Monthly Archives: April 2011

Here’s an excerpt of Reason’s excellent writeup on George Soros’ recent visit to the Cato Institute – Politics Made George Soros Dumber:

Did appearing at Cato to discuss Hayek amount to a first step out of the partisan ditch Soros has dug for himself? Though Politico is semi-teasing that storyline, and though Soros did cause some jaws to drop by agreeing with Richard Epstein about a presumption against regulation, I seriously doubt it. You don’t spend six years building up mirror institutions to what you perceive as the institutional attack-dog Right unless you on some level think the them has grown far too dangerous to go unopposed. That remains true even if us regains the White House and Congress, outnumbers the media them by any sane measure, and mangles Hayek in the service of slandering Chicagoans. Shoddy intellectualism in the defense of anti-market-fundamentalism is and will likely remain no vice.

From the American Thinker:

A week after Jones threatened to burn the Quran last September SCOTUS Justice Steven Breyer commented that “he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning.” Alluding to Holmes’s famous “fire” metaphor he added: “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. Holmes said [the First Amendment] doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Of course, Holmes said no such thing. He added that all-important little adverb “falsely” before the verb “shout,” which makes all the legal difference. Indeed, for its thunder, the metaphor even relies on the certainty of our knowledge that the shout is both false and deceitful in order to give it its bite.

I covered this before (most recently the last time I posted pictures of Mohammed):

If you intend to comment that “hateful” expression should be excluded from civil liberty, strongly consider the following. Expression should only be subject to restraint when it produces an involuntary response in others [because] [s]uch expression is inherently coercive, and [thus] potentially subject to restraint. For instance, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Now, Muslims [Islamists, [actually], read this book and learn the difference] will insist that my posting multiple pictures of Mohammed – for instance here =-o * * * (((:~{> it’s the Starship Enterprise shooting three photons right at Mohammed – produces an involuntary response in Islamists, which is characteristically violent and marked by deadly protests throughout the world. Since the vast majority of non-Islamist humans do not involuntarily react to others’ expression, excusing Islsamists’ unacceptable responses (fatwas, actual murder (e.g. Theo Van Gogh)) as involuntary denies that Islamists possess the same measure of rational faculty as non-Islamist humans. Or, it ascribes greater moral, social, and political significance, to Islamists than to non Islamists. Either you believe Islamists are subhuman, or that they are entitled, by virtue of their rancid ideology, to preferential treatment at the cost of non Islamists’ civil liberty. Probably because you’re terrified they’ll kill you. Fight or flight. Islamists’ intolerance will not limit my expression. Islamists are human beings possessing as much rational faculty and ability to control their actions as any other homo sapien. Therefore I require Islamists, and every other (myself included), to conform their actions and conduct to societally acceptable standards. Fatwas, death threats, murder, and terrorism, are simply unacceptable responses to any individual’s expression. Particularly expression as beautiful as Theo Van Gogh’s film Submission, which you should watch immediately.

By Aaron Biterman:

The Case for Gary Johnson
Why Liberty Advocates Should Look Big Picture in 2012

by Aaron Biterman

The important Republican Party primary process has begun and two candidates with unapologetic libertarian leanings have entered the Republican field: the elder statesman-country doctor Ron Paul and the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.

The case has been made that you should support both candidacies by leaders in the liberty movement including Nick Gillespie and Peter Schiff. Ultimately, you can only cast one primary vote.

Conventional wisdom supports the notion that Congressman Paul has the organization and fan base to compete. There’s no denying that he has an impeccable ability to fundraise and a fervent fan base. Whether these items will translate to votes is a different matter entirely.

What are the differences between these candidates, who should you pick, and why?

The Big J Way

Gary Johnson started a company from scratch in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1971. The business, Big J Enterprises, eventually grew to employ over 1,000 New Mexicans when he sold it in 1999. It is still among the largest job creators in the state. The Big J way – Gary Johnson’s approach – is simple. He lays it out in his forthcoming book, “The Seven Principles of Good Government.”

His first principle is to become reality-driven. Gary Johnson gathers data, analyzes it, and determines the costs and the benefits. While governing, it’s no surprise that Governor Johnson weighed the costs and benefits of government programs and ultimately made the tough choices that were unpopular with special interest groups and partisans, but created a period of unmatched economic prosperity for New Mexico.

Johnson’s second and third principles are to be honest to all people and always do what’s right. Numerous people have told me that Governor Johnson should simply “switch” his position on the abortion issue to gain popularity, but that would be a far cry from honest. As Governor, Gary Johnson supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. He was not only endorsed by the Right to Life Committee, but he also signed on as a supporter to every bill supported by New Mexico Right to Life. President Johnson would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, believing that states should make their own determinations on the controversial and personal question. He also supports a woman’s right to make a decision during the early stages of pregnancy, making him personally pro-choice – a position also held by libertarian Republican hero Barry Goldwater.

Living his fourth principle — determine a goal, develop a plan, and act — he emerged from obscurity to win the primary and general elections when the deck was stacked against him. In his recent article “The Guy That Barack Obama Should Worry About,” author Brian Ross – a journalist who was living in Santa Fe in the ‘90s – observed that Johnson won, in part, by going “after the old-boy political machine” — a necessary piece of the victory puzzle. Johnson introduced himself to the Republican Party, was told he had no chance to win the primary, won, and then went on to win the general election by 10 points.

