Jul 06

A. Lincoln, by Ronald C. White, Jr. ★★★★

This is a delightful 676 page biography of Abraham Lincoln, well studied and well written, describing Lincoln’s life from birth to death. The book reads quite easily, and inspires one to appreciate the greatness of the man who was to be our 16th president. I appreciated that the book was also heavily illustrated, and that the illustrations were not to be found in the center-of-the-book glossy pages, but abundantly mixed with the text.

I shall not detail and reiterate Lincoln’s life, being born in Kentucky, moving then with his family to Indiana, and then to central Illinois. White details how Lincoln was mostly self-educated, including studying law and passing the bar exam on his own. Lincoln dabbled in politics, winning a 2 year term in the House, mixing that with maintaining a highly successful law practice. Several failed attempts to achieve elected office ultimately led to his improbable but highly fortuitous win of the presidency.

Lincoln was considered an amateur in politics. He came under severe criticism for being inept and misguided. This continued on through the entirety of his presidency. Lincoln achieved an immortal status mostly after his death. Unfortunately for Abe, he entered the presidency during the onset of the rebellion with the South. Lincoln held preservation of the union as most important. Sadly, he was bedeviled by truly incompetent generals, the first (McLelland) was pompous and completely inadequate as a general, though he had the audacity to run against Lincoln for Lincoln’s second term in office.

It is odd that so much of the discussion regarding the civil war, that it was not over slavery, that it was a question of state’s rights, that the question of how to deal with the negro, the question of dealing with internal rebellion, suspension of habeas corpus, etc., remains questions that persist to today. Sadly, so many contemporary Confederate sympathizers of today present these issues as issues that were only critically analyzed and resolved by the South. I can appreciate the worn-out, hackneyed sympathies of the South but consider these assertions as mostly contentious rather than thoughtfully critical. Likewise, contemporary assertions that the South tended to be the most “Godly” against a heathen North, fail to recognize the deep religious convictions of Northern Generals and northern folk. Lincoln himself, though he grew up a Baptist and had no church affiliation for much of his life, attended a Presbyterian Church in Washington DC with Phineas Gurley as the pastor, a reverend who studied under none other than Charles Hodge. Many of Lincoln’s speeches bore witness to the heavy influence of Reformed thinking.

White excelled at providing analyses of Lincoln’s speeches, pointing out the literary techniques that made Lincoln uncannily exceptional as an orator. Indeed, White has written an entire book on the 2nd inaugural address, truly one of the greatest speeches of all mankind. Lesser minded folk will heap criticism on many of Lincoln’s greatest speeches, such as his Gettysburg Address; these very criticisms only attest to the absence of value if casting one’s pearls before swine.

Lincoln, toward the end of the war, was much concerned about the restoration of the south in acts of reconstruction. Sadly, he was assassinated before that could ever happen. We don’t know how things might have evolved differently had he been able to serve out a full second term as president, and speculation is unwise. What is tell-tale is how so much of the north, just like the south, really had no vested interest in the negro. True, many in the north detested slavery, and that, out of religious convictions. Both the north and the south refused to look on the negro as equal in value to any other human being. Whether they were most fit to be either slaves or second class citizens, there was little interest in helping the negro achieve a foot in society, only to have Woodrow Wilson’s segregationist policies extremely exacerbate the problem. Lincoln was correct in his 2nd inaugural address that blame is affixed to the entire nation, and not just the south, for the negro problem. Sadly, the problem hasn’t gone away.

I highly recommend this book. It is well written, though a touch tedious to read at times, and sometimes missing in details that I would have appreciated reading about. White paints Abe Lincoln as one of a few truly great Americans and Ole Abe deserves that distinction, regardless of those who would challenge otherwise.

