Pro-Life Libertarianism

On the topic of abortion, the libertarian movement is strongly divided in two camps: those who support abortion and those who oppose abortion. Within the pro-abortion libertarian communities, the unborn child has been given the labels of “parasite” and “trespasser.” Let it be known that libertarians have always spoken their mind. From a rational standpoint, it is impossible for an unborn child to be either a parasite or a trespasser. By definition, a parasite is never the same species as its host. As much as the pro-abortion advocates would love to claim that an unborn child is something alien, an unborn child and its mother are both undeniably human. An unborn child also does not feed off its mother in a manner intended to harm her; after all, child-rearing is the most natural thing a woman can do. An unborn child is not a trespasser, either, as the child is not in the woman’s womb out of his own volition. The unborn baby did not decide to transplant himself into the uterus of his mother with the intent to squat her property rights. There was no conscious choice made by the unborn child to be placed in the mother’s body; however, it is most likely the conscious choice of the woman to engage in sexual relations with the consequence of becoming pregnant. If case law is to be applied (as pro-abortion advocates support when they rattle on about Roe v. Wade), even if the “trespasser” idea was valid, the Ploof vs. Putnam decision states that an individual can seek refuge in someone else’s property if his life is in danger. Clearly, the instance of an unborn child needing the sustenance of a mother to survive is a case about preserving the sanctity of human life.

Definitions aside, the biggest problem with calling an unborn child a “trespasser”—or, worse—a “parasite” is that it dehumanizes another human being. Yes, an unborn child is a genetically distinct human being.  No matter how many times people scream or whine, an unborn child is a unique human being. It is impossible to deny that.


The language that is used by pro-abortion advocates is intended to devalue human life. Using demeaning terms like “parasite”, “trespasser”, “just a clump of cells” (which all of humanity really is), etc. are supposed to trivialize human life to make it easier to kill. In every single instance of genocide or slavery, the group being targeted is referred to as subhuman. “It’s okay to kill Jews, they’re not humans like the rest of us.” “It’s okay to enslave blacks, they’re not humans like the rest of us.” Today, it has become politically correct to all but explicitly say, “It’s okay to kill unborn babies, they’re not humans like the rest of us.”  Of course, you will find the individuals who will, in fact, go that far.

The word genocide refers to the deliberate systematic destruction of a group of people. Using that definition, abortion is flagrantly genocide. The group being targeted is the unborn. The mechanism enacting the deliberate, systematic destruction of the unborn is the abortion industry. This particular genocide has led to the deaths of more than 50,000,000 babies since Roe v. Wade in America alone.wedonotwant

Once an individual stops thinking of other individuals in terms of their humanity, it is easier to systematically exterminate them. The government, through tax-payer funded avenues such as Planned Parenthood, using phrases such as “reproductive choice’, have made it easier for people to have no guilt about viciously puncturing the head of an unborn human being, and vacuuming out its brains, in the name of “women’s rights.”

The unborn child has become subhuman in popular culture. Once it is understood that an unborn child is another human being who is entitled to the fundamental right to life, however, the libertarian case for abortion falls apart.

Libertarians believe in the doctrine of self-ownership. Man’s body is his property to do as he pleases. The pro-abortion libertarians extend this idea to abortion, claiming that an unborn child is part of a woman’s body and therefore, the woman can do what she wishes to that property. However, this point seems to miss the fact that an unborn child is also a human being. An unborn child is not anyone’s else’s property. The principle of self-ownership, applied completely, would mean that only the unborn child has unilateral bodily autonomy over himself. The unborn baby, therefore, is not anyone else’s property, and no one else can make the decision to terminate the baby’s existence except himself.  For people who talk about the importance of consent, a baby cannot consent to its own termination; therefore, to allow abortion means to allow for another person to make the decision of life or death for someone else—without his consent. It’s hard to believe that anyone would choose not to be given the right to life, no matter how horrible the hypothetical situations are (and people will come up with the most absurd hypotheticals of a cruel world to try to justify the murder of the unborn.) As Ronald Reagan eloquently put it, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”


Libertarians also extol the virtues of the non-aggression principle. According to the non-aggression principle, violence against another human being is morally unjust. Therefore, abortion is a clear violation of the axiom. Abortion is the deliberate killing of another human being, most often out of convenience. No one would argue that murder of an innocent person is justified under the non-aggression principle; therefore, when taking into considering that an unborn child is another human being, it makes no sense for abortion to be accepted by those who espouse non-aggression.