He won, in part, because of his fifth principle: Communicate to your audience. A recent op-ed from a New Mexico newspaper (El Defensor Chieftain) opined, “In these times of the coached, coiffed and vacuum-sealed candidate with the entourage of handlers and spinners, the candidate who manages to be just himself is a breath of fresh air. His message will appeal to independent-minded Republicans, Independents and anybody else who’s fed up.”

This principle will help Johnson in early GOP primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which require candidates to actually have conversations and sell themselves to primary voters. Governor Johnson is going to take the time to meet with people one on one. He is able to connect with those he talks to and can convince people through conversation to embrace the liberty message. After all, connecting with people is what allowed Governor Johnson to succeed in business and in state politics.

Principle six for Governor Johnson goes along with his direct nature: Don’t hesitate to deliver bad news. Governor Johnson has zoned in on the debt issue and has made it his signature issue. Every speech he gives hones in on how 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends must be cut. He hammers at the debt problem and delivers the bad news with the optimism that our economic woes can improve — with the same libertarian solutions he implemented in New Mexico from 1994 to 2003.

Gary Johnson’s seventh and final principle: Do what it takes to get the job done. Johnson has invested the last year and half to meet with liberty activists and concerned Americans all across the country. He is determined to have his voice heard in the 2012 debate and insists he would not be running if he didn’t have something to add to the race.

Comparative Advantages

You’ve already met Congressman Paul. Here are Governor Johnson’s comparative advantages, as I see them:

Issues Distinctions

Both Paul and Johnson have the same policy prescription at the federal level regarding abortion: get the government out of the issue. They largely agree on economic policy, with both subscribing to the Austrian school of economic thought — but there is variation. Unfortunately, Paul opposes NAFTA, while Johnson supports it. Congressman Paul is one of the most aggressive earmarkers in Congress, even while often — though not always — voting against the final versions of the bills in which the earmarks are placed. Both support auditing and abolishing the Federal Reserve, although Paul has made it his signature issue. Both candidates support the repeal of the income tax and replacing it with nothing, the flat tax, or the Fair Tax. Johnson favors term limits at the state and federal levels, while Paul does not.

Regarding foreign policy, Paul supporters have argued that Governor Johnson supports “humanitarian wars,” which I previously explored and refuted. Both candidates have opposed all recent interventions — Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya — but Johnson says we should assist foreign nations in select cases where genocide is occurring. He recently stated that he supports keeping Guantanamo open because prisoners would have to be kept somewhere else if it was closed. His statement did not discuss the treatment of those being held, despite misleading attempts by Johnson critics to insinuate otherwise. Gary Johnson should answer more questions about this issue so we can all learn more about his position, especially regarding the treatment of prisoners at the prison.

Meanwhile, Congressman Paul is among the most vocal critics of Israel in Congress, once charging that “Israel created Hamas” on the House floor. Of course, Hamas is widely considered to be a terrorist organization, but it was in fact created by seven Palestinians as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Governor Johnson supports Israel’s right to defend itself and believes that the U.S.-Israel alliance is valuable and should be kept in tact.

It’s interesting to note that three of the previously mentioned issues of disagreement — earmarks, Israel, and Guantanamo — are areas where Congressman Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, agrees more with Gary Johnson than his father.

The social issue and immigration policy distinctions are where Johnson scores the most points. Congressman Ron Paul voted to ban gay adoptions in the District of Columbia, recently expressed support for the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and is an advocate of removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution. Governor Gary Johnson believes gay marriage is a state issue and supports gay civil unions. As a former border state Governor, he adamantly opposes a border fence and hopes to establish a temporary guest worker program and enforce current immigration laws to secure the border. Both candidates are opposed to the War on Drugs and favor drug decriminalization.

Electoral and Governing Experience

Johnson entered politics for the first time in 1994. After approaching the GOP about the gubernatorial nomination, he was told he should run for the legislature. Undeterred, he instead spent his own savings to promote his common sense, business approach to government. His platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, halting the growth of state government, and a tough line on law and order. His campaign slogan was “People Before Politics”. He first won the primary against a state legislator and subsequently won the General Election against incumbent Democratic Governor Bruce King, 50% to 40%. Party registration in the state of New Mexico at the time was 2-to-1 Democrat.

While serving in office, Johnson vetoed 200 of 424 bills put in front of him in the first six months of his first term, 48% of all legislation, and used the line-item veto on most remaining bills. In 1995, he called on the Republicans in Congress to eliminate the budget deficit through proportional cuts from the entire budget. According to former New Mexico Republican National Committee member Mickey D. Barnett, “Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with.” This was not only because of Johnson’s personal principles, but also in keeping with his campaign promise of approaching government from the perspective of costs versus benefits.

Hear Johnson’s approach in this recent interview with CNN:
CNN Interview

In 1998, Governor Johnson ran for re-election against Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez. He campaigned on continuing the programs of his first term: improving schools while cutting state spending, taxes, and bureaucracy, along with using his veto power frequently. Fielding a strong Hispanic candidate in a 40% Hispanic state, Democrats expected to oust Johnson, but he won 55%-45%, illustrating his broad support base among independents, fiscally conservative Democrats, people of different ethnic backgrounds, and Republicans.

