Roosevelt and Stalin: a lesson for us all

I just finished a book called Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship. What an eye-opener. Franklin Delano Roosevelt thought he knew how to handle Joseph Stalin as World War 2 ramped up. Unlike Winston Churchill, FDR decided he should be extremely accommodating to Stalin, thus showing the Russian tyrant he had nothing to fear from America and the West. The result of this approach was heartbreaking and puzzling.

As early as 1942, Roosevelt worked tirelessly, if not realistically, to help Stalin. He sent many young American sailors to their deaths on the dangerous Murmansk convoys to keep Stalin supplied even as Churchill said the Royal Navy was too stretched to provide decent escort service. FDR then agreed with Stalin to support a cross channel attack on France in 1942, way before the U.S. and England were ready. It would have been a bloodbath.

In 1942, the Brits, Americans, and Russians met at Teheran with more of FDR’s generosity on display. He agreed in principle to Russia’s dominance in the Baltic countries and eastern Europe, thus abandoning these countries to years of misery under communism.

As the war continued, Roosevelt gave away much more to the Russian dictator. He advocated giving one-third of the surrendered Italian navy to Stalin, despite the fact that the Russians didn’t fight in the Mediterranean while the British lost a huge number of ships there. He urged American military leaders to abandon the Italian peninsula and the entire Mediterranean strategy because Stalin didn’t like armies near where he planned to take over entire nations. A truly sad occasion was the Warsaw uprising in 1944 when the Polish resistance leaders led an uprising against the German occupiers because the Russians who were closing in on Warsaw asked them to do so. Instead of coming to their rescue, the Russians cynically stopped short of Warsaw to let the Germans destroy future opposition to Russian military and political dominance in the area. The British asked FDR to help supply the Poles with needed help, but he refused, afraid to anger Stalin. In addition, Roosevelt agreed to support the Russian-supported Polish government being put together, even though the true Polish government was in London in exile.

Toward the end of the war, FDR repeatedly gave way before the Russians. He held the American army back from Berlin, he agreed to huge land accessions if Russia would enter the war in the Pacific against Japan. He looked the other way as Lend-Lease supplies to Russia were diverted to other uses than defeating Hitler, he let Russians inspect American industrial plants without letting our people see Russian plants, he canned his ambassador to Moscow when he pointed out the evils he encountered there, he refused to look into many reports of Russian atrocities against Poles.

The book ends by asking a key question—why did FDR act this way? The answer the author gives has to do with FDR’s worldview. He, like his hero Woodrow Wilson, saw the world in utopian terms. It could be made better, people were basically good, something like the old League of Nations could be reconstituted and made to keep the peace. This idealism permeated the “progressives” of this time. They came to see ugly, totalitarian regimes like the U.S.S.R. as a bit rough around the edges but interested in the same upward drive for perfecting the human race. Their worldview blinded them to the reality of evil.

Does all this sound familiar? Look at the progressives today. They lash out at Israel, but have little to say to Iran. They tolerate North Korea, they excuse Hugo Chavez, they praise Fidel Castro, they hang out with thugs at the United Nations. I see the current administration in this light—the leaders think that if we are nice and accommodating, the world’s dictators will stop their nastiness. Then we can sit around the campfire and sing songs together. Really??

More of the lies about America

Michael Medved's recent book, The 10 Big Lies about America, has much that is interesting to talk about. In three previous blogs, I've touched on three major lies that he says critics have made about America. At this point I'd like to cover two more lies in one blog.

He believes another lie involves the claim that we would all benefit from a more diverse and multicultural United States. He says there are no good international examples to support this. For instance, Canada has been a disaster, teetering for more than 40 years on the verge of dissolution because of its split between French and English communities. Belgium has tried to keep distinct, stubbornly unassimilated nationalities within its borders with little success. Critics of America suggest the famous melting pot never function as advertised. They sneer at the old ideal of unifying Americanism. The multiculturalists overlook the single cultural origin of this country: the Founders affirmed their common language, heritage, and core religious values as a point of pride. They and those that followed them for the next two centuries widely embraced the idea that an identity as an American easily should trump any distinctive ancestry. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, said, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism." Woodrow Wilson agreed: "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready." Despite the way the multiculturalists insist that no one nationality deserves primacy in terms of contemporary American identity, Medved says it's obvious the British Isles played a wildly disproportionate role in shaping the nation. So when today we hear people talking about "English only," they are not attacking immigrants but rather predictably reasserting American norms. In addition, Medved says most contemporary accounts hugely exaggerated diversity in American life. In 2006, for example, 80% of us identify ourselves as white, the same percent as existed at the time of the Constitution. Medved says the multiculturalists who are trying to impose divisions from the top down can't stand up to the unifying force of our shared goals and character. "Americans instinctively transcend all the artificially constructed cultural divides, managing to work together, live side by side, and, in increasingly significant numbers, marry one another."

