Blog Auto Feed Retired

From tea partyers to conservatives to “liberals” to flea partyers—everyone has an opinion about what people and governments have a right to. “People have a right to keep what they earn”—“The government has a right to spread the wealth around”—“Women have a right to abortion”—“No they don’t”—“People have a right to an education, a job, a home, and health care”—“The government has a right to regulate corporate greed”—“The government has no right to interfere in the economy”—“The 99 percent has a right to the wealth of the 1 percent”—and so on. In some form or another, we hear such opinions daily. But are anyone’s opinions on such matters more than mere opinions? Can anyone name the source and nature of rights and prove that his views are true? Some say that rights are gifts from God. Others rightly reply: Prove it. Some claim that rights are grants from government. Others note that this contradicts the very idea of rights. Some claim that rights are matters of “natural law.” Others aptly ask: How so? What natural law? Natural law emanating from God? Wouldn’t that be “supernatural law”? Although everyone has an opinion about rights, almost no one can prove that his opinion is correct. For advocates of liberty, this is a big problem. If we can’t identify the objective source and nature of rights, we can’t defend freedom; we can’t reverse the statist trend that is destroying our world; we will lose our liberty. Fortunately, Ayn Rand discovered the objective source and nature of rights, and anyone who wants to understand these vital truths can—in the course of about half an hour. In my article Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society, I examine the traditional theories of rights—God-given, government-granted, and “natural” rights—and show why none of these theories holds water. I then present Rand’s theory, showing step by step how it is derived from perceptual reality, why it is demonstrably true, and how it grounds the propriety of freedom in observable fact. Rand’s ideas are radical. They go to philosophical roots and challenge the Judeo-Christian worldview to its core. But true advocates of liberty are not averse to radical ideas. True advocates of liberty know that America was founded on radical ideas. True advocates of liberty are willing to examine arguments in support of freedom and to embrace even the most radical ideas when such ideas are grounded in evidence and logic. From Sarbanes-Oxley to Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to TSA molestations to countless coercive “stimulus” plans, we are losing our liberty. What will our political situation be in five, ten, fifteen years? Will we be free, semi-free, mostly controlled, or essentially enslaved? It depends on what we are willing to do today. Are we willing to consider radical ideas and evidence in support of them—even if they challenge the status quo? Are we willing to share with others the truths we discover—even if doing so makes us look radical? Or are we afraid of evidence that might contradict traditional views, afraid that knowing too much unpopular truth might entail too much mental and social fatigue. “For my part,” said Patrick Henry, “whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth.” When enough people approach Rand’s ideas with Henry’s courage, liberty will live again. Related: Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism Economics in Atlas Shrugged Image of Patrick Henry: Wikipedia Commons Image of Ayn Rand: Wikipedia Commons View the full article at The Objective Standard

Everyone knows that Steve Jobs was a superlative businessman who created fabulous products that substantially changed the world. But he was much more than that. He was a businessman-philosopher, and the philosophy he embraced was the fundamental cause of his remarkable productivity, success, and happiness. What was important to Jobs was not making money per se, but the process of creation. “Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me,” he said. “Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful . . . that’s what matters to me.” Doing something wonderful, in Jobs’ view, doesn’t mean doing something that others regard as worthy; it means doing what you love and pursuing a career that makes you happy. As he put it: Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle. To succeed in your chosen career, said Jobs, you must not accept ideas without truly understanding them. “To [do] something really well, you have to get it. You have to really grok what it’s all about. It takes a passionate commitment to really thoroughly understand something, chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don’t take the time to do that.” Jobs eschewed what Ayn Rand called second-handedness: unthinking acceptance of the views of others. He embraced first-handedness or independent thinking: a primary orientation not toward others’ opinions, but toward reality as you see it. “Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice,” he advised. Jobs’ views were not arbitrary or floating; they were grounded in and arose from his recognition of the absolutism of reality, the preciousness of life, and the inevitability of death. As he explained: “No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life’s change agent.” He elaborated: When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like, “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself, “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something. In sum, Jobs’ philosophy holds that what matters most is figuring out what you love to do, passionately pursuing a career in that area, committing yourself to thoroughly understanding it, always going by your own judgment, monitoring how you spend your time, and continually adjusting your activities in order to achieve the greatest happiness possible. We’ve seen the fruits of these ideas in Jobs’ life. Imagine what we’d see if his philosophy became as widely embraced as his other products. Related: Making Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully The Morality of Moneylending: A Short History Egoism Explained Image: Wikipedia Commons View the full article at The Objective Standard

