We The People
The Bill of Rights defines and defends the freedoms we enjoy as Americans -- from the right to bear arms to the right to a civil jury. Using the dramatic true stories of people whose lives have been deeply affected by such issues as the death penalty and the right to privacy, attorneys Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy reveal how the majestic priciples of the Bill of Rights have taken shape in the lives of ordinary people, as well as the historic and legal significance of each amendment. In doing so, they shed brilliant new light on this visionary document, which remains as vital and as controversial today as it was when a great nation was newly born.
Customer Reviews:
Readable, Informative look at Bill of Rights.......2007-04-08
This is a nicely readable look at the U.S. Bill of Rights in action. Authors Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy provide 20 concise real-life stories that define our rights and freedoms. These case studies deal with such issues as free speech, gun control, government powers, the rights of the accused, the death penalty, etc. Does the First Amendment give the Ku Klux Klan the right to broadcast on local cable television? Can the City of Detroit tear down an existing neighborhood to build an auto plant? Must two terrified young girls testify against their accused molester from the witness stand, or does the sixth amendment permit them to do so via closed circuit TV? The authors present these and several other equally interesting cases. Readers learn the facts, the competing legal arguments, and the eventual decisions of the courts - decisions that sometimes left the judges bitterly divided.
Since their adoption in 1791, the Bill of Rights have endured over two centuries of societal and technological change. This is a readable, thought-provoking, and informative look at those ten amendments and their application to life in the USA.
Important guide to our rights.......2007-02-19
The legal process is complex to most average citizens, so this book offers an explanation of the process for challenges and decisions based on our Bill of Rights. It is an important resource for those studying or thinking about what happens in our court system, and why it happens as it does. A valuable reference for home or school libraries.
So you think you know your rights? .......2006-09-08
If you've ever been surprised by the ruling of a court or a judge in regards to matters whose resolution would seem obvious to the casual legal observer, then perhaps you should read this book. Kennedy and Alderman walk through each of the "rights" we are guaranteed by the Constitution and give examples of court cases and decisions that often might seem counter-intuitive.
Reading and understanding this book can help one become a more responsible and informed U.S. citizen.
I'm always finding myself referring back to this book, my most beat up, the most well used in my modest collection.
Review every book you read- authors deserve your input and consideration.
Entertaining and Informative.......2003-10-04
I was assigned this book as supplementary reading for my AP government class, and while some of my friends didn't like it, I loved and am now re-reading it.
The authors admit that their intent was 1) to make people see the Bill of Rights as more than a legal document, but a guideline created by framers who had no idea how different the nation would be centuries later, and 2) to make people think.
For each of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the authors pick a case, usually criminal, and discuss it in relation to the amendment. They choose their cases carefully, and all are thought-provoking.
The Bill of Rights was created to protect the people from the government, and includes several rights delegated to those accused of crimes. However, in one poignant case, the right to confront the witness is used to declare an accused child molester's trial invalid. However, the book also lists many instances in which the Bill of Rights served as the final defense in a couple accused of Communism during the McCarthy era.
While some may find the book boring, because they're not interested in hearing about politics, many would find this book enjoyable to read, especially if they are interested in law.
Review of In Our Defense.......2003-03-19
This book gave a good illustration of the Bill of Rights in Action. It gave a court case to outline each of the principles in each amendment. For example the first amendment has a case for freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. These cases demonstrate how our laws are interpreted, how they have changed since the framers wrote the constitution, and exactly how our rights are limited. Each case also helps to define parts of each amendment that are in question. In other words, the cases are good examples of judicial decisions that help to defne our laws. I think that this book is amazing if you are in school, because it gives a very nice alternative to a textbook approach. Rather than just another boring textbook, this can be a helpful tool to teach the Bill of Rights with examples of the judicial process. Though this is a good book, I think that the Authors left out an important part of the book. It is lacking a historical background of the Bill of Rights. This book never illustrates what the framers intent was, nor does it try and communicate legal concepts. Though it may have been a good decision to leave out the legal concepts so the book would appeal to those without any legal experience, it would have been nice to at least get some information.
Book Description
An historical defense of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura
Customer Reviews:
The Relationship Between the Church Fathers, Scripture, and Tradition.......2006-12-17
[This is the same introduction that I gave to my review for Vol. I. The actual review below is different.] Although it does not cover every disputed exegetical and historical question in detail (and what book could without making the volume massive!), I give this three volume set five stars since there is simply nothing else like it from the Protestant/Evangelical side out there. Since it is a popular polemical work, I shall use a polemical tone in my review. But, before I get to the review, I would like to note that much of the criticisms of this work by the Roman Catholics below are actually addressed in the three volumes. These people remind me of the militant Darwinists who don't even read I.D. books before giving the book a one-star review and repeating ad infinitum ad nauseum the same tired arguments the book tries to address. So, now to the review:
Volume Two:
Chapter 1
In the first chapter Webster discusses how the early church fathers viewed Scripture, Tradition, and how they related to each other. He goes into depth on the views of such church fathers as: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and especially Augustine. Webster also discusses and refutes the Roman Catholic (R.C. from now on) apologetic use of passages by these church fathers. R.C. apologists abuse these passages in a number of ways: they frequently cite such passages as these in isolation from the surrounding context, equivocate on terms such as "tradition", or a combination thereof. Next, he cites the view during the early to mid Middle Ages by noting the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and historical scholars. The amount of research that went into this work was quite likely extensive. He cites many a historian (even Roman Catholic) on the issue. Something that should be noted (though I can't remember if Webster addresses it in here) is that while most Roman Catholic apologists argue very strongly for the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church, many (if not most) Roman Catholic historical scholars concede that the early church did, in fact, believe that Scripture was the only infallible authority for the church in their day (and for us today). Webster cites several of these scholars throughout his work.
Chapter 2
Webster writes more about the view of "tradition" in the early church. He also notes that differences over what was the "true" apostolic tradition arose very early on in the history of the Church. He cites several examples (i.e. the Easter Controversy, Cyprian and Stephen, Irenaeus and the Age of Jesus, etc.).
