george mason university
george mason university: Page 1
According to them, the freest state is North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.
Meanwhile, the least free state is New York, followed by California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.
Koch family, U.S. Chamber, businesses met to plan strategy (+Glenn Beck, tea parties, "mobilize citizens for November") - 10/20/10
Twice each year, the Koch family conducts strategy meetings with corporate and thought leaders to plan how to advance their "free market" ideology. ThinkProgress has the guest list and program for their June 2010 meeting (in Aspen), and, while immigration isn't mentioned, many of the known attendees are on the wrong side.
I don't normally recommend anything at ThinkProgress, but in this case I'll suggest taking a look at their post and downloading the PDF.
The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology, popularized by Mr. Beck on his show.)The participants included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot... The group also included longtime Republican donors and officials, including Foster Friess, Fred Malek and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III... Participants listened to presentations from the (US Chamber of Commerce), as well as people who played leading roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, like Nancy Pfotenhauer and Annie Dickerson, who also runs a foundation for Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive who like the Kochs is active in promoting libertarian causes.
Malek currently raises funds for Karl Rove.
There's also a tea parties link: one of the June sessions was called "Mobilizing Citizens for November" ("Is there a chance this fall to elect leaders who are more strongly committed to liberty and prosperity? This session will further assess the landscape and offer a strategic plan to educate voters on the importance of economic freedom.") The hosts were Sean Noble (@snoble37), Karl Crow of Themis, Mark Mix of National Right to Work, and Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity. AFP has been a very active "facilitator" of the teaparty movement.
Those who spoke at the June meeting include Peter Schiff (bad on immigration), Stephen Moore (ditto}, and Michael Barone (ditto). Others are: Ramesh Ponnuru; Phil Kerpen and Jeff Crank of AFP; Peter Wallison and Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, Russ Roberts and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center (associated with George Mason University; see the link); Gretchen Hamel; Charles Krauthammer; and Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner.
Those listed as attending past meetings include Haley Barbour (bad on immigration), John Stossel (ditto), Mike Pence (ditto), Bobby Jindal, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, and Tom Price.
Obviously, there's nothing wrong or that sinister about the Kochs holding meetings like these. And, George Soros and associates no doubt hold similar meetings with those on their side. However, just as Soros' loose borders policies no doubt "informs" the immigration policies that those who receive his money offer, the same is probably true of the Kochs' loose borders policies. Aside from DeMint, there are few above who might be considered "border hawks", and some of those listed are quite bad on that issue.
And, of course, this provides yet more evidence of how those in the supposedly grassroots tea parties movement are doing the bidding of the very rich, even if the teapartiers have been bamboozled into thinking otherwise.
The latest hilariously stupid tea parties-style cheap stunt is a "Freedom Vigil" to be held in Washington DC tomorrow night. "Thousands" - make that more like a few dozen - will gather for a silent walk during which they'll raise glowsticks in the air in order to show their support for liberty (at least according to their definition). And, no, I'm not making that up.
Alex Nowrasteh  of the Koch family-linked Competitive Enterprise Institute offers "E-Verify is a Spectacular Failure and Should be Abandoned" , referring to this recent report. It contains several curious passages, such as:
While it cannot identify illegal/undocumented immigrants 54%, E-Verify could accomplish one thing: ossification of U.S. labor markets. With the official unemployment rate hovering around 10%, burdening employers and employees with additional workplace regulations like E-Verify will make matters worse.
1. Simply checking someone through a website isn't going to "ossify" much of anything, since it's accurate for legal workers 93% of the time. For almost any job there will be far more applicants than openings, meaning that those who don't pass will in most cases simply be replaced by someone who does. That's bad news for the person who didn't pass, but Nowrasteh isn't calling to improve the system but to scrap it entirely.
2. If Nowrasteh were concerned about the fate of American workers and high unemployment, one would think he'd want to reduce the numbers of illegal aliens in the labor supply; what he's proposing wouldn't do that and would further incentivize illegal immigration.
