Liberty Books

This is a cute and simple book that teaches about the Statue of Liberty and how it got to be ours! A perfectly fun and educational book! My daughter is 8 years old and loved it!

This book was required 2nd grade reading for my daughter's language arts class. It is a beautiful story of ingenuity, that also gives children a glimpse of life during the industrial period of American history and teaches about the origination of the Statue of Liberty. A great little story!

I have to read 40 books for my Children's Lit class and my daughter had this book in her room, so I thought what the heck. I haven't asked her yet what she thought of it, but I'm sure my son has read it. Being that he is the avid reader like his mom but my daughter you would have to pull teeth. lol! But this book was interesting because it gave information such as how the Statue of Liberty was brought to America and how Lily made her crowns was given at the end. I am going to school to become a Elementary Teacher and this project would be a great idea to teach to my students.

This story is about a girl who is living in the year the statue of liberty is first broght to america. In her class the students are asked to bring money to help build the pedestal for the statue. When she tells her pearents about it, her mother does not think that it is a good Idea. the rest of the story is about how Lilly tries to riase money to bring in to her clase.

The story was quite charming, but the pictures were just to cutesywootsy for me. But the rest of the book was quite satisfactory. Something that I liked about it was that it was a book that it showed a very healthy respect of what immigrant life was like.I would recomend especialy to kids at about the third grade level if tey wanted a book that could show them how life was like in the past, but feel the emotions that Are still felt by peopel today

Lochner v. New York was a 1905 Supreme Court case where an anodyne state law regulating working hours in bakeries was ruled uncontitutional because it breached the "freedom" of workers and employers to form employment contracts on any terms the market allowed. The notion of liberty of contract had no constitutional basis -- it was invented by conservative social theorists after the Civil War -- but it had been smuggled into American jurisprudence by activist judges in the guise of enforcing the 14th amendment. It was a godsend to business groups that wanted to beat back state efforts to regulate working hours and minimum wages.

The libertarian ideas animating Lochner were already losing popularity by 1905, but the court continued to police state regulation of business for more than thirty years, hampering social reform and causing huge damage to the credibility of the judiciary. As an example of sheer judicial assertion, Lochner was the Roe v. Wade of its day.

This book is short, clearly written, and alive to the ironies (and hypocrisies) of judicial activism, where one's view tends to depend on whether the activism in question is conservative or progressive. My only complaint is that parts of the book meander off the main subject and seem to have been stitched together from research the author did for other projects. For example, there's way too much material on New York state politics, and the long discussion of the libertarianism of Justice Stephen Field, although fascinating, is a bit misplaced, since Field was long dead by the time Lochner was decided! That said, history buffs and law students will get a lot out of this book.

"Lochner v. New York" is one of the best known and most despised US Supreme Court rulings. In Lochner, the Court voted 5 to 4 to invalidate a New York law that limited bakers' working hours to 10 a day or sixty a week. The Court found that it was a "labor legislation", and therefore unconstitutional. To this day, Lochner v. New York is remembered as one of the most extremist judicial activist opinions, and gave the name to an era of conservative judicial activism, which lasted well into the New Deal.

Professor Paul Kens' "Lochner v. New York" (I shall henceforth refer to the decision as "Lochner" and to the book as "Lochner v. New York") is not the type of book I was looking for. I wanted a legal analysis of the infamous decision. Kens' book is less a legal analysis as a social, political and intellectual history, explaining the various trends that shaped the law, the case, and the decision.

Too often, Social History can be merely a list of practices, or a description of conditions that are entirely predictable to anyone with even a slight familiarity with economic and social concepts (see respectively Eric Poner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 and John Dower's Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II). "Lochner v. New York" on the other hand is revealing of the working conditions and social and economic situation of the baking industry, and Kens judicially uses statistics to chronicle its evolution from the mid 19th century to the early 20th.

As Intellectual history, Kens offers an in depth look at the thought of various Lessez-faire and Social Darwinist ideologists, as well as their progressive opponents. Although Kens clearly has little sympathy for Social Darwinists, they come out quite well - Social Darwinist thought, while extremist, is not all that different from modern Libertarianism.

Kos does a good job of describing the politics surrounding the Baking hour law's passing, and the ironies with which it abounded - including the fact that one of the Law's chief backers were later to argue its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court.

After contextualizing Lochner, Kens gets down to legal analysis. Essentially, the court applied the doctrine of "substantial due process" to declare the 10 hour law unconstitutional. The court used the 14th amendment requirement against deprivation of liberty to protect the "Sanctity of contract". The state must not deprive a person of the right to work at whatever terms he sees fit, unless it is for reasons of public health or safety, or unless the person is in need of paternalistic protection, if he is a minor or (in Victorian America) a she.