Chapter 3
Here, he discusses the tradition OF interpretation (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Antiochene, Middle Ages, etc.). He notes that, despite the claims of Rome, there is no such thing as "the unanimous consent of the church fathers" on any issue except for maybe monotheism. [Before any DaVinci Code fanatics start jumping for joy, I must note that I am referring to deeper theological matters, not the historicity of the four Gospels or the other basics of Christianity.] He then discusses the misuse of church father passages by R.C. apologists. Next, he gives a summary of the major points of what the church fathers taught about Scripture (i.e. the continuity of the Testaments, the rule of faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, the principle of context in interpreting the Scriptures, the belief that Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture declares its own meaning, and the need for all Christians to study Scripture). Lastly, he discusses the early church's view of councils.
Chapter 4
Here, he discusses and refutes the claims of the Roman Church in light of the historical evidence. He notes that the interpretations of the typical "Papal" passages, Matt. 16:18 and Luke 22:32, were not interpreted in the Roman Catholic fashion by the vast majority of the early fathers. [In Appendix A, he includes a plethora of quotations by the early fathers which interpret Matthew 16:18 in a way differently than what Rome claims they did.] Next, he discusses one modern dogma of the Roman Church, the Assumption of Mary, which the early fathers believed was heresy (or rather, came from heretical writings). On this point he definitely could have been more extensive by citing other examples such as the veneration of images and icons. Lastly, he discusses the errant "infallible" declarations of the Popes in the early church. Here, he could have went on and cited some examples from the Medieval Era, but the ones that he cited (from the Roman era) were quite sufficient.
Chapter 5
Webster then shows (by citing Roman Catholic theologians themselves) that, in the final analysis, the Roman Church doesn't care about grounding its dogmas in the Scriptures or the "unanimous consent of the church fathers". Too many of its beliefs are contradicted by the early church, and the Roman Church's Magesterium claims the right to interpret what is the right "tradition" (as opposed to the wrong "tradition") as well as the proper interpretation of Scripture anyway. In the end, the Roman Church declares Divine Truth to be whatever it says it is. Instead of sola Scriptura, it is sola ecclesia.
Chapters 6, 7, and 8
In Part 2 of this volume, Webster discusses the historic view of the apocrypha throughout the history of the Church. He notes that almost all the church fathers who had any serious historical knowledge of those books did not view them as part of the Old Testament. This shows that the Council of Trent (one of the many R.C. ecumenical councils) was in error in placing those books in the canon. For a detailed analysis of how the canon we have today came about, I would suggest Michael Green's "The Books the Church Suppressed". [For those suspicious of the title, it's an anti-Da Vinci Code book.] Although it doesn't address the issue that the King/Webster series addresses directly, it demolishes the notion that the Church created the canon.
Now, I would like to address one criticism found in one of the reviews below (P.J. Porvaznik). After making the typical high claims that the church fathers were very "Catholic" (another fallacy of equivocation and ipse dixit), Porvaznik states that Webster's work would lead one to believe that the early fathers were Protestant. However, neither Webster nor King does any such thing. Both authors acknowledge that the church fathers are a very mixed bag of theological beliefs and many held different views than modern Protestants. [Though that varies greatly with the age in which a specific father wrote. The earliest (i.e. apostolic) fathers would agree much more with Protestants.] However, they are certainly not Roman Catholic since most of the fathers would repudiate half the Roman Church's dogma (or at least that which is in conflict with Protestant doctrine), especially on the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture. Another criticism of Porvaznik is that, while King and Webster like to cite the church fathers and agree with them on this subject, they don't like to do so when the fathers agree with Roman Catholicism. However, this is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the argument. The argument is not that Protestants believe in sola Scriptura because it was believed by the church fathers; rather, the argument seeks to undermine the R.C. argument from the "unanimous consent of the church fathers". Protestants would believe in sola Scriptura anyway, but historical backup doesn't hurt. The Roman Catholic, on the other hand, MUST have agreement with the church fathers since their arguments against Protestantism attempt to rely on the history and historical interpretation of the church.
This work is a must-have for any Protestant/Evangelical who doesn't know much about the church fathers and is discussing this issue with a R.C.
Jonathan.......2002-11-28
God have mercy on this poor soul.
He doesn't know what he has written.
Simply a heresy!
A great work of theology and history!.......2002-01-04
Webster and King have provided the Church with a work that is going to cause some serious problems for the Roman Catholic apologists, and I highly recommend this work to anyone who has an interest in the issue of Sola Scrpitura, whether you are a Catholic or a Protestant!
I am an outraged and shocked Catholic apologist! Volume 2.......2001-12-06
REVIEW CONTINUED...
A good point made by King is the ambiguity in the word "tradition" as used by various Catholic scholars and apologists. Some argue (such as modern Catholic scholars and Cardinal Newman) for "material sufficiency" (or a one-source theory) while others (the authors suggest the Council of Trent, and both modern and traditional apologists) argue for an independent (or two-source) theory of oral apostolic tradition or revelation outside Scripture. However, these need not be mutually exclusive as they can complement one another by the maxim Totum in Scriptura, Totum in Traditione: ALL in Sacred Scripture and ALL in Sacred Tradition which can be shown was the position of the early Church. There is no doctrine that was ever believed that did not have at least some implicit backing in Scripture, as well as strong backing in the Church's Tradition (Joe Gallegos makes this point in Not By Scripture Alone, p. 396-7, 404-5).
In fact, the Council of Trent does not explicitly state "two sources" but that the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles are "the source [singular] at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct...." and that "these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which [were] received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves" as inspired by the Holy Spirit (Trent, Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). The words "partly [in Scripture]...partly [in Tradition]" (while debated) does not appear in the official statement on Scripture and Tradition from Trent.
In his chapter on the perspicuity of Scripture and formal sufficiency, King fails to address the main biblical text Catholics use for the non-perspicuity of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16, although see vol 1, p. 198 which is probably a reference to it). Of course one could argue for a Catholic to appeal to Scripture at all implies one already believes the text is perspicuous or clear. But Catholics only say that Scripture is not perspicuous enough by itself to resolve disputes on major doctrinal and moral teachings without the necessary reference to Tradition and the living Magisterium (e.g. the Church's bishops meeting in Council) as authorities on par with Scripture.
