Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Flipping Racial Minorities The Byrd (video)

Below is the video version (Jack Hunter -style, though admittedly not as good as the Southern Avenger's handiwork) of my Op Ed this Monday, criticizing the progressive media's shameful hypocrisy on matters of race and party.





W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Giving peace advice to terrorists ruled illegal

'The government can prosecute private citizens for giving advice to a foreign organization - on how to negotiate peace or take its case to the United Nations, for example - if the group is on the U.S. terrorist list, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In the most important foreign policy and civil liberties case of their 2009-10 term, the justices ruled 6-3 that a law prohibiting "material support" of foreign terrorist organizations can be used against people who claim to be providing only peaceful, humanitarian assistance.'

Read the whole article at the San Francisco Chronicle.



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Can Government Tell You What To Eat? Elena Kagan Seems To Think So



Not so shocking video: During her confirmation hearings, Senator Coburn asks Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan if the government has the Constitutional power under the Commerce Clause, to require all Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day.

She sidesteps the question by saying it would be a "dumb law." Then she says that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from the question of whether or not it's Constitutional, implying that she thinks it is.

If Congress passed such a law, we could count on Justice Kagan not to strike it down. That is her kind of judicial philosophy, the kind that says the Commerce Clause essentially permits the government to do anything it wants. Watch the video yourself:




W. E. Messamore
, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Cross posted from YAL

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights: What it Means for California

"The Supreme Court ruling will open the door for California's concealed-carry permit laws to be challenged for giving local law enforcement too much personal discretion in deciding who receives the permits. The state's assault weapons ban and safe handgun regulations could also be vulnerable to challenges in court."

Read the whole article at CAIVN.



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Red Hot Russian Spy Anna Chapman

Meet Anna Chapman- a Russian spy. Seriously. A ring of 11 Russian spies was apprehended in New York yesterday for passing on information about the United States via electronic means. Among them, Anna Chapman, a 28-year-old Russian divorcee with a masters in economics and as the New York Post reports: "a Victoria's Secret body."

Below: Russian spy Anna Chapman pulling off her best Jennifer Aniston impression. No kidding. Check out this Jennifer Aniston pic and tell me that Anna Chapman doesn't totally look like her. That's the real story here. Anna Chapman's been impersonating one of American television's most beloved stars. Not cool.


All I can say about Russian spy Anna Chapman, is that this libertarian has never found Communism more appealing.

(And how on earth did the New York Post get all these photos of Anna Chapman?)

You can read more information about Russian spy Anna Chapman at NBC and the Washington Post.

In all seriousness:

Lew Rockwell has the right idea when he argues that these Russian "spies" weren't really doing anything criminal (what's wrong with learning information about the gold market from a top financier?) and that the FBI, which has been spying on the "spies" for a decade now "chose to expose them right after the Russian president’s visit, to stoke hostilities. The Russians have said they may roll-up a US illegal spy ring or two in response. Let’s hope not. US hardliners want at least another Cold War, just like Truman. Spy hysteria helps."

Courts Challenge Legality of Redlight Cameras

"On an appeal of a 2008 red-light ticket, an appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court judges recently ruled that photos and video submitted by police were inadmissible as evidence. Instead, the appeal panel agreed with the defense that the photo and video were hearsay because no officer actually saw the driver run the red light, and the company that maintains the cameras did not testify in the case."

Read the whole article here.



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Monday, June 28, 2010

Flipping Racial Minorities The Byrd

A racist- the joke goes- is a Republican winning an argument with a Democrat. Indeed, social progressives shoot down any preference for less government and more liberty as racially-motivated. Think the government is spending too much money? Then you must be a racist. Oppose fascist medicine? Racist. Attend a Tea Party? Those were just a visceral reaction to the election of our country's first black president... because most Americans- especially the kind that watch Fox News- are racists.
Cross posted from: Young Americans for Liberty

The MSNBC crowd acts as if anyone who disagrees with their fiscal policy or jurisprudence must have a white hood in their closet, but the recent death of U.S. Senator and former KKK member Robert Byrd- a Democrat- highlights the truth about racism and partisan politics in the United States. As Scott Johnson notes in an article at The Power Line Blog, the Democratic Party has its own long and ugly history "as the party of slavery, segregation, and opposition to the equal treatment of blacks," a history, I would add, that Democrats are all too willing to quietly sweep under the rug.

To read Robert Byrd's shining tribute in the New York Times and compare it to the same journalist's treatment of Strom Thurmond at his death seven years earlier is to witness a major league spectacle of leftist racial hypocrisy at work. The 2003 article was entitled, "Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100," characterizing the Republican by his opposition to Federally-mandated racial integration of public schools, but the 2010 article was entitled, "Robert Byrd, Respected Voice of the Senate, Dies at 92."