Alex Epstein’s excellent new organization, the Center for Industrial Progress, has launched a campaign to raise money in support of the Center’s activities, including a forthcoming debate with Greenpeace, “The Green Energy Economy: Economic Savior or Economic Suicide?” Initially this campaign sought to raise $5000 by October 6, and it has achieved that goal. But making it to $5000 is not the end all. The more money CIP raises, the more it can do to spread the ideas on which a thriving civilization depends. Thanks to the hordes of nihilistic leftist intellectuals who dominate the universities and media, Greenpeace and the like are very well funded. CIP can lay waste to their vile lies and spread the truth far and wide—but only to the extent that the organization is funded. Even a few dollars makes a difference; several people have pledged between $3 and $10, and these add up! Please contribute what you can, and spread the word. —Craig Biddle Image: Wikipedia Commons View the full article at The Objective Standard

Nina Shea’s recent article, “Saudis’ Vile, State-Sponsored Textbooks,” reveals nothing new, but the old news it relays is worth dusting off and shouting from the rooftops every now and then. It’s particularly relevant, for instance, in connection with the Saudis’ and other Islamist regimes’ agitations for Palestinian statehood and their threats of increased violence if it is not granted. While Arab leaders warn that an international stalemate on Palestinian statehood threatens regional stability, it should be pointed out that some among them lay a foundation for such instability by, among other things, teaching students it is their obligation to commit violence against the religious “other.” The prime example is Saudi Arabia’s national curriculum. Despite assurances in the State Department human rights report that the Saudi government has in the past year introduced “revised and newly written textbooks across the curriculum for most school grades,” these texts continue to promote violence against apostates and “infidels” of all stripes. Militant jihad is justified to “spread Islam” and exalted as “a profitable trade,” which “saves from painful punishment”. . . . Top U.S. Treasury counterterrorism officials have called the Wahhabi teachings of these textbooks “kindling for Bin Laden’s match,” and warned that, without education reform, “we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.” Shea goes on to offer several harrowing excerpts from these textbooks. The situation, however, is much worse that she reports. The murderous Saudi savages are not merely teaching Saudi children to become murderous Saudi savages; they are also paying other Islamists to murder Americans, and importing undiluted Islam into the United States. As I document in “The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go,” the Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia is funding American-slaughtering terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, building mosques and “cultural centers” across America, and flooding these Islamist outposts not only with hundreds of millions of dollars for “operating expenses” but also with a steady stream of materials calling for all Muslims “to be dissociated from the infidels . . . to hate them for their religion . . . to always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law” and, ultimately, “to abolish all traces of such primitive life (jahiliyya) and to reinforce the understanding and application of the eternal and universal Islamic deen [religion] until it becomes the ruling power throughout the world.” The Saudi-sponsored materials further specify that those who “accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable,” have “denied the Koran” and thus “should be killed.” None of this is news, at least not to the U.S. government. The Saudis’ anti-infidel efforts have been tracked, documented, and reported for years. As the Rand Corporation concluded in a briefing to a top Pentagon advisory board in 2002, “The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader.” When will a sufficient number of Americans demand that the U.S. government act in accordance with its knowledge about the Saudis and take out the murderous regime? With apologies to Golda Meir: when a sufficient number of Americans love their children more than they hate being branded “intolerant.” Related: 9/11 Ten Years Later: The Fruits of the Philosophy of Self-Abnegation The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts View the full article at The Objective Standard

In an excellent article titled Attack on the For-Profit Education Industry, Mariusz Skonieczny exposes the absurdity of the arguments against for-profit colleges and shows how problems such as the ever-increasing cost of college education are the fault not of these schools but of the government. The article is a must-read for anyone concerned with higher education or justice for businessmen. Here are a couple of particularly important excerpts: How do government policies push tuition prices higher and higher? First, students are able to bear the expense with the help of the government. If the government did not provide student loans backed by government guarantees, then those students would have less purchasing power and the traditional non-profits would be forced to lower tuition rates in order to continue operating. For example, this situation is similar to homebuyers obtaining a mortgage. When they can get financing, they can afford a more expensive home than they could if they had to pay for it themselves. This is evident because when financing is in short supply, the prices of homes go down. The following link is an interview of a former student by Peter Schiff, who points out that the reason why college costs are so high is because students are able to borrow a lot of money while the government cosigns on the loans. Second, because students are able to borrow and bridge the gap with student loans, the traditional non-profit colleges and universities can put all their efforts into attracting the best student demographic, which improves their reputations. This means better dorms, smaller classes, etc., which translates into higher costs. Third, there is