The second lie Medved tackles involves big business. He says modern American critics talk about the power of big business and how it hurts the country and oppresses the people. But Medved's major point is that these major business organizations make possible our productivity, pleasures, and private opportunities. To start with, it was precisely such businesses that planned and established the early settlements that eventually became the United States. The Founding Fathers never embraced antibusiness attitudes because most of them were themselves entrepreneurs. After the country gained its independence, its internal development and entrepreneurial activity was sponsored by corporations. But critics often point to greedy capitalists who dominated the late 19th century, often referring to them as robber barons. However, many of these "evil people" succeeded because they brought valuable services and goods plus low prices to American consumers. They did not oppress the masses. It's true that political entrepreneurs worked for special concessions in government. However, market entrepreneurs like Vanderbilt refused to entangle themselves with the political process and built their more successful and durable corporations without favoritism from political machinery. Medved says all of the most important economic reform movements sought to disentangle government from the free market, not to impose new bureaucratic controls. The age of the so-called robber barons saw living standards rise rapidly, immigrants assimilated, frontiers settled, states and cities built, and the United States rise to the top rank of world power. The working class benefited greatly from this explosive growth. Real wages grew quickly while the average workweek shortened. The efficiency and productivity made possible by corporations gave typical Americans an amazing range of choices and economic power unimaginable to previous generations. Even poor people today enjoy options and privileges that the wealthiest could not dream of 100 years ago. Medved says that the idea that laborers or customers somehow benefit when a corporation feels squeezed or faces shrinking profits "remains one of the profoundly illogical legacies of discredited Marxism." There are those who argue today that small businesses are somehow better than big businesses, but Medved doesn't see how a small business could do better than big international companies which are providing us with such things as cars, computers, cell phones, and medical supplies. Yes, he says there have been nasty corporate scandals, but the market system allows the public greater and swifter recourse against an abusive corporation than it does against an abusive government.

Next time I'll tackle a couple more lies that Medved deals with.

Was America started by secular men?

In previous blogs I covered two lies about America as discussed in Michael Medved's bestseller, The 10 Big Lies about America. Another lie he deals with has to do with our Founding Fathers: did they intend a secular, not a Christian, nation? His answer is simple -- no.

Medved writes this chapter in response to contemporary critics of religion who try to terrify the public about religious people in this country; they push the idea that our founders meant to establish a secular nation, not a Christian one. But he exposes this for the lie that it is.

In summary, he claims the earliest settlers came to establish, not to escape, devoutly Christian societies. In addition, the founders worried about government’s influence upon religion far more than they did about religious influence on government. In fact, they saw strong faith as an indispensable component of a healthy society. It is, instead, the extremists, not Christian conservatives, who seek to transform the nation and its institutions by overturning long-established constitutional balance in the process.

Let's start with his first claim -- the earliest settlers established Christian societies here in America. The Pilgrims, for example, left the Netherlands not because that nation had too many religious restrictions but because they believed it was too secular. Later on, the Puritans had the same reason for coming to America and setting up the Massachusetts Bay colony. These groups came to the New World seeking purity, not freedom.

The American Revolution itself was strongly influenced by the Great Awakening, an explosion of Christian enthusiasm and revival started earlier by George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers. Those fighting for independence saw their battlefield and political opponents not just as enemies of liberty but as enemies of God himself. They believed religious revival was a huge part of their potential victory.

