Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Our federal daddy is once again taking care of his adult-children, this time by banning the diet and bodybuilding supplement ephedra, which daddy says is dangerous. No, adult-children cannot be expected to make this decision themselves because daddy says that they are incompetent to do so, despite the fact that most of them are graduates of public (i.e., government) schools. Interestingly, the decision was made by unelected dictocrats rather than the elected members of Congress, reinforcing the popular view regarding the nature of freedom—that people are free when regulatory bureaucrats are free to issue edicts designed to take care of their people. Interestingly, daddy’s ban doesn’t go into effect for a couple of months, enabling his adult-children to continue purchasing and stockpiling the drug and ingesting it long after daddy’s ban has gone into effect. Oh well, no parent is perfect, right?
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
As part if it’s war on terror, the FBI has alerted 18,000 police stations across the country to be on the lookout for people with almanacs. Yes, that’s right—those reference books that provide information about national landmarks and the weather. The FBI says that the books can be useful to terrorists, and so everyone is now supposed to be on the lookout for people with almanacs. Pity the poor people who work at The World Almanac, whose senior editor, Kevin Seabrooke, said in response to the FBI alert: “I don’t think anyone would consider us a harmful entity.”
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, if the American people had been given a conscious choice of giving up the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policy, including its brutal 12-year embargo against the Iraqi people, in return for no terrorism, no 9/11 attack, no war on terror, no unrestrained federal spending, no taking off shoes at airports, no PATRIOT Act, and no war on almanacs, I wonder what their choice would have been.
Monday, December 29, 2003
Well, it finally had to happen—Fidel Castro criticizing U.S. officials for running a concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. And who better to know about concentration camps than the man who runs a societal-wide concentration camp on his side of Cuba. But let’s face the uncomfortable truth—Castro is right about the U.S. base at Guantanamo, where U.S. officials take pride in running a camp in which they would have the same dictatorial powers as Fidel does on his side of the island—a camp that was specifically designed to avoid the constraints of the U.S. Constitution, whose principles so many U.S. officials unfortunately hold in contempt. What a shame that our very own government officials have used a relic of the Spanish American War, the interventionist turning point in U.S. foreign policy, to place our nation in a position of being lectured to by one of the world’s premier experts on concentration camps.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
It’s been a deadly week for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 8 more soldiers killed, and the Associated Press reporting a bomb blast on Saturday that might have taken even more lives. This brings to 25 the number of U.S. troops killed since the capture of Saddam Hussein, dashing hopes by U.S. officials that Saddam’s capture would finally cause Iraqis to embrace the foreign occupation of their country.
While there are many Iraqis embracing their military occupiers, my hunch is that, given the long tradition of Iraqis to resist foreign occupation of their country, the deadly insurgency will continue. While U.S. forces do not keep track of the number of Iraqi fatalities, every death of an Iraqi citizen produces several potential new insurgents who are angry and grieving over the death of their friend or relative.
In fact, I have a feeling that Americans had better brace themselves for some major loss of life among American troops during the spring, summer, and fall. This is when the troops that are there—more than 100,000—are scheduled to be replaced by new troops in order to fulfill the president’s promise to keep the Iraqi tour of duty limited to one year. The problem? The new troops are likely to mostly be “green” troops, that is, troops untested in battle, and thus much more susceptible to being ambushed by insurgents who are battle-tested and who know the terrain perfectly.
Equally important, the causes for which U.S. troops are fighting are relatively worthless (to search for weapons of mass destruction, to bring democracy to Iraq, or to bring Saddam Hussein to trial) compared to the causes for which the insurgents are fighting (the ouster of foreign occupation troops from their country and to avenge decades of brutal U.S. foreign policy).
Friday, December 26, 2003
With recent rulings by our judicial branch of government emphasizing the critical importance of due process of law as one of the bedrock principles of a free society, it’s interesting that the U.S. ruling regime in Iraq isn’t applying due-process principles in the case of Saddam Hussein. That is, since the purported purpose of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is now to bring freedom and democracy to that nation, and since freedom depends on due process of law, then why shouldn’t that principle be applied in the case of Saddam Hussein? After all, by announcing that Saddam would be turned over to the Iraqis for trial, the Bush administration has essentially admitted that he committed no offense against the United States, presumably including preparing to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, given that the U.S. ruling regime is holding Saddam for crimes committed against the Iraqi people, then why aren’t they treating his arrest and seizure under traditional due-process principles that underly a free society?
