Archive

Archive for the ‘Columbia’ Category

Blogging Geert Wilders at Columbia

October 22, 2009 Leave a comment


Greetings readers. I know it has been awhile and my has the news continued to come at a dizzying pace. The man most likely to cause America’s long term destruction at the face of our enemies has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his geniality towards despots. Russians may have the opportunity to inspect OUR nuclear sites. It appears there are more Communist-lovers in the Obama administration, an administration that happens to not be the biggest fan of Glenn Beck and the RNC shills over at Fox News. And as always, Israel has been thrown under the bus by the western world. The more the world changes the more it seems it stays the same.

This evening I want to turn to a topic that has been largely thrown under the bus in light of our depression and the push for socialized healthcare. It is an issue that admittedly I have been mum on because of my own reservations about the sensitivity of the topic, and a lack of clarity in my views in trying to reconcile security with liberty. I will address these points later. But I digress.

The mainstream media has barely blinked (and what a surprise it is) as terrorist attacks have been foiled, court cases involving potential honor killings on our homeland have transpired and investigations proving the infiltration at the highest levels of our government by Muslim groups intent on destroying our way of life have been carried out. While I have been well aware of these issues from the first time I picked up a Steve Emerson book, it seems that based upon an event I attended tonight, our future leaders remain blissfully, suicidally ignorant of the dangers that lie ahead.

Tonight I saw a man speak who has had a fatwa declared against him. A man who has been censored by western nations because they are too afraid of the frankness with which he speaks; frankness which threatens western nations because it alienates a people espousing a hateful ideology living partitioned in their midst. A man who has called for an awakening at a time when our collective slumber threatens to cause us to lose before we even fight. Tonight Geert Wilders spoke at my alma mater, that old bastion of tolerance Columbia University. To the crowd’s credit, this time there was no rushing of the stage.

Wilders’ main argument centered on the fact that the ideology of Islam is a hateful one, given the laws imposed on people dictated by the Koran, and the hateful, violent and strongly anti-Judeo Christian bent of the book. He explained how this ideology has led Muslims throughout Europe to seek the destruction of western civilization, and that given their population gains, soon they would be able to take over Europe through democratic means. This was no news to myself or anyone who has been following the developments over in Great Britain, where Sharia law is being implemented and the society has been split in two with the British legislature, frankly cowardly MIA. This was no news to anyone who has witnessed the barbarism in France where chaos broke out in the streets largely driven by Muslim immigrants. This was no news to anyone who remembers the murder of Theo Van Gogh or the outrage at the Mohammed cartoon.

But what was refreshing was the fact that Wilders spoke the truth, unafraid of the consequences. He said things that any student here would be afraid to say (a fear which is probably the first sign that a battle is being lost). On cultural relativism, Wilders boldly asserted that Judeo-Christian values were superior to those of Islam promulgated in the Koran. He cited our ability to speak freely, protection from government and granting of civil rights to all groups as being superior to the rights engendered in Muslim culture and law. He overtly referred to the Koran as an evil book, though he rightly separated the hatefulness of the surahs from condemnation of all Muslims themselves. He even posited that Jefferson had acquired the Koran used to swear in Congressman Ellison so he could understand his enemy when the US took on the Barbary pirates during the early 19th century. He condemned the US government for supporting a UN resolution to ban free speech when it comes to stereotypes deemed offensive. He noted that fundamentally, criticism of religion is in fact the most important measure of free speech, and that it is being thwarted throughout the western world.

He also did something that no European politician has done in my lifetime that I can recall, stating that Israel is the canary in the coal mine, the “beacon of light in a pitch black area” in the Middle East. He boldly asserted much to the chagrin of his haters in the audience that the homeland of the Palestinians was Jordan. He noted, invoking a point similar to that of George Gilder in his fascinating new book The Israel Test, that Israel is fighting the war that we are losing – the fight for freedom against Islam, and that it is our moral obligation to protect her as the first line of western defense. He cited a handful of pieces of legislation that should be implemented, including: a Constitutional amendment that each European nation’s identity is one of Judeo-Christianity, a loyalty oath for Muslims in Europe, suspension of Muslim immigration given the grave problems facing Europe’s already exploding Muslim population, and expulsion of all those who wish to carry out jihad or commit crime on European soil. Most importantly, he urged all Europeans to vote into office “fewer Chamberlains and more Churchills.”

