Sunday, November 09, 2014
The Russian bear.
This is the classic 1984 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign commercial about the Soviet threat:
If the script seems strange, it was meant to counter Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale's pitch to voters that the Soviet threat was overblown and that President Reagan's tough approach was unnecessary and dangerous.
Mondale said he would talk to the Soviets and get them to negotiate. Democrats don't like to remember that back then, apart from a few hawks like Sen. Henry Jackson, a large swath of Democrats weren't bothered by the Soviets at all. Some could accurately be described as fellow travelers.
Reagan mopped the floor with Mondale, carrying 49 states and winning the most electoral votes in American history. When the Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago today, some of the same Democrats insisted Reagan shouldn't be given credit for it.
Now, about that bear. Thirty years later, the Russian bear has returned. One of my missions in Scandinavia this week will be to talk to military experts in a very vulnerable region about what some fear is a new Cold War.
But the difference between the Cold War in 1984 and the one in 2014 is the difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Reagan was a rancher. Ranchers grab a gun when a bear is near.
The former community organizer Obama, with his sanctions, has simply poked the bear with a stick. The bear is angry and senses weakness.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Former talk show host Neal Boortz once said that the National Education Association teacher’s union is a bigger threat to America than al Qaeda.
That might sound ridiculous. But, as Boortz said, “Look, al Qaeda…could bring in a nuke into this country and kill 100,000 people…We would recover from that. It would be a terrible tragedy, but the teachers' unions in this country can destroy a generation.”
Ever since social engineers John Dewey and Horace Mann began to re-make the school house into a factory for little leftist cogs over 100 years ago, public education has increasingly eroded public morality, the family, patriotism, and learning.
One could fill a library with all the bizarre and evil social experiments foisted upon children trapped in public school classrooms. This week’s atrocity was the “Purple Penguin” story, spread through the news media and on Facebook.
National Review reported:
“(The Lincoln, Nebraska) school district has instructed its teachers to stop referring to students by “gendered expressions” such as “boys and girls,” and use “gender inclusive” ones such as “purple penguins” instead.
“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at the Lincoln Public Schools.
“Create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet on the rug,” it advises.
The document also warns against asking students to “line up as boys or girls,” and suggests asking them to line up by whether they prefer “skateboards or bikes/milk or juice/dogs or cats/summer or winter/talking or listening.”
“Always ask yourself . . . ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the document says.
Faced with a national fury, Lincoln School Superintendent Steve Joel was not backing down; telling the Lincoln Journal Star that he “would not stop efforts to reach all students, including those who are gender non-conforming or transgender.”
My mother is a retired public school teacher. I graduated from a public school. But government schools have become political fiefdoms of the Left and are, more often than not, at war with Christianity, traditional American values, and the rights of parents.
They are also centers of child abuse. Kevin Williamson nailed it when he wrote the following about American public education, in response to that crazy Sandy Hook commission report released recently, which said that homeschools should be monitored.
In a piece entitled, "They Are Coming for Your Children," Williamson writes,
"(G)overnment schools are in fact the single most destructive institution in American public life, and they are the bedrock of the Left’s power, providing billions of dollars in campaign contributions and millions of man-hours for Democratic campaigns.
But they do more than that: They are the real-life version of those nightmarish incubator pods from The Matrix, and home-schooling is a red pill. We entrust our children to the state for twelve or thirteen years, during which time they are subjected to a daily regimen that is, like the school buildings themselves, more than a little reminiscent of the penitentiary: “bells and cells,” as one of my teachers used to call it.
They are instructed in obedience and compliance, as though the most important skill in life were the ability to sit quietly and follow instructions; those children who are more energetic than the authorities care for are given psychiatric diagnoses and very often put on psychiatric drugs: Since the 1980s, the rate of antidepressant prescription for children has increased five-fold, while the rate of antipsychotic prescription has increased six-fold.
The Left’s model of society is still the model of Marx and Bismarck: one big factory to be managed by experts. The government schools are an assembly line for human widgets, who are in theory there to be taught what the state requires them to know in order to fulfill their roles as workers, administrators, and other bits of human machinery.
That is the assumption behind President Obama’s insistence that “if you quit on school, you’re not just quitting on yourself — you’re quitting on your country.” Students are also there to be instructed in the official, unspoken state ideology: submission to official power.
The Left’s organizing principle is control, and the possibility that children might commonly be raised outside of its control matrix is an existential threat from the progressive point of view. Institutions such as free markets and free speech terrify progressives, because they are the result of arrangements in which nobody is in control. The idea that people could be teaching their children practically anything, without the input of credentialed education experts, is a nightmare."
Parents are responsible to God for how they raise their children. And sending children to government schools has become all but indefensible.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Islam expert David Wood at AnsweringMuslims.com has compiled some of the English language tweets from Muslims defending and celebrating the murder of American journalist James Foley.
