Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

Attorney General Eric Holder is sticking to his guns, not the ones he didn’t know were being smuggled into Mexico, about his ignorance of the existence of Operation Fast and Furious.  A two year operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that allowed, and often facilitated, the purchase of two thousand firearms in the U.S. which were then smuggled into Mexico to bolster the Mexican drug cartels.  The operation’s purpose was to be able to track the smuggled weapons back to senior members of Mexican drug cartels and hold them responsible for gun smuggling, but the operation was a flop and only a few petty gun runners were arrested.

The ATF is an agency that is responsible to Holder’s Justice Department, and the claimed unawareness of Holder in regard to the two year gun running operation is suspect.  OFF firearms were found at over 170 violent crime scenes in Mexico and were used in the murder of 150 Mexicans and one U.S. border agent.  Congressional and Senate Republicans are claiming that Holder was not only fully aware of the operation, but he received five memos from the ATF detailing the status of the operation.  Thus Holder was either incompetent and unaware of a massive gun smuggling operation conducted by his own agency, or was completely aware of the operation’s existence and is now lying to the entire nation.  Either way Holder, the ATF, and possibly more people within the Administration are culpable for the crimes hence committed, and the furtherance of outcries from the Administration against either Pakistan or Iran for smuggling weapons into Afghanistan and Iraq seems quite ludicrous given the propensity of our own government to export death into a neighboring country.

—

Tyler Brown is a graduate student in History from Poplar Bluff, Missouri.  He is a member of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty and a contributor to UMFreedom.com.

What is the best way for liberty-minded people to affect change within our political system?

This question will likely evoke strong, often differing, opinions from activists within the liberty movement. Some favor trying to work through the current two-party system by electing Republican or Democratic candidates who support free markets, individual responsibility, and a humble foreign policy. Others claim that the lost cause of party reform should be abandoned in favor of third party or independent candidates.

The obvious problem with the latter assertion stems from the incredibly small odds of success for third party candidates. Running for office without the blessing of the Republican or Democratic parties rarely results in election, due in large part to our “winner-take-all” electoral system that perpetuates the two-party charade.

Michael Lind’s column at Salon, “The best way to fight the two-party monopoly,” explores the possibility of adopting a European-style proportional representation (PR) electoral system that could diminish the incentives to choose between the “lesser of two evils” and could boost the chances of third party candidates.

Lind explains:

“Voters list candidates in order of preference, and if no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who wins is the one who, in addition to first-choice votes, gets the most second- and, if necessary, third- and fourth-choice votes. This prevents a candidate who is despised by the majority from winning with a small plurality in a multi-candidate race.”

While such a system could make third parties a more viable option for the average voter, the barriers to implementing such a system are huge, since the two parties in power stand to lose the most from this kind of change. It is also worth noting that parties are notoriously corruptible entities that rarely stick to their principles. Who’s to say that a third party dedicated to liberty would not stray from their core platform just as the GOP and Democratic party have each supported massive market interventions and violations of civil liberties, respectively.

In the end, our surest bet is to educate our peers by vigorously defending individual liberty in the court of public opinion. With an educated electorate that understands the moral and practical rationale behind a philosophy of individual liberty and limited government, those ideals will be represented in our policy.  As Judge Learned Hand famously remarked,

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.“

—

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. He can be contacted at jrrobert@olemiss.edu.

London Burns

For those who have been following the riots in Great Britain, the stories are quite disturbing. Violence, widespread looting, and destruction of property have rocked the UK over the past few days. Prime Minister David Cameron cut his vacation short, returning home to call for an end to the violence. In a statement, Cameron affirmed the government’s commitment to uphold the rule of law by protecting its citizens and their property:

“And I have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality: you will feel the full force of the law and if you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment.”

Cameron’s reassurances emphasize government’s primary function: protecting individual liberty and providing a system for the arbitration of wrongs. The looters, on the other hand, exemplify a blatant disregard for personal property stemming, in part, from a misplaced sense of entitlement.

Though the reasons behind these riots are sundry, some youth participating in the violence have pointed to cuts in government and the accompanying reduction in government services as their reason for taking to the streets. British officials have dismissed that claim, but at least one rioter made his motivation clear:

“We have no job, no money…We hear that other people get something for free, so why not us?”

This comment strikes at the heart of the various problems inherent to a welfare state. When tax dollars are used to supplement and subsidize certain individuals and industries, government plays a role in picking the winners and losers in the economy. These sorts of interventions distort market realities and cause the dissatisfied to demand their fair share. When government programs reinforce the flawed idea that individuals are entitled to receive something for nothing, they should not be surprised when the disaffected resort to violent means to obtain their loot.

