intheav.com Blogs - American - My Blog

Brilliant paper on the Ground Zero Mosque

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:24:53 +0000

I know some of you have "condemned" cut and pastes, but this article puts this issue in its rightful place for those on the LEFT AND THE RIGHT!! The 'Ground-Zero Mosque' and Grand Staircase Escalante by Ryan P. Long on September 2, 2010 With no end in sight, the controversy surrounding the so-called ground-zero mosque continues to bring out the worst in all of us. As the controversy continues, I'm struck by a parallel between this proposed mosque and another American monument established in 1996. Background Almost 15 years ago, President Bill Clinton designated a large expanse of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Seen largely as a political ploy to win favor among voting environmentalists, the designation of this national monument immediately halted business development in the area, including a proposed coal mine, and stifled Utah's ability to make use of lands designated to help pay for the state's school system. Creation of the monument also sparked a conflict between local county officials and the federal Bureau of Land Management over which authorities have jurisdiction over the dirt roads throughout the monument. This controversy continues to this day and is quite emblematic of the frustration felt by many of us in the more rural western United States over BLM practices and fair use of what we see as "our own land." Make no mistake: these matters are conflicts of law with no easy solutions. The controversy over Grand Staircase Escalante is very much alive in Utah today, with local ranchers and miners still angry about what they see as federal usurpation of important economic resources, and local environmental activists equally as passionate in their support of the monument. However, we must pause to note that this issue no longer has a place on the national stage. Our Right to Resolve Local Issues Locally One root of the issue is the question of why the use of local land that most Americans will never see in their entire lives was elevated to the national stage. At the time, I recall wondering why people from such places as California, Chicago, New York, and Washington had such strong opinions on land about which they knew nothing and in which they had no stake. Fifteen years later, I still don't know. Nevertheless, President Clinton was able to leverage a national appetite for environmental protection toward the resolution of an entirely local land-use issue. Many locals rightly felt that their views were trounced by far-away opinions that were completely distanced from the very real local issues Utahns were living every day. Their question rings as true today as it did in 1996: How much weight does "national opinion" carry with regard to local issues, especially when it comes to land use? I ask this question now because the fundamental issue is very similar in New York City today. Put to a local vote, it seems virtually guaranteed that the majority of New Yorkers would back the mosque's right to exist. As a result, the controversy today � as it was in Utah 15 years ago � is being generated and exploited by a national public with no immediate connection to the particular lands in question. Of what relevance, really, are the opinions of Utahns, Arizonans, Californians, Washingtonians, et al., in matters of private property in New York City? The obvious answer is none, of course. And yet, as a former resident of Utah, I cannot help but feel that some in New York City are now getting their just desserts for weighing in on far-away private property issues. Herein lies a lesson to be learned by all of us: one day, you are the one determining what some distant group should do with their own land; the next day, they may very well be determining how you use yours! This is the inherent danger of elevating local matters to the national stage. What right does any New Yorker have to object to a national discourse on this mosque, when they were so quick to weigh in on analogous controversies elsewhere in the country? Civic Duty and Personal Responsibility If it is not already clear, let us take a moment to be unequivocal: The use of one's own private property is determined by the owner, subject to local zoning laws. What this means is that if a religious group purchases land fair and square with the intention of constructing a religious building, they are well within their rights to do so. On this point, all sides agree. So let that be the end of the question. There is a confusion about land value at work here. To wit, if what is now known as "Ground Zero" is hallowed ground for our country, then where are all the patriots willing to put their money where their mouths are? Throughout the Amazon rainforest, environmental groups and green-minded individuals have purchased great expanses of land because they, as private individuals, wish to see that land untouched by developers. Rather than coerce the locals through the machinery of government, they simply (and peacefully) purchase what they value so that the land may continue to exist in a way that they prefer. If it is important to some Americans that "Ground Zero" remains free of monuments to Islam, then one may very well ask how much New York City land they have purchased to ensure that it exists as a patriotic monument consistent with their own preferences. Ironically, this argument was just as easy to apply to environmentalists in 1996, who decided to use the federal government as a tool to determine land use, rather than peacefully purchasing land and using it in accordance with their values. It is easy to see the discrepancy between what people claim to value and what values they are truly willing to stand behind (e.g., financially). Those who wish to conserve natural landmarks or patriotic hallowed ground are certainly free to exercise their rights, purchase property, and invest themselves in the values they hold dear. Those who elect not to exercise this right have no place criticizing those who do, no matter to what legal use the land is eventually put. Conclusion In an ideal world, we could transcend allegedly "polarizing" issues like this and exist in a harmonious, free society. Rather than rushing to condemn a monument to Islam near the former World Trade Center, concerned Americans could financially contribute to the erection of such a monument with the proviso that the eventual landmark properly reflects their values. Those in charge of erecting the landmark would then be eager to create a monument to the peaceful, free, and cooperative society that America has always been. In the real world, pundits fan the flames. It is tempting to participate in the controversy, lending our own unique take on a multifaceted issue. When left-liberals label their opponents bigots, and conservatives become enemies of private property, it is important for libertarians to adhere to principle. At issue is more than just private property and the freedom to worship, but one of the most attractive and important principles of classical liberalism: civic duty. Of course all Americans have a right to worship as they please. Of course all Americans have a right to use private property as they see fit. Beyond that cursory glance lie the more important concepts of putting our money where our mouths are if we wish to see land used the way we want it to be, and letting local people sort out their own local issues on the local stage.