Johnson proposed a wide-ranging cut in taxes — repealing a tax on prescription drugs, cutting income taxes by $47 million, and cutting the state gasoline tax by six cents per gallon. He set state and national records for his use of veto powers, vetoing nearly 750 bills (not including thousands of line-item vetoes), gaining him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He also worked diligently in his second term to implement a school voucher system, which never occurred due to inaction from the legislature. In 1999 and again in 2000, he proposed the largest school voucher system in the country to enroll 100,000 students in its first year.

Congressman Paul has run numerous campaigns from the mid-1970s to present, so there’s no doubt he’s an experienced campaigner — having won election eleven times. In addition to losing the U.S. Senate race against Phil Gramm in the early 1980s, Congressman Paul also lost two Congressional races, one in the mid-1970s and another in the late-1970s. He has also only won election in his Lake Jackson/Victoria area district in Texas (whose district number was changed various times over the years), where citizens largely already agree with him on policy issues and the population is roughly 650,000 and far less diverse than New Mexico’s population, both in terms of ideology and ethnic background. Johnson, by contrast, campaigned in a state of 1.9 million people in a majority Democrat area and a majority-minority (non-white) state. Johnson’s electoral successes illustrate a strikingly broad appeal.

While Dr. Paul has stayed true to principle, he has been far less effective in the legislative process, i.e., his attempts to pass legislation have not been successful. He now chairs the House Subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve, which is a long-awaited and well-deserved recognition of the popularity of his views on the Fed resulting from the 2008 campaign.

Governor Johnson is a tested candidate, since he had to actually run the state of New Mexico. He did it with tremendous courage and principle, proving that he can be trusted to follow through on campaign promises and is committed to principle.

Selling the Message and Growing the Movement

Who is attracted to the messages being sold by Congressman Paul and Governor Johnson?

There’s no concrete data as of yet, but Johnson has a history of attracting moderates, fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans (of course), Independents, and white and non-white voters. This is a broad base of potential supporters.

Paul’s hardcore current supporters, while enthusiastic, also turn people off from their candidate time and time again. At RonPaulForums.com and DailyPaul.com, Jews are targeted by diehard supporters for being pro-Israel and for creating and maintaining the Federal Reserve System. Such conspiracy theories and endless attacks are not productive for the liberty movement. In fact, they hurt the liberty message and their sentiments are anti-libertarian according to Congressman Paul himself. Unfortunately, neither the Congressman nor his numerous organizations have ever put out a message to distance themselves from these activists.

The goal of both campaigns is to grow the movement (and hopefully win election). Governor Johnson is best suited to do that because most GOP primary voters and 2012 GOP debate watchers will have already heard Congressman Paul’s message. By supporting a new messenger with a different approach to selling the message, there is a tremendous opportunity to turn more people on to libertarian principles.

Additionally, who do we want to sell the liberty message at the grassroots level? Johnson can attract new and different voices, such as women, gays, and Hispanics into the Republican Party and the liberty movement. Given the growing Hispanic population in our country, this demographic will be an important factor in future electoral successes, and Johnson has a proven track record of gaining their support.

“Gary Johnson has no name recognition,” some Paul supporters chant. Neither did Ron Paul when I first became active in his campaign in January, 2007. Fortunately, the first GOP Presidential debate is on Thursday, so Johnson will have the opportunity to increase his name recognition.

The GOP debates and the 2008 campaign dramatically increased Congressman Paul’s name ID and the same can hold true for Johnson in 2012. Given the age difference between Dr. Paul — who is 75 — and Governor Johnson — who is 58 — it’s very reality-based, to use a Johnson principle, to assist the former Governor increase his name identification for not only his 2012 campaign, but also for future endeavors.

I mentioned my involvement in the Paul 2008 campaign as a volunteer. Myself and fellow volunteers often felt ignored and undervalued by the Ron Paul 2008 campaign infrastructure. Moving forward, is the Ron Paul 2012 infrastructure any different than the 2008 campaign was, or will activists be relegated to wasting their time to concoct ways to get the attention of the campaign like in 2008?

Most importantly, it is key to have a leader who can run in future elections should 2012 not be the year Americans embrace our message.

Unresolved Baggage

In addition to the vocal conspiratorial-minded supporters who are a turnoff when trying to make a dent in electoral politics, Paul also has two items of baggage to contend with: First, he doesn’t seem to care about accepting money from known white supremacists like Don Black, who donated $500 to the Paul 2008 campaign. Mr. Black was the former Grand Wizard of the KKK. It seems that the $500 would have been less important than sending a message regarding the types of supporters valuable to a campaign focused on winning.

Finally, the Ron Paul newsletter issue has still not been resolved. All we know so far is that it was not Congressman Paul who either approved of the newsletters or knew about them until after the fact, but racist newsletters will become an issue with the media if the Congressman wins the GOP nomination. Newsletters with Dr. Paul’s name from 1992 implied blacks were more likely to commit crimes than whites. The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King, Jr., who is described as a “pro-Communist philanderer.” Given that Paul’s General Election opponent is Barack Obama, the Paul for President campaign post-primary may be over before it even begins given the toxicity of these two items of baggage.