The vast majority of the Court, including Dissenter John Marshall Harlan, subscribed to this interpretation. Harlan only claimed that the Court should give the state the benefit of the doubt - if it claimed that the Law meant to protect bakers' health, then that is what it did. Only Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated a completely different vision: "The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" he famously wrote in his classic dissent. The sanctity of Contract was not in the constitution, and states should have no problem overruling it.

Kos agrees with the dissenters. He convincingly (in my view), demonstrates that the framers of 14th amendment did not intend to protect the liberty of contract, and that laissez faire Capitalism was not an antebellum ideology (although he may underestimate the extent to which laissez faire was latent in pre Civil War America - most ideologies only take shape when challenged, as laissez faire was by the increasingly powerful state of the late 19th century). Ken clearly thinks that the Court should not enforce values that are not clearly articulated in the Constitution text or its history.

Kens realizes that his position requires opposition not only to Lochner, but also to Liberal rulings such as Griswold v. Connecticut, which ensured the right of married individuals to use contraception. Kens argues that this also requires expansive, ideological reading of the Constitution and thus should be avoided.

But the very purpose of a constitution is to check the majority's power against minorities. Because times change, the means of oppression can change also. The specific clauses of the US constitution - the ones that protect against abuses that were known at the time of framing - are mostly outdated. Think of the 3rd amendment's prohibition against the stationing of soldiers at private houses. It is the more general, opaque clauses of the constitution (like the prohibition against abridging the Freedom of Speech or inflicting "Cruel and unusual punishments") that can deter present day majorities from manhandling minorities and protect the little citizen from Big Brother.

But can Lochner v. New York be distinguished from expansive Liberal rulings? Does adherence to Griswold force on us to accept Lochner?

I think there are good pragmatic reasons to say no. First, we should acknowledge that the Court's decision is right in treating suspiciously governmental intervention in the freedom of contracts. But the Court erred, in my view, in seeing Lochner as essentially a question of Liberty. I think Lochner is actually a question of wealth redistribution.

By regulating the terms in which bakeries and baker workers contract, New York improved the relative position of the workers vis a vis the owners. But government policy can most assuredly do that. The government is entitled to levy taxes in any form it wishes, whether progressively (taxing the rich more then the poor) or regressively (the other way around). It may levy tariffs on incoming goods, improving the lots of US manufacturers and worsening those of exporters. It can supply welfare benefits for the poor. The competition between the various interests is the very essence of the democratic process and should be left (within reason), to the democratic process. The time for the Court to intervene is to prevent Government from abusing citizens, not to keep the spoils out of the hands of the winners in marketplace of ideas.

As a junior political science major at UNC, I have had to read a lot of books similar to Kens's. These books focus on a particular case, be it the Skokie trial, the Tinker armband case, the Chadha legislative veto case or the Bakke affirmative action case. Anthony Lewis's Gideon's Trumpet book seems to be the first of this kind.

Kens' book is by far the best of its type that I have read. The other books of this genre I've read in this genre deal too much with the proceedings of a case. For instance, Mr. Chadha had this legal problem, he got this lawyer, they went through this legal proceeding, they had to refine their arguments, they went to the next appellate court, blah blah blah. Frankly these kinds of details are boring, and give little if any insight into the importance of a given case.

Kens's has a different approach. Instead of going into great detail about why Mr. Lochner picked a given lawyer, Kens goes into great detail of the impetuses for the passage of the law that Mr. Lochner was challenging. He talks about the social and political climate of the times, tying in influential theories of the day like Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics. Kens clearly places the case of Lochner v. New York in its historical framework. This, it seems, is a superior method for studying an important case like this one.

I would strongly urge this book to any professor teaching a constitional law/history class. I would also strongly recommend it to a student looking for a good introduction to the study of substantive due process.

This is a great book. I like long books, but this one is short and sweet. Moves the story along, and explores the fascinating background to Lochner (including the history of the baking industry and the conflicts of interest -- to give but one example, the attorney for anti-union Lochner was in fact not an attorney and in fact was a union organizer in the past.

Also discusses the Negative Rights (Substantive Due Process in law) doctrine and has a great bibliography.

The author is clearly a world expert in this field and I wish the book could have been longer. The author does not appear to be heavily biased either for or against Positive Rights (read Big) government.

Bibliography and timeline at the end of the book is great too.

Outstanding.

"Scott Ryan", my favorite Amazon (and other places) Rand critic writes:

If I'm driving at ninety miles an hour toward a bridge abutment, am I not in some way obliged to avoid mowing down the little girl who wanders out in front of my car? If so, then my obligation to respect your rights is founded, at least in part, on something other than my own "choice to live."


Is our case for ethics based on this scenario? Further, do you have a right to end your own life? Third, in what *context* does a discussion about what rights (if any) anyone (if anyone) holds? Fourth, how does the concept 'rights' exist *between* individuals?