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
May 17

The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P. Taylor ★★★★★

It is often said that history is written by the winners, and certainly such is the case with World Wars 1 and 2. At least for the second world war, there was a sense of public shame in Germany regarding Hitler and the events of his era, and memory of the Hitler era was understandably suppressed. Should Germans write a war history at this time, it would be meaningless and probably concur with everything written in the past by the “victors”. Yet, one cannot expect the English speaking world to write a fair and balanced history of the war. From the inception of the Great War (World War 1), the British masterminded propaganda regarding the Germans. Germans were painted as blood-thirsty savages that raped women and slaughtered babies, and who had absolutely no regard for human life, being brute beasts that lacked any form of dignity or humanity. The hypocrisy of the English was profound in painting the Germans as such, since their own lineage of Queens and Kings were of German origin, even resulting in them quietly changing their name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to that of Windsor. Their royalty was more proficient at speaking German than English. Oh well! This fact must be securely hidden and forgotten. Perfidious propaganda and defaming characterizations persisted well after both wars against the Germans. I was reading about the meeting of some British and German climbers high in the Himalayas in the 1970s, and a German noted to a Brit that the Brits were recently beaten by the Germans in their national sport of soccer, to which the Brit replied that they just beat the Germans twice in their national sport of war. This ignores the fact that the Brits had been in constant war for at least the past two centuries in their attempt to rule the world. Oh well again! This current book was written in the early 1960’s by a Brit that has gone against the standard line which started back then and persists. This book is not revisionist history since it was written soon after the end of WW2 and based entirely on documents made public and publicly available evidence.

AJP Taylor provides a slightly different type of history of the events leading up to WW2, in that it is history almost entirely spent in recounting the work of ambassadors and statesmen from England, France, Germany, the Soviet Union, and other involved European countries. In this book, you are told what was said, and just as importantly what was not said in trying to negotiate a lasting peace. What is clear (but often vehemently denied) was that the second world war reallystarted in 1918/19 at the signing of the treaty of Versailles and was just a continuation of what we call the first world war. The British and French both eventually developed a sense that the treaty of Versailles was pathologically flawed, yet flailed at resolving how to undo this treaty as well as other treaties that were made in the interim before the world war resumed in 1939.

Taylor notes that we have abundant documents from Germany since they were left in the rubble after the war and used in the Nürnberg trials. He also notes that we don’t have that luxury of obtaining essential documents from the Soviet Union since they have kept to this day most of their records as secret. The British and French have been selective in what records they have allowed to be seen. Thus, there will remain an intrinsic bias to any account as to the cause of world war 2. Regardless, the unearthed German documents tell a much different story than the current party line as to why there was a continuation of the war into what we call world war 2.

It would be weary for me to recount on a chapter by chapter basis the reiteration of what was said so eloquently by AJP Taylor. But a summary of the main thesis is simple. It is clear that Versailles demanded another war. It is clear that there was massive ineptness on the part of ambassadors and their states in trying to resolve the slow unraveling of the Versailles treaty, which by this time was looked on dimly by all parties. Hindsight is a wretched curse on all of us, yet we can now see that the war could have been prevented or made far more limited would the British and French had not wished to maintain their illusion of their being the prevailing super-power in Europe and honestly sought for reconciliation of the bad decisions at Versailles. The Germans were accused of frequently lying to the Brits and French, though Taylor has been able to show that both sides maintained an equal wealth of lies in their statesmanship. Most importantly, it can be shown quite clearly that the Germans (and especially Hitler) did not have a plan to conquer Europe or the world, and for that matter, had no interest in going to war with either Great Britain or France. Most certainly, the records from Germany demonstrate quite adequately that much of what happened in the events of 1936-1939 was unplanned and happened off the cuff; they were not the demonstration of a well thought out over-arching plan to stepwise conquer Europe. That the teaching still exists that Hitler was some evil mastermind going by a well-crafted script is testimony of how people wish to retain their own narratives regardless of the factual content of those narratives.

I’ve been told that the above recounting of the origin of WW2 is only one man’s opinion, and the debate continues and will never be resolved. It seems strange that those who say that simply wish to deny the evidence out there, their thinking being cemented in place by the fictional narratives that have created both world wars. Other authors have supported the thesis of Taylor by writing of the grave errors in the statesmanship of the Germans, British and French, specifically referring to Patrick Buchanan (Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War) which I had previously reviewed. Unfortunately, because we refuse to see the past clearly, we most certainly will persist in our errors in the future. More world wars can be expected, and blame will be fixated on the vanquished, regardless of the actual facts.