The Establishment Part.

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:12:28 +0000

If you are interested in really making a differnece for our country, and have an "inkling" of respect for the people of our society, I HIGHLY recommend researching this man....GENIUS, PURE AND SIMPLE!!

This MUST be a conservatives issue!!!

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:33:11 +0000

Does government do a good (or even "satisfactory" job) at regulating society?

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:33:15 +0000

I understand the need for regulation and public safety law enforcement. The problem is, it seems we've become a society that doesn't mind paying taxes, until you decide to take the next step and become an entrepeneur. You then realize just how bad our government does its job. With the money we pay government, the job that it does, and the cuts it decides to make when budget shortfalls occur, I am surprised at how "SHEEPISH" the people really are to let this happen the way it does. This little girl is realizing first hand, a lot sooner than most, if any at all, the shortcomings of ANY government that gets too big and out of hand. It is not always this bad, but this will happen more and more the bigger our government gets. It is ALREADY too big; and this is clear proof of that.

Good read!!

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:32:43 +0000

This comes from a newsletter I get everyday. All these reads are some of the best ever. Give Capitalism a Chance by Kel Kelly on August 4, 2010 It is a common assumption in today's world that capitalism is, at best, out of control and, at worst, outright evil. Everyone knows that it causes most of our financial, economic, and social problems, and that we need a referee � the government � to make sure that all is fair and that we innocent citizens are not taken advantage of by predatory companies and capitalists. The fact, of course, is that everyone is wrong. My urgent goal in writing The Case for Legalizing Capitalism was to create a one-stop refutation of all anticapitalist arguments, using plain economic logic and applying free-market (i.e., classical liberal) arguments and economic laws to today's political scene, across the entire political-economic spectrum. In short, the goal was to condense the world of the Mises Institute into one book. During my study of free-market economics over the years, it occurred to me that this fascinating, economically sound reasoning for how the world really works and what would genuinely help our lives was widely discussed in the procapitalism, academic-type world, but that the general public was wholly unaware of these astounding insights. I wanted to explain free markets in plain English to average citizens, so that they could understand which government policies help or harm them, and, as a consequence, so that they could vote in such a way as to improve their lives. My main message is that most of our economic problems derive from previous government intervention in the economy. In its attempts to "help" us, the government has managed and regulated the economy, and passed laws that sounded constructive but that in fact hurt the economy and us. Political economic reality is replete with the law of unintended consequences. Our economic problems are the natural result of political forces, not the natural result of (supposedly evil) market forces. We have voted our current problems into existence by electing politicians who promised to help us by means of economic intervention and regulation. As Austrians know, most people believe we have free markets, but we have no such thing. This is true regardless of the fact that politicians of all stripes � and most of the media � claim that we do. The government has its hand in every company and every industry in the nation, controlling what things are produced and by which means. Indeed, it even manipulates market prices and production directly. Left-wing pundits ridicule those who label such government manipulation and control "socialism," but it is in fact just that. Socialism involves government control of the means of production, and its real purpose is redistributing property for the benefits of "society" (society being receivers, not givers). Controlling production and redistributing wealth are precisely the goals and justifications of our government's constant intervention in the economy. But this constant "helping" through attempting to "manage" has resulted in a constant decline in our ability to produce real wealth and thereby to improve our standards of living. As it is now, we are seeing a consistent increase in the wealth of the rich, a moderate improvement in the wealth of the middle class, and stagnation in the living standards of the poor. As has happened to other countries at various points in history, we are now on the verge of retrogressing economically. Consider this remarkable irony: most citizens put their faith in government � the entity that steals from us, causes wars, imprisons and starves innocent citizens, and is an absolute monopoly � to provide for us and keep us safe. At the same time, they see businesses � which have eradicated diseases and starvation, engaged in peaceful exchanges instead of war, produced virtually everything we currently own and enjoy, paid us our wages and provided capital for us to improve our productivity, all the while being fully restrained by hungry competitors (in free markets) � as our enemies from whom we need protection. These commonly held but irrational prejudices for government and against businesses form the very foundation of the political arguments espoused by professional anticapitalist "thinkers." And yet, when capitalism has been allowed to flourish to even a moderate degree, it has succeeded in improving the lives of all involved � rich, poor, black, white, man, or woman. Only capitalism, with its true free markets and true freedom for individuals can solve our economic problems and bring prosperity. "Capitalism" is neither the Right-wing, crony-capitalism corporate-welfare economy, nor the anti-rich, wealth-redistribution social-welfare economy that we have today. In a truly