Personally I got a vicarious thrill listening to a man who said certain things that I wish I could say but am afraid to for fear of reproach or worse a fatwa against me. I was proud that he gave a voice to those of us afraid to express our First Amendment rights in the supposed last, best hope of this Earth.

Yet at the same time, this event was a sobering one. As I intimated, many people scoffed at Wilders’ ideas, decrying him for his belief that Muslims want to take over Europe, and guffawing at his poignant criticism of the Koran. These people have no idea about the struggle we are facing. When our enemies are willing to blow themselves up for a cause, and we quell free speech so as to appease them, you know that we are losing this battle. Americans are no more awake today than they were on September 11th. They remain as complacent as ever because they either do not wish to believe that a large enough percentage of the Muslim population is out there ready, willing and potentially able to destroy us, or because they are simply blind to it.

Sitting in a room with supposedly informed, intelligent students, I was struck by their utter ignorance when it comes to people who wish to take away the liberties both social and political that they so cherish. I sat in astonishment as women criticized Wilder’s, a man who opposes the very ideology that subjugates women and leads them to be killed out of honor when they reject Islam. I have news for these people — if you do not wake up soon, one day this country is going to be lost. Laugh at and deride those who warn you, but it is we who are trying to defend your freedom to be ignorant, naive socialists. It is we who defend your freedom to try to shout down those who are upholding our Constitution.

As I mentioned, I wanted to address some general points that I have been grappling with on liberty and security in our country. I have always on this blog defended classical Liberal values. Generally speaking, I believe that any infringement on our rights no matter how small will lead to the eventual collapse of all of our rights and thus must be stopped. However, we cannot have liberty without security. Our Constitution lays out our liberties, but also seeks to ensure their protection. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is stated: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” When an enemy threatens the values of your Constitution, this enemy must be defeated. We are not serious about defeating this enemy.

Right now, our odious politically correct atmosphere has paralyzed our country. We are working to appease the enemy within. We are going about our daily lives blind to the reality that the threat is growing and that our enemies are putting a happy face on their movement by naming their fronts things like “CAIR.”

I would argue that if we were serious, our attitude might be more like this: If there are people in this country who wish to implement Sharia law, a law diametrically opposed to our Constitution and more important opposed to our natural rights granted to us by our Creator, than these people should be sent back to their homelands. If there are people who wish to carry out jihad on US soil and blow up our great centers of commerce and our Synagogues and Churches, then these people should not be given student visas, they should be deported. If there are people in this country who shun granting individual liberties to all, and special privileges to none then please exit stage left. If you don’t agree that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then go someplace where you can live under Sharia law, don’t attempt to impose it on us. Unfortunately today there are Mosques all around this country where undoubtedly anti-American views are being spewed. Reverend Wright probably looks like Kahane compared to some of the other imams here. The people who attend these Mosques and support terrorism either directly or indirectly should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of this country.

For those who are moderate Muslims, you must speak up and declare to the American people the nature of our enemy. To sit back in silence for fear of being outcast by the Muslim community is a small price to pay for the total loss of freedom for everyone in this land. I cannot stress enough the importance of the so-called moderate Muslims working to help awaken this nation to see the folly of and the danger inherent in the road that we are going down (if for no other reason than because all of us white, fear-mongering teabaggers have lost legitimacy as we are mere racists and bigots). To continue down this suicidal path where we live in fear of offending people who wish to undermine our way of life is a slap in the face of the forefathers who fought to make this a free nation. We must get serious or we will lose. In closing, let me hearken back to Reagan who said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” Friends, we must courageously take up this battle.

