Yale's Preemptive Surrender

Michael C. Moynihan | August 13, 2009, 5:31pm

This is pathetic. From The New York Times:

So Yale University and Yale University Press (YUP) consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.

YUP director John Donatich admitted that he was caving to threats of violence that he presumes will follow:

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.”

Good for Aslan. What makes this really enraging is that Yale is one of the best academic presses out there, having published, for instance, the Annals of Communism Series, a diverse group of books that mined the (briefly opened) archives of the Soviet Union and effectively rewrote the history of the Spanish Civil War and the myth of a Leninist revolution betrayed by Stalinism. Unlike many academic publishers, there is no ideological conformity at YUP and former editorial director Jonathan Brent went out of his way, it would seem, to get a range of interesting perspectives outside of the typical race-class-gender triumvirate.

I interviewed Jyllands-Posten culture editor and Mohammad cartoon publisher Flemming Rose back in 2007.

Medical Mosh Pits

Understanding the clashes at the health care "town halls"

Jesse Walker | August 13, 2009

Clashes keep breaking out at the "town hall" meetings devoted to discussing health care reform. Usually the excitement amounts to some angry questions and heckling, but sometimes there's more. Six people were arrested at a demonstration outside a meeting in St. Louis. Violence erupted at a town hall in Tampa after opponents of ObamaCare were locked out of the building. A North Carolina congressman cancelled a meeting after receiving a death threat; the pro-market group FreedomWorks, which was involved in some of the protests, fielded a death threat of its own. Supporters of the president's health care reforms, who used to tout the support he'd received from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, are now accusing the very same companies of riling up "mob violence" to stop the plan.

As the charges and countercharges fly, here are three maxims to keep in mind:

1. It isn't Astroturf after the grassroots show up. When the San Francisco Chronicle asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi what she thought of the protests, she replied: "I think they're Astroturf." In other words, there isn't real grassroots dissatisfaction with the direction health care reform is taking. There's just a facsimile of discontent, a show ginned up by cynical political operatives.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a London-based body of PR professionals, defines Astroturfing as "the practice of falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of orchestrated and disguised public relations activity"; the examples it offers include "posting comments on others' blogs or on message boards" and "submitting supposedly amateur videos to YouTube." The equivalent action at the "town hall" meetings would be if someone claimed to be something she's not. That has happened: Early in August, a woman asking a pointed question at Wisconsin meeting identified herself as "just a mom from a few blocks away" who was "not affiliated with any political party." She turned out to have a long history of Republican activism.
READ MORE

FREEDOM WATCH 1 OF 6

Freedom Watch 2 of 6

FREEDOM WATCH 3 OF 6

FREEDOM WATCH 4 OF 6

FREEDOM WATCH 6 OF 6

FREEDOM WATCH 5 OF 6

SAFRA Stinks

by Neal McCluskey
his article appeared in Forbes on August 10, 2009.

Something called the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) zipped through the House Committee on Education and Labor recently.

Odds are you haven't heard much about it, maybe because of the deafening health care clamor, but it would do something pretty big, ending the 44-year-old Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program--which uses federal bucks to back tens of billions of dollars of student loans from private lenders--and replacing it with lending straight from Uncle Sam. In other words, it would destroy what little chance there was of student loans being constrained at all by economic realities.

"First, we saw a drive toward complete government takeover of our nation's health care system," lamented ranking Education and Labor Committee member Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., during deliberation over the bill. "Now, we see government seizing control of student lending, forcing the private sector out and welcoming in a mountain of public debt."

Contrary to what Kline suggests, guaranteed lending is about as close to a free market as a biplane is to the Starship Enterprise. Under FFEL, Washington guarantees lenders--including Fannie's cousin, Sallie--a profit on student loans, reimbursing them almost completely on defaults and paying big subsidies. Making matters worse, legislation was enacted last year that lets the feds more or less directly finance FFEL loans if lenders can't access sufficient funds through private capital markets. READ MORE

The Right Can Do Better Than Romney

by Gene Healy
This article appeared in the DC Examiner on August 11, 2009.