Additionally, making the right to work contingent upon government permission will do more to Europeanize U.S. labor markets, where unemployment hovers around 10% normally, than any other proposed regulation.
The "right to work" is already "contingent upon government permission"; it's been illegal to hire illegal aliens for quite a number of years now, and nothing in EVerify is designed to affect the right to work for citizens and legal workers. The European bit is a non sequitur.
If that's not enough, he also says:
But even if you think that illegal/undocumented immigration is a serious problem, E-Verify fails to solve the problem.
Illegal immigration is, of course, a very serious problem. Among many other things:
* it's an indicator of massive government and elite corruption;
* it's promoted through misleading media reports that deprive people of the correct information they need to make informed decisions;
* it represents a light, soft form of war against low-wage Americans, increasing competition for low-wage jobs;
* it raise costs for the middle class;
* it reduces the political power of American citizens, giving foreign citizens and foreign governments power inside the U.S. and affecting congressional apportionment;
* it increases freeway congestion and school crowding;
* it's done without the assent of the vast majority of Americans;
* it decreases respect for the law;
* it leads to other crimes such as identity theft;
* and much, much more.
The standard libertarian answer to the above is to pretend that if we just made illegal immigration legal the problem would be solved. Not only would the vast majority of Americans completely oppose such open borders (meaning that a libertarian scheme would have to be imposed through force), but it wouldn't solve the problems but simply make them worse.
If, despite the above, you still trust Nowrasteh's judgment on the immigration issue, please leave a detailed comment and I'll try to change your mind.
 He appears to be quite the "Kochtopus Kid", having attended the Koch family-linked George Mason University.
Obama cabinet might include Democrat titans: Gore, Napolitano, Vilsack, Howard Dean, Caroline Kennedy... - 11/11/08
The Barack Obama cabinet might include such Democratic Party titans as Al Gore, Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Caroline Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and many more truly titanic names. This link has a "transition flowchart", a PDF showing some potential picks and all of them are truly great figures who will help the Repu... er, I mean the Democrats. While this could all be a jolly joke, who knows since the head of the transition team is John Podesta and his think tank the Center for American Progress is as much a joke as the Harding Institute.
Podesta himself might head up an "Energy Security Council".
For Agriculture, Tom Vilsack is one of four possibilities.
Health and Human Services: Howard Dean or Tom Daschle.
Billionairess Penny Pritzker might be at Commerce; the tip of the iceberg on her is here.
For the Department of Homeland Security, the possiblities are:
* Tim Roemer (affiliated with George Mason University, a nexus of "cosmotarianism" and support for illegal activity),
* Raymond Kelly and Bill Bratton, chiefs of police of NYC and L.A. respectively,
* James Lee Witt (Clinton-era head of FEMA)
* Richard Clarke
For the State Department, all of them are some variation of bad jokes: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Richard Holbrooke, Sam Nunn, and Colin Powell. The latter is listed under two additional possibilities.
At HUD, one possibility is BHO fixer Valerie Jarrett.
At Interior, Bill Richardson is one of five.
As the Department of Justice, Janet Napolitano, Rep. Artur Davis, and Eric Holder are listed. Someone from the latter's law firm visited this site after I posted about the viral video attempt at that link.
Also, from the link:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Caroline Kennedy could be the ambassador to the United Nations. Kennedy Jr. might be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Caroline Kennedy could be the ambassador to the United Nations. It's just an unofficial guide but a fun one to follow.
Yes, just watch out for that iceberg.
Stephen Fuller/George Mason University: are you sure you're a professor of public policy? - 04/25/08
[The money followed in the update, and also see the 9500 Liberty page.]