Tara Smith has written a solid book that I highly enjoyed. If one grants Smith some epistemological room -- she presents a great case for individual rights. Ultimately -- and I think the other reviewers here would agree -- Smith's account of rights and how they exist between individuals is based on Rand's epistemology. So, if its the case that Rand's epistemology is bogus -- than this account of rights, although interesting -- will fail to persaude.

The crucial question facing any theory of political"rights" is: why should _I_ respect _yours_? And despite a tremendous effort, I'm afraid Tara Smith hasn't yet answered this question.

I'm happy to see her declare that the deontology-vs.-consequentialism dichotomy is a false one, and I even agree with her that the right approach is "teleological" (though for somewhat different reasons from hers). But unfortunately her own "teleological" approach fails to tell us just why one person is _morally_ obliged not to violate the rights of another.

Her essential claim is that rights violations are _never_ in accordance with the "telos" of rights, which has to do with the securing and promotion of life. But there are two objections which Smith never adequately addresses:

(1) The transition from "my rights promote my telos" to "_respecting_ my rights promotes _your_ telos" is never made clear, either by Rand or by Smith; each passes without acknowledgement from one claim to the other.

(2) And by "respecting my rights" I mean respecting them _as_ rights. I'm not persuaded that Smith has given an adequate foundation for rights _as_ rights.

For her foundation, ultimately, is that my respect for _your_ rights promotes my _own_ life. But are your rights not morally binding against me even if I have decided to kill myself? (Even if I am in the very _act_ of killing myself? If I'm driving at ninety miles an hour toward a bridge abutment, am I not in some way obliged to avoid mowing down the little girl who wanders out in front of my car?) If so, then my obligation to respect your rights is founded, at least in part, on something other than my own "choice to live."

Smith, like Rand before her, is at least in the ballpark. But I continue to think that the "Objectivist ethic" needs to be re-thought from the ground up -- a task that Smith has not yet performed.

Prof. Smith does a wonderful job of giving a proper academic presentation of the Objectivist case for individual rights. She first presents a detailed moral teleological argument for why individuals should have rights. She then proceeds to argue against both deontological and consequentialist justifications for rights and makes the case that her teleological justification is the only proper one which has none of the weaknesses of the other attempts at justifying rights. Finally she takes on so-called "positive freedoms" or "welfare rights" and shows how recognizing such rights negates actual freedoms and thus that such positive rights are not proper rights and freedoms at all.

This book would be beneficially used in any political science or moral/political philosophy course.

Tara Smith is a professor of philosophy and a follower of the ideas of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (called "Objectivism"). Prof. Smith offers a strong defense of individual rights based on an Objectivist conception of reason and human nature. (Curiously, while Rand is mentioned in the footnotes, she is never mentioned in the body of the text.)

There are a number of merits to this book. Prof. Smith is a clear writer who sets forth her arguments forcefully in jargon-free language. Unlike much Objectivist writing, she interacts with other traditions in a non-vituperative manner. Rather than give Rand all the credit, she indicates where she is indebted to others. Finally, she responds to potential arguments and counterexamples to her theory. Compare, for example, her section on "the ethics of emergencies" with Rand's article of the same name. Rand's article quickly descends into a screed against "altruism."

Prof. Smith argues that rights find their justification in man's need to advance his own life. Without rights, I can't exercise my reason and therefore can't live. Prof. Smith's argument, although fairly persuasive, runs into some obvious problems. Most importantly is the question of why one person should respect the rights of others. If, as Prof. Smith argues, rights have an egoistic foundation, then why should I respect someone else's rights? In fairness, to Prof. Smith, she realizes that this is a question that needs to be addressed, but I don't find her answer completely satisfactory. Finally, is the only justification for rights their role in advancing life? If I knew that I was going to die next week, would it be okay for me to cheat and steal?

Prof. Smith is also the author of a work on metaethics called VIABLE VALUES, which is quite good. A work that interacts with some of the topics covered by Prof. Smith is Roderick Long's REASON AND VALUE: ARISTOTLE VERSUS RAND (which, unfortunately does not reference Prof. Smith). Thomas Fleming takes on the tradition represented by Prof. Smith in THE MORALITY OF EVERDAY LIFE.

Shooting Back by Charl van Wyk is a great book. What a testimony; in reading this book, I learned a lot about what God says about self defense and why gun control is so very devastating to a society.
I understand that, in recent months, the author has been given incredible opportunities to speak publicly about reconciliation and forgiveness to the terror organization that committed this atrocity. Amazing!

I have been privileged to meet the author and spend some time with him. Mr. van Wyk is no macho gun-waving shooter. Rather he is a mild-mannered family man who has strong principles and did what he had to do under very unpleasant circumstance. He does not consider himself a "hero" for his actions during the St. James Massacre.

I found him very articulate. He is able to communicate his ideas clearly, both in person and in his writings.

I highly recommend the book "Shooting Back" for every Church leader. It is a "must read" for everyone, whether you use firearms or not.