In recent months, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has hit the speaking circuit like a man who is determined to be president and knows he needs to get an early start.

Last week brought news that Romney had secured a major publisher for his forthcoming book, "No Apology: The Case for America's Greatness," in which Romney stands bravely against all those who insist that the United States is a mediocre country that's done more harm than good.

Even before the recent Palin and Sanford flameouts, Romney looked like the Right's favorite son for 2012. He'd garnered National Review's 2008 endorsement as a "full-spectrum conservative," and won the Conservative Political Action Conference's February 2009 straw poll handily.

With his square jaw and flawless salt-and-pepper hair, Romney certainly looks presidential: Like a character actor playing the president in a superhero movie -- or, less charitably, like a creature genetically engineered and grown in a vat for the sole purpose of securing the nation's highest office.

There's more to the presidency than looking the part, however. Conservatives ought to take a good look at the Romney record and ask themselves whether a man of such flexible convictions is the best they can do. READ MORE

Great American Quotes

"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign that it shouldn't be a law. "

Unknown

GET SOME: How To Fix America's Health Insurance Crisis

Wisdom from Thomas Jefferson

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread. "

Thomas Jefferson

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire. "

Ludwig Mises

IMMIGRATION: THE BECKHAM FACTOR

MICHAEL SHERMER ON THE MODERN HISTORY OF SKEPTICISM

WashTimes: When it comes to quashing dissent, look for the union label

posted by Donny Ferguson on Aug 10, 2009

Today's Washington Times editorial covers a recent trend troubling Libertarians -- elected Democrats employing union violence to stamp down dissent at town hall meetings. Click here to read the editorial, or if you live in the metro D.C. area, pick up a copy of The Washington Times. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

The Times board writes:

EDITORIAL: Look for the union label

The 'persuasion of power' is employed to squash dissent

Politics is getting increasingly violent as Democrats desperately try to salvage their health care bill.

Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, said last week that public protest against the government health care plan "is close to Brown Shirt tactics." For Mr. Baird to characterize his constituents as Nazi storm troops is distasteful, to say the least. Yet it is fully in line with the tone set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who misleadingly decried protesters "carrying swastikas." Closer examination revealed that in every case, the symbol was being used as a warning against the arrogance of power of which Mrs. Pelosi has become emblematic.

Democratic talking points characterize the spontaneous grass-roots opposition to the planned government takeover of the health care system as being organized by a shadowy cabal of lobbyists and insurance companies. However, the real storm troops are being deployed openly by organized labor in an attempt to squelch dissent.

On Aug. 6, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent marching orders to his members to confront concerned citizens at town-hall forums. In St. Louis, members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reportedly attacked and beat Kenneth Gladney, who was passing out yellow flags outside a forum held by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Missouri Democrat. SEIU President Andy Stern has summed up his philosophy as, "We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power." We expect to see his grim-faced "purple shirts" using intimidation at other events during the congressional recess.

This effort is fully consistent with the general contempt that the Democratic majority has shown for those who oppose its radical agenda. The promised era of bipartisanship is long gone. The government's new slogan is "sit down and shut up." In an appearance in McLean last week, President Obama advised opponents of his plan to "get out of the way" and said he didn't want them "to do a lot of talking." The Obama White House made history when it set up an e-mail snitch line for people to report on the "fishy" ideas of their fellow citizens.

The Democrats would do better to try to understand the root causes of this unprecedented spontaneous outpouring of public concern and frustration than to resort to intimidation tactics. There are many serious questions about the growth of government and the planned takeover of health care that need to be answered, not beaten down. Deploying thugs will only lead to violence, which serves no one's interest. If the people are shouting, it is because the politicians have stopped listening.

Taxpayers vs. Tax-Eaters

by Jim Panyard

Playing off the sloganeers of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Presidential re-election campaign, it’s safe to say, “It’s Mourning in America.”

Even The Gipper would admit it.

As of June 2009, 155 million people were laboring in the shrinking private sector of the American Empire with a per capita income of $39,751 and a per household income of $50,740.

