NPR has a left leaning bias, we all know that and I have proven it in the past. So reviews of a book they laud connecting the fanciful imaginations of the progressive in regards to history and Bush is a dream come true. In two reviews of the book/topic with the author of the book, God’s Jury, you can see a creeping bias, much like the pre-war Germany propaganda, has on the cover a “hooked nosed” Pope designating (implicitly or explicitly) the secular leftist hatred for anything Christian.
Cullen Murphey’s Cover:
Some NPR stories on the book/author:
NewsBusters has this in what they call a Liberal Two-Fer:
This book is at odds with the most renown scholar and author of the book, The Spanish Inquisition, Henry Kamen. Take note of the difference in tone and most probably scholarship — as this interview shows… his [Cullen Murphey] connections are so general that any religion or government can be connected to this event. These generalities are not to connect a historical event to a modern one but in progressive fashion the goal of stoking emotions rather than basing something in fact/history is the prime mover.
From an Amazon book reviewer and author of Author of “Mission,” an African novel set in Kenya:
One of my favorite quotes comes from a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and the late atheist Christopher Hitchens:
✦ Atheists regimes killed more people in a week than the inquisition could kill in three-centuries
And another reviewer:
A great video by a fellow arm-chair apologists is a good introduction to the topic:
This is an event little recognized in the study of Obama. I will post the discussion by Dinesh D’Souza on Obama’s past and why this event discussed below drives his outlook on life:
Barack Obama is making some British politicians nervous.
A bronze bust of Winston Churchill was loaned to President George Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The British government offered to let Obama keep the bust, but Obama decided to send it back. A bust of Abraham Lincoln now sits in the oval office where the Churchill one once rested.
Although most Americans view Churchill favorably, Obama’s Kenyan roots may not put him as much at ease.
It was during Churchill’s second term in office that the British brutally put down the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and tortured during that suppression.
“The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Obama’s grandfather’s third wife.
Overly anxious British diplomats are now seeking an alternative for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to present to Obama when he visits him in the next couple of months.
Obama should not be surprised at the British reaction. Churchill has been recognized in polls as its greatest leader.
Just a couple favorite quotes from Churchill:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Woman: My goodness, Mr. Churchill! Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course.
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Woman: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”
Nancy Astor: “Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.”
Churchill: “If I were your husband I would take it.”
(Click the above graphic to hear Obama fulfill what Beck and D’souza talk about below.) Dinesh D’Souza has a new book out that I highly recommend. It pulls together many avenues of thought into the origin of Obama’s goals and worldview. In these two short Glenn Beck segments you have Beck and Dinesh talking about a topic that I think is just fascinating. I think D’Souza is one of the better thinkers out there of the semi-younger crowd. Great author to say the least.
By the way, the short clip of the video of the history of things Beck shows is refuted quite well below. I will post links to the other parts of this critique… in case you do not know, many schools play the original video… thus in a sense “brainwashing” these vulnerable minds. The part where it is mentioned that we spend 50% of our tax money on the military is just so, so false:
SEE THE REST OF THE CRITIQUE HERE
Dinesh D’Souza has revealed in an excellent article why he is a leading culturally minded conservative commentator/author of our day. I suggest reading the whole article, but D’Souza quotes from his fathers article where he says:
This statement that may seemingly drive some of Obama’s thinking, brings to mind another statement made by his science czar, John Holdren. (Posts on Holdren at RPT, and at Blogspot [see Obama’s Czars].) Here is an impromptu attempted interview with Holdren… and take note these guys are radicals and wish to use and subvert language and definitions. So when Holdren says he was talking about using the free market to get his plans implemented, he doesn’t mean by allowing the free market to do so without coercion. His phrase in this exchange, environmental equality – is a code word for this coercion. Like Prager says, you can either have equality, or liberty, you cannot however, have them both.
The Blaze mentions that Holdrens co-authors, Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich, called for wealth redistribution (both within and among nations) “absolutely essential” in order to provide a decent life for everyone. Which makes sense of this goal quoted here:
This is all providing explanations for D’Souza’s list of apparent contradictions in Obama’s actions as an AMERICAN President. I look forward to Dinesh’s book. It should provide meat for the soul and mind. By the way, if you do not know about Paul Ehrlich background and failed predictive powers, I highly suggest a book by Julian Simon entitled, Hoodwinking the Nation. An absolutely fascinating read (click the book cover for a quick intro about the bet the two men made about resources). May I finish that when a person tells you that the two parties are the same, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Of course I would be remiss not to mention gratitude of the almost encyclopedic cataloging of debates over at Apologetics 315.
This debate is a great example of diarrhea (D’Souza’s words) from the skeptic, i.e., typical rejections of Christianity. But in all Loftus’s points (basically Christianity commits acts of evil or “evil” is commanded by God), he is missing the grand-point of how you say one act is immoral and the other is evil. This point is made by Ravi Zacharias during a Q&A by a student at Harvard, how do you decide what is evil and what is not?
Atheism cannot answer this, theism (especially the Judeo-Christian ethic) can. So Loftus is borrowing from the Christian worldview to disprove it. In other words, how does the atheist respond to rape in historical evolutionary thought? It is currently taboo, but what about our evolutionary history? What about our evolutionary future? In theism, rape is always morally wrong, at all times in history and at all places in the cosmos. Do you get it? John Loftus is calling God immoral or Christians immoral… is he saying there is a “Divine Law” that supersedes human thought so when he states such a position we intuitively know and are supposed to understand what he just said? IF this is the case, then he is proving the Judeo-Christian God, not disproving “Ego Eimi.“
Here is the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and John Loftus on the topic: Does the Christian God Exist? Debate video can be found here. D’Souza offers his follow-up thoughts on the Sound Rezn radio show here (mp3). Check out Dinesh’s newest book here. (original debate source here)
Full MP3 Audio here. (2 hours)
Enjoy this debate, it snuck in under my radar.