When the revolution succeeded, the leaders of the struggling new nation did not dump their religious beliefs. In fact, the First Amendment reflected the importance of religion to the new Republic. The Establishment Clause actually protected the established churches in the states. Those in Congress who debated the First Amendment expressed no intention of interfering with the states that openly promoted and funded religious institutions. They intended the establishment of religion clause to protect state religious establishments from national displacement and to prevent the national government from helping some, but not all, religions. Even Thomas Jefferson, the favorite of so many secularists today, was far more worried about potential government harassment of minority faiths rather than worries over the state's ongoing promotion of religious principles and institutions. He recommended to Congress in 1803 the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to Indian tribes. He participated weekly in Christian worship in the Capitol building. Imagine that today.

Were our Founding Fathers mostly Deists, not Christians? Medved says the dictionary definition of Deism is the belief that God exists and created the world but did not assume any control of it after that. But the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Franklin, talked a lot about God’s unceasing control of the world. Ben Franklin, for example, wanted a national seal showing Moses standing by the Red Sea stretching his hand out over it, showing God’s power at work.

The Founding Fathers went beyond religious truth when they commented on the value of religion for society. They unanimously agreed on the importance of fervent faith in protecting and nurturing the United States. Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." John Adams wrote, "It is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

It's too bad that we have to have all of this explained to us again since it is so obviously true and has been a part of our understanding for generations. But recent textbooks, media outlets, teachers, and best-selling authors have drummed into us a new story—we are threatened by the religious right and must go back to the old days of our glorious secular past. The only problem—this story isn’t true.

I’ll cover another lie in a future blog.

Another big lie

In his book The 10 Big Lies about America, Michael Medved tackles fallacies that millions of Americans believe about our country. In the last blog I covered his comments on Native American genocide. In this one I would like to look at his exploration of another huge issue -- is the United States uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery, and is its wealth based on stolen African labor?

His response rests on four important propositions -- slavery is a universal institution, not an American innovation; the slave economy played only a minor role in building American power and prosperity (frankly it retarded economic progress more than it advanced it); America deserves unique credit for rapidly ending slavery; there is very little reason to believe that today's African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained back in Africa.

First, slavery is a universal problem. For example, Brazil imported at least seven times as many African slaves as the future United States and abolished slavery 25 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Then there is the 1300-year history of ceaseless Arab slave trading. Muslim societies enslaved many more innocent Africans then did people in the New World. In fact, it is in Muslim societies that black slavery is perpetuated today in Mauritania, the Arabian peninsula, Sudan, and elsewhere. Medved says the Arab slave trade lasted longer, covered far greater geography, and enslaved more human beings then later European traders. For example, Saudi Arabia outlawed slave owning only in 1962. Even the most primitive indigenous peoples practiced slavery in every corner of the globe. It existed in Egypt, Greece, Rome, and czarist Russia.

Even Africans themselves were involved in slavery long before any intrusion by Europeans. During 400 years of European slave trade, it was Africans who acted as collectors of the victims. Kings of some regions attacked neighboring villages on a regular basis to seize slaves for commerce.

Medved, in addition, attacks the idea that slavery brought about economic development in America. He says the persistence of slavery in southern states actually limited the pace of economic development while abolition in the northern states led to faster growth in population, wealth, and productivity. The slave system in the South produced great wealth for only the tiniest minority in a struggling region that remained predominantly poor.

Who deserves credit for getting rid of slavery in the world? The movement was spearheaded in Britain, the United States, and elsewhere by fervent evangelical Christians. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin both committed themselves to the abolitionist cause. In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson included a strong condemnation of slavery, but the Continental Congress removed this in order to win approval from slave owners.

Medved says the United States should not offer reparations for slavery. He makes a case for the fact that modern African Americans are better off here than in Africa, where there is chaos, corruption, and violence on a large scale. He claims that Americans of African dissent enjoyed much greater prosperity and human rights than citizens whose families lived for a long time in Africa.

The author has much more to say about other lies involving the United States, but I will save those for future blogs.

A different look at American history

For Christmas one of my sons gave me a book by Michael Medved, The 10 Big Lies about America. I want to share some of his chapters with you because he does an excellent job looking at misrepresentations of the historical record.

He starts with the idea that America was founded on genocide against Native Americans. Using the dictionary, Medved defines genocide as "the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group." If there is no intent to slaughter, there is no genocide. What killed off most of the Native Americans? Infectious diseases like smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus. Some critics of America tell of smallpox blankets used to infect unsuspecting tribes. But this rests solely on controversial interpretations of two unconnected and inconclusive incidents seventy-four years apart. That hardly suggests a consistent pattern of genocide covering roughly 400 years of white-Indian interaction.