In addition to supporting themselves and their dependents on those earnings, they were also supporting:

22.5 million government employees at the federal, state and local levels. The average pay of those on the federal government payroll is $75,419 this year, according to Econwatch. The story is much the same at the state and local levels. In Pennsylvania, for example, the average state employee has a pay package of about $68,000 per year, while the state’s household income is $48,576. (As an aside, there are only about 20 million jobs in the nation’s manufacturing and construction sectors, combined.)

• 3.9 million welfare recipients
• 46.5 million Social Security recipients, a number projected to rise to about 72 million in the next 20 years.
• 14.7 million Americans drawing unemployment benefits, with that number expected to rise consistently in the foreseeable future.

The productive sector workers are also paying for everything the Leviathan State does, such as wars, roads,Imperial adventures, private stadiums, bailouts, counterfeiting, ad infinitum. They also pick up the soaring tabs for 47 million Medicaid and 42 million Medicare recipients.

If this isn’t rampant socialism, it will do until the real thing arrives.

How can 155 million productive workers support themselves, nearly 100 million nonproductive others and a seemingly endless list of government endeavors (most of which could be done more economically and more effectively by the private sector)?

Answer: They can’t. Or, as they say in the computer business, “Game Over.”

America’s ongoing and growing financial bankruptcy is matched by its moral bankruptcy with 50 million “legal” abortions and counting; illegitimacy becoming the societal norm and celebrations of sodomy across the nation.

Theologian and author R.J. Rushdoony noted, correctly, that a nation’s religion is reflected in its culture.

What about hope? As my Dad used to say, “S(p)it in one hand and hope in the other. See which one fills up fastest.”

READ MORE

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. "

Joseph Sobran May 13, 1998 (commenting on US vs Microsoft)

Michael Ostrolenk on transpartisanism, surveillance, and health care

Libertarians call on Democrats to end their 'war on dissent'

White House urges followers to report dissenters, Doggett claims LP organizing ‘mobs’

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson released the following statement Wednesday, after Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse released a statement Tuesday accusing private citizens opposed to the proposed government takeover of health care of being part of a paid, organized conspiracy against the president:

“Whether it’s having the Franking Commission censor congressional opponents’ outgoing mail, sliming private citizens who question their agenda or urging their followers to report critics directly to the White House, desperate Democrats have only one way of dealing with Americans’ overwhelming opposition to their radical agenda -- using the power of government to silence dissent.

“After years of paying ACORN radicals to show up at events and having union members take paid vacations to go protest, I can see how Democrats are now incapable of recognizing free speech when they see it. They appear to have conceded the fact their government takeover of health care sends costs skyrocketing, innovation plummeting and waiting lists growing. Unable to sell Americans on the virtues of government control, Democrats have now resorted to trying to silence them.

“Among them is Congressman Lloyd Doggett, who claimed citizens spontaneously and freely expressing mainstream opinions he didn’t agree with were conspiring with Libertarians to stop government-run medicine. Libertarians didn’t organize this expression of free speech, they’re just joined by millions of other mainstream Americans in opposing this dangerous plan for government-run, rationed care.

“The Democrat war on dissent reached a peak this week when the White House posted a blog entry urging the president’s followers to find people who criticize the president, even “in casual conversation,” and forward the information to flag@whitehouse.gov. That is a brazen attempt to bully people into silence by leading them to believe any statements critical of the president will land them on the new version of the ‘White House enemies list.’”

“Libertarians find it ironic a community organizer is now using the government to try and to stop people from organizing their communities. Instead of using official edicts to smear, slander and intimidate everyday Americans into silence, Democrats should listen to the majority of Americans and drop their plans for a radical government takeover of their health care.

“Libertarians call on President Obama to issue a public apology to the millions of independent-thinking Americans his administration has slimed, to call off his plans to compile the flag@whitehouse.gov enemies list and to end the Democrats’ use of government power to silence dissent.”

Libertarians decry Blue Dog deal on government-controlled health care

Revised bill is ‘delayed-onset government control’

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized Blue Dog Democrat Caucus leaders for finalizing a deal with party leadership on a September vote on the proposed health care reform bill before heading back to their districts to meet with constituents.