Pro-abortion libertarians often talk about abortion as being related to “the right to choose.” That phrase is a misnomer: the unborn child has no choice. The unborn child must submit to the will of the mother. If a mother chooses to have her child, then the child is afforded the right to life. If a mother chooses to have an abortion, the unborn child will be killed at the hand of its mother. The unborn child is never afforded the ability to choose in this situation. The mother’s choice to murder her child is elevated as more important than the right of her unborn child to make any choices about his own life. As well, the mother’s ability to choose to kill her child is seen as more significant to the father’s property rights over his own child. If pro-abortion libertarians argue that a child is property that can be disposed of at will, then the father, being half of the property owner, should also be able to have an opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. However, time and time again, abortion advocates will state that only the opinion of women matter.

dearrepublicansOn the topic of the female body,with  the recent passage of a Texas abortion bill, pro-abortion libertarians have been crying about a supposed assault on freedom. According to pro-abortion libertarians of the feminist variety, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks is an unprecedented attack on women. What the pro-abortion libertarians forget, however, is that women are increasingly the targets of abortion. The House of Representatives was not even capable of passing a ban on sex-selective abortions in America—which, as you could have guessed—are geared to specifically target baby girls. Certainly, if there is a supposed “war against women”, a war against genocide based on gender would be a lofty aspiration; however, the libertarian feminists feel as if it is more important to protect a woman’s right to “choose” to kill her unborn child than the right of another woman to be able to live. It is more of an attack on women, clearly, to deny them the right to murder their daughters than to stop the murder of female children all together. As well, as much as the feminists would like to argue, abortion is not a procedure that is entirely without consequences (though, libertarians are supposed to support the idea of consequences for their actions). The significant rates of suicide, depression, and general mental illness after an abortion is performed are alarming. Abortion wrecks havoc on a woman’s mental health. If any regulations on abortion threaten women everywhere, then why do most women support the Texas idea of a ban on abortion after twenty weeks?

The subset of scientific libertarians who consider themselves lovers of technological advancement driven by capitalism have a particularly hard case to argue. While supporting abortion, they often forget about scientific advancements in pushing back viability. I, personally, was born substantially premature. The same day I was born, abortion was still a legal option. The only reason why I am alive today is due to an experimental drug that I received (and a lot of prayer). The technology clearly exists to allow for children to thrive without their mothers at times that were not previously thought possible; however, libertarians who advocate for abortion at any and all points of a pregnancy deny that scientific advancement should play a role in determining whether an individual should be given a chance to live.

Constitution-loving libertarians who consider themselves strong proponents of the Fifth Amendment also have to engage in logical leaps when they simultaneously defend abortion. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no individual can be deprived of life without trial. With abortion, there is no trial. The mother is the prosecution, the judge, and the executioner. The unborn child is deemed guilty of a crime so heinous that his life is taken from him without having ever committed an offense other than wanting to live. Abortion, therefore, is also inherently unconstitutional.

Of course, Roe v. Wade will be pointed to as the basis of legality and Constitutionality of abortion. However, Roe v. Wade is an atrocious case for anyone who respects the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress and the respective states can create laws; however, in the Roe v. Wade ruling, the Supreme Court acted as Congress and state legislatures when it created the “right” to an abortion and the trimester framework. The advocates for abortion, when they rely on Roe v. Wade, believe that the Supreme Court can grant someone their rights—which is even more fallacious than the belief that an individual obtains rights from Congress. Libertarians generally despise the notion that the government grants people their rights; however, they have no problem with believing the government can take away an individual’s God-granted natural right to life by creating the artificial “right” to an abortion.

Putting the human element back in to the termination of a human life, it becomes impossible for a logically consistent libertarian to support abortion from any of the commonly quoted perspectives. Perhaps the most egregious offense libertarians support when they support abortion is that abortion is state-sanctioned genocide. The abortion industry in America is run on tax-payer dollars. It is ironic that individuals are paying taxes to the government, which in turn makes sure that other individuals can never pay taxes to the government. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers receive your money in order to fund their killing of millions of babies every single year. As well, they receive your money to keep propagating the idea that not all human life is of equal value. For egalitarian libertarians, this should certainly strike a chord. The state is also the entity that created the idea that individuals have a “right” to an abortion. For libertarians, it should be clear that you do not have the right to anyone else’s property, especially not anyone else’s life.

Libertarians: You Can Have Opinions

If you spend any time reading the blogs authored by college-aged libertarian students, you are bound to read articles addressing their love for promiscuity, drug usage, and obscene alternative lifestyles for the sake of being alternative. The common argument these libertarians make is that their choices fall under the category of being “subjective values”; therefore, it is wrong to make any moral judgments condemning their actions.

It seems as if these libertarians, who claim to be adherents to the Austrian School, have never, in fact, read any works of the Austrian economists. Because of this, these libertarians are entirely ignorant of the ideology they claim to espouse. This ignorance manifests itself in to statements such as, “Subjective values mean you cannot judge people for their choices” and “It is anti-liberty to judge people for their choices.” Individuals who claim to be scholars of libertarian thought should at least be well-read on the elementary basics of their own beliefs.

There is a fundamental difference between subjective values and moral relativism. Libertarians have decided to conflate subjective values, in the economic sense, with moral relativism. This confusion stems from a lack of knowledge of the definition of subjective values. In economics, subjective value refers to a theory of value in which an object attains its value through the wants and desires of individuals. When economists claim that, “Everyone has different subjective values”, it is a reference how individuals have different wants, needs, and tastes in respect to goods and services. Moral relativism, on the other hand, is a philosophy which decrees that there is no truth: right and wrong do not exist. Therefore, to a moral relativist, you cannot judge people for their actions, as it is all subjective.