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Yesterday I was at Washington Dulles airport catching a flight to Dallas (which is in the great state of Texas, home of the Alamo, Travis, Crockett, Bowie, and, yes, the Dallas Cowboys). Given the federal increase in the terrorist color code, I was vigilantly checking out everyone’s shoes! As I was watching people go through all this rigmarole, I just couldn’t help but wonder why it’s so important to Americans to permit the federal government to continue its role as international policeman and interloper rather than restore the government’s rightful role as a republic, which is what our Founders intended (and which is the heritage of the Republic of Texas as well!).
As I was watching people, I decided that most of them probably have no idea of all the things that the feds have been doing to people overseas since the fall of the Berlin Wall. They want so hard to believe that unlike other empires, such as the Roman Empire, the U.S. Empire is good and benevolent. Thus, they have a difficult time viewing the U.S. Empire in a critical light, probably because it’s their empire, democratically elected by them. The price, however, has already been a high one, including the September 11 attacks, massive assaults on civil liberties, constant color-coded terrorist emergencies, an ever-growing military industrial complex that threatens our liberty, unrestrained federal spending that threatens our economic security, and monitoring of shoes at airports.
Is it worth it? Right now, Americans should be leading the world to liberty, free markets, peaceful relationships, mutual harmonies, and economic prosperity—a world where the lives of the American people are once again normal—you know, like going to airports and not having to take off your shoes. Instead, Americans remain perpetually obsessed and preoccupied with the government’s “war on terrorism.”
When a government gets off course, it is up to the people to correct it. The leadership in restoring a Republic to our land and ridding ourselves of the federal government’s role of Empire, lies with us—the American people. What better time than Christmas to pray for peace and harmony among people? Indeed, what better time than Christmas to reflect upon dismantling our version of the Roman Empire?
Merry Christmas to you all!
P.S. No FFF Email Update or blogs on Christmas Day!
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Have you noticed how U.S. officials are scrupulously avoiding discussion of the highly discomforting topic that Saddam’s capture is causing to be percolated in the media — the alliance between the vice-presidential and presidential regime of President Bush’s father and Saddam Hussein during the 1980s?
I mean, think about the nightmare of this thing: Here U.S. officials had thought that their alliance with Saddam had been buried forever by the president’s invasion and occupation, and then there it is — the famous chummy photograph of Rummy and Saddam as buds in Baghdad — and it’s all there in a current issue of theWashington Post and in editorials and even cartoons on the Internet.
I mean, think about it: As U.S. officials raise the levels of condemnation against Saddam for being evil during the 1980s, how do they avoid implicitly condemning themselves for being in alliance with him and furnishing his WMD to him? If they call for an indictment of Saddam for illegally gassing the Iranian people and his own people, how do they not call for indicting those people and entities who furnished him the WMD if they knowingly acted in concert with Saddam to gas those people?
Most important, how in the world are they going to explain all this to the American people, especially given that the WMD that the Reagan-Bush administration furnished Saddam were later used as the excuse to impose the brutal 12-year embargo on the country, whose resulting deaths were arguably a motivating factor for the 9/11 attacks, and then were used as the excuse for invading and waging a unconstitutional (i.e., no congressional declaration of war) war of aggression against Iraq, which has increased the threat of terrorism against Americans? Indeed, how are public-schoolteachers going to explain it to their students?