The compromise claims to remove some costs, reduce the employer mandate requirements to provide health care to employees and change the so-called “public option” in the initial draft of the bill in exchange for an agreement to hold a vote when Congress reconvenes in September. Libertarians point out the deal is simply “delayed-onset government control” as the offensive provisions will simply be added once the bill is passed.

“This compromise makes the eventual government control of your health care even more likely,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “Congress wants to make it look like government-controlled health care is off the table so they can just get something passed. Once it’s law, all it takes is a few quick amendments to get the government-controlled system they wanted all along. It’s delayed-onset government control.”

“Don’t be fooled by the crocodile tears of the Progressive Caucus. Their objections are meant to make it look like their wildly unpopular plans to eliminate private health insurance are dead. They know this deal makes the elimination of private insurance even more of a reality by making it easier to pass the bill,” said Ferguson.

Blue Dogs also claim credit for loosening employer mandates. The original draft included language requiring employers with a payroll over $100,000 to provide health insurance to employees. The compromise increases that threshold to $500,000.

“Every employer in America knows what’s going to happen because it’s happened with every other bill. They’ll claim defeat so the looser mandate can pass, then once it’s law amend one number to get what they wanted all along,” said Ferguson.

“There are many problems with our current health care system, but this compromise still leads to a government-run health care system that maximizes what’s wrong with the current system and eradicates what works,” said Ferguson.

“Libertarians aren’t fooled, and neither are the millions of independent voters who live in Democrat districts. More and more Americans are finding out the devilish details of this plan and they’ll hold accountable on Election Day anyone who supports it,” said Ferguson. “The only way to make health care affordable and universally available is to defeat this bill entirely. Then we can start brand new negotiations on solutions that work,” said Ferguson.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

How Is America Going To End?

Who's most likely to secede?
By Josh Levin Posted Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2009

In the American end times, our government will take one of two forms. One possibility is that federalism will give way to an all-powerful central government. (In yesterday's global-warming thought experiment, this was the climate strongman scenario.) The other option is decentralization—in the absence of a unifying national interest, the United States of America will fragment and be supplanted by regional governance.

America was designed to avoid these two extremes—to keep the states and the national government in balance. The United States will end when the equilibrium mandated by the Constitution no longer holds. Tomorrow, I'll look at how the country might transition from democracy to totalitarianism. Today, I'll focus on America's disintegration.

Predictions of modern America's collapse usually say more about the speaker than about the country's condition. Igor Panarin, the Russian political scientist who believes the United States will break into six pieces in 2010, seems to be extrapolating from what happened to the Soviet Union. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who paid lip service to secession at a tax-day rally earlier this year, was less predicting America's downfall than feeding chum to a riled-up, "Secede!"-chanting crowd. "[I]f Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people," Perry said, "you know, who knows what might come out of that."

Eric Zuelow, a history professor at the University of New England and the editor of The Nationalism Project, argues that "loud voices" like Perry's bolster the country's strength. The fact that we can debate our country's legitimacy is a sign of national health. For the United States to fall to pieces, Zuelow says, it'll take more than a demagogue on a PA. Americans will have to come to believe they're no longer Americans.

READ MORE

Libertarians challenge SEIU: Why not give everyone unlimited posters?

Union rations access to ‘free’ posters promoting government takeover

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party issued a challenge Tuesday to the Service Employees International Union, which is distributing free posters to activists supporting the proposed government takeover of health care. The posters come with one catch – access to the limited supply is rationed to “only ONE poster per person and address.”

Libertarians challenged the SEIU to live up to the promises behind government-run health care and offer everyone in America unlimited access to as many posters as they want without increasing their costs.

“Nothing more perfectly illustrates the unsustainability of government-controlled health care than the fact even its propaganda posters are being rationed,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “When something is offered at no cost, the increased demand forces you to ration access to it. Whether its government-run medicine or union-offered posters, the rosy promises of universal access lead to the grim reality of rationing.”

“If the advocates of government-run medicine can’t even offer Americans a free poster without rationing access and forcing you to submit your name and address, they have no business controlling Americans’ access to medical care,” said Ferguson.