Tagged with:
2 Comments »
Dec 23

How Britain Initiated Both World Wars, by Nick Kollerstrom ★★★★

First, I’d like to discuss why I chose to read this book and to mention why it received 4 and not 3 or 5 stars from me. The topic of responsibility for the two world wars in Europe is to most Europeans and Americans quite obvious—it was the Germans. Sadly, this commonly known “fact” is almost certainly not true. It takes much gall to go against the prevailing opinions of the elite, as Nick Kollerstrom discovered in writing this book. My interest in war responsibility started after reading Pat Buchanan’s book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. In this text, Buchanan bucks the notion that Hitler was an evil maniac desiring the conquest of the world. Odd that the person who most promoted the notion of the Hitler image, Winston Churchill, was an evil maniac that controlled an empire ruling 1/4 of the surface of world. The British had discovered the usefulness of war propaganda long before Himmler ever used it to his advantage. Churchill had to paint the Germans as desperate immoral mongrels raping women, slaughtering children, and kicking innocent dogs. This is strange, since Churchill’s beloved Queen (Victoria) was the grandmother to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany who was currently head of state of Germany. It is no surprise that the embarrassed British had to quietly change the name of their King from a German-sounding name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. People have written many volumes detailing the deception, crimes and ineptitude of the “ruling elite” in government: even my own brother Dennis has produced a book of this sort many moons ago, titled “What is Going On?” (or something like that). I would not have drawn the same conclusions as Dennis, yet agree that there is a “deep state” that gives democracy an illusion of populace control of the state, when actually the ideology, thoughts, and decisions of the public are expertly manipulated by very few people, and decisions made and kept secret from the population. Have we not seen that in our recent impeachment hearings and the uncovering of deep moral vacuousness in the FBI and other state institutions? I’m not surprised. Dennis lacks by being too kind to the depth of depravity transpiring in the unseen world of world politics. A number of recent books have come out, and there are now YouTube videos that have taken Buchanan’s book and run with it. See the Horus YouTube site, for instance. I’ll be reading yet 1-2 more books after this also on the causation of the two world wars. This book was good in offering detailed accounts of the subterfuge and deception of Churchill and Grey exercised in desperately trying to get a war with Germany (in 1914) while the British parliament was deeply opposed to the idea. The basic idea was that Britain was never honest in its diplomacy with Germany which led to misunderstandings that resulted in the tragedy of WWI.

The book is an assemblage of four papers that Kollerstrom wrote that form the four chapters. The typesetting and book organization is horrid. The call-outs are just lengthy repetitions of the text and serve no useful purpose. Statements are multiply repeated both within chapters and between chapters. Kollerstrom fails to sufficiently develop the England-causality idea sufficient to be completely credible. Other than that, the book offers some intriguing insights, some of which I will discuss.

Chapter 1, How Britain initiated both world wars, is the lengthiest and takes up over 1/2 of the book. Starting with WWI, the author brings up multiple statements and news clippings from the pre-war years showing how Kaiser Wilhelm (II) was a man of peace. Germany had not been at war for 50 years, while Britain remained in a constant state of war over those years, and France engaged in other wars. Diplomacy failures and horrible treaties all resulted in the ensuing carnage of the Great War. The treaty of Germany with Austria, and France with Russia forced very unwilling hands to act. Secretive but later uncovered defense treaties between France and England escalated what could have been a limited conflict, when everybody would have realized the illogical nature of the battle. Fueling the turn of the war from a few defensive skirmishes and attempts to assure a position of safety, Churchill and Grey were most masterful at creating a war that the politicians (of both England and Germany) did not want, and that the people of England were soon to regret. Untruthful propaganda by Britain’s war department still prevails in western thinking even when it has been shown to be nothing but malignant lies about the German people.