To individuals who have never studied Austrian economic theory, the terms may seem confusing at first. However, for people who liken themselves to be leaders of the liberty movement, with a depth of knowledge about Austrian economics, there is absolutely no excuse to confuse subjective values in economics to moral relativism. There is no reason, therefore, for libertarians to make insane proclamations such as, “You cannot be a libertarian and judge people for their choices” and “Judging an action as right or wrong goes against libertarianism.”

These college-aged libertarians truly believe that telling someone that doing heroin is a bad decision infringes on libertarianism. As well, daring to criticize the polyamorous lifestyle as being morally repugnant prods a response of, “Who are you to judge?” which would make Ayn Rand weep. Time and time again, the college-aged libertarians become outraged when an individual has the audacity to proclaim that there is an objective right and an objective wrong. According to these moral relativists, there is no right or wrong unless you criticize something that they believe is right, thus leading to your beliefs being labeled as “wrong”.

As well as conflating subjective values with moral relativism, the college-aged libertarians confuse being a libertarian with being a libertine. In their world, one must be have an unconditional acceptance of the drug-addled polyamorous lifestyle, with zero moral apprehension. Anything other than the unilateral advocacy of any and all alternative lifestyles is seen as an affront to freedom. To argue that a certain lifestyle is wrong is apparently akin to wanting the government to ban the lifestyle. To have any moral reservations, to believe in right and wrong objectively, and to proudly defend what is good against what is evil, is seen as enough to render an individual “not a libertarian”.

As a demonstration of the ridiculousness of the, “You cannot be a libertarian if you believe in judging people for their ‘different subjective values'” logic, it is important to note that Rothbard, the foremost anarcho-capitalist and Austrian School adherent, produced scathing remarks against the libertine lifestyle that these college-aged libertarians wholeheartedly promote. Under the new mantra of non-judgment being a prerequisite to libertarianism,  Rothbard could not be considered a libertarian. Apparently, his beliefs were entirely “anti-liberty” as they involved a level of critical thinking beyond the childishness of, “We all value different things. Every choice is equal. No judgment.” How horrifically ironic.

Israel: Not Apartheid, Not Genocide

For as long as I can remember, I have been a supporter of the liberty movement. Over the past few years, however, I have become extremely disheartened with the movement over its attitude towards Israel. It seems as if part of the criteria for being a “True Libertarian”™ requires animosity towards the state of Israel. These “True Libertarians”™ not just oppose some of the policies by the Israeli government, but outright call Israel an apartheid state actively performing genocide. Some even go as far as to deny that Israel has a right to its own existence. While I am sure we can all agree that there should be no foreign aid given to any country for any reason, there is no need to dabble in conspiracy theories about Israel which have zero basis in reality.

The claim that Israel is an apartheid state is absurd. There is no evidence to suggest that the Israeli government is practicing apartheid. The Israeli government does not separate individuals on the basis of race, or gender, or religion. Israel does not enforce separations between Arabs and Jews, does not ban people of different groups from marrying each other, and just generally does not show any element of being an apartheid state in the vein of South Africa. In fact, an Arab judge sentenced the former President of Israel to jail. He was even nominated to be a member of the Israeli Supreme Court. In an apartheid state South Africa, black judges did not send white political leaders of the entire country to jail.

Arab political parties are even active in the Israeli government. If Israeli were an apartheid state, the Arab political parties would not have seats in the Knesset. As well, Arabs do serve in the Israeli Defense Forces—in fully integrated units (which should truly go without saying).

Bedouin Israeli soldiers in 1949.

Israel also has Arab ambassadors, Arab international football players, an Arab Miss Israel, as well as various other Arabs in various other positions of power and prominence. If Israel were an apartheid state, Arabs would not be able to perform in any these activities. Israel has its road signs in Hebrew, English, and, of course, Arabic. Arabs drive on the same roads as the Jewish citizens do. As a matter of fact, a private bus line was installed to better serve the “Palestinians” who live in Israel—the media, however, accused the Israeli government of apartheid. Somehow, a private business venture, which is not endorsed by the government, is the same thing as government-enforced apartheid.

Israel is also one of the few countries in the Middle East which allows for women the right to vote—including Arab, Muslim women. In Israel, every religion has the right to vote, as well as males and females, along with Arabs and people who consider themselves “Palestinians.”

telavivBedouin (female, Muslim, Arab) votes in Israel, 1950. 

Female Muslim voting in Israel’s most recent election.

Israel, being the birthplace of the Abrahamic faiths, allows for full freedom of religion. The same, again, cannot be said for the rest of the Middle East. The claim that Israel is practicing apartheid has no merit; rather, it is an emotional argument used by individuals who have been duped by the media into believing lies.

