The West may be on the verge of repeating one of the greatest blunders of history. Let us look at the similarities between Al Qaeda and the Nazis:
1. Before 1938, Hitler had set forth his plans for Europe. (Mein Kampf) Hitler openly said that he wanted to defeat France then turn on Russia to get living space for the German people.
1. Al Qaeda has set forth its plans too. (letter from Zarqawi to Al Qaeda) (Letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi). In these letters, Al Qaeda discusses its plans -- to slaughter innocent Shiites in order to get the US to leave Iraq; and Zawahiri's plan, after the US is kicked out of Iraq, to establish a government there and, once that government is strong enough, to use it to create a "Jihad wave" in neighboring countries.
2. Before, 1938, the Nazis' murderous nature was already perfectly clear. (Night of the Long Knives; Kristallnacht)
2. Today, Al Qaeda's murderous nature is also well established (September 11; slaughter of 500 Yazidis by truck bomb; Africa embassy bombings)
3. In 1938, Hitler promised peace if he could only have part of Czechoslovakia. (at 3:30-3:50 in the video).
3. In 2006. Osama bin Laden promised a long-term truce if the US will only pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and leave them under the control of Al Qaeda.
4. In 1938, the leader of the free world was Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a pacifist. His convictions were deep and sincere -- he was even working on a book entitled "the struggle for peace"
4. In 2008, the leader of the free world is George W. Bush. He is not a pacifist. But Barack Obama has a good chance of becoming the next leader of the free world. He is a pacifist. And his plans for handling foreign policy bear an eerie resemblance to Chamberlain's.
5. In 1938, Chamberlain met with Hitler in an effort to solve Europe's problems.
5. Obama has said that if he is elected, he will meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
6. In 1938, Chamberlain's solution was to give Hitler control of part of Czechoslovakia in return for a promise of peace.
6. Today, Obama promises that if elected, he will pull US troops out of Iraq. This is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants and was one of his preconditions for a "long term truce". Obama does also say that he will maintain some troops in the region for "targeted strikes" on Al Qaeda (in case Al Qaeda follows its stated plan of setting up a base in Iraq after US withdrawal). However, the realism of this approach is highly questionable. With lots of US troops in Iraq, the locals can feel confident in fighting against Al Qaeda. A few US troops at a far-away base would not inspire the same confidence.
In 1938, at Munich, the free world surrendered part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for a false promise of peace. At the time, the decision was widely popular.
Today, there is a dangerous possibility that the US will surrender in Iraq, leaving the way open for Al Qaeda to take control of much or all of the country. This would be done in the false hope that it would bring peace. If the US does this, the decision will be widely popular.
Are we doomed to repeat history?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The sheer stupidity of the Democrats on free trade
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lately been arguing over who is more anti-NAFTA. The argument is two-fold: NAFTA allegedly costs Americans jobs. Additionally, both have said they think the US should have gotten a "better deal" from Canada and Mexico.
Here is what Obama had to say:
We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,’ Obama said. ‘The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.
And Hillary:
Time-out for Trade. • Hillary has called for a trade "time out" from new trade agreements as President, and she will not enter into new trade agreements until her Administration has reviewed all existing agreements and designed a genuinely pro-American, pro-worker trade policy that is appropriate for the 21st Century.
Have they forgotten the central lesson of modern history? Freedom works. Open societies, with free trade, have prospered. Closed societies, with closed markets, have stagnated.
One of the great and enduring strengths of the United States has been its large and free domestic market. This freedom is enshrined in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . .
Without this clause, it would be possible for Oregon to enact a law against software products from the state of Washington (Sorry, Microsoft). Or for Nevada to tax the importation of movies from California (Good-bye, Hollywood). Or for New Jersey to forbid the use of financial services from New York (So long, New York Stock Exchange). And so on.
It's not just the United States. Emerging from the devestation of the Second World War, Europe has made repeated moves towards free trade. It started with the European Coal and Steel Community, which protected free trade in coal and steel among West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries. From that humble beginning has grown the European Community, which promotes the free movement of people, goods, and services among 27 European countries. Ireland and Spain were
In the modern era, Singapore, China, and South Korea have all prospered through free trade. And all did so even before opening up their political systems.