Stephen Fuller/Stephen S. Fuller of George Mason University - supposedly a professor of public policy - is featured on the latest video from 9500 Liberty. On the video (called "IMMIGRATION Crackdown HURTS Our Economy", link) he discusses the dire consequences of Prince William County in northern Virginia trying to do something about illegal immigration in their county. Oddly enough, for the several minutes that Fuller basically says the same thing over and over, he only discusses direct economic effects and certainly doesn't sound to me like an intellectually honest public policy expert.
He doesn't, for instance, discuss how businesses profiting from illegal activity isn't good public policy. Yet, one might expect a real professor of public policy to do that, no?
He doesn't discuss how massive illegal immigration is a symptom of massive government corruption, something one might expect a real professor of public policy to do.
He doesn't discuss the social welfare costs of massive illegal immigration. He doesn't discuss other non-financial costs, such as the cost of giving even more political power inside the U.S. to foreign governments and to homegrown racial demagogues like Walter Tejada or extremist groups like Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. Those are costs, and based on his bio (link), one might expect him to be honest and knowledgeable enough to factor them into the equation.
Not only that, but - believe it or don't - he says this:
The state makes transfer payments to the schools based on the number of school children. Start losing schoolchildren, you qualify for less money.
That's Homer Simpsonian in its stupidity, considering that those transfer payments have to come from somewhere.
He offers that argument, and he completely fails to point out any of the public policy negatives related to illegal immigration or even massive immigration. So, is he really a professor of public policy, or is he something else?
Please send him a polite email asking him what he is exactly: sfuller2 *at* gmu.edu
UPDATE: Fuller is back in yet another video, this called "Immigration Myths with Dr. Stephen S. Fuller, PhD" (link). He doesn't discuss any myths and he still doesn't discuss any negatives of what he supports.
And, 9500 Liberty doesn't disclose that in 2007 he was named Chief Economist of Cardinal Bank, which also agreed to sponsor the Metropolitan Washington Economic Index from the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis. Fuller is the Director of that Center (policy.gmu.edu/people/Fuller.html).
Filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man run "9500Liberty", a pro-illegal immigration online documentary project discussing issues in northern Virginia (youtube.com/user/9500Liberty). In the past they've resorted to re-re-re-repurposing supposedly controversial comments from an older white gentleman in an attempt to racially demagogue the issue, but now they're back with a new video called "IMMIGRATION Crackdown HURTS Our Economy" (link) featuring the thoughts of supposed professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Stephen Fuller.
Like their other efforts, the video is being promoted by Youtube for an unknown reason. I'm going to assume that they haven't paid Youtube for the promotion and the latter company is doing it for free for one reason or other, possibly even related to their corporate goals of increasing skilled immigration (Laszlo Bock; link). And, I'm going to assume that their hack political editor, Steve Grove, is at least partly responsible for the promotion. I don't think that's an unfair assumption, considering Grove posts like this:
One of the most poignant examples we've seen of the immigration debate on YouTube has come from 9500Liberty, a channel started by Eric Byler to highlight the immigration battle taking place in Prince William County, Virginia. 9500 Liberty is the address of an intersection where immigration protests became heated after local policy makers debated an ordinance denying certain rights to local immigrants.
Those "immigrants" are actually illegal aliens, and the ordinance involved trying not to give them rights to which they aren't entitled. The quote above follows Grove using the intentionally misleading euphemism "undocumented workers".
We're all going to regret giving Youtube so many links (note that I put nofollow tags on the Youtube links above)
The New York Times offers "Across Globe, Empty Bellies Bring Rising Anger" (link) about high food prices having a detrimental effect on the third world, focusing on Haiti: "experts say there are few quick fixes" to the problem.
That causes "economist" Bryan Caplan of George Mason University to offer the self-evidently ludicrous "The Quick Fix: For the Love of God, Give Every Haitian a Green Card" (link). His grand plan helps show just how insane the libertarian support for open borders is:
Well, I've got a quick fix. Give every Haitian a green card. Invite the world's most precious resource - human labor - to leave a dirt-based economy and get an entry-level job in the modern economy. It's called doing well while doing good. And unlike everything else the world has ever done for Haiti, it works.
