Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This is pseudo-history, at best. The author does not provide the context of the founding of America or the development of his supposed '28 principles.' He doesn't show the arguments or oppositions during the American Revolution or of the writing of the American Constitution. He presents the Founding Fathers as though they lived in a vacuum, created with fully formed ideas. I'm a graduate student, getting my master's in History and then going on to get my doctorate. If I had turned in something like this as a research paper, I'd be lucky to get by with a C. Not to mention that this is a veiled attempt at persuading the reader into what appears to be 'domimionism,' or the belief that America was a 'Christian Nation' at it's founding and must return to this fictionally perfect earlier form. America has always struggled, never more then in it's birth and the Constitution, though definitely created by intelligent men, is a flexible document and a product of it's time. It is a fantastic foundation, to be built upon and, yes, interpreted! The Founding Fathers are represented as only being about ten men- when those involved in the various congresses and conventions number well into the hundreds, not to mention the thousands who served and supported the armies during the American Revolution. The author ignores the influences of the Enlightenment and Humanism on the people involved in creating the American Government. He ignores the strides made in the past two hundred years. He encourages us to revert back to 1776, yet conveniently forgets the oppression of women, the enslavement of Africans, and the persecution of Native Americans. A brief look into the history of the author finds that he was once a member of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing think-tank that promotes a 'Christianization' agenda towards the U.S. Government. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin (who the author quotes at length) would most likely be horrified at this. Since they all supported separation of church and state. The bottom line is that this book is bad history; the author fails to present a contextual and honest view of the struggle of creating the American Government. He ignores too much at his and the reader's peril. If you think you are getting a history lesson in this book, you are sadly mistaken. No matter what this book might present, the Founding Fathers were not one collective, infallible mind. History should show all sides, present the reader with the thoughts of those who supported the American Revolution, those against who opposed it, and those who wavered for good reasons. It should show the arguments and sources for the Constitution, most importantly the Bill of Rights. It should show the contradictions in the Founding Fathers... and it should define who the Founding Fathers were - as well as show their humanity and genius. Not to demonize, but to better understand. This book should not present itself as a history book, for it is not. It is a persuasive argument and, in that, it is not successful - for it makes the first mistake in persuasive writing. It doesn't define its argument and it doesn't acknowledge any oppositional ideas. In short, it's a corruption of historical scholarship. "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches". -- Benjamin Franklin (Does that prove Franklin was an Athiest? Where's the context?)