A Taste of Subtle Ivy League Indoctrination

February 4, 2009 7 comments


As you may have come to expect at this point, I am not entirely fond of the education I have received at Columbia University. One of the major reasons for this is because of the bias inherent in almost every class I have taken here, from the most seemingly apolitical math course to the inherently political social science course. An example of the type of indoctrination one receives at an Ivy League institution was center stage this week in one of my courses.

Having completed a discussion on torts, we moved on to its application in emissions regulation. Emissions prove highly relevant because one party may cause damage to another party’s property because of the pollution one gives off. However, according to my professor, there is a solution to this that is equitable for all sides. My professor proclaimed, “It is the job of future economists like yourselves to solve these types of problems…otherwise what’s the point of studying economics?”

What was my professor’s solution? Well, since the typical Pigouvian tax wouldn’t work, of course we could follow the “market-based” solution of tradable carbon credits. The logic that my teacher put forth seemed infallible – the government can set the emissions level they so choose, and by creating carbon credit shares tradable on an open market, firms could buy or sell off their right to emit based upon their polluting needs. At the aggregate level, pollution will be reduced. Regardless of the initial allocation of carbon shares, trading will allow companies to emit at the level they so choose. Not only this, but the government won’t even intervene in this free market, and there will be total transparency to boot. Even more remarkable to my professor was the fact that this market was able to set the price, without necessary fixing by the regulator. Hooray for the central planners!

To be fair, my teacher did say that it is not necessarily easy to figure out the optimal level of emissions. But leaving out the fact that of course no government official nor any person period can know the optimal level of emission (especially given that this differs for every single individual), there are myriad other reasons why this solution is not “market based,” or socially beneficial. First, the market for carbon credits is being determined by government fiat. The government determines how many shares should be initially allocated to companies, and enforces the market on private companies. To whom does the burden ultimately fall to either pay for producing pollution, or build new plants that emit less? Why the consumer of course. This was not mentioned in the lecture. The question then becomes, are the social benefits of an emissions cap and market imposed by the government greater than the cost consumers will bare as a result of these policies? This writer happens to think not. Not to mention, of course there are going to be certain businesses that will increase their profits off of the push to decrease emissions as well, meaning government intervention will divert the natural flow of capital to specific sectors in the market.

There is of course as always the philosophical issue as well. Why should the government be in the business of controlling emissions? Of course, I’m sure any good politician, or economist for that matter would make the argument that it is for the public good. However, as always, I would argue that the free market provides a better alternative. First, if people are outraged by the emissions in their communities, they can take their cases to the courts and seek compensation from the company. If one’s private property is damaged, it is their right to seek just compensation, and the job of the courts to arbitrate in these disputes. Second, if this proves insufficient, and the company truly is tearing a community apart, the people in the community can boycott the company, making it financially impossible for the company to operate, and thus forcing the company to change its production techniques to emit less pollution. In an age where information is more readily accessible and transmittable than ever before, it should be easier than ever to rally people against a company. For those who challenge this, even with multinational companies, if the consumers are so angry at the producers for their treatment of the environment, it should be worth the effort of citizens to take shots at the bottom line of the polluting producer, or to rally lawyers and interest groups against the firm, as the firm like any defendant is deemed innocent until proved guilty. Further, if there was ever a time that citizens could rally against corporations easily, given the speed at which information can be disseminated today, people are more easily able to rally behind their causes than ever before.

Unfortunately, the professor of this particular class believes that if a divine central planner could accomplish the aforementioned “elegant” solution, this would be perfectly acceptable as well. It is all about “efficiency,” and “optimal allocations” to university professors. But there is never the question of right and wrong. Simple morality, and respect for natural rights is not a factor. It is always the obligation of politicians and economists to solve our problems, not private individuals. The left is able to veil their interventionism in the cloak of the free market. As long as academia continues to pander about the virtues of government, our future leaders will continue to make the mistakes of their predecessors.