something called the 90/10 rule which only applies to for-profit schools. This rule requires the for-profit schools to derive at least 10 percent of revenues from sources other than Title IV funds. This means that at least 10 percent of tuition has to be financed by students through private loans, credit cards, or savings. For-profit schools take this rule very seriously because if they break it, they will lose their eligibility for Title IV funds, which means they are pretty much out of business. How does this rule increase tuition costs? The government sets the rules about how much a student can receive in Pell grants and Stafford loans for various programs, and schools cannot control how much students choose to borrow. Let’s assume that a for-profit school is willing to charge only $7,000 for a $10,000 program because it either wants to increase its competitiveness or through efficient expense control, is able pass on savings to students. In this case, the school would fail the 90/10 rule because more than 100 percent of tuition ($7,000) would be financed by Title IV funds ($10,000). So what does the school do instead? Even though it is able to charge less, it is forced to increase the tuition for this program to $11,111 just to stay compliant with 90/10 rule. Tuition cost = $11,111 Title IV covers $10,000 which is 90 percent of $11,111 Student pays $1,111 which is 10 percent of $11,111 Then, the following year, the government increases limits on Pell grants and Stafford loans to help students cope with tuition increases. The for-profits are forced to raise tuition again, and the cycle continues. So much for the claim that for-profit colleges are responsible for skyrocketing tuition. Here’s an excerpt in which Skonieczny addresses the oft-repeated but arithmetically false claim that for-profit colleges constitute a massive burden on taxpayers because “profits are privatized and risks are socialized.” According to critics, the problem arises when a student attends a for-profit school, pays high tuition, takes on a large amount of student debt and then cannot find employment. In this case, he or she defaults on the student loan, and the government along with the taxpayers lose because they provided the funding. At the same time, they also say that students cannot walk away from student loans like they can walk away from a mortgaged house. I am confused, if the student is stuck with the student loan for life, how can the government and taxpayer be on the hook? Don’t these statements contradict each other? Who is on the hook – the government, the taxpayer or the student? [steven] Eisman [one of the short-sellers who apparently colluded with officials at the DoE to sink the stock of the for-profit college sector] answers it himself in his presentation, “because of fees associated with default, the government collects approximately $1.20 on every $1.00 lent.” So if the government collects $1.20 on every $1.00 lent, how does this cost taxpayers money? It doesn’t and the critics know it, but it sounds better if the government, the taxpayer, and the student are on the hook while the companies make millions. Not only do the for-profits not cost the government money, they actually make the government money. After all expenses are subtracted from revenues, these companies pay corporate income tax on the profits that they generate. Then, the shareholders pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. It is the non-profits that cost the government money because, unlike for-profits, they are subsidized by the government and pay no taxes on the bottom line. Like I said, the whole article is well worth reading. Related: The Government’s Assault on Private-Sector Colleges and Universities The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools View the full article at The Objective Standard

On July 4, 1776, the Founders declared to the world not only that the colonies would henceforth be independent from Britain, but also, and more fundamentally, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. This was the beginning of the first moral country on earth—a country in which individual rights were to be explicitly recognized and protected. Although slavery persisted for several decades after the founding, this aberration was ultimately recognized as incompatible with the basic principle of America and thus eradicated. Between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century, America came close to being a fully rights-respecting society. Men were essentially free to live their own lives, by their own judgment, for their own sake. This was the Land of Liberty. And this is what we should work to achieve again. On the Fourth of July, celebrate not the rights-violating, welfare state that America has become, but what America once was and could be again. Celebrate man’s “unalienable Rights.” Celebrate the principle that the proper purpose of government is “to secure these rights.” Celebrate the principle that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” And, most of all, celebrate the Founders, who recognized and codified these principles, thus making possible the degree of freedom we still enjoy and the moral ideal to which we should return. Let the fireworks explode! View the full article at The Objective Standard