Unfree economic policies have been tried. For example, in 1930, the United States ignored warnings from over 1,000 economists and enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, which was intended to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on 20,000 different imported goods to record levels. Other countries retaliated by raising their tariffs. Economists generally agree that this worsened the Great Depression.
Today, Germany and France, while enjoying political freedom and free trade, have generally unfree labor markets; for example, it can be difficult to fire workers. (German regulations are summarized here; French ones are described in numerous news articles; please let me know if you can find a more direct source.) Unsurprisingly, France and Germany also have two of the worst unemployment rates in Europe -- generally running around 8-9%.
On the central economic issue of our time, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both just plain wrong.
Here is what Obama had to say:
We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,’ Obama said. ‘The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.
And Hillary:
Time-out for Trade. • Hillary has called for a trade "time out" from new trade agreements as President, and she will not enter into new trade agreements until her Administration has reviewed all existing agreements and designed a genuinely pro-American, pro-worker trade policy that is appropriate for the 21st Century.
Have they forgotten the central lesson of modern history? Freedom works. Open societies, with free trade, have prospered. Closed societies, with closed markets, have stagnated.
One of the great and enduring strengths of the United States has been its large and free domestic market. This freedom is enshrined in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . .
Without this clause, it would be possible for Oregon to enact a law against software products from the state of Washington (Sorry, Microsoft). Or for Nevada to tax the importation of movies from California (Good-bye, Hollywood). Or for New Jersey to forbid the use of financial services from New York (So long, New York Stock Exchange). And so on.
It's not just the United States. Emerging from the devestation of the Second World War, Europe has made repeated moves towards free trade. It started with the European Coal and Steel Community, which protected free trade in coal and steel among West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries. From that humble beginning has grown the European Community, which promotes the free movement of people, goods, and services among 27 European countries. Ireland and Spain were
In the modern era, Singapore, China, and South Korea have all prospered through free trade. And all did so even before opening up their political systems.
Unfree economic policies have been tried. For example, in 1930, the United States ignored warnings from over 1,000 economists and enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, which was intended to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on 20,000 different imported goods to record levels. Other countries retaliated by raising their tariffs. Economists generally agree that this worsened the Great Depression.
Today, Germany and France, while enjoying political freedom and free trade, have generally unfree labor markets; for example, it can be difficult to fire workers. (German regulations are summarized here; French ones are described in numerous news articles; please let me know if you can find a more direct source.) Unsurprisingly, France and Germany also have two of the worst unemployment rates in Europe -- generally running around 8-9%.
On the central economic issue of our time, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both just plain wrong.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The New York Times does it again
Once again, the New York Times publishes a highly questionable story, insinuating sexual improprieties by someone whose interests are aligned with its political opponents. For those who remember its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case, this comes as no surprise.
This is further confirmation that the New York Times simply cannot be trusted.
This is further confirmation that the New York Times simply cannot be trusted.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Why I voted for Hillary Clinton today
Barack Obama, who has a sincere desire for peace, believes that peace can be attained if the world's leading English-speaking power surrenders a foreign nation to an irredeemably and unrelentingly evil enemy who promises peace if we only give him what he wants.
This has been tried before.
McCain will not surrender. Hillary, if you listen to her carefully, probably won't, either. Obama will.
This has been tried before.
McCain will not surrender. Hillary, if you listen to her carefully, probably won't, either. Obama will.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Starting a new blog
I am starting a new blog: http://smokeoutthetruth.blogspot.com/. The goal of the blog will be to determine who is telling the truth about important controversies of our time. The first post is an abbreviated version of the Mike Huckabee post below. (Abbreviated because not all of the post is appropriate to the new blog.)
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The Wayne Dumond case: Why Mike Huckabee cannot be believed
Wayne Dumond was a convicted rapist who was paroled while Mike Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas. After he was paroled, Dumond raped and murdered two more women.
Huckabee insists he did not influence the parole board's decision to parole Dumond. Several parole board members insist that he did. The decision to parole Dumond was a disaster, so each party has motive to blame the other. The question becomes -- who is telling the truth? Both sides have a motive to lie -- so the question is not as simple as some news reports make it seem.