“Come on, SEIU. Libertarians challenge you to be the first to prove the Obama health care model works by offering everyone in America all the free posters they want, and without increasing your costs,” said Ferguson.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Great American Quotes

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. "

Ronald Reagan

Cash for Clunkers Video

Ron Paul on Cash for Clunkers

The Poverty of Preschool Promises: Saving Children and Money with the Early Education Tax Credit

by Adam B. Schaeffer

Adam B. Schaeffer is a policy analyst with Cato's Center for Educational Freedom and author of "The Public Education Tax Credit" (Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 605).

The political momentum behind state-level preschool programs is tremendous, but existing proposals are often flawed and expensive. Preschool can provide small but statistically significant short-term gains for low-income children; however, these gains usually fade quickly in later grades. There is little evidence to support the belief that large-scale government preschool programs are effective, by themselves, in improving long-term student outcomes. Reform of the existing K–12 system should therefore remain the primary focus of those interested in sustainable improvement in student outcomes.

Given that many states have already instituted pre-K programs, or are committed to doing so, this paper proposes model early education legislation aimed at maximizing their chances for longterm success. The Early Education Tax Credit aims to sustain any potential preschool benefits and establish a solid academic foundation for later success. The program would improve the quality and efficiency of preschool options by harnessing market forces and would pay for itself by using savings generated from the migration of students from public to private schools in grades K–4.

The Early Education Tax Credit approach is unique in meeting the demands of activists for expanded access to high-quality preschool, meeting the needs of children and the preferences of their parents, and meeting the goal of increased educational freedom — all while keeping the budgetary impact low or positive.

CLICK HERE to read the entire 20 page analysis.

Expanding Double Jeopardy

by David Rittgers
This article appeared in National Review (Online) on August 7, 2009.

Welcome to a new age of double jeopardy. The hate-crime statute just passed by Congress expands the potential for federal prosecutions to chilling new levels, and even creates the possibility of retrials for crimes that have already been ruled on by state courts. In one fell swoop, lawmakers have virtually ensured legal proceedings that obviously violate the Bill of Rights and this, for some reason, is being widely hailed as a triumph of justice.

The lack of rigorous debate over this policy is ominous. In the Senate, the hate-crime legislation was not even adopted as a stand-alone measure, but as an add-on to another bill. This relative stealth aside, the flourish of the president's signature pen will radically redraw the boundaries between state and federal jurisprudence.

States and the federal government are considered separate sovereigns. If someone has broken both state and federal laws, he can have a day in court in both systems. A counterfeiter can be charged for his funny money in federal court, for instance, and also face murder prosecution by a state if he has moved to eliminate his competition. A trial by a state does not rule out federal prosecution for the same crime, and this does threaten to thwart the Fifth Amendment's demand that no person suffer double jeopardy. In practice, however, this hasn't happened too often; until now, limited federal jurisdiction meant that Uncle Sam usually didn't have the ability to try or retry a state defendant. READ THE REST @ CATO.ORG

Libertarians: Sotomayor confirmation a defeat for individual, property, gun rights

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson released the following statement Thursday, after the Senate’s 68-31 vote to confirm Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Justice David Souter:

“Today’s confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a significant defeat for individual, property and gun rights. The Libertarian Party was the first political party to announce its opposition to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, after reviewing her history on the bench.

“Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, overturned by the Supreme Court, violates the Libertarian belief in equality under the law. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Maloney v New York and United States v Sanchez-Villar violated basic rights protected under the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in Didden v. Village of Port Chester violated personal property rights and affirmed the power of government to confiscate property for purposes beyond public use. Judge Sotomayor also has a long and troubling history of ruling on cases based on personal feelings and prejudices, rather than the letter of the law.

“Libertarians are joined by millions of Americans in their beliefs in equality under the law and the protection of individual, property and gun rights. Libertarians hope President Obama will work harder in the future to appoint justices who uphold our constitutionally-protected rights, not someone else’s narrow political agenda.”

Absence

I apologize for my absence. I was in Peru on a Mission Trip with our Church. I will resume activities this week.