Irony? Left-Wing Commencement speaker Bill Maher target of latest “disinvitation” protest at America’s most liberal college

Bill Maher

It has become commonplace for students — predominantly liberal ones — at universities to organize against speakers — predominantly conservative ones — in an effort to put pressure on the administration to disinvite those speakers or to have the speakers themselves withdraw.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) calls Commencement season “disinvitation season” for a reason, and they have tracked an alarming increase in the number of speakers who have been “disinvited” to speak to university students, particularly over the last 15 years. Just take a look at the findings from their 2014 report:

The FIRE Disinvitation Chart

But in an interesting turn of events, students at America’s most liberal university — University of California at Berkeley — launched a change.org petition to disinvite notoriously liberal comic and HBO show host Bill Maher.

This author believes speakers of all political persuasions should be encouraged to address students and spark dialog on campuses, which are often touted as the “marketplace of ideas.” This author also realizes that most speakers who are invited to address students on university campuses trend liberal.

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny…” 50 years later, Reagan’s words still ring true

Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater

On this day in 1964 — 50 years ago — Ronald Reagan gave the speech that launched his political career. “A Time for Choosing” was a half-hour campaign video for Barry Goldwater’s ultimately unsuccessful presidential campaign.

And though it didn’t achieve its intended result, Reagan’s words still ring true today.

You can view the entire speech here:

There are a number of memorable phrases throughout the speech. The most famous being the “rendezvous with destiny” line:

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Many libertarians eschew the “left-right paradigm” when it comes to politics. Ronald Reagan brushed it off decades before it became commonplace in libertarian discourse:

Feminists have really beclowned themselves with their latest…

FCKH8 Feminist Video

Some days you just have to wonder how much longer our culture can survive. We were once a nation that valued knowledge, enlightenment, hard work, honesty, and charity, among other noble character traits. Now, it seems we have become a nation of narcissistic, selfie-taking, self-indulgent, dim-witted brats who throw tantrums until we get our way.

Last week I turned on the radio, only to have my ears assaulted with a local radio station’s discussion of an ad released a few days ago by an organization called FCKH8, the title of which is “Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism.” The ad features young girls, who appear to be between six and eight years old, who repeatedly vomit the “F-bomb” as a way to shock the audience and get attention for their message, which is, essentially, that women are victims (if you want to see it you’ll have to Google it…I won’t dignify it by linking to it).

The ad starts off with several very young girls, dressed up in princess outfits, saying “Pretty…pretty…pretty…” when suddenly one screeches “What the F***?! I’m not some pretty F-ing helpless princess in distress…I’m pretty F-ing powerful!”

Seriously? This is how you make a point? By getting little girls to parrot the raging victimization rant of grown women ticked off at life? By making these little girls sound like common trailer trash rather than teaching them to embrace the strength of their femininity? Far from making me more likely to consider their opinions, it disgusted me to see the depth radical leftists (whether vulgar feminists demanding equality, or radical environmentalists calling for global warming “deniers” to be imprisoned) will sink to bully their way to public policy victories.

Our continued fight for liberty requires “Human Action”

Freedom from Bondage

In his epic work, Human Action, Ludwig von Mises outlines three conditions necessary before a person will act. All three conditions must be met:

  1. The person must feel an uneasiness with the current situation.
  2. The person must have a vision of something better.
  3. The person must have a belief that a particular action will make that better vision become reality.

If we hope to ever get large numbers of people interested in our ideas and willing to act to advance those ideas, we must devise a way to satisfy all three conditions in their minds.

The first condition presents no challenge. Most people already feel uneasiness with the current political setup. Nearly everyone wants a “change.”

But change, to what?

This is a tough question, and one that most people cannot answer. Most lack a clear and preferable alternate vision. They don’t meet Mises’ second criteria. This is what differentiates those of us who understand the philosophy of liberty. We possess the vision. We know what a truly free world would look like. And if we want people to go along with us, we must communicate and spread that vision.

But why don’t more of us do so? What prevents most of us who “get it” from dedicating ourselves to the cause of converting people? Why is there no domino effect, wherein our vision spreads from person to person, with each new convert taking purposeful action to spread the vision? Why do so many people become impassioned with liberty for a time, only to subsequently turn away from what seems to be an intellectual dead end? What prevents their flash of vision from turning into action? The answer is that many never fulfill Mises’ third condition. They lack hope for victory.

Government-mandated middle men keep innovative company Tesla out of five states

Rep. Thomas Massie's Tesla

There’s an odd regulation Democrats and (mostly) Republicans have enacted in five states — and the reason for its enactment is still unclear.

Consider this: You want to buy the latest iPhone 6. Today, you can go to your nearby Apple retailer and pick one up directly from the company. In this instance, the manufacturer (Apple) is also the retailer. There are many companies like this, which both manufacture their goods and then sell them directly to consumers, either online or at a physical location.

But in five states it’s illegal for one type of manufacturer (in this instance, an automobile manufacturer) to sell directly to consumers. Most of the automobile industry sells its stock through licensed dealers. Manufacturers sell their automobiles at wholesale rates to dealers, who then mark up the price of the vehicles and sell them to consumers. You wouldn’t necessarily walk up to a General Motors plant and pick up a Cadillac. That’s just not how it’s done.

In Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, Maryland, and now Michigan, politicians are advancing protectionist policies that ban consumers from buying directly from automobile manufacturer — namely Tesla, the electric car company founded by billionaire inventor and investor Elon Musk.

The Washington Post has the story:

What’s good for General Motors dealers is good for America.