As a Christian, I am often asked how I can support things such as gun ownership. This book provides a classic example how lethal force can meet God's approval. Charl Van Wyk was in a church service in South Africa when the congregation was attacked by terrorists. Van Wyk was armed with a .38 revolver which he kept with him at all times, and he returned fire, driving the terrorists off. The final toll was 11 dead and 53 wounded. No one knows how many more would have been killed if Van Wyk had not been armed.

Van Wyk then details his own doubts after the fact and how he sought counseling. With his studies in the Bible on the subject of the Christian and self-defense, he presents the case for the biblical foundation, and the distinction between defense and revenge.

The book does its job of presenting the biblical mandate for us to protect the innocent, but I do have to say that I'm knocking off one star because he could have made his case in about half the space.

This book is an excellent answer to those who think a Christian should EVER raise his hand in violence - for any reason whatever. My copy is going to get passed around to a lot of my friends.

Shooting Back by Charl van Wyk is a great book. What a testimony; in reading this book, I learned a lot about what God says about self defense and why gun control is so very devastating to a society.
I understand that, in recent months, the author has been given incredible opportunities to speak publicly about reconciliation and forgiveness to the terror organization that committed this atrocity. Amazing!

This book appears more to be an alarmist than pointing out a real solution to what the author considers as a growing problem. Since 2001 PATRIOT Act, the main problem civil liberities activists have is monitoring international calls from suspected terrorists. If this is all the problems these people have including the author, other than speculating what might happen, then there is no real problem with the 2001 PATRIOT Act that's going to take the average American's liberities away.

Government response to 'terrorism' is not new; we have previously understood that in 'times of war' civil liberties were suspended (supposedly for the national good). We also know that times of panic (Joe McCarthy) had also prompted otherwise reasonable people to abandon their civil liberties for the now-familiar promise of 'national security'.

Yet, what is new about the post 9/11 climate is the depth of these anti-terrorism policies and the general public's apparent willingness to sacrifice their freedom inexplicably to receive 'security'.

Whether it is the terror alert 'color' of the day, or the list of people who can/cannot fly on planes, national security could instead be used as a tool to generate even more fear...or a weapon to attack political dissenters.

A government effectively stifling criticism of its policies as `being for the terrorists' is allowed to do whatever it wants to citizens whenever it wants. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany, people who still attempt to critique government policy (including the Patriot Act) quickly find themselves labeled as an enemy of the state.

It is significant that the first edition of this book was published after the Oklahoma City bombing. Everybody had agreed this event was a national tragedy, yet the government did not use it as a battering ram to dismantle citizen civil liberties and/or eliminate people whom they have disagreed with. By focusing on case specifics, the Clinton administration found the people who were responsible for that incident (two disgruntled veterans from America's heartland!).

Sharply contrasting, the measures taken in response to 9/11 demonstrate excess and paranoia. "Homeland security" permits the Bush White House to target ANYBODY it does not like.

How else to explain why Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D MA)'s name has repeatedly turned up on the nation's no fly-list, despite a public service career whose length easily exceeds that of many "Homeland Security" officials themselves?

And then there is the issue of increased FBI surveillance to 'combat' terrorist threats. Again, because the FBI had spied on dissenting groups until Hoover's death, there is a strong case that this same government agency will not ethically be able to conduct impartial investigations today.

It is indeed a sad day when we want the rest of the world to be democratic but cannot bring ourselves to have similar conditions inside this same country. The greatest causality of the war on terror is the American Bill of Rights.

This edition is an updated version of the authors earlier book written in the wake of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act. Remember that Act? That was the one passed in response to Oklanhoma City and gave "sweeping new powers" to federal authorities, so that such a horrible act of terrorism, would never, ever, never, never happen ever again!

Now with 9/11 and the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" (U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T) Act (how much time, do you suppose, does it take to come with these acronyms?), the authors are back with a critical look at a drive towards what has very little to do with counterterrorism and quite a bit to do with increasing and centralizing power.

In the past 12 months we've had proposals for a national ID card, a missle defense system, legalized torture, suspension of writ of habeas corpus, a "homeland security" infrastructure that is heavily reliant on security technologies of dubious value. Basically the only thing that has changed that would have prevented the 9/11 are locked Cabin doors and the newfound general awareness that "cooperating with the hijacker" might not be the best policy for passeners.

Also along the way, a steady trickle of stories of missed opportunities, ignored warning and frustrated investingations have come out regarding the FBI and others to use the powers they already do have.

The bulk of the book deals with FBI misdeed during the Cold War and proposes an unfashionable counterrorism strategy that emphasizes the responsibility of actors, not ideology. Basically, trying to treat terrrorism as a crime not as war.

The proposals are a little narrow. Terrorism of the sort represented by al Quaeda is international, not just national. The fight against it will share more with racketeering and global criminal networks. And a world court is needed. I'm not sure if dealing on a purely "case-by-case" basis will do the trick.