On June 23, a Dutch court acquitted Geert Wilders on the absurd charges of “hate speech” or, more specifically, “inciting hatred against Muslims” in various public statements and his film, Fitna. According to BBC News, Wilders was acquitted because the court “accepted the Freedom Party leader’s statements were directed at Islam and not at Muslim believers,” thus his statements were “acceptable within the context of public debate.” As wonderful as Wilders’ acquittal is, the court’s distinction here is ridiculous. Islam is a religion—a set of tenets to be accepted on faith and enacted with unquestioning obedience. A Muslim is one who submits to this particular religion. Everyone else, according to Islam, is an infidel who must therefore be converted or killed by those who have submitted. Islam wouldn’t be a problem if no one was irrational enough to embrace this murderous creed. Unfortunately, there are billions of extremely irrational people in the world, and many of them embrace Islam. To condemn this creed is, by immediate implication, to condemn those who choose to embrace it—namely: Muslims. Whether directly or by implication, Wilders has condemned Muslims—just as every thinking person on the planet should. Islam is evil—and so is everyone who embraces it, precisely to the extent that he embraces it. To submit to the will of “Allah” is to relinquish one’s mind to a fantasy monster. This act is evil on two counts. First and foremost, it is evil because one’s mind is one’s basic means of living; thus, to relinquish one’s mind to a “God” (or anything else) is selfless. Second, to submit is evil because, according to Islamic scripture, “Allah” calls for his followers to murder those who refuse to submit. This is, well, murderous. Should rational, life-loving people hate this murderous creed and those who embrace it? Of course we should. Should we also speak our minds about this hatred? Should we openly condemn Islam and Muslims and encourage other people to hate them too? Of course we should. The problem today is not that there is too much “hate speech” against Muslims. The problem is that there is too little. In reply to praise for her courage in openly condemning evil, Ayn Rand famously replied, “I am not brave enough to be a coward; I see the consequences too clearly.” Mr. Wilders is not brave enough either. Would that more men had his courage. Image: Wikimedia Commons View the full article at The Objective Standard

Because of my extremely busy schedule at the moment, I’ve addressed only one news item this week, but it is a crucially important one. —CB (To sign up for email delivery of TOS’s Week in Review, click here.) Netanyahu Appeases The Appeaser, Pretends A is Non-A, and Joins Obama in Throwing Israel to the Islamist Wolves After too-politely rebuffing President Obama for his morally obscene speech calling for Israel to compromise with the Palestinians by accepting “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a cowardly and dishonest speech to the U.S. Congress, in which he pretended that Obama is a friend of Israel and that compromising with the Palestinians can somehow lead to peace. Excerpt: Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. . . . I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace [with the Palestinians]. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace. This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. . . . [but] so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it. You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War. They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said – "I will accept a Palestinian state". It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say – "I will accept a Jewish state". Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. . . . So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. . . . Read the whole speech here. How “generous” would Israel have to be to satisfy the Palestinians on this count? Clues can be found in the Palestinian Constitution, which calls for, among other things: Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine [i.e., the land where Israel exists], and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city. . . . As to the means of achieving these ends, the Palestinian Constitution is unequivocal: Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine. . . . Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated. Further clues as to how “generous” Israel would have to be to satisfy the Palestinians can be found in the official charter of Hamas, with whom the Palestinians have now officially allied. As Netanyahu recognized in his speech, Hamas’ charter “not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them.’” Article Seven of Hamas’ Charter is quite clear on this point: Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim). With such clues at hand—not to mention the thousands of rockets that the Palestinians and Hamas launch into Israel every year—we can reasonably conclude that in order to satisfy the Palestinians and their allies, Israel would have to be so generous as to go out of existence. How generous would Israel have to be to satisfy the Obama administration? Obama made that clear last week, when, a few days after Islamists assaulted Israel on three borders (Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza) in celebration of “Nakba Day,” he called for Israel to compromise with the Palestinians and return to the 1967 lines—which, for the above reasons (and others) everyone knows are indefensible. The morally correct way for Israel to deal with the Palestinian problem is as follows: Israel should recognize the fact that people who murder, attempt to murder, or are in any way complicit in attempts to murder Israelis have thereby relinquished their rights. Israel should recognize that the Palestinians will never stop seeking to murder Israelis until Israel demonstrates that to attack Israelis is to commit near-instant suicide. Israel should make it official policy that the IDF will immediately destroy any and all Palestinians known to be involved directly or indirectly in any assault on Israelis. Israel should recognize and openly state that the deaths of innocent Palestinians (such as children) in retaliatory strikes are the moral responsibility of those who initiated force and thereby necessitated the retaliatory force. Israel should tell the United States forthrightly that (a) Israel has a moral right and obligation to defend itself and that the United States has no right to stop Israel from doing so; and ( Israel, as the only semi-rights-respecting state in the Middle East, is America’s only friend and ally in the region; so it is in America’s best interest to help defend Israel—not to throw her to the Islamist wolves, as Obama has by calling for a return to the 1967 borders. Israel should maintain the borders it has today—unless it is assaulted again by the Palestinians in Gaza, in which case Israel should reclaim Gaza by whatever means necessary. The Palestinian assault against Israel can be ended, and rather easily ended (as can the Islamist assault on America). All Israel has to do is announce that henceforth any regime or tribe that assaults Israel will be bombed out of existence by the IDF within a few hours—and then uphold that promise. While Netanyahu and Obama compete to see who can be more appeasing, more dishonest, more selfless—and thus more responsible for the deaths of innocent Israelis and Americans in the future—Israeli and American citizens had better find (or generate) some leaders who know how to think, who refuse to pretend that facts are other than they are, and who care about freedom and human life. * * * I hope you enjoyed this edition of TOS’s Week in Review. Feel free to forward the link to others who might enjoy it as well. —CB Joshua Lipana contributed to this WiR. (TOS does not necessarily agree with the content of articles to which we link.) View the full article at The Objective Standard