What the interested viewer has to do is look at what the various parties did and said at the time. Anything they did or said after Dumond murdered two more women is useless as evidence. But contemporaneous evidence, when neither side had a motive to lie, will allow one to get to the truth of the matter.
In this case, there is plenty of contemporaneous evidence. This evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Huckabee is lying.
So what is the contemporaneous evidence? First of all, in August, 1996, the board voted 4-1 to deny Dumond parole. But after they met with the newly elected Governor Huckabee, they changed their votes to 4-1 in favor. So something caused them to change their minds.
Then, on September 20, Huckabee announced his intention to grant executive clemency. He faced a firestorm of protest from the victim, and from Dumond's other rape victims. Huckabee met with the board in a closed session, and, on January 16, 2007, the board changed its mind and voted 4-1 to grant parole to Dumond.
So, to believe Huckabee's story, one would have to believe all of the following:
(1) The four board members who say Huckabee wanted them to grant parole are lying.
(2) Three board members just happened to change their minds between August and January, without any pressure from the Governor.
(3) Although Huckabee had announced his intention to grant executive clemency, and faced a firestorm of protest over that announcement, and had, by law, to announce whether or not he was going through with clemency by January 20, it is just a coincidence that the Parole Board relieved him of that responsibility by voting to grant parole on January 16.
But that's not all. Shortly before the January 16 meeting, Dumond was transferred to a different prison in the Arkansas system. If that hadn't happened, his case could not have been considered at the January 16 meeting, and Huckabee would have had been forced to make a decision regarding clemency. So was this transfer a mysterious coincidence?
Still not convinced? Huckabee's former top Butch Reeves, who personally attended the fateful Parole Board meeting, has this to say:
The clear impression that I came away with from the meeting was that [Huckabee] favored Dumond's release.
And if you don't want to take the left-wing Huffington Post's word for that, here is a similar account on ABC News.
But wait, there's more. In 2004, after Dumond had been convicted of murder in Missouri, Huckabee announced his intention to grant clemency to convicted murderers Denver Witham, Dennis Lewis, and Glen Martin Green, and Don Jeffers.
So, to the above three points, we have to add three more. If one believes Huckabee's story, one also has to believe that:
(4) The conveniently timed transfer of Dumond to a different prison was just a coincidence.
(5) Either Butch Reeves is a liar, or both ABC News and the Huffington Post are lying about what Reeves said, and
(6) Huckabee, who in 2004 had a habit of trying to get murderers released from prison, didn't try to do the same thing with the Parole Board in 1996-7.
Perhaps that's not enough for you? There is also the fact that contrary to standard Parole Board practice, the Board did not keep notes of the fateful meeting with Huckabee shortly before Dumond's release.
Need more evidence? The Board also had a standard policy of not reconsidering parole denials for at least a year -- but it made an exception in Dumond's case.
Regardless of your political persuasion, if your powers of deductive reasoning have not deserted you, you can only come to one conclusion about the Dumond case: Mike Huckabee did ask the Parole Board to parole Wayne Dumond.
The question then becomes -- is this enough reason to decide that Huckabee should not be our next President? I believe it is. The Dumond case and the 2004 communtation proposals show two things about Huckabee.
(1) Huckabee doesn't know when to refrain from using his power. As Governor, the smart thing to do with a case like Dumond's is to allow the system to do its job. If you have a strong reason to believe the system is doing the wrong thing, you can intervene, but you had better be sure you are correct. If you aren't sure, or can't know one way or the other, you should leave the system alone.
(2) Huckabee is slow to learn from his mistakes. After Dumond was convicted of murder in Missouri, Huckabee should have realized that trying to get rapists and murderers freed from prison was a bad idea. But he went on to try to do the same thing four times in 2004.
Mike Huckabee should not be our next President.
Huckabee insists he did not influence the parole board's decision to parole Dumond. Several parole board members insist that he did. The decision to parole Dumond was a disaster, so each party has motive to blame the other. The question becomes -- who is telling the truth? Both sides have a motive to lie -- so the question is not as simple as some news reports make it seem.
What the interested viewer has to do is look at what the various parties did and said at the time. Anything they did or said after Dumond murdered two more women is useless as evidence. But contemporaneous evidence, when neither side had a motive to lie, will allow one to get to the truth of the matter.