In volume 2, William Webster attempts to present a "historical defense" of Sola Scriptura and justify his previous outrageous assertions (e.g. see his chapter in the book Roman Catholicism [Moody, 1994] edited by John Armstrong where he first made this in print) that the Church Fathers and medieval doctors (such as St. Thomas Aquinas!) taught the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura -- that is, both the "material" and "formal" sufficiency of Sacred Scripture. Webster accepts this "material/formal" distinction and takes up the challenge.
This volume is even weaker than volume 1 in my opinion, since Webster once again makes his usual sweeping statements on the Fathers while ignoring how Catholic (or "Roman Catholic") these folks are! The volumes should more accurately be subtitled: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, But Not Your Faith since the Catholic Faith of the early Fathers (whether of St. Irenaeus where they get this reference to Scripture as "ground and pillar" or any other early Father) is certainly NOT the Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical "faith" of Webster and King!
Webster grudgingly acknowledges this but then dismisses it (see vol 2, p. 54-56 and p. 262-264 on Madrid vs. Jones) since he says he is allowed to contradict their "meaning" or interpretation of Scripture, even when they are unanimous! But they all still supposedly believed in Scripture alone! Seemingly Webster and King can pick and choose (or reject wholesale) whatever they want from the Fathers. I cover the Fathers in detail in my online refutation.
Webster refers several times to something called "the Protestant Church" (see vol 2, p. 50, 57, 82, 164, 212, etc) which in reality does not exist! No one can point to any so-called giant "Protestant Church" as a whole that would agree with Webster and King on doctrine (aside from their respective congregations or denominations perhaps). He has the same problem that Catholics supposedly have about the identity of Sacred Tradition: he cannot identify or locate this so-called "Protestant Church" especially given the "invisible" nature of the "true church" (i.e. the elect or "saved Christians") in Protestantism.
What Webster/King Do Not Tell You
Let's summarize the conclusions of Protestant scholars Philip Schaff, JND Kelly, and Jaroslav Pelikan --
(A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 606);
(B) Throughout the whole period of the Fathers, Scripture AND Tradition ranked as complementary authorities, although overlapping or coincident in content; and if Scripture was "sufficient" in principle, Tradition provided the surest clue to Scripture's true interpretation, for in Tradition the Church received, as a legacy from the apostles, an unerring grasp of the real meaning of revelation that both Tradition AND Scripture enshrined and bore witness (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, page 47-48, 51);
(C) There was no notion of Sola Scriptura in the ante-Nicene Church, neither was there a notion of Sola Traditio (Tradition alone); the one universal Catholic Church of the Fathers (neither Western/Catholic nor Eastern/Orthodox) was the repository of all revealed truth, the dispenser of all grace, and the only place where the true God accepted true worship, sacrifices, intercessions, good works, etc -- only from this Church does the truth shine forth; heretics taught doctrines found neither in Scripture nor Tradition, while orthodox Catholics in the Church of the four Gospels and four Councils were faithful to both Scripture and Tradition (Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, volume 1, page 115-117, 334-335).
(...)
CONTINUED in volume 3...
A new standard for sola Scriptura discussions.......2001-12-02
It seems as if the demise of sola Scriptura has been highly exaggerated. I admit that there are few comprehensive works of this vital truth. Furthermore, one would have to go back a few centuries to the work of William Whitaker, "Disputations on Holy Scripture" in 1588 or William Goode's "The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice" in 1853 for a comprehensive defense of sola Scriptura. However, with the work of David King and William Webster things have now changed. A contemporary comprehensive work is now available in "Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith". In this three-volume work King and Webster has done the church an enormous service. Volume 1 contains close to 300 pages and deals with sola Scriptura from a biblical perspective. Volume 2 is over 400 pages and deals with sola Scripture from an historical perspective. Finally, volume 3 is approximately 300 pages of quotes from the fathers on the subject of sola Scriptura. In the end, I think King and Webster have set the new standard for discussions on this topic. This generation and generations to come are blessed with the most thorough comprehensive investigation of sola Scripture from a biblical and historical perspective available.
Volume 1 deals with the biblical evidence for sola Scripture and until reading it I hadn't really considered all the ancillary doctrines that affect sola Scripture. In this volume David King covers revelation (Catholic and Protestant views), exegesis of primary New Testament texts, New Testament meaning of tradition, Scripture the only infallible norm, Scripture the only certain norm, material sufficiency of Scripture, formal sufficiency of Scripture, final authority (Catholic and Protestant views), and common misrepresentations of sola Scriptura. These are all major categories that are further broken down into numerous sub-categories. For instance at one point under the major category of Scripture the only certain norm, King deals with an accusation against the integrity of Scripture by a well-known Catholic apologist. King systematically destroys this argument by a barrage of evidence to show the charge is baseless. He uses Jesus Christ, the church fathers, contemporary Protestant scholars, and even Catholic scholars! By the time King finishes one is left in amazement that anyone who has seriously studied the issue would doubt or attempt to assail the veracity of the Scriptures. King is never a lone ranger in his interpretation or conclusions, but always has one or more of the aforementioned witnesses to confirm his reasoning. Therefore, for the non-Protestant who thinks this will be a futile exercise of Protestants reading their belief into Scripture you will be in for a surprise. King consistently confirms his exegesis and conclusions with fathers, theologians, and scholars from many different camps.
After reading volume one you might wonder what more is there to know in order to defend or believe in sola Scriptura? Well, if anyone has discussed this issue with Catholics you know the answer, church history and church fathers. William Webster steps up to the challenge of showing that sola Scriptura is not the novelty that one often hear it is, but it is rooted in the beliefs of the early church. The most confusing issue when discussing the role of Scripture and tradition in the early church is what does the fathers mean when they use the word "tradition". To one not familiar with the writings of the early fathers and the meaning of this single word it can and has been greatly misused. Webster contends that this word was used in the following ways by the early church:
1) The apostolic teaching handed down by the Apostles, called the apostolic tradition
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) Patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture way.