Nevertheless, the authors have offered a well reasoned case and in the current climate when we are asked to give up so much with only the assurance of "trust us" we would do to heed their call.

This book gives a frightening look at how post-9/11 paranoia and the aftermath of that horrific event have lead to the diminution of civil liberties in the U.S.. The passage of the so-called "Patriot Act(s)" will not only make ethnic groups (particularly Arab/Muslims, given that 9/11 was perpetrated by members of that ethnic group) [a] cause to worry, even Americans may be, if their views don't match the current Administration's views, subject to loss of constitutional rights. [The ACLU would have a field day about this, if the premise of the book is true.] It is an important book to read and should be read by everyone who thinks that their civil liberties are unable to be violated by the government. (Conservatives will call this book nonsense, but most of us [moderates and liberals] will find the book an eye-opening study of overreaction and paranoia, by the government, as a result of 9/11.

I found this book surprising. I did because before reading this and all of Hoover's books, my view of him was largely based on the theme song from the TV show, "All in the Family." My views of the man also came mainly from the idea that Hoover, and he alone, was the cause of the Great Depression. This book, and his others are exciting to me because they are so contrary to what I thought I knew.

Hoover wrote this book during the 20s, when he felt that American ideals were under siege from the collectivism of Russia and the socialists. He gives a very straightforward explanation of why he feels a mixture of free-market capitalism and voluntarism, which he believes to be uniquely American, is the best prescription for human societies. Although Hoover wrote this in earnest (he did, after all, lead the Belgian relief effort in WWI), it rings a little hollow when you remember the Great Depression of a few years later. Read this book to understand Hoover, not to be inspired by his philosophy.

Although it is quite popular among historians and the media to portray Hoover in a negative light, this book evidences Hoover's thoughtfulness and brilliance that places him among the U.S.'s best minds of the time. Hoover details his theories of the regimentation of government, in a foresightful and eloquent manner. The book is in some ways a "groundbreaking" work that provides insight into the downsides of many of the depression-era "new deal" reforms. Hoover's economic philosophies have been traditionally neglected among historians and he has unjustifiably served as a scapegoat for the Great Depression and the excesses of the Roaring Twenties. Hoover presents in this book a survey of the alternatives to the American System of economic and political liberty and warns of the many dangers associated with government's entry into competitive markets. His concern for the protection of individual economic liberties serves as a bedrock upon which Friedman and others expanded many decades later. For supporters of Reaganesque philosophies who seek a unique historical perspective or for those interested in a minority perspective during the 1930s, this book is an underrecognized, underrated must-read!

Those who read Anthony Sutton's WALL AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION should read THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY in tandam. The latter book simply follows events during and especially after World War II and the Cold War. Sutton has amassed a collection of anecdotes and comments which, if so sad and deadly, would be funny.

Part of THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY deals with government officials either defelcting or ending investigations of U.S. business executives who did business and made lucrative deals with "The Evil Empire." Many U.S. presidents preached about the purity of their anti-Communism while at the same time arranging for business leaders to make huge sums of money doing business with both the Soviets and Chinese Communists.

Some of the projects that U.S. and Western European businessmen included innocent sounding projects such as the Kharkov Tractor Factory which was built in 1932. This became a military production factory. Another example of U.S. government and business executives occured just before the Soviets Afghanistan in 1980. The Soviets purchased huge grain supplies knowing that window dressing would preclude further grain sales.

Sutton also cites the Kama Truck Factory which was computerized by Texas Instruments, power by General Electric, and financed by U.S. bankers. All of this done via the U.S. taxpayers. One must raise the question of who pays for tall this.

For all of his tough talk about the wicked Communists, Pres. Reagan continued the late Pres. Nixon's policy of money and technology transfers to the Chinese Communists. One amusing aspect of the Cold War was the fact that U.S. authroities went any and all dissenters who complained about the status-quo. The political response to any complaints or problems in the U.S. was due to "The Gremlins in the Kremlin." Yet, the same businessmen, Congressmen, self appointed professional anti-Communists, etc. were the same ones who voted for or arranged so much finance and technology to both the Soviets and Chinese. The official anti-Communists did more to prolong Big Communism than any U.S. dissenter or U.S. self avowed Communist.

What is interesting is the official political do gooders condemned U.S. labor leaders as being Communist. Yet, these same labor leaders who virtually the only ones who raised protest against the harsh working and living conditions of Soviet workers which Sutton makes clear on page 208. The hypocrisy is so apparent.

Those who say the a picture is worth a thousand words would appreciate this book. The political cartoons reveal a lot about the lack of loyalty on part of "conservative" business leaders who have been in the vanguard of domestic anti-Communism.

Anthony Sutton is clear that U.S. technology and financial transfers to Big Communism was responsible for the deaths of U.S. Servicemen in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. U.S. citizens should be outraged that their government and official leaders were responsible for all this.