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. He can be contacted at jrrobert@olemiss.edu.

Alan Greenspan on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made a remark that reveals some dangerous suggestions about the power of the Federal Reserve. When host David Gregory asked Greenspan if U.S. Treasury bonds were a safe investment, Greenspan replied:

“Very much so. I think there’s–this is not an issue of credit rating. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.”

For those familiar with the workings of the U.S. monetary system, this comment might come as no surprise. The Federal Reserve retains authority to print the legal tender of the United States, and has ever since Congress abdicated that constitutional power with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. In the last decade, the Fed has demonstrated its willingness to exercise this authority by adding enormous sums of cash to the monetary supply through bailouts of the airlines, banks, and automakers. The Fed is currently in its second round of what it calls “Quantitative Easing,” a euphemism for money creation neatly dubbed QE2. Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has hinted that the Fed could continue this dangerous inflationary practice with a third round of money creation.

While the Fed’s unstoppable printing press endangers the U.S. dollar already, Greenspan’s comment suggests that our mounting debt could kick this machine into high speed. America’s national debt recently reached 100% of GDP. In less than a decade, the Federal government has doubled the amount of money that it owes. Our government’s outlays far outstrip its receipts, and without a serious reduction in spending, this trend has no end in sight. Greenspan’s suggestion that the Fed simply create more money out of thin air to pay off our debts would only worsen the situation. That level of money creation could propel our currency into hyperinflation, the effects of which would be disastrous, making the effects of the S&P downgrade pale in comparison.

The answer to addressing our astronomical obligations, of course, is not to print money out of nowhere and risk serious hyperinflation, but to reverse the rising tide of federal spending. Defense costs have exploded over the last decade, due in large part to the six wars in which the U.S. is currently involved. Drawdown of our globe-straddling foreign presence would make a huge dent in the bloated defense budget, making this a good place to start.

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.

The University of Mississippi’s student legislature, known as the Associated Student Body (ASB) Senate, meets weekly to draft policy recommendations for implementation within the University. Several ASB Senators are also active members of Young Americans for Liberty, and one of them recently took issue with the ASB’s practice of saying a Christian prayer prior to each session.

What follows is the text of Dan Blazo’s invocation before the Ole Miss ASB Senate:

” Please, keep your heads up and your eyes open.

I thought about giving an agnostic prayer tonight about how none of us know the answers to the big questions in life, but I realized that that would be wholly inappropriate.  In fact, it would be inappropriate for the same reasons that giving a Christian prayer would be.

As senators, each of us took an oath to uphold the ASB Constitution to the best of our abilities.  Accordingly, I’d like to direct your attention to Article 10, Section 7 of the ASB Constitution, which reads:

“The ASB shall not discriminate against any student based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, ability or disability, marital status, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, or national origin. Respect, tolerance, and goodwill are the keystones to enjoying the diversity of our campus, and it is the duty of the ASB to encourage and promote these ideals. The ASB is committed to achieving an intellectual, cultural, and social environment on campus in which all are free to think and make their contribution. We will achieve an environment in which every student may think, learn, and grow without prejudice, intimidation, and discrimination. We will achieve an environment in which personal dignity and respect for the individual are recognized by all students.”

So according to the Constitution, it is our duty to encourage and promote respect and tolerance among our constituents, who comprise a beautifully diverse group of young people with many ethnicities, philosophies, and religious beliefs, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, and probably others as well.  By praying to Jesus, we exclude all non-Christians from being represented by their government; we ostensibly represent only Christians.  How does that promote religious tolerance?  How is it respectful to our non-Christian constituents?

As representatives of a secular public university who would never trade our diverse community for one where everyone looks and talks and thinks more similarly, let us abstain from practicing any one religion at our Senate meetings.  Let us open our hearts to the welfare of all people within our community by respecting the inherent dignity of us all, recognizing that our differences of race, religion, and party affiliation are only superficial.

If you wish to pray out loud together before the meetings, that’s great!  I only ask that you do so on your own time.  How would you feel if your student government opened every meeting with a prayer to a god you don’t believe in (say Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, or Zeus), a god who claims that all Christians are destined for Hell?  Would you feel represented, or excluded and out of place?  Whether or not you want to admit it, the Ole Miss Rebels don’t all pray in Jesus’ name.  Our religious views are private matters.  Senate meetings are inherently public affairs.

Let us separate church and government by removing the invocation from the Senate meetings.  Let us remember that in the face of adversity, we need not close our eyes and look above for answers, but only recognize our own collaborative abilities to overcome any challenges that face us.

Thank you. “

Young Americans for Liberty salutes Senator Blazo for standing up for religious liberty.