World war II is really a continuation of WWI, since the treaty of Versailles was patently unfair in both the assumptions (war responsibility 100% Germany’s) and the “punishment” to Germany. It is no wonder that Germany behaved like a wounded lion, ready to settle the account. Yet, history doesn’t show that at all. The Versailles’ decision to divide Germany up into many pieces and allot those pieces to Poland, Czechoslovakia (a horrible mistake), resulted in lands that were almost entirely of ethnic German peoples now serving under other nationalities. It is not that these nationalities, especially Poland, were benevolent and impartial governors. Tabled from view were the atrocities that German people received from their new Polish rulers, which explains the mass migration westward of Germans that occurred in the 1920’s. The west noted that this simply was a lie that Hitler created to justify his actions. There is no doubt that Hitler created lies, but this was not one of them. Above all, Hitler made it abundantly clear that he did not wish for a war with Britain or France. They forced his hand. Multiple quotes from many of Hitler’s writings (even Mein Kampf) and speeches noted Hitler’s desire to remain peaceful with Great Britain. Churchill would have none of that. Churchill wanted war. And, Churchill got war. It is surprising that the west has the naïveté to regard Churchill as a great statesman and hero of the west.

Chapter 2, On the avoidability of WWI, mostly reiterates what is found in chapter 1. Chapter 3, Britain as pioneer of city bombing, demonstrates yet another propaganda lie that Churchill has shoved on the British people. We are taught that the British bombed to smithereens every Germany city because the Germans started it all by bombing London. Actually, the opposite is true. Germany had no interest in going to war with Britain, and had no long-range bombers to accomplish that. Meanwhile Britain was building a huge long-range bomber force with anticipation that they would someday bomb Germany. History clearly records Britain bombing civilian centers in Hamburg and Duisberg and Berlin months before the first aerial bombing of London by the Germans. Precisely, Hamberg was bombed on May 11, the day after Churchill became chancellor, and the first German bombing was on September 6 of 1940. This was in spite of clearly stated British declarations of war morality noting that civilian bombing was completely off-limits. Hohum. I presume that one’s moral statements and one’s actions don’t need to coincide. Worse yet, in spite of having declared the immorality of civilian bombing, the Brits were bombing civilian populations in India and Asia years before, in the early 1930’s. Oh wait, I forgot, Indians and Asians and Germans are not human, so guess it doesn’t matter.

Chapter 4, will of the warmongers, provides additional historical material regarding events leading up to WWII that destroys the notion that Hitler was an insane maniac desirous of ruling the world. Victors write the history books, but fortunately, enough history is still existent that we are able to question the forced narrative of the past to ask what really happened to start WWI and II. Truth be told, we all stand guilty. My only regret is that history still offers Churchill a “saint” status. He was a chain-smoking besotted drunk womanizer thirsty for war and willing to destroy nations to accomplish his blood-thirsty lust for power.

People often attribute my stance on Churchill and German as representing me as a Hitler lover or pro-German-regardless-of-the-truth subscriber. Neither is true. I might be of German heritage, but I am American. I do care about the truth, and when facts are given that are inconsistent, then I question the facts. The prevailing narratives of WWI & II are such situations. Therefore, whether or not you tend to accept the prevailing explanation as to why the great world wars occurred, I suggest that you challenge those thoughts momentarily and ask as to the veracity of those explanations. I believe that you may not like what you find. I offered only the briefest details of what was spoken of. You might have many questions as to the veracity of this book since it’s not what you were taught in school, yet the documentation comes mostly from easily available sources as so remain credible. I don’t recommend this book as a starting book on the topic. Watch some the Horus YouTube videos on Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, or better yet, read Pat Buchanan’s book for yourself and discover a replacement narrative that is truer than the one you’ve been taught.

Tagged with:
3 Comments »
Dec 20

The liberal Media Industrial Complex by Mark Dice ★★★★

OK, it’s another review of a book by Mark Dice. I’ve followed Mark since he was doing Bohemian Grove exposés and Illuminati discussions. Mark has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, though some get off the hook regarding conspiracy “delusions” when they speak of vast right-wing conspiracies (eg, Hilarious Clinton). Certainly, the “conspiracies” that Mark discusses are true, though I doubt that they are run by a cabal of hyper-wealthy evil masterminds that sit in James Bond-style high tech caves plotting the destruction of the world as we know it. The “conspiracies better fit the Three Stooges antics or Peter Sellers out on a new detective mission.