When the topic of Israel being genocidal is brought up, people often point to Israel’s treatment of Gaza. Israel is constantly accused of performing genocide against the citizens of Gaza. Gaza claims to be independent of Israel—except for the fact that it is entirely dependent on Israel. Gaza states that it is an entity with no connections to Israel, unless the “Palestinians” can turn it in to a media narrative to attack Israel. Israel currently supplies Gaza with electricity and water, paid for by Israeli tax-payers. At the same time, Gaza claims to be entirely independent of Israel’s authority. Gaza constantly expresses its disdain for Israel by launching rockets in to Israel—all while receiving money from the Israeli government.

If Israel cuts any of its tax-payer funded aid to Gaza, Israel is attacked for being genocidal and depriving people of their human rights. Yes, a country that chooses not to give free hand-outs to “another country” is considered genocidal. Yes, a country that wants to cut welfare to “another country” which routinely sends rockets over to the former country is called genocidal. Yes, apparently, there is a human right to government-sponsored electricity and water. Israel, out of its own guilt-complex, continues to supply aid to “independent countries”, because if Israel were to cut aid the media would turn on Israel for trying to kill its own citizens.

Notice how the dialogue changes: when Gaza claims to be its own country, it is independent; however, when Israel dares to cut its tax-payer-funded aid to Gaza, Gaza somehow now becomes incorporated back in to Israel! At the same time, if Israel treats Gaza like a territory under its boundaries, Israel is attacked when it attempts to secure its borders. While Gaza is dependent on Israel, it relies on Israel to make sure its humanitarian aid from other countries reaches its citizens. If Israel is not directing the aid, Israel is accused of supporting genocide. If Israel dares to stop a flotilla that is carrying terrorists, Israel is accused of starving and torturing its own people. Gaza has made it so Israel has no autonomy over its own land.

The “Palestinian” cause knows how to play the media game. This allows for the “Palestinians” to garner support from uneducated, uniformed individuals who truly know nothing about the politics of the Middle East. The media cries that Israel is depriving the “Palestinians” of their human rights to electricity and water—when really, that aid is being paid for by the same exact people the “Palestinians” try to murder. The media consistently says that Israel is this evil, oppressive country when it even dares considering cutting its public service of electricity and water to “another country”—which really means that a country is evil for wanting to cut its social welfare programs. While Israel is paying for the electricity and water to Gaza, Gaza calls Israel an “occupying power”, while accepting aid from their “occupiers.”

If Gaza were truly independent, as it claims to be, Israel would have every right to cut off its aid; however, this, apparently, is a human rights violation. Libertarians should be disgusted by the idea that not providing tax-payer funded utilities is considered a grave human rights violation on the scale of genocide. Libertarians should despise the notion that the citizens of a country are being forced to pay for the electricity and water of the people who try to kill them–not sympathize with the terrorists who are holding Israeli tax-payers hostage to perpetually funding their own demise.

It is just simply not mathematically possible for Israel to be committing genocide. The Arab population of Israel continues to grow—whereas, in contrast, the Jewish population of Arab countries has virtually been eliminated:



While libertarians should be critical of all government, libertarians should not deny reality. When libertarians claim that Israel is enacting South Africa apartheid-era policies while exterminating a large part of its population, they are completely misinformed about the politics of the region; instead, they rely on hearing lies that their favorite alternative media outlets pump out (namely, Al-Jazeera). When these media outlets continually lie about what is happening in Israel, and these lies are spread, more people end up believing in pure insanity rather than relying on proof. Israel is not an apartheid state, nor is it performing genocide. When libertarians argue that Israel is an apartheid state, they are letting conspiracy theories about what they wish were true, rather than an analysis of the facts, dictate their ideas .


Do you know what is more important than the state stealing more of your freedom every day? Do you know what topic trumps your worries about excessive government regulation, increased taxation, and destruction of the medium of exchange? Sex. Sex! SEX! According to the current libertarians on self-proclaimed “commentary” websites, sex is the most important topic in the entire universe! There is no need to care about the government bureaucracy invading every single aspect of your life, no, the real problem today has to do with people’s personal opinions on SEX!

A few female libertarians have become obnoxiously obsessed with writing about their sex lives.  These women feel the need to share it all, bragging about their personal sex lives to the entire internet. Then, they try to pass off descriptions of their indiscretions as libertarian commentary, rather than attempts at becoming the new erotic writer for Cosmopolitan.

Adolescent behavior,  like gloating about your sex life on the internet, serves as a reminder of why people should at least reach emotional maturity before having sex. Remarks about how much someone loves being polyamorous or how casual sex is cool have nothing, at all, to do with libertarianism. The only libertarian element is that libertarians do not advocate for the government to ban or regulate these activities.

These women, however, feel as if it is somehow not libertarian if someone has a moral or even pragmatic objection to polyamory or casual sex. One can’t logically employ the rational argument of “X is wrong, and Y is why” to try to persuade others to see the error of their ways. Reasoning, according to these anti-logic people, is “shaming.” Funny, I thought human beings were superior to animals simply because of their ability to reason—and to control their impulses.