Terrorists don’t seek peace, and other things we learned from Canada this week

Ottawa Shooting

Some thoughts come to mind in the wake of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s shooting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, and the week’s earlier incident in which another alleged terrorist murdered a Canadian soldier using a vehicle. The incidents contradict ideas germinating in some spheres of Western thought that seem to cumulatively suggest that terrorists are fundamentally good people who are simply misunderstood.

For instance, one premise often suggested is that terrorists are libertarian in nature. They want nothing more than to be left alone to brutalize their neighbors in peace, the contention goes. Provided the Western world leaves them alone to kill and pillage the people of their own lands, they will reciprocate and leave the West in peace.

A second corollary premise arising from this argument is that terrorists are not evil. They are in fact sane, normal people. They can be reasoned with; they would not terrorize the Western world, murder diverse ethnic groups, or slaughter adherents of alternative religious groups if they did not have good reason.

Third and finally, some will argue that mainstream Christians are no better than Islamic terrorists. Jonathan Merritt, who made his name advocating that the church embrace homosexuality, made the argument in a Twitter exchange with Erick Erickson. In it, he wrote, “Christians let the drones do the killing for them.”

Mix of youthful idealism, tech-savvy culture could make Millennials prime target for terrorist recruitment

Millennial Terrorists

Millennials are many things, most of them innocuous and slightly detached, befitting a generation born into a world of smartphones and delayed adulthood. But they display a relatively vanilla cultural generational shift, certainly not as shocking as the counter cultural revolution of the late 60s-early 70s, to name a recent example. Harmless. Or are they?

Once they walked out, Dagan announced, with utmost poise, “It’s funny, because I am for a Palestinian state.”

He proceeded to speak at length about the roots of Islamic fundamentalism, the history of Islam, and the creation of ISIS—its philosophy, structure, economics, and future. His talk was utterly uncontroversial. The protestors, most of whom were graduate students, were ill-informed about their target. Dagan did not come to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor does he deny the need for a Palestinian state. And yet, because he served his country as a soldier and an intelligence officer, he was branded an enemy.

It’s not unusual, of course, for young people to get wrapped up in the chatter they hear most often, even if — as is the case in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — much of what they hear barely scratches the complicated surface of the issue. As The Federalist piece puts it:

Fueled by an ideology where Israel is 100 percent guilty and Palestine is 100 percent blameless, these students failed to see the shades of gray. They protested a man whom they agreed with more than they would like to admit, and who was not there to discuss the topic they were so anxious to weigh in on.

Need a flu shot? Today, there’s an app for that.

UberHEALTH

We’re big fans of market innovation here at United Liberty. If you’re a frequent reader (and we hope you are), you’re familiar with our affinity toward ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft.

Uber announced this morning that it would bring flu shots directly to consumers at no cost in Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C. from 1000am to 3:00pm today. From their blog:

That’s why we’re leveraging the reliability and efficiency of the Uber platform and launching a one-day pilot program—UberHEALTH—in select cities today.  Together with our partner Vaccine Finder we will bring flu prevention packs and shots directly to you – at the single touch of a button.

UberHEALTH will be available today, October 23, in Boston, New York and DC from 10 am until 3 pm EST, and Uber users can request this service within their Uber app. Upon arrival, users will receive a flu prevention pack and the option to request a flu shot from a registered nurse for up to 10 people – all at no cost.  Even better, for every shot given, Uber will donate $5 to the Red Cross to support vaccination efforts for children including its Measles & Rubella Initiative.

We know the flu is preventable, and we know our riders are always on the go. Let Uber help you outsmart the flu this fall. Here’s how to request for BostonNew York and DC.

You won’t believe what Big Government is spending your money on — actually, you probably will. And it’ll enrage you.

Wastebook 2014

Government spending is out of control.

Outgoing Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn, M.D., has been a fierce critic of wasteful government spending since he rode the “Contract With America” Republican wave into Congress in 1994.

Coburn’s 2014 annual report — his magnum opus, as he returns to Oklahoma to battle cancer — details $25 billion in absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable (but really, you likely won’t be surprised) spending programs coming out of Washington. Much of Coburn’s ire is directed at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has come under fire for (1) not having an Eblola cure and (2) blaming budget cuts on the lack of a cure.

In the introduction, Senator Coburn tells us what he’s learned during his time in Washington and asks readers to consider our national priorities:

What I have learned from these experiences is Washington will never change itself. But even if the politicians won’t stop stupid spending, taxpayers always have the last word.

As you read through the entries presented in this report, ask yourself: Is each of these a true national priority or could the money have been better spent on a more urgent need or not spent at all in order to reduce the burden of debt being left to be paid off by our children and grandchildren?

Second Amendment advocates sue in Colorado to protect First Amendment rights

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

Increasingly, liberal groups — under the guise of “watchdog” or “ethics reform” organizations — are going after First Amendment protections; namely, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues attempted and failed to repeal a portion of the First Amendment in late summer that would allow Congress to heavily regulate protected political speech. The move was seen mostly as a campaign ploy in an attempt to hold the Senate and gained little traction in public discourse.

But liberals routinely explore other avenues when attempting to silence political opponents. One such effort is publishing donor lists of political enemies, which discourages some individuals from making contributions for fear of public retribution. Take, for instance, the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich based on his financial support for California’s Proposition 8, which codified marriage in the Golden State as a union between one man and one woman.

As UL noted in August, political dissent equals hatred as it pertains to the Left. You see, it wasn’t a decade ago that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shared Eich’s position on marriage. And though polls suggest a gradual trend in support for gay marriage, it has become politically uncouth to oppose it publicly.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.