capitalist society businesses never receive money or special privileges from government: they succeed if they please consumers in offering them what they want, and they fail if they do not. By the same token, in a truly capitalist society, individuals never receive special privileges or transfer payments. Instead, they have an abundance of jobs and of wages commensurate with the value of their work (more than a "living wage"). Real economics (i.e., free-market economics) proves that under capitalism, it is virtually impossible for things like inflation, shortages, booms and busts, recessions, unemployment, starvation, and unaffordable healthcare to exist. Competition and the threat of competition serve as iron-clad shackles on companies. On the one hand, it prevents them from underpaying, overcharging, or under-supplying. On the other hand, it assures that they guarantee the safest, lowest-priced, highest-quality products that can possibly be produced at any particular state of technology and development. "When capitalism has been allowed to flourish to even a moderate degree, it has succeeded in improving the lives of all involved � rich, poor, black, white, man, or woman." The Case for Legalizing Capitalism begins with the economic basics, explaining labor, production, exchange, savings, trade, and economic progression. In the process, many common anticapitalist arguments are disproven � that labor is exploited, that some involuntary unemployment is "natural," that outsourcing is harmful, that we should "buy American," that we need "energy independence," that sweatshops and child labor should be extinguished, that there is an economic threat from China, and that jobs or companies should be protected. In the second section, having laid out a solid explanation of how free markets work, I analyze how government has interfered in the marketplace and caused the very problems for which the free market is commonly blamed. Banking and the business cycle are given a thorough examination so as to demonstrate that our government-sponsored banking system is artificial, unnecessary, and the sole source of our economic crises and recessions. Plus, I explain why our most screwed-up industries � including healthcare, airlines, and oil � function so ineffectively, and why regulations such as price controls, government-granted monopolies, the restriction of production, and the prevention of business competition and of free exchange between enterprises and consumers only harm consumers (i.e., all of us), while benefiting select government-favored companies. In the third section I compare the historical results of government management versus free markets. I look at several "case studies" of relatively free markets that were ruined by government manipulation and control, including the Great Depression, the fall of the Roman Empire, and the transition of various countries to communism. Then, through comparisons of free versus unfree countries from an empirical and statistical viewpoint, I show the direct correlation between free markets and higher standards of living. Also in this section, I examine the concept of the evil corporation in order to reveal that corporations � unless given the power by government to do so � can not only not harm us but can only benefit us. In the fourth section I take a deep dive into several special topics: morality, war, and environmentalism. A core tenet of leftists' promotion of socialism is that it is moral, while capitalism is immoral. Not only do I show this is completely opposite from the truth, but I reveal that socialists are hypocritical, dishonest, thieving, and harm those they are supposedly trying to help (usually themselves). In a large subsection, I address the causes of and solutions to poverty in detail. The notions that most wars are needed, that they keep us safe, and that they are justified, are, through historical examples, carefully disproven. In addition to providing a strong case for secession of individual groups or geographical areas from their current national rulers, I also develop original arguments advocating antipatriotism and the intentional dismantling of individual countries, including our own. Finally, due to popular "green" sentiments that threaten to halt or reverse our economic progression, I lay out the case that, first, the environment is in better shape than we think (and improving!), and that, second, whether global warming is real or not, we will be better off through increasing, not decreasing, carbon emissions. In the final section of the book I put together all the knowledge obtained thus far so as to enable the reader to assess our current social and economic policies as well as the current misguided world view of anticapitalism. I refute Keynesianism's basic and most important arguments � including the idea that GDP is a relevant economic indicator � showing that the world works in opposite fashion to what most recognized economists today argue. Finally, I explain popular news headlines/stories in terms of their real political and economic significance � insights that are usually obscured due to a lack of economic knowledge on the part of both writers and readers. Major running themes in the book include such notions as Regulation does not usually protect consumers, but merely benefits one group at the expense of another; Redistributing wealth cannot possibly benefit the receivers in the longer term, but only hurt them; $25 $20 Politicians cannot help us economically, they have no idea what they are doing, and they don't care anyway, since their goal is simply to buy votes by selling the property of others. Most importantly, I argue that if we citizens better understood real economic cause and effect, we would not only have the power to demand beneficial policies from our politicians, but, because they will give us whatever we want if we put them in power, we could actually compel them to allow freedom and thereby improve the lives of everyone. I hope that you enjoy the book, that it brings some true "enlightenment," and that it serves in some degree to help turn the tide against the destructive anti-human-progress thinking so prevalent in today's world.

