing. The publisher clearly discarded any semblance of literary standards when approving this book for printing. Stay away from this one.
  
  
• Utterly simplistic libertarianism
  By A1LKSZ9CYJ6829 on 2000-08-22
  If Libertarianism is a political philosophy, Boortz manages to obscure it totally. His rantings in this book and on his radio show are uncommonly ignorant and simplistic. He does not acknowledge the contextual nature of life: extant social, economic, and political forces.

  According to Boortz people "deserve" their standing through their own qualities or efforts. If one finds oneself on the lower rungs of society or has other problems, it is because he or she is flawed. Any other explanations are simply weak-kneed liberalism.

  The whole concept of society suffers with Boortz. Boortz is right; he is not a conservative. There is no social web to be preserved. Society in his view consists of unconnected individuals who owe nothing to anybody or to the greater community.

  Of course, Boortz hates government, because that is an area where society debates and solves common problems. But then that would involve having concern for fellow citizens and the greater society.

  Boortz' book in only interesting to see how little understanding of one's society a noted public personality can actually exhibit.
  
  

• I love this book
  By A12T4IRVNXAMP2 on 2005-08-24
  As another reviewer pointed out; this is Boortz at his best. Satire, wit and coherent observations with a "take no prisoners" style hallmarks this book. I've read it 3 times.
  
  I miss Neal though. I can't stand listening to his radio show anymore. It nothing but a long litany or pro-Bush propaganda.
  
  I am wondering what happened to the old Neal "you know a politican isl ying when you see his lips move" Boortz.
  
  Today it is like the Bush administration slipped something into the AC vent at his Atlanta studio.
  
  Neal - W is just another lying politician like all of them. whats the deal? Do we need to get you de-programmed like a Moonie?
  
  Neal - read your own book - this one. Maybe you'll pop out of your trance.
  
  Neal - we want you back. We have enough Hannity's and Limbaughs. We need a BOORTZ!
  
  
• Great form of Entertainment
  By A3I7SWS4U740P8 on 2002-04-21
  This book is for those who love entertainment. Boortz vents his frustration with liberals in the book like he does on his radio shows. For those who listen to Boortz on talk radio, the book is a compilation of his views which he has expressed on his talk show. His commencement speech is the best. The only criticism I have is he seems to be fine with conservatives and Republicans. As a Libertarian, he needs to express his criticism with Republicans as well since both mainstream parties are corrupt.
  
  
• Get it right!! Liberals are not social controllers!
  By ADBE735U6ULXF on 2001-06-14
  I am fed up with this misappropriation of a perfectly good word, 'liberalism'.

  From the Cambridge Dictionary:

  liberal (POLITICS) adjective (of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society.

  liberal (SOCIETY) adjective respecting and allowing many different types of beliefs or behaviour a liberal society/church/ideological position/person.

  Okay, how does that equate to the type of thing Boortz rants endlessly on about? Answer: it doesn't.

  Liberals believe in freedom and choice tempered by social responsibility. What Boortz thinks he's talking about is communism, of a type which barely exists in the world any more. And the idea that - in the US context - the Democratic party aspires to control every aspect of individual lives is ludicrous.

  But then, what's more ludicrous still is that, instead of laughing at this book, people take it seriously!
  
  

• Another book by and for functional illiterates
  By on 2000-05-24
  This book is a tiresome compendium of Boortz's radio rantings. Most of Boortz's argumentation is so vague and so undocumented it is beyond all belief. Here's a check for all such rhetoric: Replace the word "Liberal" with, ..........; and see how the book reads. Boortz has convinced himself there is no freedom in America anymore. Hopefully he will take the nosefull of nickels he made with this book and swim away to establish his own dictatorship.
  
  
• This book is intelligent, logical, and accurate.
  By A225FDE3UJ5EX4 on 2000-07-15
  This book reinforces my basic opinion of liberals. I didn't really get all that many new things out of the book. However, it's always nice to know that there are others who agree with my political ideas, and, as such, this book is extremely valuable.

  Liberals are opposed to the idea of private property. Their ultimate goal is to have the government control as much property as possible, and to have people dependent upon government.

  Liberals believe that people are too stupid to control their own economic activity, and so liberals want to use the government to force people to live the way that the liberals want them to live. Liberals cannot stand the idea of allowing people to control their own money. For example, liberals cannot stand the idea of giving people the choice to opt out of social security, and to let them make their own decisions regarding retirement, and to let them be self-sufficient, and not have to rely on getting a check from the government. The idea of people being self sufficient is something that scares liberals.

  Please keep in mind that Boortz is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian.
  
  

• An eye-opener, and unexpectedly funny
  By on 2001-06-27
  Before discovering Neal Boortz, I leaned too far to the left even to be classified as "liberal" in any sense. What makes Boortz's message stick is a level-headed objectiveness and a philosophy based upon hard facts rather than generalizations or "spin". As I am not a fan of the Rush Limbaugh style of blustery hoopla, I was struck by the fact that Boortz employs no gimmicks or chanting minions in getting his message across; instead of just attempting to elicit an emotional reaction (a common tool of both liberals AND conservatives who haven't done their homework), he has taken the time to present the reader with genuine information based upon years of extensive and non-partisan research.