No wonder there are rumors that the CIA is drugging Saddam — but undoubtedly not with truth serum but rather forget-the-truth serum
Saturday, December 20, 2003
One of the fascinating aspects of the capture of Saddam Hussein is the way in which some people have permitted U.S. officials to manipulate them into supporting what is basically an immoral action—an illegal and unconstitutional invasion, war of aggression, and occupation of an independent country. Think about it: if Soviet forces had invaded an independent country with the purported aim of disarming and arresting the nation’s ruler, and if Soviet military forces were occupying the country, bashing people’s doors down in brutal and intrusive raids of their homes and businesses, indefinitely incarcerating people in secret military brigs, confiscating weapons, imposing curfews, banning political demonstrations, and periodically killing innocent people in the process, wouldn’t the same Americans who are supporting the U.S. government’s actions in Iraq have been outraged at the Soviet government for doing these things? Indeed wouldn’t they even be tempted to support those who were resisting the occupation and trying to oust Soviet forces from their land? And if, all of a sudden, the Soviet Union made a surprise announcement that they had taken the ruler of the country into custody, would people’s opposition suddenly evaporate and change into enthusiastic support of Soviet forces?
Friday, December 19, 2003
The decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Padilla case places those Americans who believe that patriotism is defined as blind allegiance to the government in an interesting quandary. Do they now continue blindly supporting the president and the military or do they instead shift their support to the judicial branch of our government, which is protecting their liberties?
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Doesn’t President Bush’s quick public announcement that Saddam Hussein will be turned over to the Iraqis for trial effectively operate as a confession that the U.S. government possesses no evidence that Hussein committed any offense against the United States, including participation in the September 11 attacks? Indeed, if there was any evidence that Saddam Hussein actually intended to initiate an imminent attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction, as the president has repeatedly stated, why would he so quickly and easily relinquish control over Hussein’s trial and punishment? Would he quickly agree to turn Osama bin Laden over to the Afghan government if he were caught? Given that the president intends to turn Saddam over to the Iraqis for crimes committed purportedly committed inside Iraq, doesn’t that confirm what everyone has known for decades — that the U.S. government considers itself the world’s international policeman, invading other countries and intervening in their affairs in order to arrest and punish those it considers to be international political malefactors and to settle the disputes of other countries?
(I wrote this blog a couple of days ago and then yesterday read a New York Times letter to the editor from a Philip Springer that makes the same point much more eloquently.)
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Isn’t it ironic that Republicans rail against federal interference in the internal affairs of the 50 sovereign states while, at the same time, worshiping federal interference in the internal affairs of hundreds of sovereign countries? And isn’t it also ironic that President Bush is according Iraqi citizen Saddam Hussein a trial while denying the same right to American citizens Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi?
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Perhaps it’s fitting that the U.S. government captured Saddam Hussein at Christmastime, given the many reminders of the Roman Empire that U.S. foreign policy provides us. Caesar’s troops would go after barbarians thousands of miles from Rome, claiming that they were a dire threat to the Empire, and then Caesar would entertain the masses by parading the chained barbarian down the streets of Rome, where he could be mocked and ridiculed. And to keep the citizenry pacified and sedated, Caesar continually provided them with “bread” or government welfare—i.e., the Social Security, Medicare, etc. of the time.
And to keep the people distracted from the monetary and financial crises associated with unrestrained government spending, Roman officials provided them entertainment (“circuses”) in which captured gladiators would be ordered to fight to the death in a public arena. (Recall the movie “Gladiator.”)
Well, this morning, I heard a radio disc jockey say that he wished President Bush would cancel a trial for Saddam Hussein and instead put him in a Thunderdome in Iraq where the masses could tear him to pieces. But maybe a better idea would be to bring him back to the U.S. and put him in the arena against Antonio Noriega, another barbarian that was captured at the gates of the Empire. Think about it—this could be a Pay-Per-View event that would be bigger than any of the ancient gladiator “circuses” that Caesar provided the Roman people.
Meanwhile, given their “bread and circuses,” the American people continue to ignore the same moral rot that the Roman people ignored—the moral rot that grows from inside an empire—the rot that threatens the liberty and well-being of the people, just as it did before the fall of the Roman Empire.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Will the capture of Saddam Hussein mean that the threat of foreign terrorism against America is finally ever? No more so than the capture of Panamanian dictator Antonio Noriega meant that the threat of drug importation was finally over. As we have learned time and time again in the war on drugs, the capture and killing of foreign drug lords only gives rise to new drug lords. By the same token, the U.S. government’s capture or killing of foreign terrorists only gives rise to new foreign terrorists. There is one — and only one — way to eliminate both drug lords and terrorists — legalize drugs and end the U.S. government’s role as international policeman and interloper.