In this case, there is plenty of contemporaneous evidence. This evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Huckabee is lying.
So what is the contemporaneous evidence? First of all, in August, 1996, the board voted 4-1 to deny Dumond parole. But after they met with the newly elected Governor Huckabee, they changed their votes to 4-1 in favor. So something caused them to change their minds.
Then, on September 20, Huckabee announced his intention to grant executive clemency. He faced a firestorm of protest from the victim, and from Dumond's other rape victims. Huckabee met with the board in a closed session, and, on January 16, 2007, the board changed its mind and voted 4-1 to grant parole to Dumond.
So, to believe Huckabee's story, one would have to believe all of the following:
(1) The four board members who say Huckabee wanted them to grant parole are lying.
(2) Three board members just happened to change their minds between August and January, without any pressure from the Governor.
(3) Although Huckabee had announced his intention to grant executive clemency, and faced a firestorm of protest over that announcement, and had, by law, to announce whether or not he was going through with clemency by January 20, it is just a coincidence that the Parole Board relieved him of that responsibility by voting to grant parole on January 16.
But that's not all. Shortly before the January 16 meeting, Dumond was transferred to a different prison in the Arkansas system. If that hadn't happened, his case could not have been considered at the January 16 meeting, and Huckabee would have had been forced to make a decision regarding clemency. So was this transfer a mysterious coincidence?
Still not convinced? Huckabee's former top Butch Reeves, who personally attended the fateful Parole Board meeting, has this to say:
The clear impression that I came away with from the meeting was that [Huckabee] favored Dumond's release.
And if you don't want to take the left-wing Huffington Post's word for that, here is a similar account on ABC News.
But wait, there's more. In 2004, after Dumond had been convicted of murder in Missouri, Huckabee announced his intention to grant clemency to convicted murderers Denver Witham, Dennis Lewis, and Glen Martin Green, and Don Jeffers.
So, to the above three points, we have to add three more. If one believes Huckabee's story, one also has to believe that:
(4) The conveniently timed transfer of Dumond to a different prison was just a coincidence.
(5) Either Butch Reeves is a liar, or both ABC News and the Huffington Post are lying about what Reeves said, and
(6) Huckabee, who in 2004 had a habit of trying to get murderers released from prison, didn't try to do the same thing with the Parole Board in 1996-7.
Perhaps that's not enough for you? There is also the fact that contrary to standard Parole Board practice, the Board did not keep notes of the fateful meeting with Huckabee shortly before Dumond's release.
Need more evidence? The Board also had a standard policy of not reconsidering parole denials for at least a year -- but it made an exception in Dumond's case.
Regardless of your political persuasion, if your powers of deductive reasoning have not deserted you, you can only come to one conclusion about the Dumond case: Mike Huckabee did ask the Parole Board to parole Wayne Dumond.
The question then becomes -- is this enough reason to decide that Huckabee should not be our next President? I believe it is. The Dumond case and the 2004 communtation proposals show two things about Huckabee.
(1) Huckabee doesn't know when to refrain from using his power. As Governor, the smart thing to do with a case like Dumond's is to allow the system to do its job. If you have a strong reason to believe the system is doing the wrong thing, you can intervene, but you had better be sure you are correct. If you aren't sure, or can't know one way or the other, you should leave the system alone.
(2) Huckabee is slow to learn from his mistakes. After Dumond was convicted of murder in Missouri, Huckabee should have realized that trying to get rapists and murderers freed from prison was a bad idea. But he went on to try to do the same thing four times in 2004.
Mike Huckabee should not be our next President.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Tom Coburn has a really dumb idea
From an article about the border agents who shot at a suspected drug trafficer:
"Why is it wrong to shoot the [trafficker] after he's been told to stop?" asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.
I can think of some reasons:
1) Maybe the person isn't really a drug trafficker.
2) Maybe he doesn't understand English.
3) If you told him in Spanish to stop . . . maybe he doesn't understand that either.
4) Maybe he didn't realize you were talking to him.
5) Maybe he doesn't realize you are a law officer. For example, he might think you are a thief.
6) He might be hard of hearing, or deaf.
7) Even if none of the above apply, the US does not have the death penalty for drug smuggling, or for running away from the cops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)