A laugh for everybody here.

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:52:12 +0000

Whether you like Obama, or you think he is flushing this country down the toilet faster than liquid plumber gel, this should still get a chuckle outta ya.

WOW BIPARTISANSHIP AT ITS BEST....GREAT START!! LET'S GIT HER DONE!!!

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:57:41 +0000

Powerful Woman

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:08:50 +0000

I haven't seen much else of this woman, but I can say that this little rant she goes on makes me a fan!!!

Must See

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:10:00 +0000

Mother of Antelope Valley!!

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:02:29 +0000

This is where we all come from out here in the A.V.

VOTE YES PROP 19!!

Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:09:32 +0000

We need to stop funding the Mexican cartelels. Do not let their violence persuade us to stop this industry from emerging into the bank accounts of AMERICAN entrpeneurs!!!

1,000 DEAD!!!

Fri, 28 May 2010 08:13:27 +0000

I just found this article, and this is really the only "blog" that I participate in, so if I can just ask everyone for a prayer to give our soldiers strength and wisdom as they go to battle. BRING 'EM HOME!!! By ROBERT H. REID Associated Press Writer KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. military suffered its 1,000th death of the Afghan war Friday, according to an Associated Press count, when NATO reported a service member was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan. A NATO statement did not identify the victim's name or nationality, but U.S. spokesman Col. Wayne Shanks said the service member was American. The Associated Press bases its tally on U.S. Defense Department reports of deaths suffered as a direct result of the Afghan conflict, including personnel assigned to units in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Uzbekistan. Other news organizations count deaths suffered by service members assigned elsewhere as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes operations in the Philippines, the Horn of Africa and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The NATO statement gave no details of the bombing Friday, nor did it specify where the attack occurred. U.S., NATO and Afghan forces are gearing up for a major operation in the south in a bid to shore up government control of Kandahar, the biggest city in southern Afghanistan and the Taliban's former headquarters. The list of American service members killed in combat in Afghanistan begins with Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Ross Chapman of San Antonio, Texas. The 31-year-old career Special forces soldier was ambushed on Jan. 4, 2002, after attending a meeting with Afghan leaders in Khost province. He left a wife and two children. The base where a suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees in December bears his name. The latest death was reported just ahead of the Memorial Day weekend in the United States when Americans honor their dead in all the nation's wars. Elsewhere, Afghan officials said they still had no confirmation of reports that a Pakistani Taliban leader who spearheaded the takeover of Pakistan's Swat Valley three years ago was killed this week in a fierce battle with Afghan forces in remote eastern Afghanistan. Hundreds of militants have been trying since Sunday to seize control of the Barg-e-Matal district of Nuristan province along the Pakistani border and fighting continued in the area Friday, provincial officials