On the contrary, Governor Johnson has no such baggage. One issue that has been brought up is that he and his wife divorced in 2005 — which is true — and his then ex-wife passed away in late 2006 of hypertensive heart disease. Governor Johnson’s two adult children both support his 2012 Presidential campaign, so there doesn’t appear to be any issue here except that the Johnsons were no longer in love. It has also been mentioned that Governor Johnson is not presently married. While true, Gary Johnson is engaged to be married.

Electability

The last time a member of the House of Representatives was elected President was James Garfield in 1880. It’s more likely that a former Governor would be elected President, and someone with real business and executive experience can more easily expose Obama’s unsuitable credentials. As I noted above, early primary state voters identify with candidates who are willing to meet with them and discuss issues in a face to face setting.

Congressman Paul is in impeccable shape and his mind is sharp. However, the fact is that he is in his mid-70s. Age combined with his responsibility to his district and in Congress require travel between DC and Texas — a lot. This reality makes it less likely that Congressman Paul will campaign for weeks at a time in key states like New Hampshire or South Carolina. By contrast, Governor Johnson is invested in the 2012 campaign, is unconstrained by a current elected position, and appears to have tremendous focus on making a dent in the New Hampshire primary.

By Peter Moskos:

So is flogging still too cruel to contemplate? Perhaps it’s not as crazy as you thought. And even if you’re adamant that flogging is a barbaric, inhumane form of punishment, how can offering criminals the choice of the lash in lieu of incarceration be so bad? If flogging were really worse than prison, nobody would choose it. Of course most people would choose the rattan cane over the prison cell. And that’s my point. Faced with the choice between hard time and the lash, the lash is better. What does that say about prison?

I’d take the lash over languishing (and suffering) in prison. You?

Excellent, accurate writeup here describing Gary Johnson as a pragmatic libertarian:

But more impressive than his winning office is what he did in it. A fiscal hawk, he slashed government spending, something that none of the other governors leading the pack of GOP hopefuls has done. Mitt Romney destroyed his own fiscal legacy by enacting a universal health coverage program that is now devouring the Bay State’s budget. And Sarah Palin, notwithstanding her fairy tales, presided over a 31 percent spending hike in Alaska. By contrast, Johnson cut in half the 10 percent annual growth his state budget had been experiencing. He vetoed 750 bills, a third of them Republican, privatized government services and trimmed public-sector employee rosters. He lowered taxes and still exited with a tidy budget surplus.

In short, Gary Johnson has long walked the small government, more liberty talk with his common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally accountable government.

America is facing an unprecedented economic crisis that will require tough choices. It needs candidates who offer honest and principled solutions that demonstrate that pro-liberty policies are not a moral luxury but a practical necessity. Johnson is the only such candidate. Win or lose, so long as he makes himself heard, he’ll push the national conversation in the right direction.

Word.

By Dave Shellenberger. Excerpt below, but read the whole thing.

What is Libertarianism?

David Boaz, in his book, Libertarianism: A Primer, writes, “Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses as long as he respects the equal rights of others.”

We libertarians believe that government should exist, at the most, to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. This means that we consider the only legitimate role of government is to provide local security, a system of justice, and defense.

A key concept, which most people outside the libertarian world never consider, is that government acts through force or the threat of force. In other words, it maintains a monopoly on legal violence. When government exceeds its limited role, it acts illegitimately and thus immorally.

Why Libertarianism Is the Compassionate Political Philosophy

Libertarians seek to confine government to its limited role. When government exceeds its limited role, it cannot act compassionately, since an immoral government cannot be compassionate government. It also creates suffering, adds to suffering, and inhibits the alleviation of suffering.

Government lacks the capacity for compassion, since it depends on force and takes the wealth of others. Libertarians respect the natural desire of people to act in their own, voluntary ways to alleviate suffering. We believe government should stand aside in favor of the wiser, more effective efforts of individuals and private organizations.

Thus, libertarianism is compassionate because it seeks to limit the natural tendency of government to wreak harm, while preserving the liberty of individuals to exercise true compassion.

Role of Economics in Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and freedom is its own virtue. In the words of Lord Acton, “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.”

The purported benefits of programs that are outside the scope of limited government are thus irrelevant. The programs are illegitimate, since they contravene our liberty. Nonetheless, it is helpful for libertarians to understand a little about economics, since the field helps explain government behavior, and allows us to counter myths and fallacies.

At the American Conservative:

Of all the received ideas that clog America’s foreign-policy discourse, none is more at variance with reality than the threat of so-called isolationism. We have never been more engaged with every corner of the world, yet we have never been lectured more often about the consequences of “retreating within our borders.” The more countries we attack—Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen—the more dire warnings we get about national introversion. The specter of isolationism has never looked healthier.

A case in point was George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address, a venue he used to tell a spine-chilling tale. With his foreign policy exploding all around him, Bush warned against an even more disastrous alternative: there were those who would “tie our hands” and have us “retreat within our borders.” From the tenor of his talk, he seemed to think that Americans were about to burn down both the Pentagon and Department of State, beat defense intellectuals into postal workers, and force every house in the land to set up a little steel foundry in the back yard—just like in the Great Leap Forward—while learning to live on grubs and wild mountain honey.