These women have stated that they do not care about attracting conservatives to libertarianism due to conservatives having “narrow-minded” views on sex and advocating for “shaming”: apparently, having any opinion other than “sexual promiscuity is awesome and monogamy is awful”, and explaining to others why this is so, is a sign of being narrow-minded. Stating that any objection to promiscuity and polyamory somehow renders an individual incompatible with libertarianism, however, is not “shaming” or being “narrow-minded.” It’s strange how that works.

It’s disheartening that people believe that people who hold morally conservative (or even moderate) views—and apologetically argue for them—cannot be libertarian. It’s even more upsetting that people believe that in order to be a libertarian, one must be a moral relativist. It’s downright disgusting and degrading to libertarianism for people to claim one of the most important issues of the times is what people personally feel about sex and that it requires column, after column, after column, after column, after column, to address.

Perhaps these libertarian women think the only way they’re able to convert people to libertarianism is to use sex as a tool (since, we all know, conservatives are clearly not able to be libertarians). If that’s true, that’s really a sad state of affairs. Libertarianism should be held to a higher standard than trying to attract people with the sort of sexualized advertisements you’d find on CollegeHumor.

GMU’s Dhimmitude

I am a student at George Mason University. Despite being a public school, I chose to attend George Mason University because of its phenomenal economics program. Before I came to Mason, I was vaguely aware of its demographics. I knew the school prided itself on diversity, which is generally a code word for political correctness. However, George Mason University does more than attempt to be politically correct: George Mason University uses tax-payer dollars to propagate Islam.

The center of George Mason University is the Johnson Center. The Johnson Center contains the main food court, academic offices, and meeting rooms. On the first floor of the Johnson Center, there is one set of bathrooms which include Islamic footbaths. There is absolutely no denying that the Islamic footbaths are for religious purposes. They are for the expressed purpose of Muslim ritual. The university does not even attempt to hide this fact. Right there, this is a blatant violation of tax-payer money being used to promote one religion.

George Mason University also hosts a “quiet meditation area.” I have checked out the praying area on quite a few occasions. The school provides Muslim prayer mats. The school provides Muslim gender dividers. The school allows for there to be buckets of Muslim literature—and only Muslim literature—available next to the “quiet meditation space.” Therefore, the “quiet meditation area” is known as the “Muslim prayer area” by everyone on campus. As much as individuals in the university can kick, scream, and cry that the “quiet meditation area” is not exclusively for Muslims: we’re not dumb. We’re college students at a prestigious university, after all.

If the university cares about diversity and equality so much, well, then, I’m a Jewish student. Why aren’t there tax dollars dedicated to putting mezuzahs over every single door in all of the dorm complexes? Oh, right, because that would be an absolute gross violation of tax payer dollars for someone else to fund my personal, private religious activities. For some reason, Mason is capable of overlooking tax-payer money being used to finance Islam, and only Islam, while espousing the notion of equality.

The two most obvious, obnoxious, and outright in-your-face examples of the university using tax-payer dollars to prop up Islam are the Islamic footbaths and the Muslim praying area. However, the university has also been catering to Islam through the student activities.

Since George Mason University is a public university, it receives most of its funding from the state. Student activities, and student organizations, at Mason are also funded by the state. While I served as treasurer of the College Republicans, I was made aware of the rules and regulations regarding school funding (i.e. tax-payer funding) of events. Theoretically, the university will pay for most, if not all, expenses made by any group as long as the proper forms are filled out and handed to the corresponding bureaucracies.

When I first came to Mason, I quickly heard about the John Lewis event that had been canceled. I was told by individuals who arranged the event that it was canceled because of “security concerns.” It’s painfully ironic that an event about Islamic terrorism was canceled due to fears of Islamic terrorism. The event was later held in a hush-hush manner, so that the student groups involved would not be forced to pay for extra security.

A few months in to my time at Mason, I came across this flyer on campus:


How, exactly, will the “Reality of Zionism” be portrayed by Helen Thomas (who said that Jews should “go back to Germany”)? How, exactly, will the “Reality of Zionism” be portrayed by Miko Peled, a pro-“Palestine” activist?  Curious, I attended this event. The title was entirely misleading. There were no facts about the reality of Zionism included in the event. Instead, smears about Israel were spread, entirely unchecked. For a university to allow this event, without any events with a counterargument, just shows how academia is definitely not the marketplace of ideas. Academia has become nothing more than brainwashed propaganda being regurgitated by the masses.

A few months later, I received an e-mail from the university notifying me of an upcoming event:


The first thing to notice is that this e-mail about “Arab-Jewish Relations Prior to the State of Israel” was sent out on April 19th, 2012. What else was April 19th, 2012?


The second piece of pertinent information is that the anti-Israel event, hosted by “Students for Justice in ‘Palestine’”, was scheduled for April 25th, 2012. What else was April 25th, 2012?


