I was quite happy to see a column on Townhall today that attempted to defend Ahmadinejad's speaking privileges here in America. Said McFarland:

Unforunately, she is one of the only ones here. It seems that quite a few people on the right are not happy with Columbia's decision to allow Ahmadinejad to speak at their University. And by "quite a few," I mean basically everyone. A smaller number than this go beyond simple criticism and actually suggest that Columbia should not have allowed him to speak. Why? Oh, you know, the usual reason -- we're at war. Always and everywhere, when someone wants to curtail personal freedom, the excuse is war. For some reason, the state the conservatives are supposed to mistrust and fear becomes their agent of suppression when violence kicks in.

Can't conservatives see the danger in this? In suggesting that free speech can be curtailed in times of danger? If we grant the state this power, will it ever claim that we are not in a state of danger? And why do conservatives think that they will always hold the reins of power? What happens when an ideological opponent decides that, given that we live in dangerous times, it's necessary and proper to crack down on those feisty, trouble-making right wingers. Surely conservatives are not this short-sighed.

To close, it is Columbia's property and they can do with it what they want. That includes limiting the speech of some and granting it to others. The First Amendment rightly places restrictions only on what the government can do. On private property, it is an entirely different matter.

An apartment complex in San Antonio is banning residents who have tattoos. Predictably, people get upset:

This story is a no-brainer. It's the landlord's property and he can do what he wants with it. If that means not renting to those with tattoos, that's his decision. In fact, if that means systematically discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc., that is also his decision and the government has no place to tell him what to do with his property.

Now that it is being led by neocon allies of the Bush administration, France is bucking its earlier prudence and heating up the rhetoric in preparation for act two of the Trotskyite world tour (slogan: "Democracy is coming to a country near you!"). Sayeth Sarkozy:

"There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation."

Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, "but if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world".

In a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said: "Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war."

This statement of his follows one made by the French Foreign Minister. He had warned that if diplomacy could not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, war would might be necessary. In proving to Bush, Podhoretz, Kristol, O'Reilly, etc. that they are not cowards, the French will prove to the rest of the world that they are incredibly stupid.

The extent to which the Iran war apologia matches that used against Iraq is disturbing. WMD's (or the possibility thereof) and funding of terrorism. When we march in and are proven wrong, the focus will shift back to the grand democratic revolution.

And yet another downside to this whole affair is that neocon tendencies have been inextricably linked in the minds of so many people. Sarkozy and Bush both champion themselves as leaders who appreciate the free market (I will refrain from judging to what extent this rhetoric has been matched by reality). Now, when people think of capitalism they think of state aggression when nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, I know it's not news that the same hyperventilating idiots warning us of anthropogenic global warming now were the same ones predicting a catastrophic ice age in the 1970's. However, a Washington resident has alerted the Washington Times that James Hansen -- eco-fear-monger extraordinaire -- helped to predict the ice age using computer models. He also, as the story points out, discounted the worry that fossil fuels might be warming the Earth.

Once and for all, can the pseudo-scientists please stop using computer models as the basis for their anti-capitalist rhetoric?

H/t to the LRC blog for this one. Lew Rockwell asks, "Is Ron Paul turning Jon Stewart into an Austro-Libertarian?" It certainly looks like he is:

Anyone who hasn't already, should check out Catholics for Ron Paul. The blog has recently enlisted the help of Tom Woods, so you can expect good things. Here's a sample of his post from yesterday on the Value Voters debate:

Sayeth the AFP:

Pope Benedict XVI refused to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August, saying he was on holiday, an Italian newspaper reported Wednesday.

Rice "made it known to the Vatican that she absolutely had to meet the pope" to boost her diplomatic "credit" ahead of a trip to the Middle East, the Corriere della Sera daily reported without citing its sources.

She was hoping to meet the pontiff at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo at the beginning of August, it said.

"'The pope is on holiday' was the official response," the paper said.

It said the reply "illustrated the divergence of view" between the Vatican and the White House about the "initiatives of the Bush administration in the Middle East."

Time for Catholics to disabuse themselves of the notion that we are in a just war, or that the pope of the Church supports our illicit actions in any way.