The same columnist at the same newspaper makes no mention in his title of Senator Byrd's membership in a white supremacist group known for its organized campaign of domestic terrorism against blacks, or his leadership role in it as an "Exalted Cyclops" who organized a "klavern" of 150 members, or his filibustering of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a U.S. Senator. How much money would you be willing to bet that if Senator Byrd had an (R) next to his name, that his article would have been entitled, "Robert Byrd, Former Klansman and Civil Rights Opponent, Dies at 92"?

While Strom Thurmond's piece dives in with references to his controversial past in the very first sentence, readers don't see a thing about Robert Byrd's history of hate until after suffering through fifteen belabored paragraphs of gushing praise for the man's humble roots, long career in the U.S. Congress, history of championing legislative power, deft manipulation of Federal funds into the hands of his constituents, and love of classic literature.

Then in paragraph sixteen the New York Times columnist finally makes a grudging effort to approximate objective journalism by actually mentioning Byrd's racist history, but he starts by defending, polishing, and explaining away Byrd's sins before even reminding the reader what those sins are. His first words on the subject are: "Mr. Byrd’s perspective on the world changed over the years. He filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supported the Vietnam War only to come to back civil rights measures and criticize the Iraq war."

So he's bad, but he's not that bad. He once was lost, but now he's found. Never mind that Republicans are expected to spend their entire lives in the shadow of sins they never committed, repenting for a racism that most of them are not guilty of- actually being a card-carrying member, more than that, even a leader in the KKK itself, is something the New York Times is willing to brush aside for the gentleman from West Virginia... because he's a Democrat.

What troubles me the most about the New York Times piece is how casually it treats Byrd's time in the Klan. The newspaper of record's litany of Strom Thurmond's racist policies makes up the better part of that article and its disapproval for his past racism is tangible. By contrast, the piece on Robert Byrd does everything but actually come out and say, "Yeah, the Senator used to be a member of the KKK, but that's not really a big deal."

It is a big deal though. It is a big deal for every victim of racial terrorism, violence, and intimidation. It is a big deal for every person of color who lives in the shadow of white racism. It is a big deal for a nation that bears deep and still-healing racial wounds. Any column that shamefully brushes aside and downplays the significance of something like leadership in a violent white supremicist group, does a disservice to our nation's racial minorities.

A stint with the Klan is not simply an incidental rung on a career ladder, that can be atoned for and erased with enough apologies and allegiance of course, to the right party. The New York Times would have you believe that Byrd's time in the Klan was more about honing his leadership skills than it was about race, as if he may as well have been community organizing, but Robert Byrd is the man who said:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And wrote in a letter to a Grand Wizard of the Klan stating that: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation." Upon his death, the New York Times enthusiastically canonized the author of those words, and in so doing proved that progressives love the Democratic Party more than they hate racism.

Like this article? Embed the video version on your own blog or website, or post it on your Facebook profile.

-------------

UPDATE (7/1/10): From Memeorandum: MichelleMalkin.com and The Daily Caller are both reporting that the NAACP released a statement praising Robert Byrd and saying that his life "reflects the transformative power of this nation."

Supreme Court Incorporates Second Amendment, Extending Gun Rights Nationwide: some libertarians cheer, others groan

The Supreme Court of the United States "ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership." (Source: The Washington Post; via: Memeorandum)

What the Supreme Court has done today is "incorporate" the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to restrict states from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Some libertarians are thrilled while others view the ruling as just another instance of Federal encroachment on state sovereignty.

The decision has broader ramifications as the GOP gears up for a public duel over Elena Kagan's confirmation the U.S. Supreme Court.

Libertarian perspectives for and against:

Jack Hunter, The Southern Avenger, recently argued that "the Supreme Court overturning Chicago's gun ban would damage the Constitution and increase the power of the federal government."



Allison Bricker of The Smoking Argus disagrees:

"While it is indeed true that, the 10th Amendment prohibits federal interference on state matters, the issue before the Supreme Court is a matter which is not simply confined to the realm of “community standards” or daily operations, instead it is a restriction upon the natural right of an individual to defend themselves against an attack upon their person.

As such, the usual mantra that the states existed prior to the Central Authority is in this case utterly immaterial, as the Natural Rights of the People existed prior to the several states, the federal government, and the Constitution itself in perpetuum."

Who's right? You decide.



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Rand Paul Money Bomb Today

Rand Paul's campaign for U.S. Senate representing Kentucky has launched what is being billed as the "first money blast of the general election."

