All posts by redhatrob

Dolley Madison Saves George Washington

With pencil sketches and watercolor washes, Dan Brown does an excellent job of capturing the life and times of Dolley Madison – beginning when her husband was Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson and continuing through his own Presidency.

The particular incident related here is historically accurate and significant. When the British marched on Washington DC in 1814, Dolley had to flee and the British burned both the capitol and the President’s residence. The charred sandstone walls of the house survived, and when the interior was rebuilt, Dolley had the exterior white-washed to cover up the smoke and soot stains on the stones. Hence, the “White” house.

We should all be grateful to Dolley as well for saving George Washington. In the President’s residence (remember, it wasn’t the White House yet), was a life-size portrait of George Washington which had been painted by Gilbert Stuart (see picture at left). Although the soldiers guarding the President’s residence had fled, Dolley refused to leave until the portrait was taken down and removed from the residence to a place of safety. Thanks to Dolley, the painting survived.

This little picture book tells the story on about a 3rd-4th grade reading level in 32 pages, hardback, $16.00.
-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center
  Publisher, Greenleaf Press

Blood on the River – Jamestown 1607

Blood on the RiverPublisher’s Description: “Twelve-year-old Samuel Collier is a lowly commoner on the streets of London. So when he becomes the page of Captain John Smith and boards the Susan Constant, bound for the New World, he can’t believe his good fortune. He’s heard that gold washes ashore with every tide. But beginning with the stormy journey and his first contact with the native people, he realizes that the New World is nothing like he imagined. The lush Virginia shore where they establish the colony of James Town is both beautiful and forbidding, and it’s hard to know who’s a friend or foe. As he learns the language of the Algonquian Indians and observes Captain Smith’s wise diplomacy, Samuel begins to see that he can be whomever he wants to be in this new land.”

The author has done her homework and the attention to historical detail in meticulous. The book is as much about John Smith as it is about Jamestown. This would make a great companion to The World of Captain John Smith. It tells a more personal story of his leadership and challenges in the Virginia colony.

There is one disappointing facet to this book: its protagonist has little or no religious life of his own. Although there is s sympathetic religious figure, the Reverend Hunt, and although speaks several times of praying, there’s no discussion of his (or anybody else’s) religious convictions, if any.

Still, for anyone who wants a vivid, first person description of life in the Virginia colony in 1607, this is an excellent read.

 -Rob Shearer
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Expelled – for daring to question Darwinism

Of all people, Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Win Ben Stein’s Money) has just completed an 18 month investigation of how the scientific community has ruthlessly and systematically blackballed any scientist who dared to question Darwinism.

He’s releasing a movie next February titled Expelled.

Here’s the teaser/trailer:

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=YxGyMn_-J3c]

ZZ Top George Thorogood‘s blues guitar, Ben Stein, Intelligent Design . . . What’s not to like?

NB: Stein is not just a Hollywood celebrity, he graduated first in his class from Yale law school and was a speechwriter for both Presidents Nixon and Ford.

– Rob Shearer
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Washington, Adams, & Lincoln – in their own words!

Washington the WriterJohn Adams the WriterLincoln the Writer

What an amazing idea! Give students the opportunity to read the words of historical figures themselves! These are wonderful resources.  Along with each figure’s own words are photographs, prints, paintings, and artifacts to bring each period to life.

This is a wonderful way to bypass the filters of modern historians and textbooks and find out what these guys said themselves!

The selections are arranged chronologically (what a wonderful idea!). For example, after a chapter on Adams youth and early career, there are some fascinating selections from Adams’ participation in the Continental Congress of 1775 and 1776. NB: It was Adams who nominated George Washington for commander-in-chief of the continental army.

After this come letters from the period of Adams’ service in Europe as a diplomat, Ambassador to Great Britain, the first Vice President and then the Second President.

I highly recommend these books, and am hoping they will continue to bring out additional volumes. Hardback, 144 pages. Reading level is junior high and up.

-Rob Shearer
   Publisher, Greenleaf Press
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center

No Executive Incumbent on the ballot in 2008

and that will be the first time this has been true since . . . class? anyone? Bueller?

Try 1952. That’s right, its been 56 years since we held a presidential election in which neither of the nominees for president was an incumbent in the executive branch.

What does that mean? Not sure. The powers of incumbency are formidable. Media attention, staff assistance, executive travel perks, just to name a few. The prestige of being President or Vice-President is intangible, but obviously significant. Only three incumbent presidents lost (Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992). Six won. But of the four vice presidents who ran, only one succeeded in being elected president (Bush 41).

Here’s the list (from memory):

1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson
1956 Eisenhower (President) vs. Stevenson
1960 Nixon (Vice President) vs. Kennedy
1964 Johnson (President) vs. Goldwater
1968 Humphrey (Vice President) vs. Nixon
1972 Nixon (President) vs. McGovern
1976 Ford (President) vs. Carter
1980 Carter (President) vs. Reagan
1984 Reagan (President) vs. Mondale
1988 Bush 41 (Vice President) vs. Dukakis
1992 Bush 41 (President) vs. Clinton
1996 Clinton (President) vs. Dole
2000 Gore (Vice President) vs. Bush 43
2004 Bush 43 (President) vs. Kerry
2008 Clinton? vs. Thompson?