Saturday, December 13, 2003
One of the interesting aspects of the Iraq occupation is the U.S. government’s commitment to rebuild the Iraqi army for the purpose of keeping “stability” inside the nation while, at the same time, instituting a massive program of gun control within the nation. Why is that interesting? Because it once again reflects the contempt that federal officials have for the founding principles of America, which included: no standing armies and no gun control. When our Founders founded a nation, they understood that a standing army was not a guarantee of their security but rather an enormous threat to it. They relied on a well-armed, self-trained citizenry to protect America from invasion and state and local non-military police to keep order within the nation. Given a chance to build the new nation of Iraq, modern-day federal officials are doing the exact opposite—disarming the citizenry and building a strong, powerful military army to maintain “order.” While U.S. officials are calling all this “freedom,” it is difficult to distinguish it from dictatorial regimes all over the world.
Friday, December 12, 2003
Regardless of who gets to share in the taxpayer plunder of billions of dollars taken from the American people to “rebuild” Iraq, one of the fascinating aspects about President Bush’s decision to punish Russia, France, Germany, Canada, and other nations that opposed his invasion of Iraq is how the decision reflects so well the collectivist mindset that guides Washington policymakers. It is one thing to punish government officials for decisions they make but it’s quite another to punish the individual people and businesses within those countries because of a decision their government officials made. Of course, a collectivist mindset isn’t unique to President Bush. Let’s not forget that that was what the cruel and brutal 12-year embargo against the Iraqi people was all about — punishing Iraqi citizens (including Iraqi children) for decisions made by their dictator. And, of course, it’s also what the decades-long U.S. embargo against the Cuban people has been all about.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Those who have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the U.S. government’s newest justification for invading and occupying Iraq — to “liberate” the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny and establish “democracy” in Iraq — might find the following dose of reality from CBS News (Dec. 4) difficult to swallow and even more difficult to digest:
When the U.S. invasion came last spring with promises of democracy and self-rule, people in Karbala were among the first to try and take charge of their own affairs.
Religious and community leaders got together and selected a city council to represent them, and a security force to protect them. They had assumed that their experiment in democracy would be applauded by the American military.
It was not. U.S. troops disarmed the protection force, arrested popular city councilmen and put back into power some of the same people who had served Saddam….
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
In my blog of yesterday, I pointed out the large number of potential new terrorists who now hate America for its “freedom and values” arising from the 9 children killed by the U.S. government in its role as international cop in Afghanistan. Add to that 6 additional children killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan yesterday.
Why is it so difficult for some Americans to see that that is this type of thing that is at the root of the anger and hatred that is driving people to retaliate against the United States, even to the point of driving some of them to commit suicide in the process of trying to seek revenge? Why is it so difficult for some Americans to recognize that people in the Arab community become as despondent and angry when their children are killed as everyone else in the world does under similar circumstances? Why is it so difficult for some Americans to understand why people in the Arab community would become so angry at the U.S. government’s cavalier attitude toward the large number of Iraqi children who died as a result of the brutal 12-year embargo against the Iraqi people — that the deaths were “worth it”?
Only by recognizing that unleashed federal power against foreigners is at the root of the horrible anger and hatred against the United States — and then leashing it — can we ever hope to bring an end to terrorism against Americans. But of course that also could mean reduced budgets for the federal monstrosity here at home, which would not exactly be a popular thing here in Washington, D.C., including among those in the military-industrial complex.
Tuesday, December 9, 2003
The U.S. military has just killed nine children in Afghanistan in its role as international policeman serving the government of that country. Let’s see: assuming an estimated average of two parents, four uncles and aunts, seven cousins, five siblings, and four friends, that comes out to 22 potential new terrorists per child (198 total) who hate America for its “freedom and values.”
Monday, December 8, 2003
A couple of weeks ago, I noted how the U.S. government is keeping the JFK assassination files secret from the American people until the year 2029, when much of whatever was in the files will likely have been lost or destroyed by people who will have been long since dead. The government’s reason for keeping the files secret from the American people until then? “National security,” presumably based on the possibility that disclosure of the files could result in a communist takeover of America, despite the fact that the Cold War has been over for more than 10 years.