For the next 200 plus pages he goes through the work of the early fathers. Webster not only demonstrates that this is the way the word "tradition" was used, but he also shows that "tradition" in no way invalidates the early church's belief in Scripture as the sole infallible source that all doctrines must be proved by. In addition to the previous discussion Webster also devotes two chapters to Rome's authority claim in part 1. He shows how Catholicism has abandoned her unanimous consent of the fathers to guide her interpretations and doctrines. Instead the Catholic Church's guide is whatever the current magisterium says. Part 2 of this volume is dedicated to the Canon of the Old Testament. Webster lays out an extremely convincing case that the OT Canon was settled by the Jews at 22 books. He shows that the majority of church fathers and theologians up to the time of the Reformation agreed with Jerome that there were two concepts of the word canon. The Apocrypha was considered canon, but not in the strict sense of the word canon as the other books of the Hebrew canon. Webster amasses an overwhelming list of fathers and church theologians that are in agreement with his contention.
In volume 3 we are presented with a catena of quotes from the early church fathers in reference to sola Scriptura. The topics include material sufficiency of Scripture, Scripture as the ultimate authority, the perspicuity of Scripture, the self-interpreting nature of Scripture, the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual believers life to understand the Scriptures, and the necessity of private reading of Scripture for the sanctification of the individual. A quick skimming of this volume alone should cause one to think twice before affirming the early church knew nothing of sola Scriptura. In each section you will read men such as Ireneaus, Athanasius, Jerome, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, and others claim the truths Protestants have been defending since the Reformation.
In conclusion, King and Webster have set a new standard for the discussion of sola Scriptura. . I believe the greatness of this work is that no one can accuse them of coming up with some theological novelty. This is true because they constantly validate their interpretations of the Scriptures and church history with Protestants scholars, Catholic scholars, church fathers, and or/and church theologians. Protestants should devour this work so that they will be equipped to give an answer for their beliefs as commanded by the Scriptures. Anyone else who is involved with discussions on this important matter should also read this work, because there is no doubt it will become the standard for all sola Scriptura discussions.
Amazon.com
The most gripping portion of Stephen Flynn's examination of America's defense shortcomings in the war on terror arrives early. The entire second chapter imagines an elaborate but feasible dirty-bomb attack that brings the nation's transportation system to a halt and presents the President with two dreadful options: reopen borders closed by the emergency and risk further attack, or inspect everything that comes into the country and accept the cataclysmic economic consequences. Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and veteran of the George H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations, paints a picture of a government that is flailing in its efforts to protect its citizens. We are, Flynn argues, hamstrung by entrenched intelligence bureaucracies and ideological power centers on the right and left, and he isn't optimistic about the near-term likelihood that we'll meet our greatest challenge: "identifying how to formally engage the broader civil society and private sector, not just the federal government, in a national effort to make America a less attractive terrorist target." America the Vulnerable isn't as powerful or contentious as the bestseller Imperial Hubris; Flynn is a practical government veteran who keeps his outrage largely in check. It's clear he aims to have an impact with this expose of a national defense he compares to France's in the days of the Maginot line. And we know how effective that "impenetrable" defense stood up in the face of an unconventional opponent. --Steven Stolder
Book Description
America is living on borrowed time -- and squandering it.
Three years after September 11, we are still dangerously unprepared to prevent or respond to anotherattack on American soil. Faced with this threat, the United States should be operating on a wartime footingat home. But despite the many new security precautionsthat have been proposed, our most serious vulnerabilities remain ominously exposed.
In this powerful and urgently needed call to action, Stephen Flynn offers a startling portrait of the radical shortcomings in America's current plan for homeland security. He describes a frightening scenario of what the next major terrorist attack might look like, revealing the tragic loss of life and economic havoc it would leave in its wake, as well as the seismic political consequences it would have in Washington.
Despite increased awareness, we still offer our enemies a vast menu of soft targets: water and food supplies; chemical plants; energy grids and pipelines; bridges, tunnels, and ports; and the millions of cargo containers that carry most of the goods we depend upon in our everyday lives. The measures we have cobbled together to protect these vital systems are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals, and smugglers, letalone determined terrorists. Worse still, small improvements are often oversold as giant steps forward, lowering the guard of the average citizen and building an unwarranted sense of confidence.
It does not have to be this way. Flynn carefully outlines a bold yet practical plan for achieving security in a way that is safe and smart, effective and manageable. In a new world of heightened risk and fear, America the Vulnerable delivers a timely, forceful message that cannot be ignored.
Customer Reviews:
Bullseye- Right on - a sobering, yet accurate, assessment.......2007-07-22
This book, like Stephen Flynn's "Edge of Disaster" succinctly dissects the problems we face in warding off terrorism at home and exposes our vulnerabilities. They are large - ports, shipping, energy infrastructure, chemical plants, food processing facilities, for openers.
Flynn describes the problem only too well,
At the root of the problem is the Department of Homeland Security's secrecy, lack of internal coordination, turf battles, and incompatabile data base systems. Equally problematic is the complacency of the AMerican people, who are being shielded from the realities by a patronizing government.
Flynn ascribes the current situation to be comparable to the "phony war" between the time of the nazi attack in Poland in 1939, and the invasion and capitulation of France in the SPring of 1940 because of failure to consider, plan and consider new battlefield tactics. In short, the French (and also the British, were using WOrld War I tactics to fight new German panzer tactics. The parallels of today's attitudes and the last days of the Roman EMpire also are, indeed, chilling.
The government is not the only culprit that lulls our citizens into complacency. In my personal opinion, the news media does not help with its focus on the trivial, a hiding of coverage of the war on terror, and seldom reviewing the vulnerabilities Flynn covers so well and rallying our citizenry to the realities of what's at stake.
The solutions?: Active involvement of citizens; Active involvement of government with relevant private industry; open communicatioan with all relevant players in state and local government; making infrastructure sufficiently resilient that terrorists no longer find a potential target attractive.
WHat is needed, and implied, is a revival of an approach pioneered by NASA in the early 1960's when they had to establish operational paradigms and procedures for which there was no precedent. It's called 'conceptual blockbusting'. FLynn's book will help us get there, if everyone reads it.
Flynn quotes Abraham Lincoln concerning new paradigms:
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with uncertainty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
It's as relevant now in the war on terro as it was in 1962.
BUY this book, and buy extra copies for your loved ones and closest friends.
This book shows how vulnerable the United States is.......2007-02-19
This book is a must read for anyone interested in the short comings of our Homeland Security Department. I initially bought the book after thumbing through it and finding a section on the lack of security with our cargo containers, a specific worry of mine.