Noteworthy news and opinion items from the week ending May 15, 2011 (To sign up for email delivery of TOS’s Week in Review, click here.) A Congressional Resolution Regarding Iran—and Some Marked Suggestions for Improvement Syria: Iran’s Best Friend and Critical Crutch Bin Laden Had Nothing on the Muslim Brotherhood Obama’s Chicago-Style Campaign Tactics Boehner Vows Big Cuts, Rules Out Tax Hikes: We Will See . . . 1. A Congressional Resolution Regarding Iran—and Some Marked Suggestions for Improvement One of the most important stories of late is one about which you may not have heard. As the conflicts within the Iranian Regime continue heating up, U.S. lawmakers have introduced a resolution titled The Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act of 2011. The bill, introduced by Robert Dold (R-Ill.) and Congressman Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) in the House, and sponsored by Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate, would make it the policy of the United States: (1) to deny the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran the ability to continue to oppress the people of Iran and to use violence and executions against pro-democracy protestors and regime opponents; (2) to fully and publicly support efforts made by the people of Iran to promote the establishment of basic freedom, which build the foundation for the emergence of a freely elected, open, and democratic political system; (3) to help the Iranian people produce, access, and share information freely and safely via the Internet and through other media; and (4) to defeat all attempts by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to jam or otherwise deny international satellite broadcast signals. Read the full text of the bill here. This resolution is, of course, far from perfect. Among other things, item 1 is entirely vague—“deny the Government…” how? But given what the U.S. government has been doing about the regime in Iran—namely, nothing—this resolution is a step in the right direction. Items 2 through 4 are relatively good. Missing, of course, are a forthright statement of the illegitimacy of the Iranian regime and a call for its demise. Enter the forty pro-freedom Iranian and American activists listed below. These individuals, from the United States, Canada, and Europe, have signed an open letter to the U.S. Congress, in part praising their resolution but also demanding more stringent measures. The open letter, written by Mansur Rastani, is not perfect either; among other things, it uses the term “democracy” where “rights-respecting republic” would be correct, and it calls for the involvement of the UN, which is a wholly illegitimate organization. But the general thrust of the letter is precisely what Americans should be demanding of our politicians with respect to the murderous theocracy in Iran—namely, that we “once and for all . . . stop further flirting with this government and put an end to the life of this regime.” I reproduce the open letter here in full, with all forty signatories listed beneath it. (Bear in mind as you read it that English is not Dr. Rastani’s first language.) May 11, 2011 Re: The Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act of 2011 Dear Senators Mark Kirk and Kirsten Gillibrand, and Congressmen Robert Dold and Ted Deutch On May 4, 2011, you have introduced the resolution, The Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act of 2011, and asserted that the bipartisan legislation would make it the policy of the United States to deny the Iranian regime the ability to oppress the people of Iran, to fully support democratic activists inside Iran, and to help the Iranian people freely and safely access and share information. Three decades of negotiation by various US administrations has shown that the regime is interested in dialogue only to buy itself enough time in order to develop its weapon’s program. IRI uses its proxies within the United States to convince various American officials that the regime is desirous of a discourse. The radical and irrational nature of the regime, intent on its expansionist ideology, makes any honest and meaningful dialogue with the regime an utter waste of time. This shift of focus on human rights of U.S. policy even though considered very late, is considered a step in the right direction but ignores the elephant in the room. During the last thirty two years, in so many occasions Iranians have raised their voices for freedom and against the tyranny and oppression imposed by the totalitarian regime of mullahs but every single time they have been cracked down brutally by the Basij thugs of the regime. Thousands of our brave young men and women fought against political incarceration, torture, rape, and for all their basic freedom and human rights and so many have sacrificed their lives in their struggle for freedom and democracy. In the history of mankind there have been few societies such as Iranians who has suffered so inhumanely and for so long in the hands of their invaders. The 32-years criminal records of Islamic regime in Iran is well known to the world community, as you know this regime has been the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Its criminal record is well beyond just the human rights violations and the mass murder of Iranians inside the country, and includes: suicide bombers, support for