Well, if you think that’s ludicrous, think about the fact that feds refuse to permit the American people to see the Pearl Harbor files, especially those files that would reveal whether or not President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his minions had broken the Japanese military codes before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
No one can deny that FDR was doing everything he could to goad the Japanese into attacking first, given his ardent desire to enter World War II, the oil embargo he imposed on Japan, the surreptitious U.S. Air Force attacks on Japanese troops in China, and the obvious attempt to humiliate Japanese diplomats with demeaning treaty demands. It is also undeniable that the U.S. government had broken the Japanese diplomatic codes before the attack.
Why would the feds keep secret the FDR-Pearl Harbor files more than 60 years after the attack? You’ve guessed it — “National security.” Maybe they’re still scared of a Nazi or Imperial Japanese takeover of America.
Speaking of Franklin Roosevelt, a president who is portrayed in American public schools as a Great Humanitarian because he converted America’s capitalist, free-market system to a socialist, paternalistic welfare state (including the socialist mother lode known as Social Security), there was an interesting reminder of FDR’s humanitarianism in Sunday’s Parade magazine. The article reminded people of the tragic story of the U.S.S. St. Louis, a German cruise ship with 937 Jews who had escaped Nazi Germany and were attempting to land at Miami Harbor after being rejected at Cuba. Relying on U.S. immigration controls, the Great Humanitarian (FDR) not only refused to permit the ship to land (because it was filled with Jews) but also surrounded it with the U.S. Coast Guard to make sure that no Jew jumped ship and swam to shore.
FDR knew that the ship and its occupants were going to have to return to Nazi Germany, into the clutches of Adolf Hitler, but unfortunately that didn’t matter to the Great Humanitarian. As the ship approached Europe, several countries agreed to do what the Great Humanitarian had refused to do — accept the Jewish refugees rather than forcing them to return to Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, some of the refugees were let off in France and Belgium, where they were later killed when the Nazis invaded those countries.
Ironically, even today U.S. officials and U.S. public schoolteachers preach and teach the myth that one of the reasons that the U.S. government entered World War II was to “save the Jews.” What nonsense. Just like the reason for not opening those files.
Saturday, December 6, 2003
I saw Tom Cruise’s new movie “The Last Samurai” last night. What an awesome film! The movie presents the conflict between the two concepts of patriotism that sometimes confronts a nation: the concept that entails blind allegiance to government officials and the opposing concept that entails devotion to country. One thing’s for sure: U.S. officials who see this film will not like its realistic portrayal of the arrogance that characterizes U.S. officials in their dealings with foreigners but they will undoubtedly be pleased with the movie’s depiction of the U.S. government’s role in providing military assistance to the Japanese government for the purpose of suppressing “terrorists.” This is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. But be prepared: Unlike U.S. television networks, “The Last Samurai” depicts the reality of war’s horrific violence.
Friday, December 5, 2003
The New York Times reports that while the United States is now almost entirely focused on its so-called war on terrorism, China is moving toward expanding markets and peaceful relationships all over Asia. Did you ever think you’d see the day that communist China would be moving more in the direction of free markets and peace while the United States would be moving more in the direction of socialism and war? And think about another role reversal: If the Chinese military was invading and occupying foreign countries in the name of “liberating” their citizenry from tyranny, as the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, wouldn’t U.S. officials and many American conservatives be screaming like banshees (and calling for even higher budgets for the military-industrial complex)? People all over the world should be casting the old, failed paradigms of socialism and interventionism into the trash bins of history and moving toward freedom, free markets, and mutual harmonies among people. And given our heritage of liberty, it should be us — the American people — leading the way.
Thursday, December 4, 2003
Great news! The drug war has been won! Yes, won! It’s finally over! Well, at least in Thailand. According to the Voice of America, Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has announced that after killing some 2,000 people purportedly involved in the drug trade, Thailand has won its war on drugs and is now a drug-free nation. In the wake of this exciting victory, Thaksin isn’t sitting still — he now intends to declare war on poverty. No doubt that the poorest 10 percent of the populace are a bit nervous.