“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson, in Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.

Jerry examines a his less-than-desirable 'doo in "The Barber."

It’s not a very good time to be a free market right now. Everyone blames you for their lost jobs, their foreclosed homes, and corporate exploitation. Although this blame is misplaced, most people are fearful of the free market and don’t take the time to learn and understand that the free hand of the market benefits the consumer. The theory is simple: good products/services thrive, bad ones fail, and consumers are left with the cream of the crop.

Here’s a site with an interesting look at the economics of the popular sitcom, “Seinfeld.”

The Barber: (Competition) Jerry gets a bad haircut but refuses to change barbers because he is loyal. Eventually, he is convinced to leave his barber of 12 years for the barber’s nephew. Bad quality doesn’t persist in the marketplace; it is competed away. Perhaps the answer to bad haircuts is not more regulation, but more competition.

At last, A free market example to which everyone can relate! There’s lots of other interesting economic concepts presented here using Seinfeld. Since the show is a comedy, many of the examples are not only humorous, but memorable and can be useful in understanding free market principles.

This should come in handy during the inevitable fight over the Barbers Bailout of 2011.

(via kottke.org)

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.

Stephen Colbert

For those of you who haven’t heard, Stephen Colbert is testifying before Congress today. Colbert remained in character to deliver his tesimony concerning immigrant labor to a House committee on immigration. Though Colbert’s act serves as a funny and often scathing satire of conservative pundits, his antics have no place in an official hearing conducted by the United States House of Representatives. Legislators claimed that Colbert’s appearance would bring attention to the plight of immigrant workers in America.

While this may be true, the Congress’ toleration of his mockery in the hallowed halls of the national legislature is a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they ordained to govern this country. The House of Representatives is the People’s House and should thereby conduct itself in a dignified manner. This stunt was out of place, without a purpose, and downright disgusting.

Abraham Lincoln said, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” I guess a broken clock is right at least twice a day. Though Lincoln often ignored the Constitutuion as President, his observation is spot on here. Stand up for Liberty and hold those accountable who interpret their position in government as a license to do whatever they please.

This week I had the privilege of hearing Alan Nunnelee, Republican candidate for Mississippi’s 1st Congressional district, speak to my Southern Politics class. I have posted a recording of his speech, including questions from students, on YAL’s YouTube channel.

Nunnelee is currently a senator in the state legislature, where he chairs the appropriations committee. A highly personable politician, Nunnelee predictably toes the party line on most issues.

The big talking point for the November elections has been the economy. This is one issue where, at least on an ideological level, Nunnelee supports liberty by calling for lower taxes and a reduction in federal spending. During this talk, he makes some good points about how education spending, while important, always comes at the expense of taxing other individuals, and indicates that his priority is keeping those taxes to a minimum.

Although Nunnelee supports a reduction in spending in theory, it is important to remember that his party ran up the federal debt financing two foreign wars. Whether he will back up his rhetoric by introducing and supporting cuts in spending once elected is another matter entirely.

Reason Magazine recently ran a story by Radley Balko about Eddie Lee Howard, an inmate on death row in Mississippi for the 1994 rape and murder of Georgia Kemp. His conviction hinged on the testimony of an expert witness, dentist Michael West, whose work in bite mark analysis was notoriously unreliable. This was the basis for Howard’s 2006 appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, but his conviction was upheld. In 2008, though, the National Academy of Sciences released a report discrediting West and labeling his analysis as “impossible.” Despite these recent developments, Attorney General Jim Hood seeks to bar Howard from filing another appeal, on the grounds that Dr. West’s credibility had already been challenged, and found reliable, in the previous appeal.

As Balko points out, the Attorney General’s mission should be to seek justice, not convictions. While this new appeal also deals with Dr. West’s credibility, new evidence has come forth since that issue was previously raised before Mississippi’s high court. As the Supreme Court says, “death is different.” Taking a man’s life is no small thing, and before the state can deprive a citizen of life itself, the ultimate God-given right it is instituted to protect, every relevant fact available must be taken into consideration.

The question then remains – why does Misssissippi’s chief prosecutor seek to deny this man another chance to prove his innocence? Is it really in the state’s best interest to ensure that this accused murderer no longer lives, faulty testimony be damned? Two inmates who were sentenced to death due to West’s testimony have already been acquitted and released, the real murdered identified using DNA technology. Has Attorney General Hood lost sight of the purpose of our criminal justice system?

The health insurance industry announced its support for Obamacare.  Gee, what a surprise.   It wants the federal government to create more than 30 million new customers.  What a parcel of rogues for a nation!

Read the full article here.