terrorists across the region and the world, ties with al-Qaida, supplying IED’s to Iraqi insurgents to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening its neighboring countries and pursuing the nuclear weapons program, just to mention a few. We also strongly believe that the Islamic government leaders in Iran are intent on developing nuclear weapons. With a nuclear Iran as a major power in the volatile Middle East and with oil price at 100 dollars a barrel, the Islamic Republic will expand its presence around the world. In collaboration with allies such as Russia, China and Venezuela, Islamic Republic will flaunt its military power in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate its regional dominance and superiority in the Middle East, challenging Israel into a direct and inevitable confrontation. If mullahs are allowed to realize their nuclear aspirations, its pernicious and disastrous impact will be felt far beyond the Middle East. Because of the theocratic Islamic regime in Iran, the people in this country and in the region have been exhausted and living in uproar and agony. That is why it is imperative for the international community once and for all to stop further flirting with this government and put an end to the life of this regime. If the resolution would indeed make it the policy of the United States to refrain the Iranian regime the ability to oppress the people of Iran, to fully support democratic activists inside Iran, and to help the Iranian people freely and safely access and share information, then it is crucial for the congress to implement the following reassurances, which are the concern of the entire Iranian society, into the context of the resolution of Human Rights & Democracy Promotion Act of 2011. As the democracy advocates on earth, U.S. along with the Western Powers should: hold the Islamic regime responsible for its violation of human rights inside the country and its terrorist acts across the globe, declare the illegitimacy of the regime, mpose severe political & economic sanction on the government and all its leaders, Impose oil embargo: for as long as this regime is allowed to sell oil it will continue its oppressive policies and continue to remain as a threat to the world community prevent the travel of every member of the regime through the aerial, land and water borders, upon the fall of the regime, have the United Nation launch an international peer group supervision for a public referendum and establishing a provisional government, and issue the arrest order of all the members of the government for the domestic and/or international trial. In the meantime we the undersigned Iranians/Americans also respectfully request that the resolution be combined with other legislative initiatives, which not only encompass the striking sanctions by the U.S. government on companies that sell service or products that enable the Iranian regime to oppress its people but also to embrace the support for the Iranian dissidents with the necessary logistic to facilitate their communication inside the country thru the internet, computer hardware/software, and portable phones to evade government censors. Dear Senators and Congressmen, United States of America has always been known and stood as the democracy advocate across the world, and because of that we the undersigned on behalf of millions of oppressed Iranians expect that the continuing resolution on the floor be tailored to address the demands of Iranian oppositions. This way the world community can avert a regional and potentially global catastrophe and at the same time establish a democratic system of government in the region. Sincerely, The Undersigned (alphabetic order): Shahla Abghari, Professor of Microbiology, human and women rights activist Siavash Abghari, Professor of Finance Sheri Alvandin, Human Rights Activist and Publisher Debora M. Andress, Human Rights Activist Jeff Baird, CEO, Right Side Publications Cina Dabestani, Chairman of Constitutionalist Party of Iran, Washington DC Chapter Hassan Darashti Amir Ebrahimi, Supporter of Democracy and Secularism in Iran Jay Ewasiuk, Edmonton, AB Friborz Farhan Tarek Fatah, Founder, Muslim Canadian Congress Yasamine Gaeini, Khashm, Toronto Branch Morteza Gaeini, Khashm, Toronto Branch M. Jon Ghaffari, President, ESCS Firouzeh Ghaffarpour, Political Activist Roxana, Ganji, Human Rights Activist Dr. Gill Gillespie, Director, the Iran Information Project, UK Parviz Haddadizadeh “The New Iran” (TNI) Election commissioner18. H. Hakimi, Retired Ambassador Sayeh Hassan, Barrister & Solicitor, pro-democracy activist, Canada Dr. Arash Irandoost, Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran Parvin Irandoost, Human Rights Advocate Tony Kantering, Political Activist Parviz Koupai, Supporter of Democracy and Secularism in Iran Arezou Lotfi Caspian Makan, Filk Maker-Human Rights Activist Walton K. Martin III, Director, the Iran Information Project, USA Cyrus Marvsati Zohre Mizrahi, Attorney, Human Rights Advocate Masoud Nasseri Dr. Mansur Rastani, University Professor Cyrus Pakdel, Supporter of Democracy and Secularism in Iran Pari Saffari, Bidar TV Frank Salvato, Executive Director, BasicsProject.org Dr. A. Samadani, X-President, Global University Sohrab, Shabnameh Behnaz Shariari, Member Stop Child Execution and Human Rights Activist Saied Shemirani, Political Activist: United Persian Organization Shahla Shirinpour, PG&E, Administrative/Subdivision Team Lead Assistant” Mehdi Zolfaghari, Dr. Daniel M. Zuckerman, D.D., Chairman, American for Democracy in the Middle-East Now that’s a viable plan. And Rastani emailed it to every member of Congress. As I and others at TOS have been saying for years, the key to ending America’s terrorism problem is ending the regime in Iran. Neither the Obama administration nor any Republican administration that might materialize in the near future is likely to bomb the Iranian regime out of existence as it should. But for something like the above resolution and suggested improvements to be implemented in the current political climate is possible, and this is the kind of policy that Americans should openly and loudly advocate. Toward that end, I urge you to write your Congressmen and Senators, bring their attention to the open letter, and urge them to adopt these measures and improvements and make them into law. Even if your Representatives do nothing immediately, hearing from U.S. citizens repeatedly about what America ought to do about Iran will, over time, soften politicians to the possibility of taking rational action. I’ll have more to say about this in the forthcoming issue of TOS; in the meantime, these proposals—especially the open letter­—deserve our support. 