Mr. Luce, the well known journalist, was asked about U.S. Communists. He Luce responded that American blue collar workers were Democrats. The American middle classes were Republicans. The plutocratic wealthy were Communists. Sutton's book makes this assessment clear.

"The Best Enemy Money Can Buy", authored by Antony C. Sutton is a
fact-based work, published in 1986, but based on research undertaken
by the same author in throughout his career, particularly in the
late 60's and early 1970's.

Many an academic is pigeonholed in a specific area of expertise, in
which they push the envelope further, in matters of investigation,
research, theories, formulae, theses in a framework of university
level graduate work (Master's, PhD's, professorship, etc.)

In the case of Sutton, the area was the Cold War between Russia and
the USA mainly, or the Western Countries with NATO generally. Also,
this work and worth as an investigator was measuring the performance
of both world rival super-powers, in that Cold War competition, and
analysing how well Russia was doing, and by which methods, focusing
on technology in particular.

In this treatise, Sutton expounds over the above subject over more
than 210 pages, using his advance language skills in reading German
and Russian publications, and retaining the relevant military and
industrial developments, achievements and facts contained therein,
to explain them to readers, in a concise, legible, understandable
manner.

Although at times over-simplified, Sutton exhaustively documents
(going over every nook and cranny, at times) how the USA almost
every single time, was ready, willing and more than able to create
the best enemy that Russians could afford to become, monetarily. And
if they didn't have the cash to buy the technology and know-how, the
USA was more than happy to raise funds from taxpayers and the
Federal Reserve to finance the production and export of machinery and
finished industrial parts to Russia, so the former Soviet Union
could become a lethal, respectable, modern military competitor to
itself.

How this could happen, in a Cold War scenario, during which 20
million perished in WW2, after which perhaps 142,000 US Military
perished in the Korean War, and 58,000 US Military perished in the
Vietnamese War has many hypotheses.

The first, that micromanaging the USA's industries, factories,
scientists, exported goods, research labs is impossible from the
government level. Secondly, that army casualties are a minor aspect
or cost in the overall goal of increasing the USA's balance sheet,
as measured by the GDP, scientific and economic progress,
manufacturing and exporting increasingly, no matter which is the
other country doing the importing. Thirdly, that politicans to get
elected make backroom deals to break export controls to powerful
industrialists, in exchange for political party contributions. In
turn, the elected officials maneuver their hand-chosen candidates
into the board of directors of major multinational corporations to
get the deals done internationally, and name them to the proper
executive branch positions. This way, they eliminate those public
servants and board directors that had been opposing the exports of
sensitive machinery and machinery, under the notion of a National
Interests, in avoiding lethal technologies from falling into the
hands of Cold War enemies that down the line, could be used again
the USA and Free World.

As stated, the author is exhaustive in his research. For example,
the ships delivering supplies to Korea and to the Vietnamese from
Russia, were powered by diesel engines designed, built and exported
to the USSR. The trucks moving ammunition, supplies and enemy
combatants were built by Ford Motor in Moscow. The assembly lines,
metalurgical processes and machines all American made, and exported.
The Russian bomber aircraft from the 1930's powered by clone engines
of American planes, whose designed were sold and exported to the
USSR. Entire watch factories, steel foundries, automobile assembly
lines (such as Ford, Fiat, 20 ton trucks) were disassembled,
exported, and reassembled back in the USSR. The Soviet munitions for
machine guns, rifles, artillery, all powered by sulfuric acid and
other substances built in giant American designed, engineered, and built
plants in Moscow and surroundings, exported by Du Pont and similar
corporations maximizing shareholder profits, as had done earlier
US corporations, albeit at strengthening a military rival to the
USA.

Interesting historical facts are narrated, such as the slave labor
of some 15,000 captured German rocket scientists, aircraft and
engine engineer specialists, POW's, that were forced to disassemble,
export and reassemble back in the USSR, WW2 era rocket assembly
lines, factories of aircraft, ship and submarine engines, over a
period of 10 years or longer, for bringing their military -grade
performance upto par with NATO countries, and with the US.

The revelations are stunning in their breadth, and significance, to
the point that ICBM's would not have been possible without the
agreement of the State Department of the USA in the export of
world-class, unique, military-grade ball-bearing precision machining
equipment to RUSSIA, for example.

In sum, while the young men and women in uniform were put in harm's way,
at the highest levels, even before WW2, powerful political,
industrial and scientific interests were joining together, to turn
into reality, enormous industrial projects all inspired, designed,
built and overseen ( and often, financed ) by Americans for use
outside America, and in the final analysis, potentially against America.

Sutton proves conclusively that the United States financed the economic and military development of the Soviet Union. Without this aid, financed by U.S. taxpayers, there would be no significant Soviet military threat, for there would be no Soviet economy to support the Soviet military machine, let alone sophisticated military equipment. The book reads almost like a legal brief from the prosecution.