Of course, this is absurd: as many pointed out in response to this scaremongering, there are no isolationists in America—not in either political party, not in the media, and not in the academy. (The i-word is often used as a synonym for unilateralism. Here I am assigning only its most common meaning: a tendency to ignore security threats beyond territorial borders and disengage diplomatically, politically, and economically from the rest of the world.) Nevertheless, the menace of a return to geopolitical autarky is carted out whenever our sclerotically narrow foreign-policy consensus gets an unwelcome jolt. This habit of mind did not end with the exit of George W. Bush.

Watch his recent appearance on Judge Napolitano’s show here.

Gary on identity politics:

I don’t play ethnic politics. I don’t engage in it, I don’t approve of it, and I think it divides people. I’m immensely proud of my heritage, but I am an American.

Word.

Witness:

“Some of you laugh to scorn the idea of bloodshed as the result of secession, and jocularly propose to drink all the blood that will ever flow in consequence of it. But let me tell you what is coming on the heels of secession. The time will come when your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded together like sheep and cattle at the point of the bayonet; and your mothers and wives, and sisters and daughters, will ask, ‘Where are they?’ and echo will answer, Where? You may, after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of precious lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence, if God be not against you; but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, where great interests are involved, such as the present issue before the country, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South with ignoble defeat, and I would say Amen to the suffering and defeat I have pictured, if the present difficulties could find no other solution, and that, too, by peaceable means. I believe they can. Otherwise I would say, ‘Better die freemen than live slaves.’”

Rejoice. Gary Johnson is bringing his common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally accountable government, to the contentious but wide open GOP 2012 primary race. Below are links to recent press coverage of yesterday’s announcement that he’s running in 2012. Gary Johnson is about to do work - so get on board his 2012 war wagon with me. (I already called shotgun.)

• Slate:
• Race 4 2012:
• Wall Street Journal:
• Time:
• Reason:
• The Atlantic:

Via the OUR America Initiative:

Dear friend of liberty and fellow mountaineer,

Today, from the steps of the New Hampshire Capitol, I am announcing that I am formally declaring myself a candidate; I will be actively, passionately seeking the Republican nomination for the office of President.

In announcing my candidacy for President of the United States, I am setting out on the long path ahead, but I am not alone. I’ve always enjoyed climbing mountains, but this one is unique. I’m looking forward to this challenge, as I know that you will be beside me as a friend of liberty and a supporter of my candidacy.

Your taking the step to contribute now to our campaign is the most important step you can make right now on behalf of this effort.

About a year and a half ago, I began traveling around the country and speaking about issues of the day. Americans in all 50 states are deeply concerned about our country’s future. They’re concerned about the enormous debt we have accrued, and they’re concerned about the precarious economic situation that has been created by decades of overspending. Most Americans understand that serious changes are needed, and that we can’t afford to simply kick the can down the road for another four or eight years.

We should know by now that kicking the can down the road will just make the needed solutions seem even more difficult. We must address these problems, and there is no time as good as the present to begin this needed reassessment of American government.

So why am I the right person to serve as America’s 45th president?

In response to that question, I first point to my record as Governor of New Mexico. The fact is that many Republicans like to talk about smaller government, but my record is unique in this regard. I have a record of actually reducing the size of government over the course of my eight years as Governor, and this was during a time in which other state governments were growing and becoming more expensive all across the country.

It wasn’t always easy. I had to veto over 750 bills in my quest to limit the growth of government, and many of those vetoes were of bills that were Republican-sponsored. It isn’t always easy to go against your own party, but I felt that my primary duty was to the hard-working, taxpaying people of New Mexico. I felt that our state would prosper with a smarter, more efficient government, and I’m proud of what I was able to accomplish during my 8 years in office.

When I ran for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, I promised to put issues first and politics last. Despite all those vetoes, I was re-elected in 1998 by a wider margin than I had won with in 1994. The lesson I drew from that experience was that people of both parties appreciate good stewardship of tax dollars.

That is what I delivered for New Mexico, and that is what I can deliver for the United States of America.

Now, lets move; we have a mountain to climb.

In Liberty,

Governor Gary Johnson

P.S. I am asking you to support my candidacy for President of the United States. I appreciate your donation of any size.

This:

What many liberals consider good government is actually a welfare state, the constant failure of which perpetuates the rationale for its own existence. What many conservatives consider proper defense is actually nothing more than a warfare state, that’s not only every bit as unnecessary as the welfare state but the perpetuity of which is based on similar rationale.

And even if a welfare / warfare state was advisable, we can’t afford it.

by Alex Fidel

Via Reason:

The Congressional Budget Office now says the deal will reduce this year’s budget deficit by just $352 million.

I also recently read an other article, that states the “debt jumped $54.1 billion in the 8 days preceding the deal made … to cut $38.5 billion.” In other words, the amount we “cut” from the budget from this deal was surpassed by the amount of money spent already in the time it took to agree on that amount to cut. This is absurd beyond belief.

We need a Congress and President that will bring a common sense business approach to the budget, who won’t have any sacred cows. Unfortunately, that is not happening and we end up spending more than the cuts offered up in the 8 days it took to reach that agreement, not to mention those cuts turned out to be millions, not billions. It should be trillions, and not in 10-12 years, but in 1-3 years at the most.