Here is Ron Paul's closing statement at the Value Voters Debate:

This piece at Mises today tells of Somalia and how the country hasn't had a central government since 1991 (despite the actions of the UN and US to change that), and that because of this their country has improved. Complements my mafia piece nicely.

Let's engage in a thought experiment.

Imagine that you live in a city that is essentially run by a mafia. In fact, beyond that, imagine that you live in relative proximity to other cities, which are also controlled completely by organized crime syndicates.

The mafia's presence in daily life has been continually changing. When you were young, they were primarily a protection racket. They would go to each individual living in the city and demand money in exchange for protection. Those unfortunate enough to own a business were charged both for their homes and for their businesses. Failure to pay the protection money was met with swift punishment by mafia henchmen. In return for your protection money, the mafia would more or less keep the peace in the city.

More recently, however, the mafia has moved into other areas beside protection. They have begun operating numerous businesses in the area; in each case claiming to have a monopoly in the area and punishing anyone who tries to open a competing shop. Because they also claim a monopoly on force, the mafia outlawed the possession of all weapons for fear that they be used in crime. The mafia has also banned what the consider to moral vices such as smoking and excessive drinking, justifying this move by claiming that these "vices" led to more crime. As the mafia has assumed a larger role, it has progressively increased the amount of protection money needed from each individual. The mafia also set up numerous mandatory indoctrination camps that they use to instill values in young children -- values such as respect for the mafia. The mafia, of course, claims that these camps are educational and necessary to the functioning of the city.

The mafia, since its existence, has claimed to have the support of the people. At any one time, most of the people in the city claim to support the mafia. In order to show their benevolence, the mafia allows citizens to elect individuals to a council, which in turns proposes new mafia policy. The mafia also claims complete control of the law in the city, and they have a head magistrate who decides most cases of conflict in the city.

You, however, do not like the mafia. They permit, to a certain extent, dissent in the city. You have denied, publicly, that the mafia is justified in extorting your money. The mafia's response has generally taken this tone: because the mafia owns the city and you live in the city, you consent to the mafia's laws, and your protection money is therefore a voluntary contribution.

Now:

Replace "city" with "country."
Replace "mafia" with "government."
Replace "protection" with "tax."
Replace "council" with "Congress."
Replace "indoctrination camp" with "public school."
Etc.

At the end of our thought experiment, the mafia/government justifies its existence on a synthesis of Leo Strauss' idea of a noble lie with Locke's social contract theory. Strauss thought that the state should engage in noble lies, such as claiming ownership to all land in a country. Locke's entire theory of government depended on a social contract.

I think that it is fairly clear that Locke's social contract is dependent on Strauss' noble lie. If the government has no claim to ownership of the land, it cannot claim that your ownership of property within its claimed territory means you consent to be governed and pay taxes. Generally, people will make the claim that social contracts involve tacit or implicit consent. There are two obvious objections to this idea. First, the government can only claim that citizens' give implicit consent to the social contract in the absence of explicit dissent. That is, as soon as an individual explicitly denies the state the power to tax and control it, the state can no longer claim that the individual has given implicit consent.

Unless the state falls back on the aforementioned Staussian lie. One must claim that the government owns all land and that your presence within its borders is essentially explicit consent to be governed. However, in the pre-social contract State of Nature, individuals exist without the state. They then come together to enter into a social contract -- either the state is a party to the contract or the creation of it. Regardless, to claim that the state owns all land is to beg the question. You are claiming that the state owns land in order to show that someone gives consent to the social contract. But by definition, there is a State of Nature before which government exists, meaning that it cannot own any land. The Straussian lie also fails to justify government.

What, then, if anything, justifies the existence of government?

Nothing.

More evidence that recent hyperventilation over global warming is yet another example of eco-activists turning a non-event into an excuse for massive government intervention. These people are anti-human collectivists, pure and simple.

Those who still believe in anything approach apocalyptic anthropogenic climate change are simply blind to history.

Found this today on "Retro RWN" at RightWingNews.com, one the most staunchly pro-neocon, kool-aid drinking, big-government blogs out there (Hawkins himself would certainly disagree, but the proof is in his positions). Sayeth:

Now, I certainly don't dislike my country (just the people who have hijacked it), but I'm pretty sure the best thing that's ever happened to this planet is Christ liberating us from sin. I'm just saying.