It’s possible that George Mason University made a horrible error in the day in which it sent out this e-mail. It’s possible that George Mason University made a horrible error in the day in which the event was scheduled. However, not only did George Mason University send out its e-mail about “Arab-Jewish Relations Prior to the State of Israel” on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the anti-Israel event was scheduled for Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day. Oops! This is more than just two awful coincidences: this was nefarious intent. Pro-“Palestine” activists are not known for playing nice. One needs to look no further than who was invited to the event, an anti-Israel event being held on Israeli Independence Day: Rabbi Dovid Weiss. Rabbi Weiss is best known for heading Neturei Karta, or what is colloquially known as “Rabbis Against Zionism”. Of course, this would be an incredibly unbiased “discussion” of the facts…

Lately, George Mason University has created a few new student groups. Not only is there “Students for Justice in ‘Palestine’”, now there is also “Students Against Israeli Apartheid”. Seems pretty redundant, huh? At the same time, George Mason University required the prospective Tea Party group and Constitutionalist Conservatives organizations to prove how they were different than the College Republicans, before the groups eventually collapsed under the bureaucratic requirements to start a recognized organization.

Even the “entirely apolitical” “Muslims Without Borders” has started participating in the “Palestine” dialogue:


This advertisement is extremely disconcerting. It is an event in support of  “Palestine”, soliciting donations, but there is absolutely no specification about where the money from the fundraiser is going. It is extremely likely that the money being shoveled in to the “Palestinian” cause is going to fund terrorist activists. George Mason University allowed for this event to be held on campus, with its seal of approval. George Mason University also funded the event asking for money to go to “Palestine.”

At least Muslims Without Borders seems to want to further their cause (whatever that may be—caliphate, perhaps). Students Against Israeli Apartheid, however, seems to have resorted to profanity:


As well as literally stating they do not want a dialogue:


Currently, the university is covered in propaganda for “Islam Awareness Week.” Yes, my school is actually attempting to make people aware that Islam exists. George Mason University has an extremely large Muslim student body; however, I guess no one is aware that Islam exists. Funny, since this school is right near the Pentagon. I thought everyone was made aware of Islam’s existence on 9/11.

Islam Awareness Week happens to be during International Week this year. This means that “Palestine” was participating in the flag-waving:


I think the duck lips and peace sign really say it all…

The International Week is supposed to be a welcoming environment for the gigantic international student population on campus, yet the people from Israel received boos and snide remarks. The students from Israel have absolutely nothing to do with the policies of the Israeli government. “Palestine”, on the other-hand, received thunderous applause. Alas, George Mason University prides itself on acceptance of diversity.

Since the weather has been improving these past few days, people have taken to the campus center to promote their causes.  The other day, I was standing with a friend, Chris Pavlovych, when we were approached by a woman handing out these flyers:


These flyers are from an approved student organization, funded with tax-payer dollars, at George Mason University. Upon looking at me, the woman with the flyers immediately ripped the flyer out of my hands and gave it to my friend. A few moments later, another person approached Chris to give him yet another copy of the same flyer. When he offered a rebuttal in defense of Israel, the response was, “Oh, you’re one of those people.”

Perhaps the most important symbol to prove just how strongly George Mason University promotes Islam is Zachary Chesser. Before coming to Mason, Zachary was described by his peers as being a normal kid. At Mason, he became radicalized. He’s best known for being the individual who threatened the creators of “South Park” for using an image of Muhammad.

George Mason would be rolling over in his grave if he knew the university which bears his name was using tax dollars to support Islam. In fact, the issue of tax dollar funding is not localized to Virginia. Since Mason accepts federal support, federal money, and federal student loans, every single tax paying American is currently funding the activities at George Mason University. The left loves to cry “separation of church and state”, but there is never an issue of “mosque and state.” Anyone who opposes the use of their own money being funneled into pro-Islam activities is an “Islamophobe.”

Edit, 7:05 PM: Since publishing this post, I have remembered that my school has a Muslim basketball team. Flyers were distributed, and I took a photograph of one of them. I am currently trying to locate the photo. There are also dining services on campus that are Halal.

Where Have all the Daisies Gone?

Since the beginning of Obama’s first term, the anti-war left has been nowhere to be found. Once constantly in the streets protesting against Bush’s civil liberty violations, the anti-war left has become silent. Obama’s election was seen as the new age for civil liberties, as his first promise was to close down Guantanamo Bay. Since then, Obama reneged on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, jailed Bradley Manning for exposing the lack of transparency in “the most transparent administration”, intentionally misled the public about withdrawal dates, signed the National Defense Authorization Act, renewed the PATRIOT Act, and sent drone strikes to various countries without Constitutional approval of war. Despite all of this, people have not been chaining themselves to the White House fence. Obama is still the darling of the anti-war left simply because he is a Democrat. To question Obama would be to question the moral superiority Democrats claim to hold on the issue of civil freedoms.