Reminds me of that one saying- fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me for 100 years…

Socialism’s Legacy – Alan Charles Kors from Clemson Institute on Vimeo.

Came across this colorfully titled article Fuck the Public Sector and found this bit:

Labour and their union backers are telling us that cutting the deficit is an immoral Tory conspiracy. They would say that. But stare into the abyss and consider the figures. In Britain we are heading for a trillion pounds and beyond in our national debt. We are paying well over forty billion a year in interest payments alone—as much as the entire defense budget. Those annual interest payments are anticipated to rise to eighty billion pounds within the next few years.

First, the UK only spends 40 billion on defense? Well, when the annual interest payment on the social welfare state doubles defense spending I guess liberals will have to pull the “It Will Be a Great Day When Our Schools Get all the Money They Need and the Air Force Has to Hold a Bake Sale to Buy a Bomber” bumper stickers off of their Prii. I hate those bumper stickers. Not because I favor exorbitant spending on preemptive wars of safety, democracy spreading, liberal interventionism, humanitarian concerns, or kinetic Punic wars defense. But because the slogan asserts that a lack of money, rather than a failed government educational system, is the problem with public schools. And that’s just not true.

Comes now a 2008 doozy from Nick Gillespie. Read the whole thing, but the excerpted bit has been proven particularly prescient:

The Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq was a house built on sand and the only question remains whether anyone in the Bush administration other than the good soldier Colin Powell believed what he was saying at the time. But even beyond all those infinitely disturbing questions about whether people in a position to know really believed in weapons of mass destruction, there was something more screwy going on. Those of us who are not party hacks were forced to witness Democrats, who had been so bellicose during the Clinton years, suddenly become peaceniks. And Republicans, who were against sending even our bombs, much less our boys, overseas to the former (and god forbid, the future) Yugoslavia or anywhere else when a Democrat ran the military, suddenly come out in favor of not just nation-building but region-sculpting. And now we’ve got a president-elect [Obama] who somehow ran as the peace candidate who has talked about increasing the size of the military, invading Pakistan or Iran, and finally getting American forces into Darfur.

As the story has turned out, Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize [Editor: Passive voice necessary because Obama did not earn it] and shortly thereafter took affirmative measures to vindicate Dick Cheney. And go into Libya.

LIBERTY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP CAMP 2011

Moree Beach Resort, Cape Coast, Ghana – June 19-24, 2011

GOAL of the Camp:

• To Promote classical liberal philosophy, economics, entrepreneurship in Africa
• To empower the youth by giving them tools for understanding and applying these ideas
• To create some viable business plans for long term mentoring

BACKGROUND

The Liberty & Entrepreneurship Camp is an annual programme which seeks to broaden the knowledge of college students on the principles of a free society, and equip them with business skills to start their own businesses, publish books and assist in meaningful political reforms.

So many African youth today looks up to the state to employ them after graduation, and since the state is a bad manager of business and therefore has no sustainable job to offer these numerous youth, they end up being unemployed and frustrated.

The camp is a week long event of lectures, group work, presentations and discussions. Normally our teachers come from western countries like the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia where freedom has been tried and tested. Students will explore the wealth and poverty of nations, Austrian economic principles, detail market analysis, market techniques and research, advertising and sales approaches. Students will also learn ideas of Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, M. Friedman, Rand.

This year Africa Youth Peace Call will collaborate with Individual Sovereign University (www.indSovU.com), Language of Liberty Institute (www.languageofliberty.org) and the International Society for Individual Liberty (www.isil.org) to make the camp a shinning success.

As usual we will bring together 40 Ghanaian and other African students across the width and breadth of the continent together in summer to start their journey of freeing themselves and their continent from the depravity of socialist ideals which is so pervasive in Africa especially in our higher institutions of learning.

There are three things you can do to help us as a freedom lover. One is you can volunteer as a teacher if you have traveling funds, or not. Another is to contribute to the Chip-In created by the Individual Sovereign University to finance travelling cost of teachers who cannot pay for travelling expenses.

Last but not the least you can sponsor a student from a poor area who is interested to attend but can’t afford. It cost $200 per student. We plan to bring 20 of such students to the camp. Please don’t forget even a dollar donation to the Chip-In could make a tremendous difference since the International Society for Individual Liberty is matching all donations we get. This means that if you chip in $1 we get $2.

Please spread this message to your friends, colleagues and love ones about this project, and ask them to play a part.

Interested agorist, capitalist, anarchist and libertarians are warmly welcome to contact:

Keith Hamburger: khamburger@khamburger.com

Kofi: kofi@aypcghana.org

www.aypcghana.org
+233-243666656
+233267555565

HomePage

www.indSovU.com

We have successfully sent a computer to our associates in Ghana, renewed the insurance for the Jeep for our dean of community relations, brought Gary Chartier in by remote for the conference, and we now look to fund a new position for Mariana Evica. Please share the chip-in link with your friends

Came across this question on a writing tutor proficiency exam online. Note the answer choices in bold.

Select the sentence that would best fit in the paragraph below:

As school populations in Houston decline, more and more schools will have to be closed. Then the empty buildings will pose a problem to the surrounding neighborhoods. ——-.