As Wood put it, "there are plenty of Westernized Muslims who condemn the beheading of James Wright Foley. Unfortunately, Islam isn't defined by Westernized Muslims."
A Muslim told me a few days ago that the killers from the Islamic State are "criminals, not Muslims!"
But the killers believe they are being good Muslims. Some are helping distribute Qurans when they're not massacring innocent non-Muslims. And Muslims justify the beheading of Foley with Islamic teaching.
This is a big crisis, not only for the West, but for worldwide Islam, which, up until now, has been very successful in efforts to essentially colonize European nations by more peaceful means; exploiting European guilt and wacky immigration policies.
The Islamic State is now forcing Europe and America to get real about the true threat of Islam, not only in the Middle East, but within their own borders.
Follow Dale on Twitter @DaleHurd and at Facebook.com/DaleHurdNews
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
The Business and Media Institute at Brent Bozell's Media Research Center has found that "Network usage of the phrase 'extreme weather' in the past year (July 2013 through July 2014) is up an 1,000 percent compared to July 2004 through July 2005, the year before Al Gore’s 'An Inconvenient Truth' was released.
From July 2004 to July 2005 the phrase 'extreme weather' was used in 18 stories, this past year it was used in 196 stories.
It matters when viewers complain. When you see this kind of baseless fear mongering from the liberal media, let them know that there are a lot of Americans who haven't joined the Climate Cult and who expect responsible journalism, and not theater.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
From September 11, 2001 until the beginning of this year, 22,000 Muslim terrorist attacks worldwide--an average of 5 a day--killed more than 125,000people and injured nearly three times as many. The death toll does not include honor killings or those murders not reported in the media.
The website Thereligionofpeace.com says the death toll comes from published news reports about terror attacks and says it shows that, "No other religion inspires the sort of terrorism that the "Religion of Peace" (Islam) produces."
Monday, July 07, 2014
Can we say Britain still has free speech if expressing certain opinions brings a visit from the police? That’s the topic of my CBN News Focus Report today from London, Britain's Lost Freedoms: 'We're Living in a Madhouse.'
And here is more from George Igler, director of Britain’s Discourse Institute. This is raw interview in which I am asking George when free speech ended in the United Kingdom and if Britain needs an American-style First Amendment.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
In Winchester, England this past Saturday, LibertyGB candidate Paul Weston was arrested for publicly repeating Winston Churchill’s unflattering assessment of Islam.
The words Weston spoke come from Churchill’s book, The River War:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
They are Churchill’s words, not Weston’s. If British police are going to arrest for the crime of free speech, they arrested the wrong man. If convicted, Weston could get two years in prison for a “racially aggravated crime” under the Public Order Act.
Here is video of the incident:
I used the Weston arrest as an example in the story, Free Speech Farce: Rise of American Fascism, about how tough it could get for Christian conservatives in this country if curbs on speech continue to grow.
Follow Dale Hurd on Twitter @dalehurd and at facebook.com/dalehurdnews.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
A Hungarian political party widely viewed as fascist and anti-Semitic could finish second in national elections on April 6.
“Jobbik, the Movement for a Better Hungary,” is already the third largest political party in Hungary and a second place finish behind ruling party Fidesz in less than three weeks could vault Jobbik into a coalition government.
According to the Hungarian political site, Politics.Hu, support for Jobbik among Hungarian voters has risen to 16 percent.
While Jobbik describes itself as "a principled, conservative and radically patriotic Christian party," it has been labeled as fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and anti-Roma by journalists, scholars and political figures in Hungary.
Jobbik also dislikes evangelicals who support Israel. Hungary’s largest evangelical church has launched a Hungarian Facebook page called Vote Against Jobbik.
Go to Vote Against Jobbik and like the page to help support the push against the anti-Semitic, anti-Evangelical party in Hungary.
Rev. Sandor Nemeth, the pastor of Faith Church in Budpaest, which has 60,000 attendees, calls the April 6 election “a crucial day,” because Nemeth says Jobbik views “Jews and the pro-Israel, Evangelical Christian community as their top enemies.”
He said Hungary’s Christians “need the help and support of all our friends and sisters and brothers in Christ.”
Pastor Nemeth is calling for an outpouring of “likes” on their Facebook page from everyone who supports tolerance and freedom, and especially from Christians and supporters of Israel, to show strong opposition to Jobbik.
Also, check out the website Save Hungary.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
I started writing this piece a few days ago, before former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. I set it aside because I didn’t want to look like I had fallen for “Godwin’s Law,” which states that if an Internet discussion goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler, Nazis, or Nazism. Turns out Hillary fell for it first.
Actually, that was only part of the reason I put this piece aside. The topic seemed too bookish and boring. It sort of still is. But if history is your thing, read along.
There are a few interesting similarities between the former KGB agent Putin and the former Austrian Corporal Hitler. But there is always a lot of low hanging fruit in comparisons of lawless leaders because they tend to act the same.