said. Villagers who took part in the fighting reported that they had killed the Taliban commander, Maulana Fazlullah, along with six of his fighters during a strong insurgent attack Wednesday, according to Gen. Mohammad Zaman Mamozai, commander for Afghan border police in eastern Afghanistan. Nuristan police Chief Mohammad Qasim said authorities were unable to confirm the death of Fazlullah, who gained prominence in 2007 as the "Radio Mullah" for his vehemently anti-Western sermons on local radio stations in the Swat Valley. The former mountain resort area fell under Taliban control until Pakistani forces drove them out last year. In Pakistan, Maulana Faqir Mohammed, the Taliban chief in the Bajur area, told The Associated Press by phone that Fazlullah had gone to Nuristan with his fighters. "We are trying to contact him," he said. "We believe that he is safe and he has not been killed." Another Taliban commander in Bajur, Asad Ullah, insisted that Fazlullah was alive. "Maulana Fazlullah was the guest of Taliban in Nuristan, and we don't think he can be killed so easily," he said. The Afghan Interior Ministry said one police officer had also been killed in the Nuristan fighting. Officials said about 500 Pakistani Taliban were involved in the siege. The insurgents first attacked the district government building on Sunday. Provincial police chief Gen. Mohammad Qasim Jangulbagh said local residents joined the fight against the Taliban because they heard Fazlullah had issued a fatwa, or religious command, to kill those who supported the government. Nuristan is a rugged, mountainous province whose people have a reputation for fierce resistance to outsiders

Barack Under Pressure...Showing Weakness in California at his own fundraiser.

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:26:17 +0000

Watch out...listen to his words when he had to "shoot from the hip". He said something like "...forcing spending and saving programs...". That is a slight sub-conscious, "freudian slip" if you will, giving the aware viewer a glimpse into his forethought. Do we want him to lead us into debt and oblivion for his unrealizeable dream of some kind of utopian society where dreams come true, or mediocraty drowns out any chance of true and pure progress? If it's progressivism that you're searching for...read a little bit of Ludwig Von Mises. I don't pretend to be a scholar by any means, but, along with Ron Paul, this is a great way to start to find the way to truly securing a "progressive" living through basic business and working, true capitalism.

Victims of Big Gub'ment

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:09:43 +0000

Now, listen to these lyrics, and realize, ESPECIALLY YOUS OFFICIALS OUT THERE...WE, the citizens of this community agree on this, and yet, you seem to be lacking protection for us!!!WHO WILL IT BE THAT BRINGS THIS FOR US!!

Must See This, and Strive for its implementation starting LOCALLY!!!

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:28:19 +0000

BILLION DOLLAR LOCAL INDUSTRY IS HERE!!!We've all got the right idea of what we think should be done in order to live a better life, and we fight over who is going to implement their ideas. START HERE!!! Local (keep it private or maybe a little help from governement, but mostly "KEEP IT PRIVATE") industry implementation!!! Can our government get this done?? Can they do something as out of the box as revitalize and nourish the spreads across this land of the Antelope Valley and surrounding, flat land? Can OR BETTER YET, Who will do this?? Who will be known for this contribution to our society??