It would therefore be wise to begin planning as soon as possible for the best future use of these buildings.

The time has come to halt any future school closings.

The education of Houston’s children should be our top priority.

Therefore no single neighborhood should be held responsible for what it cannot avoid

You’ll be happy to know the first answer was correct.

From the world history tutor proficiency exam:

Which of the following is not considered a reason for the fall of the Roman Empire?

Increasing piracy in the Mediterranean

Reliance on German Mercenaries

Reliance on mercenary soldiers

Environmental degradation

Depopulation of Italy

Via:
“What does it mean to lead men in war? What does it mean to come home? Hell and Back Again is a cinematically revolutionary film that asks and answers these questions with a power and intimacy no previous film about the conflict in Afghanistan has been able to achieve.

In this groundbreaking work of cinema, two overlapping narratives are brilliantly intercut – the life of a Marine at war on the front, and the life the same Marine in recovery, at home – creating both a dreamlike quality and a strikingly realistic depiction of how Marines experience this war.

Following Sergeant Nathan Harris of Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, during a major assault on a Taliban stronghold, and his painful return home after a severe injury, the two stories communicate both the extraordinary drama of war and the no less shocking experience of returning home, as a whole generation of Marines struggle to find an identity in a country that prefers to be indifferent. ”

Hell and Back Again clip from Danfung Dennis on Vimeo.

Says the LA Times:

Obama’s recent speeches have been lo-cal on substance, heavy on swell-sounding calls for someone to do something — such as increase domestic oil production. The media reports. The people listen. They nod. And very few point out that, wait a minute, the guy talking is the one who can make that happen. So, why isn’t he doing instead of talking all the time?

Maybe reporters should ask Obama that question, as well as why so many contradictions exist between the candidate’s words and the President’s conduct. But I beat a dead horse.

Sen. Rand Paul wrote this letter to his colleagues today. Excerpts are below. (Link via the Republican Liberty Caucus.)

To my fellow Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,

The much-ballyhooed 2011 continuing resolution will leave the federal government spending $1.6 trillion more than it takes in. Despite descriptions of cuts, the 2011 Congress will spend more than it did in 2010 and with a larger annual deficit. It is the third year in a row with a record deficit.

Only in Washington can a budget that spends more than it did the year before, with a larger deficit, be portrayed as “cutting.”

One word: Orwell.

“Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.” – Frederick Douglass

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Islamists to protest the burning of this Koran by Iranian and Afghan citizens as vigorously as they protest similar Western speech.

Take a moment to appreciate the brave individuals in the video. Via Instapundit.

The Imperial President at War: (See also Obama’s Imperial Presidency)

After the 2008 election, Barack Obama was pondering the growth of presidential power. So, ABC News reported, he met with former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher “about how to achieve more meaningful consultation between the president and Congress on the use of military force.” Yes, he did. Then he went home and laughed till his ribs hurt.

Middle American Methamphetamine: (Via Reason)

These outsiders routinely accept a sensationalized version of meth’s power: it is a uniquely addictive drug that ruins everyone it touches. But most people who take meth and other illicit drugs are otherwise normal—they just like to get lifted every once in a while. This is not to minimize the possibly dire consequences of drug abuse. I have a number of friends who died well before their times due to rampant substance-abuse problems—none of them directly meth-related, however. One of my best friends died after shooting up coke hours before his court date. Few have more familiarity with these tragedies than I do, but they are by far the exception rather than the rule.

Tax Advice:

“The most important lesson I teach my students,” he says, “is that just because something is deductible, that doesn’t make it free.”

Students say they especially enjoy his creative-deduction exercises. His latest challenge: “Say you have a friend who is a client and you charge him about $500 a year. You’d like to spend $2,000 on a big night in New York for two couples — limo, dinner, Carnegie Hall concert. What would allow you to take a deduction?”

The answer: “The client has a rich father who just died and you may get estate work.”

Interesting video below (via) featuring some harsh words for President Obama from Malik Zulu Shabazz, Racist in Chief of the New Black Panther Party. I’m particularly interested in Shabazz’s remarks @:40:

We’ve held back on this negro for a long time… and have tried to hope that the nature of the black man would somehow come to reality… [but] [Obama] caved in like a punk.

The source of Shabazz’s disappointment in Obama flows from his erroneous belief that Obama’s African “nature” or ancestry, which comprises one-half of his genetic lineage, predestinates Obama (and presumably all blacks) to favor and implement the smorgasbord of socio-economic policies and political preferences that Shabazz (and other elements of the African American community that Shabazz purports to represent) believes are appropriate for blacks in America to endorse.

Regrettably this insidious form of racism – ascribing social, moral, or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage – pervades much of the African American community (including The Root). I believe Ayn Rand’s essay on racism is determinative on the issue:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.  It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.  Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical forces beyond his control.  This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science.  Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.  It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty.  Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Krugman’s Civil War Fantasies:

Southern Avenger:

Steve Sailer in Taki’s Mag:

It took a lot of strife to knock innumerable Gallic and Teutonic communities together into the large states that could square off so memorably in 1870, 1914, and 1940…A central question in ethnography is whether a polity is organized by ancestry or territory. For a decade, the US military has used bombs and bribes trying to convince Pashtun tribesmen that because they live in Afghanistan, they should be loyal to the Afghan government, which the American government has gone to great expense to buy and build.