This isn't the first time Bryan Caplan has descended into self-parody, and it probably won't be the last.
There are over 8 million Haitians and having most of them come here would present a huge number of social costs, both financial and non-financial. Taking a glance at the CIA page on the country, their literacy rate is just over 50%, meaning that around half of those who came here would only be able to do manual labor, if that. And, the national languages of the country are French and Creole, not English. So, even those who can read and write would have to learn English in order to get a job other than manual labor.
And, the 2003 HIV rate was 5.6%. While not as high as Botswana at 37.3%, that's still much higher than the U.S. at 0.6%. They also have "pervasive corruption" and other issues that are ingrained in their culture. While eventually some or many would Americanize, in the intervening decades those negative cultural issues would simply be moved to the U.S. And, since there are hundreds of millions or even billions of people in the same or worse dire straits, why exactly we should favor Haiti over, say, Bangladesh, Belize, or Botswana is a mystery only Caplan can answer.
Discussing all the other issues with Caplan's beyond-childlike plan is left as an exercise for his students.
Jean Pfaelzer - professor of English and American Studies at the University of Delaware - offers "What's Scary About the Anti-Immigration Debate" . It's so over-the-top and full of lies that I'm trying to debate whether it's a parody. It doesn't even deserve much of a discussion, since it reads like the rantings of a Hollywood street person, albeit one who's a pathological liar:
...Hazleton's mayor told Sixty Minutes about a 70% rise in violent crime since Latinos came to town in 2001 (the correct number is 20 of 8,500 crimes). Farmers Branch, Texas said that the code would prevent terrorist attacks by purging its Latinos. One third of towns that passed the code are in unemployed areas of Pennsylvania--railroad towns that once sold anthracite coal, steel tubes, and carpets. Now they export Latinos... These gentlemen prefer blondes. The mayor wants Hazleton to remain 94.7% white. Last week in front of a burning cross the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party, recently defunct, announced to ABC Evening News that since they began assaulting, torching, and "bleaching" Latinos, membership has risen 40%...
The "bleaching" part refers to one incident from May. Somehow I doubt that even those groups admitted on camera that they systematically engaged in those practices. And, I'm pretty sure she's mischaracterizing the comments of Hazleton's mayor, Lou Barletta, as well as the comments from those in Farmers Branch. Shouldn't George Mason University's History News Network consider its credibility and at least verify a few of the things they publish?
Please send them an email and suggest they print a retraction of the various lies and mischaracterizations in her article: editor *at* historynewsnetwork.org
Bryan Caplan is an Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. His "thinking abilities" as well as his "economic" skills are on full display in the Economist guest post "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem". Let's take a look at this public "intellectual":
Every blogger I know tells me the same story: The fastest way to provoke angry comments is to post a kind word about immigration. In the blogosphere, as in real life, complaints about immigrants abound.
Of course, those complaints aren't usually about "immigrants" either in general or about "immigrants" personally. Usually, the complaints are about illegal immigration or large concentrations of illegal aliens, such as in our cities.
The funny thing, though, is that the complaints are diverse, but the cure is almost always the same: Cut immigration quotas, reinforce the border, and deport the illegals.
The last is, of course, quite close to - and probably meant as - the usual false choice offered between a massive amnesty and mass deportations.
Suppose, for example, that the complaint about immigrants is that "They take advantage of the welfare state." If that's the problem, the simplest solution is not the get rid of immigrants, but to make them ineligible for benefits. Make them pay the usual taxes, but make it clear that welfare, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and the like are only for native-born citizens.
Yeah, what if. What if I could build a time machine? Wouldn't that be great? What people like Caplan are too ignorant to understand is that there's a great deal of pressure placed on local governments and even the federal government to continue such benefits. Some of that comes from racial power groups, others comes from corrupt businesses that enjoy corporatism. When Caplan does things such as offer false choices or conflates illegal and legal immigration he plays right into the hands of such groups. And, of course: no one wants to "get rid of immigrants".
