NJ Libertarian Blog
Imported from NJ Libertarian News from the published feed
Introducing the Liberty Cafe Podcast! For past episodes visit the Liberty Cafe website.
Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
The alleged murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has reignited the debate over the link between immigration and crime. Such debates often call for change in policy regarding the deportation or apprehension of illegal immigrants. However, if policies should change, it should not be in reaction to a single tragic murder. It should be in response to careful research on whether immigrants actually boost the U.S. crime rates.
With few exceptions, immigrants are less crime prone than natives or have no effect on crime rates. As described below, the research is fairly one-sided.
There are two broad types of studies that investigate immigrant criminality. The first type uses Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data from the institutionalized population and broadly concludes that immigrants are less crime prone than the native-born population. It is important to note that immigrants convicted of crimes serve their sentences before being deported with few exceptions. However, there are some potential problems with Census-based studies that could lead to inaccurate results. That’s where the second type of study comes in. The second type is a macro level analysis to judge the impact of immigration on crime rates, generally finding that increased immigration does not increase crime and sometimes even causes crime rates to fall.
There have been many men and women that have held prestigious positions in government. Some have served with honor and dignity, while others have by their actions disgraced the offices that they held. Some have remained humble and forthright, while others have abused the power their offices gave them. Some have upheld the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution, while others trampled upon them. And, some used their offices for their own self interests, while others remained faithful to the Oaths that were given to them. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., you are an abomination to the Office of U.S. Attorney General.
Gun control advocates of use the “well regulated” phrase in the Second Amendment as a pretext to assert that the government reserves the right to dictate what if any arms its citizens may own and under what conditions they are permitted to acquire, use and dispose of them
By employing textual criticism, this argument can be easily debunked.
Textual criticism involves understanding the words of antique documents in the sense that they were used in the era that the document was authored.
For instance if writer of century ago were to refer to the decade of the 1890s as the “gay ‘90s” or the capital of France as “gay Paris”, we understand that this has nothing to do with same sex relationships. Gay in this sense conveys the notion that this decade and this city were exuberant, happy and high spirited.
The following are comments delivered by Joe Siano at the MLK Day Restoring Freedom's rally in Trenton on 1-21-13.
I have been asked to provide a libertarian perspective on this great man, Dr. King. I say “a” and not “the” because if you ask ten libertarians you will get ten different answers. Thus I am not empowered to speak on anyone’s behalf but my own.
The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King stands alongside of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln as one of the few of American icons that the left, right and center lay claim to. As such, I am unashamed to also claim his legacy on behalf of those who hold liberty, personal responsibility and self governance to be the crown jewels of our American experiment.
Dr. King was first and foremost an advocate of nonviolence. Throughout h is struggles for civil rights and racial equality, he never believed that the end justified the means. He always insisted on a nonviolent path to the ends that he sought.
This approach harmonizes perfectly with the oath that we libertarians affirm upon joining the LP. That is:
Joe Siano is an NJLP Board Member. This article originally appeared at Today's News NJ.
Critics of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies complain that they are fundamentally unfair. When the Fed creates new money, the first people to get their hands on it are the big fat cat bankers and their rich friends. Those fortunate few are then able to spend the new dollars first. However, by time this new money reaches Joe and Jane Six-pack, the flood of new currency will have inflated the money supply and raised prices. Thus Joe and Jane wind up paying more for the same stuff than the fat cats bought for cheap.
The obvious solution is to get the new greenbacks directly to the average guy and gal on the street. And the way to do that is with Currency.com an innovative new Treasury Department program modeled after the popular stamps.com which enables Postal customers to print stamps right at home, from their own computer, currency.com will allow average Americans to print legal tender in the comfort of their homes or offices.
Just for fun take the Authentic Libertarian Certification Exam. Be sure to read the directions first. Once done, if you are proud of your results post them in our forum. No cheating by doing research during the exam.
The exam is part of the Frederic Bastiat Interversity's Libertarian Certification Program developed by Michael Everling and Sam Wells.
On October 2, 1996 in the “New York Post,” then columnist Carl T. Rowan wrote a piece entitled “Liberal Is Not a Four Letter Word.” In it, he described what it meant to be “a liberal” and what it entailed. After reading it, it just reaffirmed to me that the ideology had nothing to in common with the liberalism of the past. That the ideology was hijacked. Where once liberalism believed in the chains of the Constitution, the limits of power and government, as well as rugged individualism, it, along with the conservatism of the modern variety today, believes in the omnipotence of the state. To me, it was a sad read.
Proposal number five of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” This is exactly what our central bank, the Federal Reserve, has now done. Anyone who thinks we are still a capitalist country needs a reality check. We haven't been a capitalist country since FDR and the New Deal. It is ironic that Bush and the republican "free marketeers" have dealt the final blow.
The House narrowly defeated a bill to “rescue” Wall Street today. The question is, what does this mean to the average American?
First of all, congress rejected the concept that the government will be responsible for renegotiating homeowner mortgages that were made by banks which thought they could sell off those loans and take no risk. Investors in such financial instruments that are backed by mortgage payments and other revenue streams, such as credit card receivables, will be wary of taking on such risk in the future. Insurers who promised restitution to these investors will no longer be so certain that these financial instruments are somewhat recession-proof.
Solar panel installation companies are laying off workers and NJ residents are waiting years for solar panels to be installed on and around their homes. Why? Because NJ has a rebate program to promote clean energy but they don't have the money to back it up. These installation companies have to wait years to get checks for work that they are doing and they can't afford to install solar panels and not get paid for their work. There are over 700 applications for solar power rebates still backlogged and now NJ is going to have to pull the plug on the program. And it gets even worse... they are funding this failed program with a tax on every one's utility bill! So as the price of oil is going up the NJ government is trying to promote clean energy use by making electricity more expensive? This does not compute!
Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) authored the most recent bill that modified NJ's current housing policies. It passed in the senate yesterday by a vote of 21-16. One of these changes was to stop municipalities from paying poor cities to take on the burden of offering affordable housing on their behalf. Half of these Democratic senators must be in the pocket of the developers because that is the only reason I can think of behind these types of bills.