In a way, one could identify the Media Industrial Complex (MIC) as yet another conspiracy, but that would further misuse the word “conspiracy”. It perhaps is better to say that the media is a mirror on the nature of all humankind, being evil to the core, desirous of control of fellow citizens, not compelled to exercise integrity when half-truths could better serve their purpose, and examining the world through deeply tinted rose-colored glasses.

Mark is quite successful and heavily referenced in showing the MIC as unduly biased and most sly in their intent to conceal their biases. The chapters of this book are short, detailing how the MIC controls our thinking through censorship of news and information that doesn’t fit the desired narratives, and that has distinctive agendas (anti-gun, anti-God, pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ, enviro-apocalyptic) that through manipulation lead audiences into thinking that their viewpoints are the only existing viewpoints without contest. Mark spends several chapters discussing (not in these words) Trump-derangement syndrome, and the assault on God and family of the media. Finally, Mark does a superb job of detailing the assault on truth and the manipulation of the news and public square for information that social media is inflicting on a purposely uninformed public. Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all fall prey to the discerning knife of Dice’s exposé. Most scary is the final chapter (The Future…) where the possibility of news being created by AI programs that now already exist, which can reconstruct anybody’s voice to say what it will, or incorporate a person in video that never ever happened. This technology is not Dick Tracy-esque, but already exists.

So, why do I give this book only 4 stars since it is an excellent and well-researched text? One thing missing from the book is a better in-depth analysis of what is being seen with our eyes wide shut. Mark Dice needs to be not only a provocateur but also a pundit and sage. Perhaps time and maturity will accomplish that feat. Do I recommend this book? Absolutely and whole-heartedly. Stop right now and order your book. It’s worth a read.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
Mar 16

Christ Among Other Gods: A Defense of Christ in an Age of Tolerance ★★★★★

This book is a set of 12 sermons that Lutzer delivered at Moody Church a few years ago. The reading of this book is very easy as the writing is in a relaxed narrative style. Though the book is 246 pages long, it can be read in several nights sitting.

The forward by JI Packer is most interesting, in that Packer is most deeply a Reformed theologian, and yet Lutzer is dispensational and elaborates dispensational thinking in one chapter of the book, chapter 10 on the return of Christ. Yet, Lutzer also heavily quotes recent Reformed thinkers that are distinctly outside of his camp, such as BB Warfield and JG Machen, showing that both Packer and Lutzer don’t have restrictive eschatologies. In the course of this book, Lutzer tends to suggest a drift away from strict dispensational soteriology and towards a more Reformed understanding of the nature of salvation from an infralapsarian perspective (which I also hold).

This book is not a book on comparative religion, as is offered by JND Anderson. Lutzer does not detail the various religions of the world, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Animism, etc., but speaks in general terms about those religions in comparison to Christianity. Lutzer is correct that there is a very distinct gulf between all other religions and the Christian faith, making it imperative that the Christian religion be examined for its worth. Lutzer spends a chapter covering the issue of “tolerance” and the Christian perspective on tolerance. He discusses relativism—can Christians truly make absolute truth claims? The majority of chapters then delve into Christian claims, most centered around the Christ event, including his birth, his life, his authority and claims, his death, his resurrection, and ultimately, his return. In chapter 11, he addresses the claim that Christianity is unique, arguing that challenges to that uniqueness ultimately fail. In chapter 12, he calls on Christians to share the good news. We have a set of truth claims that neither Muslim, nor Buddhist, nor atheist, nor any other religion can ultimately challenge since it is based on the true creator God of the universe.

I enjoyed reading this book much because it reads so easily and provides a non-technical rational for our Christian stance in the forum of multiple religions. Also, the book was a wonderful reminder of sitting under the pulpit of Erwin Lutzer during our Chicago years. The book is a spiritual challenge to me to be bold in presenting a real, true faith to an ever more pagan world. So, I highly recommend the book to all, Christian and non-Christian alike.