Wednesday, December 3, 2003
The government seems to be doing some buckling, in the right direction. Rumor has it that our protectionist president, George W. Bush, intends to lift his protective tariffs on steel in response to the threat of sanctions from the European Union. (Talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reason!) And today we learn that the Justice Department is finally going to permit accused terrorist Yaser Hamdi to speak to an attorney, in response to pressure brought by litigation pending in the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, since the government says that its decision in the Hamdi case is based not on the U.S. Constitution but simply on the discretion of U.S. military officials, the government is still claiming the dictatorial power to seize any U.S. citizen and lock him away in a Pentagon brig forever, denying him access to an attorney, habeas corpus, and due process of law. Just like regimes in Burma, China, North Korea, and Cuba do to their own citizens. Of course, U.S. officials call it tyranny in those countries and “freedom” here. Just like they do with respect to the dictatorial executive power to impose and lift tariffs without congressional approval.
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
Rumors are abounding that the U.S. government intends to release 100 or so prisoners that it’s held in Cuba without trial for a couple of years pursuant to its “war on terrorism.”
According to the Washington Post, one of the “terrorists” recently released is a Canadian citizen, Abdur Rhaman Khadr, who contends that he did in fact undergo training at a camp in Afghanistan that was “originally set up to train resistance fighters against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan” but denied being a “terrorist.” Khadar stated:
“Everybody went to training camps in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians and kick them out of Afghanistan. That doesn’t mean every person in the camps are trained to kill Americans. Who were the camps made by? Americans. It was a very normal thing. People who came to the training camps were not all at al Qaeda.”
(You’ll recall that that the U.S. government helped Osama bin Laden in his resistance against the Soviet government’s illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and so presumably U.S. officials would not consider that resistance to be “terrorism.”)
What? The government is releasing “terrorists” back into the world, where they can commit more terrorism against Americans? Or is it possible that the federales have concluded that the people who are being released are innocent of being “terrorists” after all? Or do they feel that the “terrorists” have served a satisfactory criminal sentence, however arbitrary such a determination would be? Or are they releasing the prisoners under the dictates of the Geneva Convention, given that the war against Afghanistan ended a couple of years ago? Or are U.S. officials playing favorites with their concept of “justice” by releasing terrorists who are citizens of foreign governments that do the bidding of the U.S. government?
Unfortunately, U.S. officials are not talking, explaining, or justifying anything to anyone, because they don’t have to. By setting up camp in Cuba, their intent from the very beginning is to avoid the constraints of U.S. law, U.S. federal courts, and the U.S. Constitution, so as to be able to wield the same omnipotent, dictatorial powers on their side of Cuba that Fidel Castro wields on his side of Cuba. Let’s hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has now assumed jurisdiction over the matter over the opposition of the Bush administration, puts a stop to the U.S. government’s omnipotent, arbitrary, and dictatorial power 90 miles from American shores.
Monday, December 1, 2003
Last weekend, I watched an interesting segment on the History Channel about the famous World War II German general Erwin Rommel. In 1943 Rommel concluded that Germany could not win the war and that thousands of Germans would needlessly lose their lives if the war were to continue. Thus, Rommel decided to join a conspiracy of other German officers whose aim was to assassinate Hitler and replace him with a new leader who would then negotiate a German surrender, with the aim of joining Britain and America in a firm stand against the Soviet communists (who, of course, then were allied with Britain and America).
Although the History Channel program didn’t go into the U.S. government’s attitude toward the anti-Hitler Germans, the fact is that the Franklin Roosevelt administration steadfastly refused to offer them any encouragement or support, taking the position that all Germans were bad Germans and that the war must continue until Germany “unconditionally surrendered,” regardless of how many lives on both sides would be lost in the process (which of course they were as the war continued during 1944 and 1945).
Ironically, after Hitler’s death, and declaring that Germans weren’t so bad after all, U.S. officials adopted the same position as the anti-Hitler Germans by calling on the German people to work with Britain and America in a firm stand against the Soviet communists. Unfortunately, by that time U.S. officials were speaking to only half of Germany.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.