Perhaps least interesting to many of you but fascinating to me is that both Putin and Hitler reacted to what is still the most important event in modern European history, the fall of the imperial houses of Habsburg (Austria-Hungary) Hohenzollern (Germany) and Romanov (Russia) during and after World War I. The geopolitical mayhem sprung by this event still makes trouble in Europe 100 years later (The Balkans is still not settled. Russia still has not gotten over the urge to dominate former vassal states like Poland and Ukraine.) And that is extraordinary.
Both post-Soviet Russia and post-Imperial Germany suffered from what I’ll call regional superiority complexes. Both were nations of incredible cultural and political achievement. Both were weak because of political upheaval, yet still saw themselves at the top of the pecking order in their respective necks of the woods. Neo-nationalists like Putin believe Russia has the right to dominate Ukraine, just as Hitler and German nationalists believed the Third Reich could do what it wanted in Eastern Europe. You could liken it somewhat to American attitudes toward Mexico and Central America in the 1800s and 1900s.
But, let’s be clear: Putin’s first reason for the de facto invasion of the Crimea is to ensure that it remains a base for Russian naval operations. That is number one. Without it, there is no way (that I know of) for Russia to defend itself from attacks coming through the strait of Bosporus and the Black Sea. Does anyone WANT to invade Russia? No. But that, to a Russian nationalist, is either not true or not the point.
The second reason for the invasion is that Crimea used to be a part of Russia and is full of Russians. This is a version of “Pan-Slavism.” Hannah Arendt in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” postulated that Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism in the last century was rooted in the twin strains of Pan-Slavism (Russian/Soviet) and Pan-Germanism (Nazism). The concept of the brotherhood of man which permeated most of Western Europe after the Reformation and Enlightenment didn’t affect Germany and Russia as much.
Both cared more about Germans and Russians to the exclusion of other ethnic groups and nationalities (Poles, Jews, Gypsies, and Armenians, to name a few). Hitler used the excuse of protecting Germans in Czechoslovakia as a pretext to invade. Putin did a similar thing in Georgia in 2008 and Boris Yeltsin tried to do it in Serbia. In 1999, Yeltsin warned that NATO military action against Slavic Serbia could force Russia into a “European or worldwide war.” Hello, 1914?
In the Crimea invasion, Russian nationalists want to “protect” both Russians in the “near abroad” and Ukrainians. PRI’s Charles Maynes, covering Russian reaction to the invasion, writes: “Alexei Zhivov, a self-described Russian nationalist, argues that Ukraine and Russia are really just one country. And that the Maidan (anti-government) protesters, backed by Western powers, are trying to tear Ukraine out of Russia's embrace. "We should be one pan-Slavic government.”
Zhivov’s comment also points toward traditional Russian paranoia of being invaded, thanks to Napoleon and Hitler. Maynes further writes, “Maria, a pro-(Putin) activist…suggested that if Moscow didn't come to Ukraine's rescue, the fascists would come to Russia next. Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't the final goal,” she said. “Their final goal is to destroy Russia. And what's really happening is a military intervention by the West … and that's why Crimea is asking for help. They see what's happening and understand that Russia is the only one that can save them.”
One would think people should be saved FROM the Russian government, but Russian nationalists think ethnic Russians in the near abroad deserve to live with, and be under the protection of, other Slavs or Russians.
Finally, the most dangerous comparison between Hitler and Putin is one of the easiest. At the moment when aggression could have been stopped, both Hitler and Putin stared across at weak Western leaders they calculated would do little or nothing to fight them. And you have to admit that Barack Obama does a fine Neville Chamberlain.
Putin has proven he is a lawless man who, like Hitler during his rise in the 1930s, invokes the concept of law only when it is useful to his goals of internal control and external aggression. And make no mistake: Like Hitler, Putin would do anything that he knew he could get away with.
And I have to add that when it comes of Obama and Putin and breaking the law, it takes one to know one.
Dale Hurd reported from Moscow during the Gorbachev and Yeltsin periods. You can follow him on Twitter @dalehurd and on Facebook.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists, writes in the Australian literary journal Quadrant that (my words, not his) the bill for climate change hysteria and the prostitution of science in the name of a leftist political fantasy could be about to come due.
And when it does, the damage to the reputation of science could be huge.
In what will be for some climate scientists the equivalent of a theologian being questioned on the existence of God, Paltridge asks of them, “Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?” And he warns that a backlash against science is building because, “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.
Paltridge is not small potatoes. He was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), described as “Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, America's massive Federal Laboratory network and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one.”
Writing in Forbes, former Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels cites the Paltridge article in asking, “Will the overselling of global warming lead to a new scientific dark age?”
Michaels adds, “Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away. Every year that elapses without a significant warming trend more and more erodes the credibility of not just climate science, but science in general.”
Paltridge warns that, “…we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem…in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”