Tagged with:
3 Comments »
Mar 11

When A Nation Forgets God, by Erwin Lutzer ★★★★

This is a very short book of seven chapters, that can be read easily in 1-2 evenings, and represents sermons that Lutzer preached at Moody Church in Chicago. Lutzer has frequently spoken of the theme of lessons from Nazi Germany in his sermons, but in this book, the focus is entirely on how the USA is paralleling Nazi Germany in forgetting our Christian roots and marching after other drummers. The seven chapters address how our freedom of religion is slowly lost, how compromise to the Christian faith is accomplished through economic concerns, how evil laws can somehow allow moral permissiveness, how propaganda from the state tends to affect the evils we become inured to, how the state becomes the educator of our children much to both our own and our children’s detriment, and how political correctness is killing us. As a solution, Lutzer calls for ordinary heroes to stand up for the faith, and how the cross of Christ needs to be our all and total focus in life.

I had mentioned elsewhere how we enjoyed sitting under the pulpit of Erwin Lutzer, and in this review (and the next), find that reading his books brings back many memories of our time at Moody Church. Lutzer is not an expository preacher but is excellent at confronting our culture in a cry for returning to Christ and Scripture for our guidance in life. This book is recommended as an easy and enjoyable reading experience.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
Mar 06

The True Story of Fake News: How Mainstream Media Manipulates Millions, by Mark Dice ★★★★

Mark Dice is best known for his documentation of the Illuminati and the Bohemian Grove, and thus is often accused of being a “conspiracy theorist”. I’m not sure such accusations logically follow and consider the accusation that Hillary Clinton is a conspiracy theorist holds more credibility than such accusations against Mark Dice.

In this book, Mark Dice attacks mainstream media. By that is meant not only the standard media channels like CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBC, etc., but also the internet social media and reference sites, such as Wikipedia.

Dice first goes after social media. I would have thought that social media would have been fairly free of bias, but the contrary is mostly true. Google has the ability to manipulate how searches are performed in order to favor a liberal bias. Facebook tends to have a horrid bias in how it censures conservative vs. liberal media. Dice’s complaint about U-tube is in how it manipulates advertising revenues based on the “offensiveness” of content, and offensive is often deemed as anything of a conservative nature. Since Dice depended heavily on revenues acquired with U-tube, it has affected him most heavily.

The attack then rages against the standard media channels. Step-wise through the various media channels, Dice documents many incidents where the media either created the news or manipulated the recording of the news (for instance, editing out segments of comments to make them say exactly the opposite of what was said) in order to provide a strong liberal bias. Sadly, he does not include Fox News, which has also manipulated how it reports the news in order to force a bias in the direction that Fox News wished. I am sure that the examples provided by Dice are just the tip of the iceberg in how our news is manipulated to heavily biased ends.

The book is slightly tedious to read. His short last chapter provides a brief overview summary of the problems in fake news. This is where I know Mark Dice could have used his book as a springboard to discuss the problem of news bias and what to do about it. 1. What alternatives do we have in attempting to gain news without a distorted slant? 2. How do we live with the news swamp that is currently given to us? 3. What other sources of news are available? 4. What ways can we protest social media in an effective fashion? Is boycotting social media the best action? 5. What grass-roots efforts are available that seem to be effective at forcing more responsibility with the news media?

Since news will always be biased, we cannot simply demand news without “bias”. The reporter holding a world view similar to our own would be helpful. The only effort that I am aware of to provide more conservative newsagents has been the World Journalism Institute, though even it has had somewhat of a neo-conservative bias reflected by the parent news magazine, World Magazine. Reporters of a conservative bent have found it overwhelmingly challenging to live in the liberal shark tanks of the liberal press. Too often, like Ross Douthat, they have caved and showed themselves mostly as liberals in sheep’s clothing, perhaps having a pro-life stance, but otherwise being rottenly liberal to the core. Hopefully, Mark Dice will think through and provide a better scheme that conservatives could use to confront the liberal (and lying) press.

Tagged with:
2 Comments »
Mar 01

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer ★★★★★

We had wished to see this movie when it was still in the theaters, but for very understandable reasons (all bad) the film was pulled, even though it was monetarily doing quite well. So, we thought it would be worth watching. It is a true story, and apparently the movie was careful to be as accurate to the historical details as possible.