Instead, the Republican Party has been picking up the fight against the government’s assault on civil liberties. During a Senate Judiciary Hearing, Senator Ted Cruz asked Eric Holder if it is Constitutional for the government to kill an American citizen, not actively engaged in combat, on American soil. As opposed to directly answering the question with a definitive “no”, Holder attempted to evade the question by talking about hypothetical situations, with zero reference to the Constitution. A few days later, Rand Paul engaged in an approximately thirteen-hour filibuster to delay the confirmation of now CIA director John Brennan. Rand Paul’s filibuster made reference to the use of drones overseas, expressing concern over the possible use of drones in America against Americans. Paul demonstrated how the CIA policy of drone usage was not clearly defined and could be used to target Americans who, as Ted Cruz mentioned, were merely sitting in a café.

Rand Paul’s filibuster was joined by thirteen fellow Republicans. The filibuster generated support of mainstream Republicans through the “#StandWithRand” Twitter hastag. Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former presidential candidate Herman Cain, and even Reince Priebus, the establishment Republican National Committee Chairman, Tweeted support for Rand Paul. They were joined by a Facebook post by Rick Santorum, a glowing review by Newt Gingrich, and a monologue by Mike Huckabee. Rand Paul was even on Rush Limbaugh’s show, where he received praise for being a “hero.” Limbaugh later condemned “neoconservative” RINOs John McCain and Lindsey Graham for not standing with Rand.

Rand Paul was capable of energizing the Republican Party on the issue of protecting the rights of every American not to be assassinated by the government via drone. Rand Paul unified the libertarian right with even the most conservative faction of the right to stand up against the government taking away the liberties of the American people.

In contrast (with the exception of CODEPINK), the traditional “we care about civil liberties” left responded to the filibuster by defending Obama. The hashtag “WhyRepublicansNeedtoGo” was created to attack Republicans for standing up against Brennan and drone usage. The “Being Liberal” Facebook page mocked the idea of droning American citizens being a threat, since it “hasn’t been done yet.” This should not surprise anyone: 78% of MSNBC viewers claim to be okay with the government droning Americans. These are the same individuals who were screaming and crying about the evil Bush administration just a few years ago. What completely non-partisan freedom fighters!

The anti-war, pro-civil liberties movement by the left is nothing more than a façade. The left does not care about civil liberties; rather, the left just cares about making Republicans look bad. When a Democrat is doing something egregious, the issue of big government is suddenly not a concern. When a Democrat supports the idea of killing American citizens on American soil, it is wrong to question his judgment. When a Democrat claims to be on your side, the left assumes words mean more than actions.

In Defense of Glenn Beck

Since joining FOX and beyond his departure from the station, Glenn Beck has reexamined his views on a variety of matters. Lately he has taken to referring to himself as a libertarian. This has caused a “more-libertarian-than-thou” backlash, with people stating Beck cannot possibly be a libertarian because of X or Y.

As a long-time Glenn Beck listener, I have witnessed how Beck’s views have shifted over the years. Once a supporter of the PATRIOT Act and foreign aid, he now admonishes the police state and even believes in cutting foreign aid to Israel. Glenn Beck stated that he wants the government out of marriage entirely. He has gone so far as to mention that the government should stop jailing people for marijuana offenses since there are more important issues to worry about. Beck even did a segment recommending the works of Hayek and Rand. This was long before Glenn Beck ever uttered the “l word”.

At the 2013 International Students for Liberty Conference, Alexander McCobin mocked the idea of Glenn Beck being a libertarian. In response, Beck used the words “Nazi”, “fascist”, and suggested that McCobin thinks he’s “God”. Beck was probably referring to the Nazi-esque element of libertarians asserting themselves as superior to others, the fascist-esque aspect of libertarians promoting an all-or-nothing ideology, and the “God”-like omniscience many libertarians hold as if they are the sole determiners of who is a libertarian and who is not.

In his rebuttal, McCobin stated that libertarianism is not related to economic conservatism or social conservatism. What is anti-libertarian about allowing for people to conserve their money and conserve their values, free from government interference? There is nothing anti-libertarian about believing the government is the biggest threat to the traditional way of life. Conservatives and libertarians both agree that the government is the enemy.

This back-and-forth has culminated in Glenn Beck inviting Jack Hunter and Zak Slayback to speak on his Blaze show. As a gesture of gratitude, Beck provided access to The Blaze so that Young Americans for Liberty members could listen to his discussion. Hunter and Beck dominated the conversation with an actual dialogue about the proper role of government. Meanwhile, Slayback interjected to say that conservatism and libertarianism are two entirely contrasting philosophies (Slayback even audibly sighed at one point). Though unable to articulate exactly where conservatism and libertarianism diverge other than a few strawmen, Slayback seemed content to state that libertarianism and conservatism are not alike.

Insulting individuals who are interested in becoming more libertarian, saying they need to repent for all of their past sins and worship at the altar of the One True Libertarian, is not a way to grow a movement. Oddly enough, Slayback and the Students for Liberty crowd have spent a lot of time appealing to the leftists, striving for a left-libertarian alliance. Rather than appealing to conservatives—probably because they don’t have the sexy beliefs to attract the “student” movement—Slayback and others have attempted to build an impossible bridge connecting the economic ignorance of liberals with libertarianism. Instead of realizing that conservatives share values with libertarians, and admitting conservatives generally tend to vote in more pro-liberty manners than liberals, the libertarian movement has decided to kick conservatives out of the secret, exclusive club. Some of the zealots in the witch-hunt against conservatives have even gone so far as to disown Rand Paul for endorsing Mitt Romney, attack Ron Paul for being a pro-life Christian, and smear Lew Rockwell for the paleo-conservative strategy. A man who literally came up with a strategy to get libertarians more viability has come under fire for attempting to give the movement prominence. Why? Because he has conservative beliefs and understood libertarians should align with conservatives.

