Elementary concepts of fairness demand that musical artists and performers remain free to negotiate…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Congress Should Oppose the So-Called "Local Radio Freedom Act"

Elementary concepts of fairness demand that musical artists and performers remain free to negotiate performance rights with broadcasters that seek to play their songs.  Indeed, current law allows artists to mutually bargain with satellite, Internet and cable stations.

The only exception:  traditional AM-FM radio stations, which are unfairly protected by federal law from having to negotiate with artists for performance rights.  This is precisely the sort of crony capitalism against which the American electorate is increasingly irate.

Unfortunately, rather than advocating market reform, some in Congress wish to cement the current protectionist status quo.  Under the so-called "Local Radio Freedom Act," whose very name contradicts its real-world effect, terrestrial radio's unjustifiable…[more]

July 28, 2015 • 03:51 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
In the Shadow of the Minaret Print
By Troy Senik
Friday, December 11 2009
Placing an arbitrary ban on an object with religious significance will not still the fervor of true believers.

In the six and half decades since the conclusion of World War Two, Europe – the fountainhead of western liberalism – has been slowly but systematically divesting itself of everything that made it the world’s powerhouse continent for most of the second millennium A.D. 
 
The system of nation-states solidified by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is eroding under the aegis of the European Union and its undemocratic centralization of power.  The market capitalism first comprehensively articulated by the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith in 1776’s The Wealth of Nations has given way to the infirmities of social democracy and its attendant welfare states.  And the continent that produced Nelson, Napoleon and Clausewitz has become institutionally pacifistic, laboring under the fantasies of international law, multilateral diplomacy and the United Nations – a delusion subsidized by the hegemonic power of the United States.  
 
Suicide, it turns out, is a difficult process to interrupt in media res.  That’s the lesson to be learned from the November 29 referendum in Switzerland in which 57.5 percent of Swiss voters cast a ballot in favor of prohibiting the construction of minarets, the tall spires that are a hallmark of Islamic mosques. Galvanized by the deluge of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa that have poured into European nations in recent years, the Swiss electorate struck back at fears of the continent’s growing Islamization.  
 
European and American elites have been quick to paint the referendum’s results as the result of a xenophobic public insufficiently reconciled to 21st century multiculturalism. The Swiss newspaper Le Temps called the vote a “brutal sign of hostility” to Muslims that was “inspired by fear, fantasy and ignorance.”  Yet with informal polls in Spain, France and Germany showing overwhelming majorities in accord with the Swiss decision, dismissing the minaret ban as mass hysteria is imprudent.  That it should take root in a nation with as long a history of religious tolerance as Switzerland only makes it more salient.
 
Switzerland is not a country with an Islamic minority nearly as pronounced as its neighbors. With an estimated 400,000 worshippers of Allah, the country’s population is only five percent Muslim.   And only four mosques in the nation actually boast the minaret.  By nearly all measures, the diminutive population of Swiss Muslims is not nearly as radicalized or unassimilated as the Islamic populations of nations like England or France. So why all the fuss?
 
The answer is likely that the Swiss are aware of the demographic time bomb that will see Muslim populations explode in Europe through reproduction and immigration while native Caucasians decline as a percentage of the citizenry due to plummeting birth rates. With the Islamist segment of this growing population making itself known through terrorist attacks, street riots and targeted murders, Europeans are beginning to fear that not only are they losing a once-great civilization; they also may be giving it over to the forces of barbarism. 
 
Leading Islam scholar Daniel Pipes has theorized that the collision course between native Europeans and Muslims on the continent will play itself out in one of three ways: (1) harmonious integration; (2) an Islamic triumph in Europe, or (3) a spirit of resistance to the Muslims among native Europeans bearing a resemblance to the continent’s fascist past.  At present, the Swiss vote seems to indicate an inclination towards the third option.  
 
In the end, however, this may be an example of too little, too late.  Placing an arbitrary ban on an object with religious significance will not still the fervor of true believers.  Had Europe seriously considered its cultural trajectory decades ago, it may have been decidedly more circumspect in its immigration policies and less tolerant of ideologies aimed at destroying the continent’s legacy of liberty.  That could have been ample to stave off the forces of decline. With that option foreclosed, however, all that’s left is a rearguard defense.  It’s a battle between those who would gladly die for their beliefs and those whose idea of cultural triumphalism is regulating architecture. Place your bets.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Obama Administration officials stated in April 2015 that under the nuclear deal with Iran, “you will have anywhere, any time 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has”?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The current fashion among progressives is the demand for a $15/hour minimum wage. Bernie Sanders supports it, Elizabeth Warren supports it, Martin O'Malley supports it, and Hillary Rodham Clinton . . . won'€™t quite answer the question. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a $15/hour minimum wage would throw 3.3 million Americans out of work. Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West of Texas A&M…[more]
 
 
—Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
— Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

If the campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination were only between Donald Trump and John McCain, for whom would you vote?