This book delivers a powerful message of ecumenical hope. In this superb work te author explores the biblical concepts of church (ekklçsia), freedom (eleutheria), and truthful speech (parrhçsia), showing not only that the proper meanings of these three concepts interpenetrate one another but also that rending them asunder lies at the root of Christian division today. Christian division, he argues, issues from the all-too-familiar individualistic accounts of church, freedom, and speech that have haunted modernity and clouded the gospel. Here at the start of the twenty-first century, it is imperative for Christians to reconsider the interrelationship of these concepts in the God of the gospel. The author discusses the meaning, role, and importance of each concept, engaging classical and contemporary voices in theology, philosophy, and culture that reveal how church, freedom, and truthful speech support one another.

Everybody thinks that we have to make ourselves free by shaking off the constraints of law and tradition. We dont think that previous generations have anything to teach us or that the guidelines and rules they have discovered are worth trying out. But getting rid of Church tradition is no more going to make us free any more than stopping listening to other people is going to make us wise. Reinhard Huetter shows that the road to Christian freedom is also the road to Christian maturity, and it involves learning how to take the advice and the discipline of the Church, perhaps even before we fully understand it for ourselves. Christian discipleship means being formed by the practices of the Church not only as they are in our own day, but as they have evolved into the great tradition of Christian discipleship through the long experience of the Church in history. This is a clear and wonderful piece of work that says that the modern Church needs to grow up, and shows that it can by going back to school with the fathers of the Church.

This book is composed of a series of essays carrying on the task of ecumenical discussion. Hutter is well read in both Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions. He brings the two into dialogue throughout the book. It is divided into 3 sections. The first addresses what it means to be the church, particularly with the Catholic/Protestant divide. The second gives an account of what Christian freedom is in light of the law and gospel. Freedom is said to be the ability to live toward an end, participation in the life of the Triune God. The final section advances ecumenical dialogue through a reading of several Catholic documents. Though the language is difficult and the arguments rigorous, I believe the reward is worth the challenge. This book is for anyone who longs for unity in the church.

In 1978-79, Fireside / Simon & Schuster published a series of TPBs featuring "best of" overviews of some of Marvel Comics' best-known characters. CAPTAIN AMERICA: SENTINEL OF LIBERTY was one of these, and presents a brief, if powerful, "introduction" to the classic character for new readers. Although it says "by Stan Lee" on the cover, this is misleading. Due to "The Marvel Method", the artists usually supplied much, if not most or ALL of the plots (uncredited, unpaid!), while the "writers", like Stan (who was also the editor) supplied the dialogue & captions. The results could be mixed, but more often than not, they were imagination & excitement personified!

Here's the run-down for this book:
"THE ORIGIN OF CAPTAIN AMERICA!" (Suspense 63, Mar'65)
"The Traitor's Revenge" (text story / Captain America 3, May'41)
"CAPTAIN AMERICA JOINS...THE AVENGERS!" (Avengers 4, Mar'64)
"CAPTAIN AMERICA" (Suspense 59, Nov'64)
"THE RED SKULL LIVES!" (Suspense 79, Jul'66)
"HE WHO HOLDS THE COSMIC CUBE!" (Suspense 80, Aug'66)
"THE RED SKULL SUPREME!" (Suspense 81, Sep'66)
"NO LONGER ALONE!" (Captain America 110, Feb'69)
"THE STING OF THE SCORPION!" (Captain America 122, Feb'70)

The art on all these stories is by Jack Kirby, except for the last 2, which are by Jim Steranko & Gene Colan. I suspect every episode in here should blow people's minds. They're THAT good!!! With very few exceptions, they just don't make comics this exciting (of fun) anymore.

This Marvel Masterwork is a full-colour, hardcover, action-packed depiction of Captain America's earliest adventures.

Inside this Marvel Masterwork Origional Stan Lee brings to life the Legendary Captain's Origin and his first adventures, with classically brilliant artwork, including the epic Sleeper Saga and the Red Skull's first explosive battles with Captain America.

As well as this all of the original covers are presented on the front and back of the marble-decorated sleeve as well as inside the book, each shown before the tale it origionally protected.

All-in-all a good buy and a good read. I don't have to tell you it would take thousands of pounds/dollars to collect these tales individually.

So basically buy it if you can get your hands on it.

Marvel Masterworks, Volume 14 presents the return of Captain America in issues #59-81 in "Tales of Suspense." Captain America was one of the great superheroes of the Golden Age of comic books. During the early days of World War II a secret military experiment called Operation: Rebirth turned Steve Rogers into America's first super-soldier. During the war Captain America often fought with the Invaders or his partner, Bucky. Then Cap and Bucky disappeared, presumably killed in an explosion over the Artic Ocean. Decades later in "Avengers" #4, Namor the Sub-Marine (another Golden Age superhero who had just been brought back in an issue of "The Fantastic Four"), found Eskimos worshipping a figure in a block of ice. The block ended up in the ocean and when it melted the figure of Captain America emerged to be rescued by the Avengers.