What if the complaint is that immigrants endanger our political culture – in short, that they vote the wrong way? I'm sympathetic to this concern, but it's easy to tailor a solution: Don't let immigrants vote.
At this point, I'm laughing. It's easy to state such a supposed solution, it's not so easy to carry such a thing out. Unless we want think South Africa or Saudi Arabia are good American models.
In brief, Caplan is truly an "intellectual", and he's truly a top-tier "economist".
Becky Akers ("writing a book about the Transportation Security Administration") and Donald J. Boudreaux ("chairman of the economics department at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.") offer the hilariously sad (literally) open borders screed "Why restrict immigration at all?/The Constitution and the laws of economics compel us to welcome all immigrants." (link)
While it would be possible to demolish every point they try to make, let's just take a look at the last section, which is called "Illegal immigration: a false concept":
Laws labeling some people legal and others illegal aren't just divisive, they're unconstitutional... Defending America's integrity doesn't mean more rules and stronger walls; it means seeing foreigners as free agents with all the dignity and autonomy we demand for ourselves... Quota-wielding bureaucrats should not define the country's demographic destiny. It's time to let the free choices of millions of individuals determine America's complexion.
Playing the race card is the least of their sins. The greater sin is that - like pacifistic tribes who end up being another tribe's lunch - they have absolutely no clue how the world works. If we followed their advice, stronger, more cohesive countries such as China would take advantage of their foolishness to send us people in order to obtain power inside the U.S. Their proposal would allow other countries to colonize parts of the U.S. and obtain effective co-dominion or worse. No one should take anything either says seriously.
A group of about 30 conservatives have sent an open letter to the rest demanding that they band together and support the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl massive illegal alien amnesty bill. The letter itself is full of half-truths, such as their claim that "it will make sure that the law is enforced first, before any other provisions of the legislation take effect".
At least four of the signatories have blogs that accept comments, and if anyone has time please monitor their coverage and discredit them by leaving comments at their site whenever they discuss immigration matters:
This site is circulating an "Open Letter on Immigration":
In cooperation with the Independent Institute I am looking for as many signatures as possible from economists and other social scientists. Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Vernon Smith, Tyler Cowen and many others from both the left and the right have already signed on.
The previous post "PBS's Hypocrisy Revealed: PBS station opposes day-laborer center" discussed WETA's reaction to a day-laborer center that was located near their headquarters in Shirlington in Arlington County, Virginia.
The center is partially paid for by taxpayers, and partially by unnamed foundations. Whether the Rockefeller Foundation is one of those benefactors is unknown. From August 2003:
WETA chief executive officer Sharon Percy Rockefeller attended Tuesday night's board meeting, and was deeply critical of the final decision.
"It would absolutely complicate our lives," said Rockefeller, who noted that the new facility is to be located adjacent to WETA's broadcast center.
Rockefeller predicted that a "pretty hostile environment" would quickly develop between her employees, who now walk between the various facilities, and the day laborers. "I don't want the incidents to happen," she said.
Rockefeller also complained that the location of a day-laborer camp would complicate security around the studios of the "NewsHour," public broadcasting's signature daily news program. High-profile guests begin arriving at the studios shortly after noon each day, Rockefeller said, and would likely be met by the day laborers who did not find work that day.
"She's part of the liberal establishment that created the mess, now she wants to protect elite liberals from it," [Republican-leaning activist Robert Molleur] said. "Liberal hipocrisy at its best..."
The latest report about the center contains more about what happens when "liberals" get "liberalism" fed back to them:
..."I almost hit somebody again yesterday," [Jeff Rathner, a cameraman for WETA but who was only speaking for himself] said. "You have to slow down to turn onto that street, and they'll sprint after any car that comes by."