2. Syria: Iran’s Best Friend and Critical Crutch As I said in last week’s Review, the most important country involved in the Arab Spring is Syria, because of its significance to Iran. Elliot Hentov makes some good observations on this count. Excerpt: Iran moved quickly to frame the uprisings across the Arab world as an “Islamic Awakening” and as a parallel to its own Islamic Revolution in 1979. But Tehran is visibly shaken by the possibility of regime overthrow in Syria. Despite American efforts to highlight Iranian support for the Syrian regime’s efforts to retain power, in fact Tehran has little control over the future of political order in Syria. The turbulence in Syria and Iran’s limited influence have significance beyond the immediate, urgent question of the survival of Bashar al-Assad. It shows powerfully how much Iran’s influence is a function of external developments rather than internal strength — and how that influence might be severely affected by changes in the regional environment beyond its control. The longer trajectory of Iran’s regional power highlights how deeply losing Syria might affect Tehran. . . . In the absence of internal resources, Iran’s foreign policy relies heavily on external assets, notably its partnership with Syria. Syria provides very critical logistical, political, and military support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and provides Iran’s main gateway to relevance in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Without Syria, Hezbollah’s capabilities could deteriorate and be susceptible to defeat in the next round of fighting. Damascus also facilitates Iran’s relations with Hamas, as Syria is (still) the main headquarters of the group outside Gaza. Overall, these points of contact are of extremely high importance as the Arab-Israeli conflict itself is a major foreign-policy asset of Iran on which it builds its legitimacy. Losing direct access to the Arab-Israeli arena would thus be a detrimental blow to Iranian influence. Damascus also lessens Tehran’s isolation as its only loyal ally in the region. Syria aside, Tehran does not enjoy the trust of any other governments in the region. Even Lebanon and Iraq, with their influential Shiite constituencies, are beholden to the complex sectarian makeup of their polities and therefore constrained in their relations with Iran. Above all, Syrian support creates the veneer of pan-Islamic solidarity and reduces Iran’s Shiite and Persian character, which otherwise sets it apart from most of the Arab world. Any regime that would follow Assad would likely be less forthcoming toward Iran. By definition, any successor regime would be more reflective of the Sunni majority and resentful of most legacies of the current Alawite-dominated regime, including its close ties with Tehran. Most problematically, Iran lacks an alternative to Syria. There is simply no other regional player interested and able to provide comparable goods. Therefore, if Assad went down, so would Iran’s regional influence. . . . Read Hentov’s whole piece here. 3. Bin Laden Had Nothing on the Muslim Brotherhood While Islamists in Egypt assault and murder Christians for accepting the wrong fantasy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out that the death of Osama Bin Laden, though welcome, is far from the end of America’s terrorism problem. The greatest danger, Ms. Ali argues, is not the impatient “commando” approach of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but the “gradualist” approach and “bottom-up” movement of the Muslim Brotherhood, as illustrated by its efforts in Egypt, and Khomeini’s in Iran. Excerpt: Unlike Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved and learned the hard way that the use of violence will be met with superior violence by state actors. The clever thing to do, it now turns out, was to be patient and invest in a bottom-up movement rather than a commando structure that risked being wiped out by stronger forces. Besides, the gradualist approach is far more likely to win the prize of state power. All that Khomeini did before he came to power in Iran was to preach the merits of a society based on Islamic law. He did not engage in terrorism. Yet he and his followers took over Iran – a feat far greater than bin Laden ever achieved. In Iran the violence came later. . . . Just how likely is it that Egypt will end up – after the inevitable transition period – being ruled indirectly or directly by the Muslim Brotherhood? Three factors The answer depends on a combination of three factors – two domestic and one foreign: The Brotherhood’s strength within the Egyptian military, which is still in charge of the country; The absence of a formidable secular rival within Egypt; The willingness of America and her allies to underestimate the ambitions and the political skills of the Muslim Brotherhood. For the moment it looks like all three factors are working in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Make no mistake: The Brotherhood are working to realize the vision summarized in their motto: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Qur’an is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” A series of concrete goals derived from this motto used to be available on their website, though this is (perhaps not surprisingly) unavailable at the present time. Fortunately, some of the contents have been republished at http://mideastweb.org. A closer look at the Brotherhood’s goals Among the “sub-goals” of the Muslim Brotherhood: Building the Muslim individual … with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character; Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife or husband, educating children Islamically; Building the Muslim