The campaign seems to prefer the term "money blast" to the grassroots neologism "money bomb" coined by supporters of Congressman (and father to Rand) Ron Paul's bid for U.S. President in 2007-08.

In a campaign that constantly faces down charges of radicalism, the choice of words can make a difference. Ostensibly the campaign wants to avoid violent imagery, including the word "bomb."

Speaking at a recent fundraiser in Washington D.C., Rand Paul said:

'"You'll see that they want to paint me -- the Courier, the Herald, even some of these national newspapers up here -- as being 'extreme,'" Paul said. "One of the answers I learned from my dad, because they tried to do this to him, is flip it around and ask, what's extreme? It's extreme to have a $2 trillion deficit."'

As of 11:00 am Eastern Time, Rand Paul had raised over $33,000 for the day and discouraged supporters at RonPaulForums.com expressed their hope that Rand would raise a lot more by the end of the day:

"I donated first thing (see post # 4) and I'll be back for a second round this evening. If others want to stand by and watch Maddow and Matthews steal a victory from us, they are welcome to do so, but I won't be part of that."

"This student is nearly tapped dry
Eating Mac n Cheese for the next 2 days"

In an e-mail to his supporters today, Dr. Paul wrote:

"My opponent is a big government, tax and spend trial lawyer. He has done little in his life but run for or be in office.

He is exactly what I mean when I say we won't change Washington until we change the kind of people we send.

I am a career physician who has built and run a small business. I believe in fighting for Liberty and for restoring our government to Constitutional limits.

I won't be just another vote in Washington. I will stand up and fight for reform.

I know you support these same ideals. And I am counting on you to stand with me today."



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Plotting a Coup In the Internet Age

"The Guardian is reporting on the attempts of an exiled Sheikh to regain power in a bloodless coup. The plot, led by British solicitor Peter Cathcart, involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US. The coup attempt is remarkable in its choice of modern communications and political lobbying, rather than the traditional resort to violence."

Hat tip: Slashdot



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Sunday, June 27, 2010

No Sex Please, We’re Middle Class

In her Op-Ed at the New York Times, Camille Paglia takes a critical view of sterile middle class culture in America, and argues that efficient, middle class values destroy the dynamic sexual polarization of many eras past. In Paglia's analysis:

Beyoncé is hot.


And Lady Gaga is not.


Read the entire article here.

I guess um... insert Rule 5 homage to Stacy McCain here.



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Arrested for Recording the Police

"According to the watchdog site PhotoEnforced, the state of Maryland has at least 375 red light cameras and 80 speed cameras. Your government is watching you, Marylanders. But don't think for a second that it's going to tolerate you watching back."

Read the entire article at Reason.



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

The Tea Party And The Drug War

"As the elections near, however, voters will want to know where the party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?"

Read the whole article at Cato.



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Saturday, June 26, 2010

If Cannabis is Legalized, Portugal Could Be A Window into California's Future

In this video, I narrate my most recent article at CAIVN- Jack Hunter style. Opponents of cannabis legalization worry that it will have a detrimental effect on society. That feeling is understandable, but citing a Cato study, I take a look at Portugal where all drugs were decriminalized in 2001. Ten years later not only has Portugal avoided a nightmare of spiraling drug addiction, all signs indicate that drug use in Portugal has declined.

Take a look:



And please Digg it up. Don't have a Digg account? Get one!



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Machiavellian Defense for a Flat Tax


There are a lot of different ideas for tax code reform supported by libertarians. Flat tax. Fair tax. No income tax at all. And all of these proposals are opposed by some libertarians as well. It's a tough issue. Do we improve this system we rail so loudly against through some sort of gradualism? Or does supporting one of these "slightly better" systems mark us as supporters of legalized theft?

Now, most of the arguments for tax reform stem from some semblance of "fairness". A progressive tax code isn't fair because it punishes the best and brightest. And our present tax code is also so confusing that only those who can afford good lawyers can get around it.

Let's think pragmatically about what some sort of flat tax would encourage.

The government is always looking to increase their tax revenue. They expect budget increases the same way you expect a small salary bump at your yearly review - regardless of the fact that your company lost business and cut employees this year. You want it. You expect it. And so do they.

But with a flat tax, they can't just pick on the winners anymore. In order to get more revenue, their best tactic would be to incentivize overall growth. Lower trade barriers. Lower the costs of doing business. Encourage real growth.

They win. We "win". The pragmatic in me wants it. The cynic in me knows that even if it passed, they'd create new "excise" taxes to take more from the winners. The flat tax might not stay flat for long.