This book not only breaks down where we are vulnerable, it explains why and offers workable solutions as to how to reduce this vulnerability. The book is a bit frightening in a way, when you read and realize how vulnerable we really are, even after 6 years of security measures. Why isn't more being done? What are the government officials covering up?
What makes this book hit like a sledgehammer is the credentials of the author. He was a Coast Guard Commander for 20 years, an expert in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He has been on Congressional Task forces studying the problems in homeland security as well as serving in the White House Military Office during President George H. Bush administration and director for Global Issues on the National Security Council during the Administration of President Bill Clinton. Stephen Flynn is obviously an expert on this issue and his words should be given their due weight.
Bottom line, insightful, a bit frightening, definitely a book to read if you like current events or really want to know how safe we actually are.
We Are Sitting On A Time Bomb.......2006-05-20
That is how one of the chapters starts. It's a matter of when the next terrorist attack will happen, not if it will happen, according to the author, Stephen Flynn.
With absolute simplicity, common sense logic, and an irrefutable argument, he demonstrates how and why our government is failing to protect us from the terrorist threat. Industry and government are not willing to take the time and the money required to provide greater security for a war on terrorism that will never end.
Our water and food supplies, our chemical plants, and our ports are alrmingly unsecure from terrorist attack. Flynn creates a terrorist scenario demonstrating how the terrorist threat can become reality. He asserts our enemies are willing to spend the time to create the act of terror, while we are not willing to spend the time defending ourselves to foil it.
He blames industries which see no benefit in spending the money on security which will be passed on to their consumers, while non-security minded companies will maintain lower prices and take business away from the security-conscious ones.
This means that congress must act. It must set security standards that will be implemented across each industry thus spreading the cost to everyone. So far, congress, not wanting to offend their million dollar contributors have done nothing. Flynn also suggests that Americans must be willing to make the sacrifices necessary for this security.
We are operating on a World War II mentality i.e. the best defense is a good offense by taking the fight to their countries. That is not what Flynn recommends. Terrorists will always be able to get into this country. We must strengthen our security at home which will take years of dedicated preparation and action.
The author's book is a siren song. The beginning of his fourth chapter bears repeating as a end to this review. "When it comes to dealing with the new security agenda, Americans need to grow up....Terrorism is simply too cheap, too available, and too tempting ever to be totally eradicated. We must have the maturity both to live with the risk of future attacks and to invest in reasonable measures to rein in that risk."
For those who use the argument that we haven't been attacked since 9/11, remember, it took five years of planning. 9/11 is now more than five years ago. Truly, American apathy and complacency are the terrorists' greatest allies.
Practical Security.......2006-04-03
This is a clearly written, well reasoned book on how to provide real security for the U.S. homeland. To his credit, its author Stephan Flynn wastes no time either in partisan bashing of the current administration or in dissecting the many faults of the Department of Homeland Security. Rather he immediately shares his analysis of why domestic security in the U.S .is such an elusive goal. In the course of a number of chapters he builds a pretty strong case that in spite of all the talk, the U.S. is just as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as it was in 2000 before the 9/11 catastrophe. Flynn provides some specific examples what these vulnerabilities are and is especially effective in his analysis of shipping port vulnerabilities as a result of the exponential growth of containerized shipping. He also provides what appears to be a sensible and more importantly doable plan to actually reduce our vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. He is an advocate of applying that long held business concept of `risk management' to the practice of homeland security. Like Richard Posner (Preventing Surprise Attacks - amazon.com) he points out the impossibility of making the U.S. completely immune to any terrorist threat and argues that it makes far better sense to rationally and logically identify which potential targets in the U.S. would cause the most loss of life and economic or social disruption if attacked and build a dynamic and multilayered defensive system to protect those targets.
Of course, Flynn is a former Coast Guard officer so his prescriptions for protecting America are practical not theoretical. Having spent twenty years protecting U.S. interests in our coastal waters, his thought on how to protect this country is based on a realistic understanding of the threats we face and a knowledge of what actually can be done to mitigate those threats. It is a shame that the Department of Homeland Security has not seen fit to follow his example.
The First Stone in the Foundation for Protecting the Homeland .......2006-02-14
This book focuses practically entirely on the vulnerabilities of the American homeland, and offers some suggestions that could begin to lay the foundation for protecting those vulnerabilities. The book does not talk about the war on terror in the terms of the offensive operations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, intelligence matters, and targeted killings of Al-Qaeda at all.
The author's cogent argument rests on the concept of defense in depth. In addition to offensive operations to route out the terrorists, we also need to make our homeland less susceptible to successful attack and more resilient to the aftermath of the inevitable one that slips through the net.
The homeland is defined not just as American territory, but extends to include the global commercial, transportation, trading, and financial networks that are central to our way of life and our economy. This represents a rich field of targets for terrorists, with successful attacks being able to ripple through the networks and cause continuing and ongoing damage. Flynn opens his book with a scenario of an attack on shipping containers, and transportation links with radiological devices. The hypothetical comes off as very plausible and sobering.
The remainder of the book talks about what the major vulnerabilities of America are, such as chemical plants, food distribution, overextended medical systems via biological or chemical attacks, etc. He shows that we currently lack the capabilities, organizational structure, and practices to adequately secure these vulnerabilities.
He provides what are really "glimpses" of possible solutions to these problems, including RFID tracking of cargo containers and food shipments with embedded WMD sensors, government security standards for critical and hazardous infrastructure (nuke plants, water treatment facility chlorine gad tanks, etc.) continuing reorganization at the federal, state and local level to focus on security, insurance measures, and a particularly innovative concept to enlist private company participation patterned after the Federal Reserve system.
However at the length of this short and easily readable (if not pleasently readable) book Flynn cannot go into detail. The cost and time of implementing such systems are not gone into in a satisfactory manner, but that's not the point of the book.
The point of the book is that the government needs to do more to protect our homefront. Flynn convincingly makes his case, and provides reasonable guidelines about how to improve upon the situation.
A good read for American citizens who want to ensure that we are doing the best we can to protect our civilization.
Book Description
A Biblical defense of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura.