society; Building the Khilafa (a form of union between all the Islamic states); Mastering the world with Islam. True, the Brotherhood’s leaders have insisted that they are committed to democracy and the rule of law. But they will give an idiosyncratic twist to these commitments. I expect them to establish a political order based on the Sunni version of an Islamic state. Based on lessons learned from their Islamist brethren elsewhere, they will seek to establish a political order of shariah, or Islamic Law. This would include a judicial system that does not question but merely applies shariah law, a “virtue and vice” police to enforce the Sharia lifestyle and an education and information system that seeks to indocrinate the youth and build “the Muslim individual.” A department of state or caliphate would seek to establish and nurture relations with allies while urging those allies to undertake joint economic, diplomatic and military action against perceived adversaries. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is one example of this. And note the recent leading role that Egypt’s interim government has taken in reuniting Hamas and Fatah while excluding the U.S. and Israel from these activities. . . . Ms. Ali goes on to explain how she thinks the Brotherhood will work to achieve its long-term goals—both within Egypt and abroad. And she warns that “Western policymakers should be exceedingly wary about the influence of the gradualist jihadists on the events now unfolding in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda may soon follow him to the grave. But the doctrine of jihad lives on.” Read the whole article here. 4. Obama’s Chicago-Style Campaign Tactics And then we have our thugs at home. As Investors Business Daily explains, Under the guise of rooting out Chicago-style political corruption from government contracting, President Obama seems intent on signing an executive order that would enshrine it. Last month, the White House drafted an order that would require any company bidding on a federal contract to disclose not only its company donations to federal candidates going back two years, but those of its directors and officers as well. It would also force these firms to disclose contributions to independent groups that might spend some of the money on campaign ads. And it would warehouse all this data in a searchable government database. The executive order claims this is all in the interest of keeping the federal contracting process “free from undue influence.” . . . But, as the Washington Examiner explains, This proposed order is anything but benign. Not only does it require disclosure of individual contributions to partisan candidates, it also covers donations to any organization that might use the funds for “independent expenditures or electioneering communications,” otherwise known as political speech protected by the First Amendment. So all firms hoping to do business with the federal government would have to investigate the personal political activities of their principals and report them to federal bureaucrats and their politically appointed overseers (Democrats kid only themselves if they think Republicans won’t do the same thing once they get back in the White House). Liberal groups claim that these disclosure requirements are only meant to increase transparency, not chill political speech. But if that were true, consider this: In 2010, Obama’s liberal allies, including unions, spent $95 million on independent expenditures like those funded by corporations. But unions that sign collective bargaining contracts with the federal government are exempt from the Obama order’s “disclosure” requirements. Clearly, the chill would only be felt among Obama opponents. Read the IBD piece here, and the Examiner piece here. <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/05/tos-week-in-review-for-may-16-2011#20110516a5">5. Boehner Vows Big Cuts, Rules Out Tax Hikes: We Will See . . . Much is being made of House Speaker John Boehner’s promise this week to cut “trillions, not billions” in spending, not to raise the debt ceiling until said spending cuts are enacted, and not to raise taxes. In the famous words of Richard Pryor, we will see, we will see. . . For now, mark Boehner’s words. The Wall Street Journal has the rundown. Excerpt: In a speech to the Economic Club of New York, Boehner laid down a tough marker in the nettlesome debate over allowing Washington to elevate its $14.3 trillion debt limit. Saying that spending cuts must total “trillions, not billions,” Boehner said any spending cuts must exceed the debt limit. “Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase,” Boehner told an audience of New York’s business and financial elite. “And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.” . . . In a question-and-answer session following his speech, Boehner reiterated an earlier position that it would be irresponsible to not allow the federal government to borrow more, which could lead to a default. However, he also ruled out the possibility of raising taxes as part of any potential deal. Raising taxes is “off the table,” Boehner vowed, drawing a stark contrast with opposition Democrats, who have called for tax hikes on upper-income earners. The speaker added that raising taxes “would have a devastating impact on the economy.” . . . If the Speaker had added that raising taxes “would be a further violation of the rights of producers,” I’d be less skeptical. Read the whole WSJ piece here. And, again, you can contact Boehner and your Representatives here to let them know what you demand in exchange for your future support. * * * I hope you enjoyed this edition of TOS’s Week in Review. Feel free to forward the link to others who might enjoy it as well. —CB Joshua Lipana and Daniel Wahl contributed to this WiR. (TOS does not necessarily agree with the content of articles to which we link.) View the full article at The Objective Standard

Here’s a video of the talk I recently gave at UW-Madison and U Minnesota. As is usually the case when I speak on college campuses, the active-minded students and their excellent questions left me optimistic about the future. Enjoy! View the full article at The Objective Standard