But, the critics say, what about abundant examples of brutal episodes of warfare along the moving frontier? Were these one-sided horrors perpetrated by bloodthirsty whites against peaceful natives? Medved says these were, instead, fierce battles with casualties on both sides. Only one instance clearly involved rampaging white militia, and the U. S. Government unequivocally condemned this isolated incident. Medved focuses on one of those encounters -- the famous episode at Wounded Knee. A group of Indians fleeing from authorities who wanted to restrict them to a reservation surrendered to troops of the Seventh Cavalry. Several of the Indians had hidden rifles, and two soldiers started struggling with one Indian who had a rifle. The gun went off, resulting in five or six other warriors throwing off their blankets, producing rifles they had concealed, and beginning to fire directly toward the troop of soldiers. The fighting that followed was fierce with losses on both sides. It was a fight, not an unprovoked slaughter of unarmed innocents. The soldiers had brought artillery with them, but they did not use them on the Indians as they might have if they really had genocide in mind. On several occasions they actually tried to encourage the Indians to surrender, but the warriors chose to continue their struggle.

Thanks to recent movies, TV shows, and books, we have been led to believe North America was home to gentle, happy native societies before Columbus. But the truth is that the natives had an age-old tradition of fierce intertribal warfare. Cannibalism, mass human sacrifice, ritualized violence -- all were part of ancient Native American life.

Actually, the United States experience with Native Americans strongly resembled other encounters between people at vastly different stages of development. When members of more enhanced and dynamic societies encounter aboriginal peoples who belong to a much earlier era of human history, there is little doubt of the outcome.

Medved has several other eye-opening chapters in his book. I'll cover them in a later blog.

More examples of climate confusion

In the last blog I mentioned several examples of the problems global warming alarmists now have to deal with. Let’s continue with more from the BBC’s interview with Phil Jones, the now-notorious director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure.

He was asked a key question about the debate over climate change: “When scientists say the debate on climate change is over, what exactly do they mean--and what don't they mean?"

Here’s his reply: “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.”

So Jones says "the vast majority of climate scientists" don't think the debate is over? But I thought the United Nations, Al Gore, the Nobel Prize committee, and all mass-media outlets have insisted the issue has been decided.

Take a look at a recent Washington Post piece, which tries to have it both ways: “With its 2007 report declaring that the 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal,' the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize--and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming. But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel's work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel's methods and mistakes--including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level--give doubters an opening. It wasn't the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But . . .”

What’s the overall point of the article? It first says the consensus on global warming has dissipated. But look at the last full sentence—there really is global warming?? So, the newspaper says the issue is now in doubt except it’s still settled. Hmm . . .

The true believers have a hard time confronting the problems with their position. They have embraced global warming as a political and quasireligious doctrine based, they have been led to believe, on the authority of science.

But as the above examples illustrate, climate science is rife with uncertainty. Yet it’s these hard-core adherents who refuse to listen to any doubters or acknowledge that the "consensus" they have touted is a sham. Aren’t they the ones who accused the skeptics of being narrow-minded? Ironic, isn’t it?

Global warming comes unglued

What a difference a few months have made in the global warming debate. I have long been skeptical of the hysterical, Al-Gore supporting, anti-growth, anti-western, anti-capitalist individuals who back global warming. Over the past few months, large holes have appeared in their arguments. It’s becoming apparent that current supporters--dogmatic, doctrinaire and scornful of skepticism—don’t reflect true science. However things have changed. It’s not just the supporters but the scientists themselves who are looking hysterical and biased beyond belief.


Want some proof? Here’s one example. London's Sunday Times reports that scientists are "casting doubt" on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution," a claim the IPCC describes as "unequivocal":

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. "The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."


How about another example? Sure. The BBC has an extraordinary interview with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure. In the interview, Jones admits that the periods 1860-80 and 1910-40 saw global warming on a similar scale to the 1975-98 period, that there has been no significant warming since 1995, and that the so-called Medieval Warm Period calls into question whether the currently observed warming is unprecedented.