Customer Reviews:
The Only Work Like It On the Protestant Side.......2006-12-17
Although it does not cover every disputed exegetical and historical question in detail (and what book could without making the volume massive!), I give this three volume set five stars since there is simply nothing else like it from the Protestant/Evangelical side out there. Since it is a popular polemical work, I shall use a polemical tone in my review. But, before I get to the review, I would like to note that much of the criticisms of this work by the Roman Catholics below are actually addressed in the three volumes. These people remind me of the militant Darwinists who don't even read I.D. books before giving the book a one-star review and repeating ad infinitum ad nauseum the same tired arguments the book tries to address. So, now to the review:
Volume One:
Chapter 1
King starts out by summarizing the differences and the epistemological abilities of general and special revelation. This chapter should be taken to heart by everyone, Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. Roman Catholics because of their adherence to Thomism and other philosophical theologies. Protestants because of the pervasiveness of "evangelical Thomism" and the "Book of Nature" crowd.
Chapter 2
King summarizes the historic Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura: Scripture is the only *infallible* rule of faith for the Church *today*. This is important since Roman Catholic apologists frequently use straw-man arguments (i.e. misrepresentations) against sola Scriptura.
Chapter 3
King summarizes the Roman Catholic view of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition (and notice the capital T). He then points out the fallacy of equivocation that Roman Catholic (R.C. from now on) apologists have been trying to get away with since the Reformation: R.C. apologists equivocate on the term "tradition" as it is used both in Scripture and the church fathers. Next, he tries to draw a parallel between R.C.ism and Gnosticism on the view of Scripture. In my opinion, though they have their similarities, there are too many differences that the Protestant shouldn't use this argument except to bring context to the writings of the earlier church fathers (i.e. Irenaeus, etc.). He also discusses (and refutes) the R.C. use of John 20:30.
Chapter 4
Here, King attempts to make a Biblical case for sola Scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. Despite P.J. Porvaznik's (see the reviews below) quick dismissal of King's argument (assuming that it is a tired, old, rehashed argument), King goes into great exegetical detail. He notes the Greek and (even more important) the context in which Paul is writing. If Paul is going to be martyred soon and Timothy is going to be left as the highest elder at the church at Ephesus, to what did Paul direct Timothy to for theological and moral matters? A church council? No. Peter? No. An oral "Tradition" not found in Scripture? No. It is Scripture which fully equips the Christian. King also argues (persuasively in my opinion) that the "Scriptures" mentioned in 2 Timothy 3 include both Testaments, not just the Old. I must note, however, that, in my opinion, the strongest argument for sola Scriptura is a *lack* of any other verifiable, God-inspired authority. King goes on to deal with the R.C. eisegetical misuse 2 Peter 1:19-21 and the issue of private judgment. It is important to note that throughout this work, whenever King exegetes a major passage under dispute, he almost always follows up his exegesis with citations of the church fathers on those passages.
Chapter 5
In this chapter, he exegetes the major Biblical passages used by R.C. apologists that allegedly "prove" "Tradition" (i.e. the authorship of Matthew argument, Matthew 2:23, Matthew 23:1-3, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:5, etc.). Again, he not only exegetes the passages fully but also gives historical analysis (i.e. church fathers and other historical evidence which sheds light on the topic).
Chapter 6
King deals with other major arguments against sola Scriptura such as: "the Church made the Scriptures, therefore the Church is above the Scriptures" and the appeal to "apostolic succession". Again, more historical analysis as well.
Chapter 7
He discusses the importance of reading the Scriptures in the original languages for the purpose of exegesis. [The R.C. Church declared the Latin Vulgate to be infallible and the only Bible that should be referred to in exegesis.] He refutes R.C. pyrrhonism (i.e. using skeptical arguments from the multitude of textual manuscripts to argue for the view that we need an infallible church magesterium to decide between them. It is very similar to the oft-refuted skeptical arguments used by atheists such as Bart Ehrman today.] Lastly, he discusses the very embarrassing issue of Sixtus V and his allegedly infallible Latin Vulgate.
Chapter 8 and 9
King argues for Material Sufficiency (i.e. all doctrine and morals are contained in Scripture) in ch.8 and Perspicuity (i.e. Scripture is clear on all that is necessary for salvation and the Christian life) and Formal Sufficiency (i.e. sola Scriptura) in ch.9. He notes the Scriptural and historical arguments for these doctrines. Finally, he discusses the R.C. argument for the need of an infallible interpreter and shows it to be vacuous.
Chapter 10
He discusses the arguments used by Jesus against the Pharisees (found in the Gospels) and shows that they would be meaningless unless sola Scriptura is presupposed. He also discusses the suppression of Scriptural reading by the laity that has historically been the policy of Rome since the Middle Ages. Lastly, he discusses the modern R.C. issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Chapter 11
Here, he discusses the common straw-man versions of sola Scriptura made up by Roman Catholic apologists.
Every Protestant who discusses this issue with R.C.s should own this work. Every R.C. who discusses this issue with a Protestant should have it to know the issues (so as not to use any defunct arguments) and argue honestly (instead of trying to trip-up an unsuspecting Protestant who knows nothing about the debate).
This work badly needed for this time.......2004-04-19
As a revert to the reform position of sola scriptura, this book and the other two volumes were the main reasons i could no longer believe in the catholic notion of "inspired Tradition" because i could not find it in scripture or history. I am deeply sorry that i fell to catholic apologists of the likes of Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis & Karl Keating, who are truly diluting the minds of catholics who want to know the truth about their church. Thanks to Mr Webster for such a book as this, the evidence for sola scripture in the fathers is undeniable and utterly shocking to the catholic position, sola scriptura, sola fide, all glory be to god and his word.
Amazon should have a policy . . ........2003-10-10
. . . which requires people who are trying to post an opinion to have actually purchased the book in question. I stand by this book (and its companions in the series) as a 5-star read even for the opponents of the theology it proposes, and roundly challenge the 1-star "reviewers" to cite any part of this book in substantiating their low rating.
This is great scholarship, great readability, and great food for thought.
Sola Scriptura would work if...........2003-07-30
1. Everyone could have access to a Holy Bible
2. Everyone could read the Holy Bible
3. Everyone could fully understand the Holy Bible
4. Everyone could infallibly interpret the Holy Bible, and hence come to the same conclusion which would also be God's intended meaning
Though if that were the case, we would need to explain:
1. How St Paul, all the Apostles, and the early Christians before 100 A.D. could have been saved without a Holy Bible being circulation.