Feminism is Jonah Goldberg’s latest reason to wage war in the Middle East (Also from Taki’s Mag):

What Goldberg is saying (with his customary skill as a conservative movement spokesperson) is that sexism leads to sexual repression, and this repression then causes repressed males yearning for female intimacy to turn violent out of frustration or in anticipation of sexual pleasure in an afterlife once they’ve blown themselves up in this world. This is not particularly convincing, since there have been lots of repressed males who do not engage in violent behavior. Most of the repressed males I’ve known have been so geeky that they would go goo-goo if women even noticed them. Orthodox Jews live in a society every bit as gender-separated as the one that Muslims inhabit. Yet these bearded Jews, who avert their eyes when women pass by, do not go around blowing up buildings. Nor are those (usually disintegrated) societies in which young males have abundant sexual opportunities particularly peaceful places. Goldberg should move to Watts or the South Bronx to test my hypothesis. There he could find very violent young males who definitely are not sexually repressed.

Reason – Trust Obama:

[Sen. Rand Paul's attempt to get the Senate to adopt candidate Barack Obama’s core principle of presidential warmaking powers] was, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was one of the 90, “too cute by half” to even rhetorically hold the president to either the views he was elected on, or to the Constitution.

Frank Fleming:

Yes: (Excerpted by Instapundit)

“I agree with the Instaprof: Lindsey Graham is unfit for office. The good news is there’s no need for the excitable lads of Mazar e-Sharif to chop his head off because he’s already walking around with nothing up there. . . . Claire Berlinski has it right: The real ‘racists’ here are not this no-name pastor and his minimal flock but Reid, Graham, and the Times — for they assume that a significant proportion of Muslims are not responsible human beings but animals no more capable of rational behavior than the tiger who mauled Siegfried’s Roy. If that is true, certain consequences follow therefrom. The abandonment of the First Amendment is not one of them.”

I wrote on this a while ago in defense of Geert Wilders during the last deadly Mustlim fracas over harmless forms of free speech. To wit:

If you intend to comment that “hateful” expression should be excluded from civil liberty, strongly consider the following. Expression should only be subject to restraint when it produces an involuntary response in others. Such expression is inherently coercive, and potentially subject to restraint. For instance, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Now, Muslims [Islamists, really, read this book and learn the difference] will insist that my posting multiple pictures of Mohammed – for instance here =-o * * * (((:~{> it’s the Starship Enterprise shooting three photons right at Mohammed – produces an involuntary response in Islamists, which is characteristically violent and marked by deadly protests throughout the world. Since the vast majority of non-Islamist humans do not involuntarily react to others’ expression, excusing Islsamists’ unacceptable responses (fatwas, actual murder (e.g. Theo Van Gogh)) as involuntary denies that Islamists possess the same measure of rational faculty as non-Islamist humans. Or, it ascribes greater moral, social, and political significance, to Islamists than to non Islamists. Either you believe Islamists are subhuman, or that they are entitled, by virtue of their rancid ideology, to preferential treatment at the cost of non Islamists’ civil liberty. Probably because you’re terrified they’ll kill you.

Fight or flight. Islamists’ intolerance will not limit my expression. Islamists are human beings possessing as much rational faculty and ability to control their actions as any other homo sapien. Therefore I require Islamists, and every other (myself included), to conform their actions and conduct to societally acceptable standards. Fatwas, death threats, murder, and terrorism, are simply unacceptable responses to any individual’s expression. Particularly expression as beautiful as Theo Van Gogh’s film Submission, which you should watch immediately.

LOL:

Via the Spearhead I found Jay Batman’s compelling essay Why I am an Anarchist-Misogynist as well as his blog Screed of Momus, which is dedicated to advocacy for individual freedom and manliness. Pause for a moment to reflect on the epic nature of Mr. Batman’s blog name. Momus is the Greek god of satire, mockery, censure, writers, poets; a spirit of evil-spirited blame and unfair criticism. Sadly, I had to look it up. Nice reference, Mr. Batman.

Mr. Batman describes his style of advocacy as “speak[ing] in loaded terms and write[ing] in dynamite” in hopes “it blows your mind apart.” I like that. Apparently he’s also a law student, so trust he swims upstream every day against the mindless idiocy that American law schools happily promulgate, in particular the dangerous notion that, as a rule, government by and through lawyers can or should collectivize and control individuals by directing and proscribing their actions (always to the benefit of controlling political interests).

Having recently been a law student (now a graduate) who committed the majority of my time to critical, independent thought (including publishing this law review article, which fires tomahawk missiles through the foundation of the house of legal cards upon which the Akaka bill and notions of ethnic Hawaiian entitlements stand) I can say that Mr. Batman’s considerable commitment of time and energy to advocacy for freedom and manliness is no small sacrifice. These days, the mere thought of law school makes me want to drink whiskey and smoke a cigarette just to get the taste of Cass Sunstein’s view of the Constitution out of my mouth.

Therefore, Screed of Momus is hereby inducted into DuelingBarstools’ Magna Cum Blogroll. Feel free to put that credential on your resume, Mr. Batman.