Alongside nearly every other conservative and libertarian organization of which we're aware, CFIF opposes…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Former Clinton Administration Official Rips FCC's Set-Top Box Proposal as "Massive New Federal Regulation"

Alongside nearly every other conservative and libertarian organization of which we're aware, CFIF opposes a toxic and wholly unnecessary new proposal from the Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate cable television set-top boxes before the clock runs out on the Obama presidency.

But opposition extends across the political spectrum.  In today's Wall Street Journal, former Clinton Administration Undersecretary of Commerce Ev Ehrlich excoriates the FCC's proposed set-top box regulation for what it is -- a crony capitalist, purloining, invasive, already-obsolete, anti-competitive, "massive new federal regulation":

The Federal Communications Commission wants you, the consumer, to allow a new set-top box into your home that rearranges the programs…[more]

May 25, 2016 • 12:25 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   
Since its inception in 1861, how many Medal of Honor recipients have been women?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Last week's unanimous passage of a Senate bill making it easier for 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia and other foreign terror sponsors was widely heralded as a major victory.It's more of a cruel hoax.It turns out that just before the vote, Sen. Charles Schumer and other proponents of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act stuffed an amendment into the final draft allowing the attorney general…[more]
 
 
—Paul Sperry, New York Ppost
— Paul Sperry, New York Ppost
 
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the two major political parties do you believe will be more unified behind its presidential candidate following the nominating conventions?