2. Why there is so much disagreement over the intrepretation of the Holy Bible?
3. How the huge populations illeterate and disabled could be saved although not being able to read
4. Why God would have wanted to leave us in such a confusion, but rather not help us to follow Him, "The Way, the Truth and the Life"
5. Why God sent the Apostles to teach and not to disseminate Holy Bibles.
... food for thought
(I am sorry for all those who could add many other objections... you may reply by adding more!)
Errr.... sorry........2003-02-01
Well, I haven't read the book (any of the 3 volumes!) and to be honest, I doubt I ever will (too many Physics textbooks to get through!).
But I just wanted to say, I know at least that the Catholic answer to the Big Sola :-) is usually a bit more historical than that given in the previous review! Sorry guys!
Peace
Keir
Book Description
From the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony D. Romero, and award-winning journalist Dina Temple-Raston, In Defense of Our America takes a critical look at civil liberties in this country at a time when constitutional freedoms are in peril. Using the stories of real Americans on the frontlines of the fight for civil liberties., In Defense of Our America provides a look at the dangerous erosion of the Bill of Rights in the age of terror.
Against the backdrop of post-9/11 America, readers are taken behind the scenes of some of the most important civil liberties cases in America. From the story of the "American Taliban" to the battle against the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program, In Defense of Our America tracks a roster of skirmishes in the larger fight for civil liberties in this country. It tracks an effort in Pennsylvania to force religion into the public school science curriculum and tells the story of South Dakota's attempts to place an outright ban on abortions in the state.
In a narrative that allows the characters to tell the story, In Defense of Our America offers the first inside look at the Lindh family as they saw their son and brother, John Walker Lindh, emerge as a symbol of America's battle against Islamic fundamentalism. It follows Joshua Dratel, a defense attorney at the center of many legal battles over the rights of individuals suspected of terrorism, and tells the story of a modern-day Scopes trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. The book tracks the case of Matthew Limon, a gay teenager sentenced to 17 years for having consensual oral sex with a younger teenage boy in Kansas, and looks behind the reports of a broken judicial system in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
In Defense of Our America chronicles the stories of an array of colorful characters to illustrate the state of play in today's fight for civil liberties, including Cecelia Fire Thunder, the Sioux president who wanted to open an abortion clinic on her South Dakota reservation, and high school science teacher Bertha Spahr who defied a school board dominated by fundamentalist Christians by taking a stand against "intelligent design."
With unparalleled access to key players in some of the landmark tests of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, In Defense of Our America weaves together a compelling narrative that provides an unusually full look at the fight for civil liberties as Americans struggle to protect their rights and ensure their security.
Customer Reviews:
You should read this book........2007-07-12
I watched Anthony Romero on CSPAN2 BookTV pitching this book at a book show in Chicago. He recommended it as a book you might give someone who rolls his eyes at you when you say you support the ACLU.
The book is a good consolidation of how civil liberties have become victims in the war on terror. I'm a politically moderate, active duty military officer and didn't start reading this book until I was convinced that I could do it with an open mind. By that I mean that I sought to eliminate most prejudicial skepticism, since I don't believe any human being can eliminate all of it.
The book hops back and forth a bit, sometimes making it hard to follow. But knowing that the book is designed to be a fairly concise synopsis for a skeptical audience makes me understand why he did it this way. If you dwell on the same subject to long and the reader disagrees with the author, perhaps you can keep the reader engaged by mixing the stories.
The one annoying thing that Mr. Romero does in his book pertains to the abortion argument. He seemingly laments when an abortionist is referred to as a "baby-killer", but in turn summarizes anyone who opposes abortion as "anti-choice" and "the Jerry Falwells." In my opinion, intelligent discussion precludes the use of loaded language, as it only serves to get an emotional rise out of people. I am disgusted by Pro-Lifers who call Pro-Choicers murderers just as I am disgusted by Pro-Choicers who call Pro-Lifers crusaders or fascists. My personal jury is still out on the abortion issue, and when I listen to so many people with an inability to argue without exchanging barbs, I remember why.
The only other thing that I'd like to add is that Mr. Romero rightfully criticizes former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for his role in justifying torture and inhumane treatment of detainees. But I do object to Mr. Romero claiming that Mr. Rumsfeld believed himself above reproach since he was not at Abu Graib when the torture happened. This book was published in 2007 after Secretary Rumsfelf was replaced; towards the end of 2006 it came to light that Secretary Rumsfeld had offered his resignation twice during his tenure and one of those times being quite specifically for the Abu Graib incident. The President rejected the requests both times. This does not mitigate Mr. Rumsfeld's culpability in the matter, but it does speak to his recognition of his responsibility.
Conclusively, it was a good book that leaves me with the desire to learn more about several topics of government and gave me a better appreciation for something that I have known since I took my oath of service: that we must defend our country and our ideals, but we must also ensure that we maintain our country and our ideals worth defending.
Readable but disjointed.......2007-07-07
This is a very readable account of civil rights battles in the time since 9/11, covering specific stories on gay rights, wiretapping, intelligent design, etc. In the preface the authors state it is meant to "read like a novel" and it is an easy and interesting read that most could finish in a couple of days.
My major complaint is that the stories are intertwined for no good effect. After a paragraph on intelligent design, the story suddenly jumps to torture. The entire book plays out this way, jumping back and forth among 5 or 6 stories. While this technique can work in film and novels, with nonfiction it gives me mental whiplash. It would be far better to keep like subject matter together-- indeed, in the references they do just this. So why not in the text?
My other minor complaint is that I would have preferred more detail and reasoning. However, this book does seem to aim at the widest possible audience, and those who follow civil rights may be slightly disappointed.
Book Description
This is a book that will get people talking - in book clubs, in parent groups, and in political arenas too. In it, Dr. Elaine Garan provides an easy-to-read, question-and-answer format to help readers think through the vital issues in education and parenting. It's a compelling, compassionate, and even entertaining must-read for anyone who cares about children and where their tax dollars are going.
An award-winning researcher and educator, Garan addresses all the hot-button topics that can confuse parents and concern teachers. These include:
- the role of phonics in reading instruction
- invented spelling
- scripted reading programs
- back-to-basics teaching methods
- high stakes testing
- what sweeping school reforms really mean for our children.