Perhaps our first reaction was that the acting was not the best. This is understandable, as I’m sure it was hard to find actors willing to do this film. Contrariwise, the scene set-ups and cinematography were superb, and the action/story line was excellent.

The story is of the FBI and county detectives encountering each other in a search for the source of the physician who was writing massive quantities of narcotics. A raid on his office demonstrated a veritable house of horrors. The filth and stench of his office defied imagination, with fetal and infant body parts littering every portion of his three-story office and procedure clinic. Eventually, employees started talking of the abuses and crimes that were committed on a regular basis in the office.

A moderate amount of the movie centered around the court scene. The defending lawyer pleaded how rampant violations were necessary in order to best promote the “good”, that of making abortion easy and available to every girl in all stages of pregnancy. The prosecuting attornies insisted that the trial was not about abortion, but about the killing of babies in later stages of pregnancy or soon after birth. The prosecution prevailed, and Gosnell ultimately got life in prison without parole (which means 5-10 years in non-legal speak).

It’s what the movie did not say but suggested that makes the movie so powerful. 1. Yes, it is about abortion. 2. Yes, it is a real human being inside. 3. The slippery slope is speeding up. This movie came out approximately 6 months ago. Six months later, two states approved the murder of live-birth abortions. Multiple senators struck down a proposed law that would ban precisely the things that sent Gosnell to prison. 4. Moral relativism will ultimately lead to anything being moral, including the sacrifice of infants to Molech. Assuredly, Francis Crick of double helix fame will be proven correct that abortion will be legal up to age 2. And, why not? If the child is an inconvenience, why shouldn’t the mother have the right to terminate her little nuisance? One cannot possibly say that the trial of Gosnell was NOT about abortion. Political correctness is killing our nation as we refuse to speak openly and honestly about matters of deepest concern. Portrayed in this movie was the ivory tower of lies, the courtroom, the halls of where truth must be discarded and hope abandoned for the innocent. If this trial were to be held in 2019, Gosnell would have walked away with only misdemeanors for his office practices. It makes one weep.

It is a film that brought tears to my eyes, in that both the defense and prosecuting attornies refused to speak the honest truth about the horrors of abortion. The movie is an indictment on our nation, which will someday go down in history as committing crimes that make the Nazis appear like innocent school children. It is a moving film, very much worth watching.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
Feb 22

Donald Drains the Swamp!, by Eric Metaxas and Tim Raglin ★★★★★

This is a children’s book and can be read in under five minutes. It is very funny, and like many of the comics of the past (Roger Ramjet, Rocky and Bullwinkle), were meant for adults as much as for children. It is quite funny, and I only wish it were completely true, that is, that Donald really did drain the swamp. His caricatures are priceless, like the name of one of the dinosaurs in the swamp is the George-o-saurus. Whether or not you like Donald Trump, most will agree that there is a horrid swamp in Washington DC which prevents the common man from really having a voice in his government. Eric makes a very good point in this book about the swamp. Maybe some day the swamp draining will become true.

Regarding the author Eric Metaxas, he spoke at our church once, and I found him to very courteous, humble, and listened well to what others had to say. I disagree with some of his interpretations of history but appreciate the way he interacts in a non-defensive manner when challenged. He is witty, bright, and very engaging, a wonderful person to have representing the Christian faith in today’s toxic culture. He signed the Bonhoeffer book for me which I promptly gave to Dr. King. His biographies of Bonhoeffer and William Wilberforce are worth reading though at times I challenge some of his interpretations. His book on Martin Luther is probably his best biography to date, a book that brings the life of Luther into crisp focus and brings out Luther’s temperament and personality, his boldness, and faith, like no other prior Luther biography; it is a must read.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
Dec 05