..."The very first day it was opened, some guy who was obviously drunk ran out in front of my car," Rathner said. "When I stopped, he blurted something at me in Spanish."
..."Trash is left all over the place," he said. "It has become a haven for scavenger birds and the most ungodly amount of bird poop that you'll see all over your car if you happen to park near there. It also brings rats."
..."People from our building will be walking by the job site, and they'll verbally harassed in Spanish," he said. "Of course, some of us can understand it. We know what's being said."
..."Whenever anybody cries foul, they're told this they have some 'not in my backyard' attitude, but that's just not the case," Rathner said.
..."We're working hard here with SEEC to find a solution that is good for the community," said Pat Williamson, director of the station's administration, who declined further comment.
Build a few of those centers in the Capitol area of DC and see how fast the laws and the enforcement of them start changing.
Yesterday, Instapundit linked to a post about Rep. David Dreier's social security card proposal. That post is at a group blog known as Liberty & Power which is part of the "History News Network", which doesn't appear to be a cable TV network, just a web site spun off from George Mason University.
I left a comment suggesting that Dreier was just proposing this bill expecting it would fail but that it would show to his constituents that he was trying to do something. I also left a comment on this thread. However, both comments have now been deleted, but thankfully I saved a copy of the first:
Dreier probably intends this to fail.
Tucked into last week's otherwise predictable California election results lay a cautionary tale about the election year's most uncovered issue: illegal immigration. Republican Rep. David Dreier, the 24-year Los Angeles-area veteran who chairs the powerful House Rules committee, won re-election to his House seat with just under 54 percent of the vote, down from 64 percent in 2002. His Democratic opponent, Cynthia Matthews, won almost 43 percent of the vote, despite spending just over $31,000 in her campaign, compared to more than $900,000 spent by Dreier. A Libertarian candidate won 3.5 percent of the vote.
The close result - his closest since 1980 - was because of Political Human Sacrifice.
The other comment was on this thread and noted that even someone as far gone as Badnarik didn't support physical open borders.
Not only have both comments been deleted but when I try to login I get the message "You could not be logged in because you have been blocked."
1. Did I violate History News Network's policy by using the pseudonym 'Lonewacko DotCom'?
2. If so, why wasn't the comment from 'Tom Anon' on the same thread deleted too?
3. And, is there any reason to believe the version of history provided by the History News Network?
UPDATE: I changed the links above to use that nifty new "nofollow" tag.
And, I received an email too:
Your account was blocked because you used a pseudonym.
We are checking into Tom Anon's identity. If this is a pseudonym, as seems
likely, his account will be deactivated as well.
editor [atsign] historynewsnetwork.org
History News Network at George Mason University http://HNN.us
Let's look at HNN's FAQ entry:
...Only readers who register with HNN are able to post comments. They are required to post under their real names. To make sure they are who they say they are they have to provide their email address. Once a reader registers the system dispatches an email to their registered email address. They then have to respond in order to be able to post. Once a reader registers in this manner they can post as often as they like without reregistering. Email addresses are hidden, but the readers' names appear on the site...
It is our hope that by holding people responsible for their posts we will be able to discourage irresponsibility on the boards...
I certainly complied with the spirit of their rules. I took responsibility for my comments by including a very easy way for people to understand where they were coming from: Lonewacko DotCom. And, they've got my IP address and my real email address. What more do they want, a notarized copy of my driver's license?
Whether I complied with the exact letter of their rules is still an open question. "Lonewacko DotCom" is certainly the real name of my site. There are probably a large number of "John Smiths" posting at HNN, so my name is probably more real than many they already have there. Perhaps for the ultimate in Principal Skinneritis they should ask for a mailing address and double-check it with the Post Office.
And, in case you were laughing too hard before, here it is again:
"We are checking into Tom Anon's identity."
Once again, is there any reason to believe the version of history provided by the History News Network?