Proclaimed to be "The most enthusiastically requested character revival of all time," Captain American shared space with Iron Man in Marvel's "Tales of Suspense" magazine. Written by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby, these stories focused on Cap's solo adventures. There was the mob boss who thought Captain America was the weak link of the Avengers because he was just a glorified acrobat (#59), Baron Zemo and his henchmen (#60), a giant sumo wrestler in Viet Nam (#61), and a cellblock of escaped prisoners (#62). The origin of Captain America is recounted in issue #63, then we get the lame Sando and Omar (#64), and then we get to what we have been waiting for: the return of the Red Skull.

This seven-art story is actually set during World War II and includes how Hitler himself picked a lowly servant and turned him into the Red Skull (#66). The combination of a decent villain and a multi-part story line makes this the highpoint of this collection. But if you remember the Captain American cartoons they had in the Sixties you will have fond memories of the next storyline (#73-75), which is about the Sleepers planted by the Red Skull. Then we are back to the revolving door of villains, with Batroc (#75-76), the story of the woman Cap loved during WWII (#77), and Captain America teaming up with Nick Fury Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (#78). Then we get back on track big time with "The Red Skull Lives" (#79-81). After all, you can take Captain America away from the war, but you cannot take the war from following him.

It is not surprising that two-thirds of the stories here are devoted to the Red Skull, then and "now." After all, when you are talking about Captain America you are talking about the Living Legend of World War II. There is really only one totally lame story in the bunch and what is interesting is how quickly Lee and Kirby establish the character's persona in the modern era. Of course, Kirby was drawing the character twenty years early, so that was a big help. But they also update the character to his new circumstances and the sense of loss over Bucky and Sharon give him a nice sense of gravity. Captain America would become a hit and miss character over the next couple of decades, but Lee and Kirby gave him a solid foundation for the last decades of the 20th century in these early issues of "Tales of Suspense."

It took me about ten days to read this fascinating book. The author has made an excellent contribution to U. S. history by carefully keeping to his title topic (Catholicism and American Freedom: A History), halting his account when he has made his point, and jumping ahead ten or fifteen years. With a hundred pages of notes and a helpful index, McGreevy has fashioned a parade of people exposing their thoughts and prejudices. I had already known many of the names and events, but I found the quotations startling. Such brazen words written by such renowned men! As for wisdom and insight, Jacques Maritain stood out. I must explain the withheld fifth star: Other authors enliven their work by colorizing, presenting one view with convincing animation. This book is nuanced, more like life, therefore a bit more difficult to read.

Excellent. This writer documents every assertion, often with quotations. As a professional historian, he tells the story without inserting his own opinions until the very last chapter. Even then, he inserts very few of his own opinions. The book documents the often-uneasy relationship between Protestant viewpoints derived from a belief that each individual is responsible for himself and his own actions, and Catholic viewpoints that are based on Thomistic understanding of the community/common good, and individuals' relatinships to each other through the common good. This is not Protestants versus Catholics. This is two different mindsets, both of which produce responsible citizens.

Catholicism and American Freedom: A History is a readable, scholarly work, with extensive references. Although it is a history of Catholicism, one also gets an education on the great influence of all Christian religions on US historical development, which is woefully lacking in modern, politically correct textbooks. (One can learn here how Justice Felix Frankfurter invented the "wall of separation of church and state," which did not exit before 1948.)

There are a couple of threads to the book. One is the struggle of Catholics to gain acceptance as loyal Americans first from Protestant antagonism, which has ebbed and flowed over two centuries, to the attacks by secular liberalism, today. The book opens in 1859 with Protestants questioning Catholic motives because of the refusal of a Catholic child in a public school to recite the Protestant enumeration of the Ten Commandments. One hundred years later, in that same state (Massachusetts), Catholics were berated for inflicting their views of contraception on non-Catholics. In the mid-1800s, the Church saw slavery as an acceptable institution (though not in its form in the American South); by the late 1960s, the Church was a leader for racial equality. Also, since the early 1900s, the Church began leading the campaign for social justice in the US. Today, the Catholic Church finds itself aligned with conservative Protestants against secular liberals' insistence on legal abortion. The final chapter of the book is about the post-Vatican II Church's handling of internal problems, such as pederasty by priests, and its effect on the Church's mission in America. This section is weak, but the scenario is still being played out.

A second thread is the struggle by the institutional Church to come to grips with democracy, and with individual freedom, which is the hallmark of American democracy. In early American history, the Church was suspicious of democracy because of the persecution of Catholics and seizure of Church property by European democracies, and the Church favored governments that sponsored Catholicism as the state religion. Though it took over a century, the American experience was a major influence on changing the Church's thought to realize that freedom of religion is better for the Church and that individual freedom in a democracy is preferred over authoritarian rule.