There’s plenty more in this interview, but I’ll save it for my next blog. Meanwhile, have a healthy dose of skepticism when the lab-coats tell us where the truth lies.

Higher education marches on

You know I teach at a community college, so I'm interested in all things educational. Unfortunately, the positive news for modern American education is hard to find. Just when you think it can't get any worse, something like the following comes along.


"San Francisco high school students, just months out of middle school, can start earning San Francisco State college credit this fall through a ninth-grade ethnic studies course," reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Is this for real? Oh, yes.


The program is designed for students who might not otherwise be considering college as an option, said Jacob Perea, dean of the School of Education, who runs the Step to College program at San Francisco State.
"We're not really looking for the 4.4 (grade point average) students," he said. "We're looking for the 2.1 or 2.2 students."
Students cannot fail the class. They either receive a "pass" grade or are withdrawn from the course if it appears they cannot pass, Perea said.
"All we do is give them an opportunity," he said. "I do believe that (the ethnic studies) course is a course set up so the kids will come out of there with the kind of information that a freshman here taking an ethnic studies course will have."
The content of the courses offered in the Step to College program are reviewed by CSU faculty to ensure that they're equal to any offered at the university.


Where to start when contemplating this news article? Someone thinks that kids fresh out of middle school can do passing college work? Out here at Palomar, for instance, the majority of students who have had much more schooling, fail to place in English 100. They have to take one or two semesters of developmental English just to get up to speed. "Students cannot fail the class"--what does this tell them about college and life in general? Is this a good way to prepare them for a tough world? The students will take an ethnic studies class--why do my politically-correct antennae start waving at this news? I picture a class in which all share their ethnicity and compliment all the others for their cultural background, ending in a group hug and singing "Kumbaya." How can you fail ethnic studies? Another great lead forward for American education . . .

A website and radio show worth checking out

Sharon told me about a website I should investigate, so I took a look at inthepublicsquare.com a few weeks ago. Wow, I really enjoyed it.

It’s the website for a talk-radio program that is broadcast on a station we can’t get here in southern California at a time I refuse to be awake for (12-2 a.m.). Here’s the good news—you can download previous programs. There’s no password required, no registration, and no charge to use this although there is a pitch to help out financially if you want to.

Who’s involved? The host is John Snyder, formerly of Apologetics.com on KKLA in SoCal. He’s a Civil War buff and holds a Juris Doctor from Trinity Law School as well as a graduate with certificate from the Strasbourg Institute of International Law. He has others with him: Alexandra Berauer (former Executive Director of a Pregnancy Care Center in Southern California, a member the California Bar, and a bioethicist with the Center for Bioethics & Culture on issues of human egg trafficking), Christopher Neiswonger (holder of a Master's Degree in Public Policy, a Juris Doctor in Law, and a student of International Human Rights with his primary focus on how Christian thought affects the nature of civil government and culture), Stephen Nemo (artist, writer, and commentator on culture/politics), David Llewellyn (a legal activist and Constitutional law scholar, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence located at Chapman University, and former Professor of English). That’s a good cast with strengths in a lot of areas that are of interest to discerning Christians today.

What’s the purpose of Snyder’s show and website? Let him explain in his own words:

In the Public Square exists to provide an intelligent and genial forum for the discussion of important issues in contemporary life from a Christian perspective:
In the Public Square is dedicated to reintegrating Christian ideas into issues of culture, politics, art, history, science, life issues and philosophy.
In the Public Square is dedicated to rehabilitating the image of the Christian mind and showing that Christianity has explanatory power.
In the Public Square invites people with differences to grapple with each other's ideas and opinions. It is a place to refine thoughts in good faith discussion— always with the aim of developing a better understanding of the world of visible and invisible things—always with the purpose of seeking and being shaped by the Truth.


I’ve listened to ten of his shows. What sorts of things has he covered? Well, it’s been wide ranging, including discussions of stem cell research, Civil War battles, the existence of the universe as evidence of a Designer (a great interview with Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe), the culture war in America, animal/human hybrid research, the space program, and weaknesses in the politics of both the right and the left. You can see there’s something for almost everyone.


The show is conducted with reason, wit, fairness, and intelligence. So, if you’re tired of Michael Savage and others who exist to rile you up, give this show a try.