By: Eric Olsen, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page | Website

Waiting For A Non-Bush Doctrine From Obama

A research fellow at Cato discusses it:

"But the problem with foreign policy doctrines is that they are not the real explanations for why America goes abroad to fight adversaries and help friends. Instead, these doctrines provide a rationale for American global interventions that in essence are a reflection of U.S. interests and capabilities — or the way these are being perceived by American presidents."

Read the whole article here.



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Friday, June 25, 2010

How A Man Got Revenge on the Cops

"A man who opposes police use of cameras to send speeding tickets snatched a bully pulpit when the Bluff City (TN) Police Department allowed its website to expire. Computer network designer Brian McCrary of Gray discovered the police site was up for grabs, so he paid domain provider Go Daddy for the rights and is the proud new owner." (source)



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Action: Fight the Disclose Act

Call your Congressman right away and urge a vote against H.R. 5175 the Disclose Act! If it's too late, call and ask how your Congressman voted and praise him/her for voting against it, or express your disappointment (politely) if he/she voted for it. Use this tool to find your Congressman's office number if you don't already know it. Learn more about the Disclose Act and why it threatens our liberties here.



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Zero-sum Thinking and California's Budget

With California's budget in crisis mode, the solutions have been presented by lawmakers and the media in strictly zero-sum terms. You can think of a zero-sum game as a pie. If one piece of that pie gets bigger, another piece necessarily has to become smaller. In other words, you either cut spending (by cutting services and reducing the quality of life in California) or raise taxes (which comes with its own set of drawbacks). Democrats support raising taxes- mostly on corporations- while Republicans want to cut spending.

There is certainly something to be said for cutting wasteful spending out of the state's budget. For instance, the record numbers of non-violent offenders who are being held for life in California's prisons because of its Three Strikes Law, or the millions spent on the secure transportation of prisoners in comas and with other severe medical conditions that would prevent them from posing a threat if they were released on medical parole.

The California budget and economy, however, are not zero-sum games. They are complex, dynamic, chaotic systems and the application of some creative problem solving with a dynamic mindset could go a long way toward ending California's fiscal woes.

Here are just three examples of that kind of thinking at work:

Read the whole article at CAIVN.




W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

Russia Today Crosstalk: Drug War

Video: in this edition of Russia Today's CrossTalk, Peter Lavelle asks his guests whether de-criminalizing illegal drugs is the real solution to the "war on drugs".





Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Headline Roundup (6/23/10)

In today's headline roundup, the Federal government finds more ways to halt the recovery in Louisiana, yet another plane gets stranded on a tarmac for hours in hellish conditions, we learn one more reason Elena Kagan does not belong on the Supreme Court, a new album entitled "Why Every President Sucked" makes its debut, Nikki Haley breaks the glass ceiling for multiple minorities (including self-described libertarians), and more!

Cross-posted from Young Americans for Liberty:

  • Stay out of our way! Federal goverment halts sand berm dredging in Louisiana, a technique that creates barriers to protect the coastline from oil.
  • Why does this keep happening? Passengers forced to remain on a plane for hours as it waited on the tarmac in sweltering 100 degree tempertures because the generators broke and there was no air conditioning. There were babies on the plane. People were fainting.
  • Elena Kagan at odds with Obama's promises of transparency. (Which isn't such a big deal, because so it Obama.)
  • Nikki Haley, a self-described "libertarian" wins GOP nomination for South Carolina governor despite attacks on her race, religion, and sexuality. (YAL does not endorse candidates for public office)



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

The US War on Drugs has been Racist from the Beginning

If we are to believe the US Government, the second greatest threat to America, after the terrorists, is drugs. And the biggest segment of drug use that appears to be growing is Marijuana use. This is the most prosecuted victimless crime' in the United States. Police time, government money, and prison space are wasted, to the point that $17 Billion has been spent on the war on drugs JUST THIS YEAR! 623,000 people have been arrested on drug charges JUST THIS YEAR! At the end of 2008, 2.4 million people were in the US prison system, and 25% of them were drug crime offenders. That's 600,000 people at the end of 2008! When we consider that the 10 year average of prison inmate increase is 3.4%, we can estimate that as of right now, there are almost 650,000 people in our prison system because of the War on Drugs".

We should also consider what happened when alcohol was prohibited. Gang wars, government money spent on finding and destroying illegal alcohol, increase in crime. Pretty much the same things we see with the war on drugs. But I think a fundamental question needs asked here as well: Why is marijuana illegal? Let's review the history of Marijuana.