Esther & Trump, by Robert Case ★★★★★

This book is the result of a series of Sunday School lessons of which I most fortunate to be a participant. I know Robert well, and would consider him a dear friend. (He might not consider me the same after reading my review!) Perhaps the reader may consider my review as heavily biased, but I have attempted to remain as objective as possible, and thus will also include criticisms of the book. Robert is a compelling speaker and writer, leaving one spell-bound when hearing or reading him. This book was a delight to read, and offered fresh perspectives on Esther. True, it is now trendy to offer fresh perspectives on biblical themes, such as the new perspectives on Paul, Genesis, Jesus, or Isaiah, just to name a few. Where I find most of these new perspectives to be dull and unoriginal if not patently heretical, the same is not true of Robert’s “new perspective” on Esther. He offers a perspective of the book of Esther which is not offensive to a mindset that holds Scripture to be the directly inspired word of God. 

The first several chapters of the book outline the historical context of Esther, mostly by detailing the lineage of Kings of Persia from the fall of Babylon through to Alexander the Great. The character and historical details of Xerxes is elaborated, which is most important in understanding the book of Esther. 

Subsequent chapters offer a textual commentary of the book of Esther. In this section, Robert manages to illuminate aspects of the text which are very clear but completely missed, as we traditionally read the book of Esther with our eyes wide shut. The character of Esther  is shown for what it really is—a person without sexual moral principles, and willing to break the laws of the Torah to achieve her own end. She is NOT a role model of virtue. But then, neither is the Jewish community living in Persia, where their sins are also laid bare. With the absence of narrative evaluative judgements as seen in all other Scripture, we miss those details that Robert Case is able to illuminate. Particularly evil was Mordecai in administrating the slaughter of all of the known enemies of the Jews, which is a story that would best be found in the book of Judges, everybody doing what was right in their own eyes. There is good reason why Esther is not portrayed as a model of faith in Hebrews, even though other quite sinful people like Samson and Gideon are mentioned. 

Toward the end of the book of Esther & Trump, Robert attempts to make a plea for the political nature of this book. He is correct that it is a book laden with politics, in that the story centers around the King (Xerxes) and his appointed officials (Mordecai and Haman, as well as other unnamed personnel). Referring to the Jews in Persia as “the church”, it is made to seem that Mordecai and Esther serve as representative agents of the church. This unfortunately is an extrapolation of the text rather than an overt claim, as we don’t really have a clue how involved Esther and Mordecai were with the Jewish community. If they were highly involved, then they show the Jewish “church” to be quite wayward. There is too much not mentioned in the book to allow strong conclusions to be made. 

Perhaps Esther really is included as a part of the canon of Scripture as a lesson in politics, as Robert claims. Yet, it is troubling that the absence of evaluative judgements leave the reader puzzled as to what amounts to proper interactions of the church and state, rather than to simply have the church infiltrating the state government. Perhaps brought to mind by me is another book I have read in the distant past, the Politics of Jesus, by John Howard Yoder. In the Politics of Jesus, Yoder effectually demonstrates the strong political nature of Jesus and his teachings. With the aspect of pacifism aside (which Yoder does a very poor job defending), there is a strong reason why even the teachings of Jesus offer the Christian or Jew a reason to interact if not participate in a political fashion with the state. Certainly, Case makes a good case from Esther for Christian involvement with state functions. 

The book has problems. There are many typographical errors, way too many sidebar distractions, and arguments on the political nature of the book of Esther which I think could have been better developed. Most distracting though was the title of the book. The book title is misfit, in that Trump is barely spoken of, except in passing toward the very end of the book. Are we to think of Trump as a form of Xerxes? If so, why was Obama not chosen as a far better choice, or Bush, or Clinton, all of which in many ways share more of Xerxes’ characteristics than Trump? If God was obscure in the Esther text, well, so is Trump, and I fail to see a connection between Trump and the politics of Persia. For such a seminal and needed text on Esther, this commentary truly deserves a more fitting title. 

In spite of problems, Esther & Trump still deserves a five star rating. There is great scholarship, brilliance in thinking, and illumination of the text in a way that is perfectly clear once one opens their eyes to what is plainly in the text. Case provides some hints as to why Esther was included in the canon of Scripture. To that end, I highly recommend Biblical scholars to give this book a fair reading.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
preload preload preload