She expertly helps readers cut through the avalanche of propaganda and media buzzwords so they understand which corporations and entrepreneurs are getting ahead in the name of scientific research and school reform - while we foot the bill and many of our children are left behind. Finally, this book helps readers see that the teaching methods and materials used in schools can determine the roles children will assume in society as either followers - or as thinkers, doers, and future leaders.
You can use this book as a reference tool to seek out answers to specific questions you may have - but more than likely Garan's engaging writing style will have you turning pages almost as if you were reading a novel instead of a book packed with research-based facts. You'll be compelled to share this book with friends, family, and colleagues. To be sure, it will ruffle some feathers, but it will also open your eyes. This book will help you take back control of your own thinking and assume an informed and active role in our children's future.
Book Description
A frustrating war and an endless occupation. The very real prospect of more conflict overseas. A military stretched beyond its breaking point. The stage is set for the resumption of the draft. Now, in an explosive and provocative book, Philip Gold, a former Marine and a disaffected conservative, reveals why selective service should never come to pass–but might.
In The Coming Draft, Gold charts the path that brought us to this treacherous point and posits an “exit strategy” for America to change its course. In candid language and through authoritative research, he uncovers the flaws of forced enlistment from ancient to recent times and suggests serious and more effective methods to protect the homeland.
“Plans/reality mismatch” is how Gold describes the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. This conflict’s deadly, years-long duration–with overtaxed volunteer troops–has led to the Marines missing their monthly recruitment quotas by up to 25 percent, soldiers over sixty being called out of retirement to serve, and in some cases National Guard tours being extended to 2031. Though the House of Representatives made a show of voting against the draft idea in 2004, Gold believes that a collusion of neoconservatives and liberals could eventually cause conscription to be reinstated. The neocon argument for the return of universal conscription rests in the expectation that American military presence will need to increase in order to combat the spreading threat of terrorism, while the left wing hopes that the revival of the draft will expand the scope of the debate about U.S. military policy, thereby making American involvement in wars an issue that potentially touches every household.
Asserting that selective service has been neither effective nor historically validated, The Coming Draft provides evidence that the Founding Fathers’ concept of common defense differed from our own and allowed for “proper refusal” in addition to service. More damning, Gold insists that starting with the Universal Militia Act of 1791, the draft has been rife with demoralizing corruption and bad faith, whether it was exceptions for civilian slave owners in the Civil War or loophole-laden systems from World War I to Vietnam.
Gold’s practical and innovative alternatives include the redefinition of service (to include earthquake and weather-related relief work), and a drastic rethinking of the duties of the National Guard. All this, he believes, must begin with setting limits on any president’s ability to launch an undeclared war.
Written with an acute awareness and fierce intelligence, The Coming Draft is an indispensable work for anyone who is, or who might have to be, a soldier–and any citizen concerned about the future of our country.
Customer Reviews:
Beyond the Draft.......2007-05-02
Whether or not there is to be a draft for the Iraq war, this is a very worthwhile read for its invitation to a national dialogue and introspection of our national character, and what is really worth defending.
Gold uses the idea of the draft and the historical lack of integrity in its processes to paint a bigger picture about a very real crisis in the military, and a crisis in the value and meaning of US citizenship. What we really need, is a good enough reason to put ourselves or our sons and daughters in the line of fire to defend what we love. Conviction, not conscription might replenish a military used the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.
conscription is unconstitutional.......2007-01-20
Conscription - or the military draft - is the state forcing a person to place himself in harms way - possibly to be killed - and is a violation of the most fundamental premise of the Declaration of Independence, that men are "endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Conscription is dictatorial and antithesis to a free society, because it deprives the citizen of his guaranteed unalienable rights.
In another respect, and this was the lesson learned from Vietnam, conscription is indirectly the state's admission of defeat in war, because if the state needs to force someone to kill or die for his country, the war is already lost.
A book on this subject is a necessity.
To Draft or Not to Draft?.......2006-10-30
Excerpted from my review for The Orange County Register, 10/29/06
"Hell no, we won't go!" seemingly faded overnight ... until last year, when the Army missed its recruiting goal, lowered its physical standards and raised its age limit for enlistees to 42.
Fiercely against the draft, author Philip Gold is a rare military intellectual, a self-described Jewish Marine with fancy degrees from Yale and Georgetown. Shortly after receiving his draft notice in 1970, he brazenly replied to his draft board, "I will never serve in the United States Army. Please stop wasting my time, your time and the government's postage. PS: I recently joined the Marines."
Gold has written six books and over 800 articles during his tenure as a Washington-based think-tanker. It is his humor coupled with an inundation of facts that makes "The Coming Draft" an entertaining and convincing read.
He tightly argues against the reinstatement of military conscription in America, noting that the draft has been always inequitable and rife with loopholes for abuse. Conservatives may want to bring back the draft to ready our military for more interventions, while liberals believe that more Americans will question our foreign policy when their own rears are on the line for service.
"The Coming Draft" is an important and timely book filled with insights from a deep thinker. Gold's only son recently volunteered for the Marines and may someday serve in a war that his father has strongly opposed since its inception. A draft is not needed for the Gold family, after all.
Books:
- Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis Points That Challenge Every Company
- Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis Points That Challenge Every Company
- Organization Change: Theory and Practice (Foundations for Organizational Science)
- Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook
- Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks for Dummies
- Plan Your Estate
- Principles of Public International Law
- Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement
- Reclaiming the Great Commission: A Practical Model for Transforming Denominations and Congregations
- Reclaiming the Great Commission: A Practical Model for Transforming Denominations and Congregations
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Firing Back: How Great Leaders Rebound After Career Disasters
- Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification
- The Neurobiology of Disease: Contributions from Neuroscience to Clinical Neurology
- Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics, 2nd Edition
- Albert Moore
- Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
- American Pit Bull
- Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Aspects of his Work
- Us Gold Counterfeit Detection Guide
- Wild in the City : The Best of Zoonooz
Legal System
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
A Deadly Game: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation
'Till Death Do Us Part: Love, Marriage, and the Mind of the Killer Spouse
Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson
Blood Brother: 33 Reasons My Brother Scott Peterson Is Guilty
Contempt: How the Right Is Wronging American Justice