I can do the list from memory, because, with the exception of the 1952 and 1956 elections, I have memories of all these campaigns. My political memories are sharp and clear. My belief that there are political solutions to our problems is growing increasingly dim.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

The Lion in Winter

Lion in Winter Poster“Of course he’s got a knife. He always has a knife. We ALL have knives. It’s 1183 and we’re barbarians!”
        – Eleanor of Aquitaine, The Lion in Winter

“I could have conquered Europe, but I had women in my life.”
        – Henry II, the Lion in Winter

My wife shakes her head, but this is still one of my favorite movies.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXs60oA4Bds]

The sets, the costumes, the atmosphere are all 1183. My favorite cultural detail – Henry, first thing in the morning, in his bedroom, breaks the ICE on the bucket of water in order to wash his face. Instant reality check for those who think life in a medieval castle was glamorous or luxurious.

Watched it again today, with several of the daughters. Film note: Includes the film debuts of both Timothy Dalton (King Philip of France) and Anthony Hopkins (Richard the Lion-Hearted). Also of note, when the film was shot in 1968, Katherine Hepburn was 61 years old, the exact age of Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1183. Peter O’Toole was only 36 at the time, but does a good job of playing Henry II as if he were 50. Hepburn won the Oscar for best actress for her performance. O’Toole was nominated for best actor for his.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Pope Benedict on Religious Freedom and “illusory visions of truth”

Pope BenedictPope Benedict gave a short, interesting, and profound speech on Friday. Of course, you won’t read about it in any of the mainstream media. Or if you do, it will be framed in a way that obscures and distorts its meaning. He was speaking to a meeting of the Centrist Democrat International, an international alliance of political parties devoted to promoting the idea of Christian Democracy. The member parties are drawn primarily from Europe and Latin America.

He called on the delgates to “prevent the dissemination and entrenchment of ideologies which obscure and confuse consciences by promoting an illusory vision of truth and goodness.”

And what are some of the illusions?

  • Financial gain as the only good;
  • it is legitimate to destroy life in its earliest or final states;
  • the fundamental nucleus of society is [not] the indissoluble bond of marriage between a man and a woman.

The Pope said those are ILLUSIONS. And called upon Christian politicians to oppose them. I think the Pope is fundamentally correct when he asserts that these are not just Roman Catholic positions on the most important issues of the day – they are the Christian, biblical positions.

The Pope went on to defend the idea of religious liberty — for ALL religions. He said “religious freedom is a fundamental expression of respect for human reason and its capacity to know truth.”

And then he threw down the gauntlet to the Islamic world: “The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice.”

Because the mainstream media are so clueless on a)all matters of religion;  and b)anything having to do with the Pope, I would urge you to read the Pope’s speech for yourself. In fact, because the media do such terrible filtering and distorting, I’d urge you to read speeches by any political figure for yourself — but especially those by the Pope and by President Bush. Here’s a .pdf of the Pope’s speech taken from the Vatican website. Highlights are mine.

hat tip to the blog, Atlas Shrugs, where I ran across a reference to the speech.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Hippie Re-enactors

VietNam Protest  Iraq Protest

Yesterday’s “Best of the Web” column at OpinionJournal.com had this brilliant insight:

Reader Kim Sommer has an excellent insight prompted by our video yesterday (Hippie History Buffs) on the phony “antiwar” movement:

I have a friend. Several times a year he goes out and dresses in funny clothes and participates with other like-minded people who believe in the the things he believes. And they act on their beliefs. And talk about them. And get younger folks involved, who will carry on their traditions.

They are Civil War re-enactors. These peace protesters are just peace protest re-enactors if you think about it.

I’d carry this analogy further. Not only are the current anti-war protestors re-enacting the peace protests from the 1960s (complete with an attempt to dress in authentic costumes), but the entire Democrat Party is trying to re-enact the 1960s.

Hippie re-enactors. Cute. Amusing. But not to be taken seriously.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

The Blitzkrieg Myth

mosierHow Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II

by John Mosier

In the 1920s two new theories of warfare / strategy were postulated: blitzkrieg and airpower. The two theories shared a fascination with inventive technology, surprise,  and the concept of a breakthrough to the opponent’s rear area. The theories were used to explain how World War One was fought and why one side was successful and the other was not. After World War Two, military historians applied the two theories and used them to account for the initial sucesses of Germany and Japan, and for the eventual victories of the USA, Great Britian and the USSR.

The problem, according to Mosier,  is that historians were systematically reworking the facts to fit the theories. The preoccupation with the theories of blitzkrieg and airpower led the allies to misunderstand the reasons for the German victories over Poland and France. In turn the allies made plans consistent with the theories that led to disasters like the Market Garden airborne assault into Holland in 1944.

Mosier is a contrarian. He maintains (and supports his analysis with an impressive marshalling of facts and military records) that in both world wars, the victors won the old-fashioned way – by bringing larger numbers of troops to bear on the enemy and destroying the enemies military forces. Blitzkrieg and airpower per se had nothing to do with it.

Mosier is an good writer and makes a clear and convincing case for his thesis. This book will force you to rethink much of the conventional wisdom about World War Two… and also about how wars are fought in general.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center