Marijuana has been around since before 7,000 BC. The first marijuana law in the America was in 1619, believe it or not. It was passed by the Jamestown Colony making it a law that all farmers HAD TO plant hempseed. Between 1763 and 1767, Virginia routinely had mandatory plantings of hempseed to offset shortages of other products. In fact, you could be jailed during these times if you DIDN'T have hemp! Hemp was even legal tender.

Marijuana was considered a significant part of American industry until the 1900′s. It was during this time that a situation started occurring that we hear a lot about today also: immigration of Mexicans into the western United States. These Mexican immigrants were usually hired by large plantation farmers, who could hire them for cheap, and then outprice the small local farmers. Outrage ensued. And, again much like today, people needed a way to punish' these immigrants for their evils. And that way was to make marijuana illegal. Mexicans at that time commonly brought marijuana across the border with them to smoke. And so it came to pass, that in the early 1900′s, the first law making it illegal to prepare hemp, or loco weed' was passed in California. Via Why is Marijuana Illegal? Drug WarRant.

Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas and Nebraska all followed suit by 1927. In every case, the intent of the laws was to target the Mexican-American populations. But, this didn't spread to the Eastern US. There weren't many Mexicans in that area. So why did they outlaw marijuana? Same reasons, different race.

As the Jazz musicians moved from New Orleans, to Chicago, and into New York City, they brought an indispensible tool of the trade with them: marijuana. A newspaper in 1934 stated "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice" Via Why is Marijuana Illegal? Drug WarRant.

And thus began a series of events that would culminate in 1930 with the creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was a subdivision of the Treasury Department. Why the Treasury? Because at this time, it was a common belief that the federal government could not outlaw drugs. But they could tax it. The head of the new agency was an ambitious, ruthless man named Harry Anslinger. His ultimate goal was to make drugs illegal. Here are some quotes of statements he made to achieve the goal of making marijuana illegal:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' hashashin' that we have the English word assassin.'"


As I'm sure you can see, the main ammunition used to make marijuana illegal was simple racism. And so, on August 2, 1937, Marijuana became illegal at the federal level. It should be pointed out that during the Senate hearings to determine whether or not to make marijuana illegal, there was an interview with a Dr. Woodward, who represented the American Medical Association at the hearings. After he told the committee that these statements were lies, that marijuana did not cause violence, did not cause crazy thoughts', and did not make people mindless drones, he was ridiculed by the committee, and asked why he was trying to stand in the way of the federal government doing what it had to do. Some things never change.




By: Mathew Erickson,
Guest Contributor
Web | Twitter | Facebook | LP of Ohio


A Libertarian Pro-Israel Position

From Aaron Biterman of the Republican Liberty Caucus: Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel a Lesson for the Liberty Movement to Follow: A(nother) Libertarian Defense of Israel. You can read Aaron's article here.



Matt Collins, Regular Columnist
Articles | Author's Page

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Headline Roundup (6/22/10)

In today's headline roundup, Thomas Sowell thinks America is on the road to tyranny, a parkway built with stimulus funds has actually been named "President Barack Obama Parkway," General McChrystal is in trouble, American tax money in the hands of Afghan warlords and even Taliban insurgents, a tale of two disasters, Obama's obstructionism, Apple's privacy issues, Elena Kagan's awful gaffe, more evidence that gun control does not work, shenanigans in Congress, advice on home ownership versus renting, and two fine pieces by two fine libertarian institutes.

Cross posted from Young Americans for Liberty:

  • Too soon? Road built with stimulus funds named "President Barack Obama Parkway."

  • Fired? Gen. Stanley McChrystal summoned to Washington to explain anti-administration comments.

  • Your taxes at work: U.S. funding of a massive protection racket in Afghanistan indirectly pays tens of millions of dollars to warloards, corrupt public officials, and even the Taliban itself.

  • A Tale of Two Disasters: "Bush was blamed for local failures after Katrina. Obama got a free ride for weeks as federal failures mounted during the Gulf spill."

  • Elena Kagan says the Bork hearings were the best thing to ever happen to Constitutional Democracy.




W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page

A libertarian's perspective on Palestine

"...if we’re going to accept the libertarian view of property rights—which I do—then we must conclude that Palestine doesn’t belong to any one ethnic or political group. Rather, portions of the land belong to Palestinians, and portions of the land belong to Jews. Among other things, this means that the 1948 refugees and their descendants have the right to return to their homes. This also means that most of the Jews currently living in the land have the right to remain exactly where they are, as only a small number of Jews are living on land expropriated from Palestinians (Laila El-Haddad, 'Palestinian right of return is feasible,' Al Jazeera, 31 May 2005)."

Read the entire article Don Emmerich's Peace Blog.



W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page