  As an author, Neal Boortz's style is as sardonic, engaging, and informative as his radio persona; whether you agree with him or not, it's tough not to listen. He is never dull or obtuse, and never leaves any stone unturned. And while he has written this book in a highly witty and accessible style, it is never condescending. One gets the sense that he does not underestimate the intelligence level of the general population. Pundits and sociologists could learn a lot from his approach.

  The specifics which he has uncovered will astound you. ....

  And if he still doesn't get through to you, don't put it down without at least reading the allegory in the last chapter; it gives the whole work a better finish than a fine wine.
  
  

• Truth hurts!
  By ALV5GTE63D8ZH on 2002-02-23
  I found this book both entertaining and RIGHT ON! Boortz has eloquently stated what I have known for years, and presents arguments better than I have ever been able to do. The fact that he uses humor throughout the book in no way takes away from what he says.
  The Ted Kennedy Liberals of today are a far cry from the classic JFK liberals of yesteryear. They have in fact moved so far away from classic liberal thinking that they are destroying this nation with their leftist facist ideology: rather than defend true freedom of speech, they want to control people's thoughts and actions; they trod over our Constitutional Rights even as they claim to be defending those rights; and many of them honestly can't see this for themselves!
  I recommend that EVERYONE - of no matter what political persuasion - read this truly important book. Rather than being simply another "political book", to me it ranks as a grand Philosophical work on the par of many of the great political philosophers throughout history, and I hope its' small size will not deter people from reading it. In fact, although I wish it had been longer, Boortz's concise work says a lot about today's misguided liberalism, and can easily be read in one sitting, not just because of its' size, but also because of how it flows and grabs the readers' attention.
  
  
• Sad
  By on 2004-05-29
  It is very sad that some people can read this book and think, "This man writes the truth." I was in Paris and I was amazed to see a copy of this book being read by a French man. I asked him about it and he told me, "This is the way Americans think. They are amusing idiots." Not all Americans, thank God.
  
  
• Not Facts, Not Logic, Just Opinion
  By A2QE9ZDBCR5LKV on 2004-06-27
  Right from the beginning it was apparent that this book was compiled largely on the basis of one man's opinion. He contradicted himself quite early by stating that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membership in groups...Conservatives view people as individuals.' Isn't he, a conservative, viewing all liberals on the basis of their membership in a group? Isn't he assigning them all immutable characteristics? Doltish.
  
  
• Typical egomania
  By A15MX8YJMBNDB0 on 2006-05-07
  Boortz is the worst example of egomania I've ever seen. Every word that comes out of his mouth spews of pure ego. This book is worthless dribble that says nothing. So is his radio show, and I'll never understand how his whining, ranting, and ego-spewing could ever be seen as "truth." What truth?
  
  
• The Cure For Liberalism
  By A2MTAVLK655SVE on 2000-09-08
  This is a great book. It explains, without using many words, what is wrong with liberalism. I read the whole book in one evening, because I did not want to put it down. Neal even showed me the error of thinking you get money back with your tax refund. Highly recommended! Remember, you only throw your vote away if you don't vote Libertarian.
  
  
• Thin book, thick argument
  By A3R32BV28Q0LOQ on 2001-04-10
  Neal Boortz doesn't need a lot of pages to show that modern liberalism is harmful to America. He proves that most liberals want government controlling everything from the economy, schools, healthcare, and most depressingly, our lives. His main point in the book is that no one in America needs to be taken care of by the government. Our economy offers so much opportunity the anyone can make it no matter their race, class, sex, religion, etc. Boortz claims liberals want people poor and helpless so they can get the reputation as being compassionate. But, this ends up ruining lives and makes for a complacent and apathetic society. Boortz believes that ending entitlements and welfare will force people to become motivated and responsible.

  The main theme you can derive from this book is that people should be free to use their own money, make decisions for themselves and their children, and be free of government's grasp. According to Boortz, liberalism is against what these principles stand for. And he's right.
  
  

• MEGA-DITTOS!!! ...must hate liberals... (repeat 1000x)
  By AP20B2IEGQS5Z on 2002-04-01
  I honestly would have given this book 5 stars if I had read it when it first came out last Sept., but I read David Brock's "Blinded By The Right" before "The Terrible Truth About Liberals", and wow, what a difference perspective makes. "TTTAL" now comes across as just the kind of stuff Brock was called upon by the right-wing propoganda machine to spew out to the masses.
  1 star by a less hateful, more "compassionate" conservative (remember those? Bush sure doesn't). It's books like "TTTAL" that are going to grease the slide the Republican party will soon find themselves slipping down helplessly; mark my words, folks. They've swerved so far to the right, they can't even see the road anymore. Better hurry up and do what Ann Coulter said: Go out and execute liberals! There's another election coming up!
  