Not only do the people in the libertarian movement need a major attitude readjustment, but they need to realize the survival of libertarianism and conservatism are intrinsically linked. Without a libertarian government, conservatism’s institutions cannot exist. Without conservatives in office, libertarianism does not stand a chance on the national stage. Libertarians and conservatives agree on the general philosophy of reducing the size and scope of the government. Libertarians and conservatives realize the economic problems that America faces are real. Libertarianism and conservatives understand that the government is the biggest threat to their liberty. Libertarians and conservatives both want the government to let them be in their affairs.

The libertarian movement has become an intellectual circle jerk in which people sit around getting off on how pure they are. Things as trivial as a person’s religious views, or being against drug usage, have become enough to disqualify someone from being a True Libertarian. Issues with absolutely no relevance to political philosophy have dominated, and personalities become more important than issues. The condescending, elitist behavior from libertarians surely proves that the students who have appointed themselves as the deciders of all things liberty have a lot of growing up to do. If libertarianism wants to succeed, the libertarian movement should welcome conservatives, especially mainstream conservative figures with large media followings, with open arms. A fighter for liberty is a fighter for liberty. Ultimately, you can’t win a war of ideas with an army of one.

In Defense of Ann Coulter

Last weekend, I attended the 2013 International Students for Liberty Conference. The conference featured a taping of Stossel with opportunities for the attendees to engage the guests with questions.

The most momentous occasion at the Stossel taping was when Ann Coulter called libertarians “pussies.” As anticipated, this elicited a response of jeering. Coulter clarified, saying that libertarians spend too much time sucking up to their liberal friends instead of focusing on the real issues. She mentioned that libertarians can work with conservatives on issues that matter–such as economics–but they instead choose to focus on marijuana in order to appeal to the left. In this statement, Coulter highlighted precisely why the modern libertarian movement is failing.

Instead of creating alliances with fiscal conservatives, libertarians would rather tell people that libertarianism is about “pot and gay marriage” in order to garner the attention of the youth. The result of making libertarianism about social issues is that there are therefore people, who claim to be libertarians, that do not understand the philosophy of libertarianism in the slightest. These individuals who are duped into believing that libertarianism is only about pot and government gay marriage end up not understanding any of the foundational principles of libertarians. As a result, some self-described libertarians even rationalize greater state interventionism on behalf of egalitarianism and economic equity. Generally, no one would consider individuals who support a bigger government to be libertarians; however, these people were told they are libertarians because they like to smoke pot and think gay people are cool. These new libertarians, therefore, do not understand the non-aggression principle, do not understand the importance of voluntary action, and do not understand the power of the market. These self-proclaimed libertarians are a threat to freedom, as they say they act on behalf of liberty while they simultaneously call for greater government.

During the taping, Ann Coulter said that she does not want welfare to go towards someone who is getting high, which is a moderately justifiable reason to be against drug legalization. The audience erupted into loud noise upon hearing Coulter’s answer. Proving her point that libertarians only care about pot, the majority of the questions that followed from Stossel, as well as the audience, were about her views on marijuana. Coulter kept mentioning there are bigger concerns than marijuana, such as ending the welfare state. Libertarians and conservatives should agree that welfare should not go to individuals who use drugs. Libertarians and conservatives should agree that welfare should be abolished. However, there was no such dialogue from the audience about what should happen first. From the minute Coulter walked on stage, the audience decided to act like children and cast her as an enemy rather than someone who can be worked with. For a conference that prides itself on intellectualism, there was no intelligent discussion between the audience and Coulter.

The audience booed Coulter for stating the obvious truths about the travesty of the modern libertarian movement. To demonstrate her point, there was another high-profile guest of an entirely different political persuasion who received applause. When Dennis Kucinich entered the stage, he was applauded. When Kucinich advocated for government regulations in order to save the world from the global warming catastrophe, parts of the audience applauded. When Kucinich mentioned how evil profits were for banks and health-care corporations, parts of the audience applauded.

A woman who has done not much except write opinion columns received a vitriolic response from the audience, while a man who has spent his entire time in Congress campaigning against liberty was cheered. Dennis Kucinich has spent his time in Congress vowing for bigger government. Since Dennis Kucinich is a leftist with politically correct opinions, however, the audience at a “libertarian” conference gave him more respect than a woman who never assaulted anyone’s freedom.

As Coulter so eloquently said:

We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you were a little more manly you would tell the liberals what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’

The libertarian movement has, indeed, made it all about kissing up to the left.