  
• Boortz Nails Them!
  By A5VQSJNPN5LOH on 2004-07-26
  Like his radio show, and daily web site (www.boortz.com), Neal nails the truth down that the Liberals hate you to hear.
  Among the things he explains, is why there is such a disproportionant majority of Liberal teachers in our Colleges and Universities. He points to the 60's and the Draft Deferrments for college students that kept their grades up during the VietNam War.
  By taking the non science courses that were easier, students could keep their grades high and maintain their deferrments. When they got their BA's, and the war was still going, they went on to get their MA's and PHD's-remaining in college as long as possible, until the war ended. Once it was over, there were few jobs available for their Liberal Arts degrees in the 'real world', and the only place open to them was academia as teachers.
  
  I saw this happen with people I knew. One said to me "all my life I've fought the establishment, without much success, but now I'm teaching, and I've got their kids, and their minds are mine"!
  His parents had the money to send him to Hofstra (doctors son) where he majored in Political Science. Mine didn't have the bucks and I got my draft notice. I enlisted instead for four years in the Navy. The GI Bill paid for my BS which did have a diverse job market in the real world.
  
  Boortz pulls no punches, and his background as a lawyer, adds to his insight and Libertarian approach.
  
  He teaches how Liberals identify everyone by their 'group membership' and avoid individualism. They talk in terms like the poor 'unfortunates' of society, as opposed to those 'more fortunate' Fortune is defined as an unexpected windfall. This ignores the hard work and sweat of those that make good choices in life. Liberals suggest that those that are 'fortunate' got it by cheating and stealing it from those that are 'less fortunate'.
  Neal says most of those that don't make it are victims of themselves, poor life choices, not paying attention-doing homework in school, using drugs, getting pregnant underage.
  Later on in life, they wind up looking for Gov't handouts in the form of entitlement programs which are Socialistic redistributation of wealth, by taking the earners tax dollars and giving it to the ne'er do wells to buy votes.
  
  His other book- "The Commencement Speech You Need to Hear" is good too.
  
  
• What, again?
  By A23B0R5L4AWL82 on 1999-11-22
  Largely a regurgitation of what was contained in [The Commencement Speech You Need To Hear]. Accurately challenges a person's thinking on subjects covered, with little new material included. If you bought the above, you probably would be disappointed with this purchase. If you didn't buy the other, don't. Buy this one instead, it is "backward compatible."
  
  
• His argumentation's fine, Gary, you misunderstand completely
  By AJHMFQKF67H08 on 2001-07-26
  Gary Chapman reviewed this book. These are my comment on his review and the book itself.

  "I am a so called libertarian."

  Libertarians are "so called"? Seems that you are calling yourself such without basis (see the rest of this review).

  While not the best book I have ever read, Mr. Boortz does a far better job explaining his views than Mr. Chapman gave him credit.

  "From the back cover, he stated that 'Liberals view people in terms of their membersip (sic) in groups and Conservatives view people as individuals.'. (sic) If he is really a conservative, then he has already shown that statement is wrong is that statement has already viewed people in groups."

  Acknowledging that groups exist is logical. Basing liberal "social engineering" upon someone's group membership is not.

  "He also insisted that he, as a libertarian, operates on logic. However, many of his analysis is simply inaccurate. In the article "Your paycheck: Your employer 'contributes' nothing", he simply completely misunderstood the idea of tax incidence, which is a basic concept in economics."

  His point, briefly, is that your employer would be paying YOU that money if it were not already nicked by the government. Thus, it comes out of your pocket. This seems easily understandable to me.

  "Although I never agree with liberal ideas, I think the intellectual rigour of liberalism should deserve more respect than those (sic) of Mr. Boortz. Just read John Rawls' "a theory of justice" and you will know what I mean."

  Mr. Rawls is a very consistent thinker. And very liberal. He is a great read if you want a liberal view on how to construct a "fair" society.

  "He also spent a lot of time in saying "poor people"'s (sic) misfortune is perfectly predictable and so does not deserve help. He perhaps should know that using a negative income tax to help the poor to get out of perpetual poverty is justifiable on libertarian ground."

  This is the most controversial statement of all. Libertarians do NOT believe in the income tax to redistribute wealth. We allow that SOME form of tax (not income) is necessary to provide for common defense and other national concerns, but there is no such thing as a "negative income tax."

  "In other cases, his ideas are often repetitive. For example, the idea of "less fortunate" has been appeared in the book more than once."

  His repetition was pointedly made to highlight areas where people have the most serious problems. "Fortunate" implies that it was luck, not hard work and determination, that brought a person success. For the VAST majority of successful people, this simply is not the case: Less than 5% of today's millionaires inherited their money. So where does the rest of the money come from? Hard work. Long hours. Dedication. Boy, that sure sounds like they were "fortunate" to me.

  "For laymen, Milton Friedman's book 'free to choose' is infinitely better as an introduction of libertarian ideas."

  I am not familiar with Mr. Friedman's book, so I cannot comment on its worth. But I do know that Mr. Boortz' book is much better than Mr. Chapman would have you believe.
  
  

• Somebody's Gotta Say It
• FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics
• The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
• Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel - Why Everything You Know is Wrong
• Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning