Saturday, October 24, 2009

Chris Edes for Rochester, NY School Board

I just mailed the following press release on behalf of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus:

--For Immediate Release--
--Republican Liberty Caucus--

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, a group of approximately 200 liberty-oriented Republicans around the state, has endorsed Chris Edes, who is running on the Libertarian ticket in Rochester. Mr. Edes was endorsed on October 12 at a special meeting of the New York executive committee. Also endorsed by the Libertarian Party, Mr. Edes will appear on the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

Speaking about the endorsement, Edes said: "I'm pleased to receive the RLC endorsement. The Republican Liberty Caucus is the vanguard of Republican thinking for the 21st Century."

Mr. Edes aims to bring new ideas to the school debate. He is not part of the political establishment, and so is not part of the Democratic Party's failed educational policies that respond to political pressure from teachers' unions and an educational establishment that is encumbered by lockstep political correctness; neglect of basic three r's education; and a willingness to tax this State out of existence.

As Diane Ravitch points out in her book Left Back: A Century of Battles over School Reform, progressive education and the cumbersome bureaucracy associated with big government have left generations of students unable to perform and a nation that has flagged in the global marketplace.

To find out more information about Mr. Edes' campaign, visit his website at .

The Republican Liberty Caucus favors a reduced scope of government in order to permit New York to become more competitive. Future generations will be deprived of freedom and the fruits of economic innovation because of encroaching socialism. For further information about the Republican Liberty Caucus please call:

Carl Svensson
Mitchell Langbert

Friday, October 23, 2009

Letter to Edward F. Cox

I have posted (via regular mail and e-mail) the following letter to Edward F. Cox. I invite others to write with similar concerns.

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494

Mr. Edward F. Cox
Chairman, New York State
Republican Committee
315 State Street
Albany, NY 12210
October 23, 2009

Dear Mr. Cox:

I am a Republican committee person in the Town of Olive, New York and a member of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus. I would like some information about your positions. I understand that you are planning a run for governor. I recently met Rudy Giuliani and am considering backing him. I am considering you as well. However, I would appreciate your answering the following questions, which I will post on my blog,

1. What is your position on the multi-trillion dollar Bush-Obama bailout of Wall Street?

2. What is your plan for reduction of government spending in New York State?

3. What will be your strategy for dealing with Dennis Rivera’s SEIU organization, the various teachers’ unions and other pressure groups that have been sucking the state dry?

4. What is your position on curriculum reform? Are you willing to appoint Diane Ravitch to head the Department of Education and to end the use of New York’s schools for left-wing propaganda?

5. What is your plan to revive New York’s economy from its current public sector-induced death spiral?

6. The extremist left-wing, Democratic Party public relations organization, the New York Times, recently called you a “moderate”. I consider this a serious mark against you. Can you name five critical issues on which you diverge sharply from the Times’ Democratic Party editors? What are the details?

7. How would you have handled the race in the 23rd Congressional district and Dede Scozzafava’s nomination differently from Joe Mondello? Given that the Republican predecessor, John McHugh, was a loot-and-spend, big-government Republican, who was appointed to Secretary of the Army by Barack Obama, what would you have done to induce a smaller-government outcome in the north country?

I am posting this letter on my blog and await your response.


Mitchell Langbert

NY 23rd Congressional Race and Edward F. Cox

The New York State Republican Party has elected Edward F. Cox, the son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon, chair of the New York State Republican Party. You will recall that President Nixon, besides having been involved in break-ins and an improved relationship with China (recall the US/China ping-pong match), was Mr. Inflation. He abolished the gold standard and pressured then-Fed chairman Arthur Burns to reduce interest rates to create a stock market bubble to assist his own re-election. Hence, he was as tightly linked to the corrupt New York City economy as is the Democratic Party and its publicity wing, the New York Times. Morally and politically Nixon represents the worst in the Republican Party.

But should the sins of the father-in-law be visited on the son-in-law? Cox has worked as an attorney with Patterson Belknap, a white shoe law firm in Manhattan. The firm is intimately linked to the Wall Street-and-bubble economy, and so the Democrats are very much in his corner. The Democratic publicity wing describes Cox as "centrist", which is a very, very bad sign. When the fringe left describes a Republican as "centrist" the smell of co-optation is in the air.

Mr. Cox assumed his post on September 29 and cannot be held responsible for the Republicans' shooting themselves in the foot in the 23rd Congressional district. The Wall Street Journal reports that Joe Mondello led the charge to nominate a left-wing extremist to run in the 23rd Congressional District. The brilliant and lovely Raquel Okyay has blogged on this depressing race. As an active Republican I cannot support her endorsement for the Conservative Party candidate, though.

Newsrunner publishes a Daily Kos poll that finds that in the Republican 23rd district, the Democrat is ahead because the state Republicans have allowed a left-winger, Dede Scozzaava, run on the Republican ticket. Doug Hoffman, a Conservative Party candidate who represents the mainstream, is getting more than 20% in response to Scozzafava's candidacy. That leaves the Democrat Bill Owens ahead. The Journal reports the same points.

The Journal seems to claim that Joe Mondello and the Republican County chairs are stupid. Perhaps they would rather run a left-wing extremist like Scozzafava than a conservative even if it means losing. Actually, it's not that bad because they thought she would win.

The question for Liberty Republicans in New York is: Can the Republicans recover from the dominance of the extreme left at the state level?

The Republican Liberty Caucus in New York has been discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial which claims about the conservative Republican 23rd district:

" bosses have managed to nominate a rare Republican who could lose: Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, whose liberal record has caused voters to flee to Doug Hoffman, a business executive who is running on the Conservative line. Mr. Hoffman has more than 20% support in the latest poll, which is only a few points behind Ms. Scozzafava, who is only a little behind Democratic lawyer Bill Owens."

The Journal is inaccurate in describing the district as all that conservative. First of all, there are a number of higher education institutions in northern New York and they will slant the vote to the left. Second, the former Congressmen, John McHugh, was a loot-and-spend, big government Republican about whom I blogged in May 2007. McHugh was not only corrupt, but he was so "conservative" that Obama appointed him Secretary of the Army. That's really a sign of conservatism. Their former Congressman was a regular John Locke. After all, he was appointed by Obama.

Third, I lived in northern New York and found the population there to be mostly interested in two things: their next welfare check and how to best clean the buck they just shot. Combine that with widespread drug abuse and a high mental retardation rate due to all the in-breeding and fathers raping their daughters, then you get a sense of the "conservative" population up there. Hence, the Journal overstates northern New York's conservatism. The county chairs may not have been crazy, but they were not people whom I would support in a thousand years. They belong in the Democratic Party, not the Republican.

The question, though, if you care about freedom, is how to get candidates who can help optimize the quest for freedom. Edward F. Cox seems unlikely to be able to do a good job, even if he, as did other Progressive Republican types like George W. Bush, speaks the language of lower taxes and reduced spending. I have concluded that Ivy League types make bad politicians because they have been indoctrinated in the failed ideas of Progressivism. Cox is a graduate of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Government. I very much doubt he knows the first thing about free markets, Locke or the principles on the nation was based. I very much doubt that he will make a difference with respect to Scozzfava or similar kinds of calls.

There is no question that candidates must market themselves to voters and liberal districts need to be regaled with liberal candidates. But I would like to see people who are genuine conservatives who win by pandering to liberal voters on the surface, rather than what the Republicans have now, Republicans who are Progressives at heart who pander to the conservatives in the party and expand government when they are elected, not the least of which were George W. Bush and New York's George Pataki.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Freedom of Information Act Request for Accounting of Olive Budget Surplus

I am sending the following freedom of information act request to the Town of Olive Town Supervisor, Berndt Leifeld. The Democratic Party lied to the American people. It claimed to be the party of the poor and middle class. But when Barack Obama was elected, his first and so far only tangible series of acts was to transfer four trillion dollars to America's super-rich. That is the largest example of corruption in American history. If you combine the corruption associated with Jay Gould, Jim Fiske, John D. Rockefeller, Willy Durant and his insider trading while at General Motors, the corruption on Wall Street in the 1920s that preceded the Great Depression, Enron, Worldcom and the other late 1990s scandals, the S&L crisis of the late 1980s, you combine them, and triple them, they are less than the corruption associated with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party of 2009. Yet, the American media continues to crow about the Mr. Obama's supernatural powers. He is not only the most corrupt president, he is the most corrupt individual in American history.

In our little Town of Olive, we see a microcosm. Corrupt Democrats, who justified the massive wealth transfer to banking interests in the name of "deflation", aim to raise taxes by nearly nine percent. It doesn't bother the Democrats to talk about "deflation" and nine percent tax increases (with utterly no concomitant increases in services) in the same breath. The degree of stupidity and corruption in American politics is nonpareil.

After two trips to the Town of Olive offices I was able to obtain a copy of the September 2009 year-to-date budget variances. The variances indicate that spending has been at approximately 69% of the budget but 75% of the year has passed. That makes it difficult to understand why a nine percent tax increase is necessary.

I reproduce the letter, which I am sending certified mail this morning.

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
October 21, 2009

Mr. Berndt Leifeld
Olive Town Supervisor
45 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, NY 12494

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr. Leifeld:

Thank you for providing most of the budget reports I requested upon my second trip to your office. I have a few questions for public consumption.

1. The highway and general fund budgets indicate that the Town has spent 69.01% of the amount budgeted as of September 30, but 75% of the year had passed as of that date. This indicates a budget surplus.

2. Where do budget surpluses get deposited and what are the balances in all of those accounts?

3. When have surplus, unspent monies been used to reduce taxes, and when have they been used to increase special and earmarked accounts?

4. This is a freedom of information act request for copies of all current monthly or quarterly bank account and certificate of deposit (not to exceed 50 pages) statements pertaining to the Town of Olive Highway Fund; the Town of Olive General fund; and special or earmarked funds. These should encompass all town cash, certificate of deposit and other liquid holdings.

5. If (4) does not encompass all town cash holdings I would appreciate an explanation as to what funds have been excluded.

6. This is a freedom of information act request for the accounting reconciliation of cash and fund accounts involving end-of-year transfers from the Town’s general and highway funds to earmarked accounts (not to exceed 25 pages).


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Town of Olive Republican Committee

Aristotle: Virtue Proves the Existence of God

"The question might be raised 'Is luck the cause of this very thing--desiring what one should or when one should?' Or will luck in that way be the cause of everything? For it will be the cause both of thinking and deliberating; for a man who deliberates has not deliberated already before deliberating and deliberated also about that--there is some starting point. Nor did he think, after thinking already before thinking, and so on to infinity. Intelligence, therefore, is not the starting point of thinking, nor is counsel the starting point of deliberation. So what else is there save luck? Thus everything will be by luck. Or is there some starting-point beyond which there is not other, and this-because it is of such a sort--can have such an effect? But what is being sought is this: What is the starting point of change in the soul? It is now evident: as it is a god that moves in the whole universe, so it is in the soul; for in a sense, the divine element in us moves everything; but the starting-point of reason is not reason but something superior. What then could be superior to knowledge and intelligence but a god? For virtue is an instrument of intelligence."

Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, Book VIII.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Town of Olive: Nine Percent Tax Increase When There's an Eight Percent Surplus?

Berndt Leifeld and the rubber-stamp Olive Town Board refused to publish the Town's budget variances when I proposed that they do so at a recent Town Meeting. One of the Democrats suggested that I get out of town instead. However, after two trips to the Town of Olive office on Watson Hollow Road in West Shokan the Democrats-in-power did provide me with a list of budget variances as of 9-30-09, which I copied into the Google Docs file below. You will notice that there are many variances in the year-to-date budget, including a large positive variance with respect to health insurance.

Nine months into the year, the Town is under budget. The total budgeted spending for the year is as follows.

Olive Highway Budget, 2009: $1,715,202
Olive General Fund Budget, 2009: $2,178,065
Total: $3,893,267

Three fourths or nine months of these budgeted amounts are:

Olive Highway Budget 9-30-09: 3/4 x $1,715,202 = $1,286,402
Olive General Fund Budget 9-30-09: 3/4 x $2,178,065 = $1,633,549
Total: 3,893,267 x 3/4 = $2,919,950

But actual spending as of 9-30-09 is as follows:

Olive Highway Actual Spending 9-30-09: = 1,183,727
Olive General Fund Actual Spending 9-30-09: = 1,485,312
Total = 2,669,039

Note that 2,669,039 / 2,919,950 = 91.4%. That is, the Town is under budget by 8.6%.

Now why, during a supposed "depression" that President Barack Obama and the Democrats used to justify a $4 trillion subsidy to the wealthiest Americans, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, money center commercial banks, George Soros and the like, is it necessary to raise taxes when the Town is under budget?

(Note: You can scroll down or across using the bar at the bottom of the Google Docs chart.)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Burkean Conservatives Tell Diedrich Knickerbocker-Style History

Diedrich Knickerbocker was Washington Irving's fictional historian who told a fictional account of early New York. In a similar way, Edmund Burke and his conservative followers tell a fictionalized history of the world in which Europe was originally a free market society and through the "progress" of "liberalism" the freedom has eroded to the point where rights established in the 17th century now need to be protected from further inroads. That story is a Diedrich Kinckerbocker history.

Here are a few points about the fallacies of Burkean conservatism:

1. Liberalism was an innovation of Locke and other liberals in the 17th century, and it evolved out of a reaction to state-dominated social organization. The European kings had been attempting to centralize state control of the economy since the fall of Rome. In fact, Rome was the inventor of the mixed economy, centrally controlled political system pretty much what is called "Progressivism" or "state-activist liberalism". Hence, this economy is neither liberal, conservative or Progressive. It is reactionary.

2. "Liberalism" means "of freedom" or pertaining to a free man. It was Locke's and several other theorists' radical creation. Although British institutions had evolved gradually since the Norman invasion, the dominant world view of Europe and Britain was the "great chain of being". Liberalism rejects the great chain of being in a much more fundamental way than any other ideology, more so than Progressivism, mercantilism, socialism or communism which re-create the great chain of being, asserting the need for centralized elites. It is therefore the most radical of any ideology.

3. There was never any other meaning of "liberalism" until the Progressive era in the early twentieth century. There was never a debate between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the 18th or 19th centuries. These terms were later creations, and both are creatures of Progressivism.

4. American conservatism begins with William Howard Taft's presidency. Taft did not like Roosevelt's idea of establishment of the Federal Trade Commission and regulation of trusts. Roosevelt wanted to establish a regulatory agency to manage trusts and to control prices. Taft wanted to regulate trusts through legal prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Both Taft and Roosevelt were Progressives.

The modern "conservative" movement descends from Taft-style Progressivism. The modern "liberal" movement descends from Roosevelt-style Progressivism. Neither has anything to do with the liberalism of the 19th century. Both are radical breaks.

5. The ideas of current-day "liberals" or "progressives" are a recapitulation of mercantilism and the Roman economy. Hence, they are not "progressive" but reactionary. The ideas of free market capitalism descend from Adam Smith. Both mercantilism and free market ideas were created at the same time. David Hume, Lord Shaftesbury and the other mercantilists and the advocates of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, were rough contemporaries. Smith wrote in response to mercantilist ideas that had been discussed in his lifetime.

6. Federalism, Montesquieu's creation of the 18th century, was NOT a gradual creation and was not conservative. It did exist in Switzerland, so unless the United States had been a colony of Switzerland, federalism's application here was radical. Montesquieu argued that federalism was the best system to create a democratic form of government. There was nothing conservative about the adoption of federalism by the founding fathers. They had read Montesquieu and they applied his ideas anew.

7. Current day "liberalism" is mercantilism. It advocates a strong central state to manage the economy. American liberalism of the nineteenth century lead by the Democratic Republicans starting with Jefferson and on through Andrew Jackson and his followers rejected mercantilism. Mercantilism did not reappear until the Progressive era. The Progressives called mercantilism "Progressivism".

8. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Federalists. Washington was NOT A FEDERALIST. Hamilton advocated mercantilism. Adams, who had been Washington's vice-president, was the only elected Federalist. The Federalists supported the anti-libertarian Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams lost in 1800 and the Federalist Party disappeared, completely and soundly rejected. Although Hamilton's Bank of the United States continued until 1836 (it had been terminated and then re-established in 1816), it was terminated as the country became more committed to freedom and less committed to mercantilism.

9. The debate between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the twentieth century was between two sets of mercantilists, neither of whom focused on the chief aspects of free market capitalism that characterized the nineteenth century.

Hence, American conservativsm is NOT CONSERVATIVE. It conserves nothing. It is an aberration from the evolution of the American economy in the nineteenth century and it asserts insitutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank, economic regulation and Social Security that have absolutely no continuity with the American past.

To assert an American conservativism, conservatives have a choice of several illogical claims.

1. They can claim that it is conservative to support the Progressivism of Roosevelt but not the laissez faire economics of Jackson.

2. They can claim that it is conservative to support the 18th century mercantilism of Hamilton and Hume but not the 18th century free market ideas of Smith and Jefferson.

3. They can claim that it is conservative to support the free market ideas of Jackson, but to reject the older Roman and 16th century emphasis on centralization (Henry VIII, for instance, aggressively centralized monarchical power and stripped away the aristocrats' local armies and other of their powers).

There is little that is conservative about the Bill of Rights. These were innovations that were occurring and need to evolve as stresses on freedom change. There is nothing conservative about any of it.

Rather, there is a choice between state control, which goes back to the Egyptian, Persian and Greek times and before, and freedom, which also goes back to the days of Athens. There is nothing "progressive" about state control (and calling it "liberal" is Orwellian) and there is nothing "conservative" about rights.

There is liberalism or libertarianism and there is authoritarian or totalitarian authority. "Progress" or "conservation" are ruses and are used for deceptive purposes.

But Will They Really?

I just received this from Cindy Johansen

>Chris received this from the State Comptroller office today...

Sent: 10/20/2009 4:05:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Town of Olive

Mr. Johansen:

This is to advise that the Office of the State Comptroller has received your complaint concerning the Town of Olive. Please be assured that our staff is reviewing this matter for appropriate action.

Thank you for bringing this matter to Comptroller DiNapoli’s attention.

Senator Durbin Lies, Covers Up, Assists ACORN

Someone who lives in my town told me that they personally observed leaders of ACORN in southern Texas involved in drug dealing and extortion. To a GREEDY DEMOCRAT like Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), racketeering, criminal violence, voter fraud and drug dealing are insufficient to bar ACORN from receiving our tax dollars.

Meanwhile, sales at my local supermarket are down, apparently because GREEDY DEMOCRATS in the Town of Olive, New York, are raising taxes by TEN PERCENT in order to fund the Democratic Town Supervisor's (Berndt Leifeld's) political glad handing. People cannot afford to eat as varied a diet because their taxes are astronomical in order to pay for billions in profits of the Democrats' client hedge fund managers.

Glenda McGee is right, though. Sales of SPAM are WAY UP. Thanks to the Democrats, Obama and their greedy, FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT, AMERICA IS ON A SPAM DIET--Except of course for cronies of crooked Democratic politicians, Durbin's friends at ACORN, George Soros and the array of Wall Street and hedge fund welfare mothers.

One of the great men of Illinois, Jim Crum of Tinley Park, just wrote a letter of protest to Illinois's DUKE OF GREED, Senator Richard Durbin.

>Senator Durbin:

I really hope that one of your staffers, and not you yourself, wrote this missive below.

The only abuses ACORN ever reported are the ones that were publicly pointed out by third parties. And only after sustained adverse publicity were people fired, and in every instance it was always the management throwing the little people under the bus. The first few times this happened, one might overlook this operational failure, but eventually...

Currently, 12 states Attorney General's Office are running investigations on this organization and yet from your communication below, this is apparently insufficient evidence? If not, what burden of proof could possibly be strong enough to correct your course of action? Be advised, ACORN had a central role in the recent mortgage mess, and in a sense, they are an "unindicted co-conspirator". While a side issue, it is not a small matter in of itself.

Here's the bottom line: Your office-and those of your colleagues- was alerted directly and frequently very early on to the problems with ACORN in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Your staff and you for yourself, did just exactly what? Perhaps had you shown interest in what was being communicated to you, this matter may have been prevented? No matter, but please kindly explain to me how there are not enough data points to make a reasonable and logical conclusion about how this organization operates. If it were not so politically protected, can you reasonably tell me that your opinion and behavior would not be different?

Rather than write, call me.

My number is on file.

Jim Crum

From: ""
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:50:23 AM
Subject: Message From Senator Durbin

October 15, 2009

Mr. Jim Crum

Dear Mr. Crum:=

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I appreciate hearing from you.

I've seen the videos and I am appalled by them. I am also troubled by the discoveries of voter registration fraud, and I am glad ACORN reported the incidents to the authorities. These employees have been fired, and ACORN is being investigated by state and federal agencies for misconduct and potential misuse of government funds. Anyone who has broken the law should be prosecuted.

ACORN deserves much of the criticism it has received for allowing this type of behavior to happen. ACORN has voluntarily engaged an independent auditor, suspended the affected programs, and implemented a new initiative to train all staff on its code of conduct to prevent future incidents like these. These are important steps to address serious lapses.

Although ACORN was wrong, the legislation that was offered on the Senate floor was not the right response. It put Congress in the position of prosecutor, judge, and jury. It pronounced guilt without benefit of trial, and then applied the penalty to the entire organization because of the sins of a limited number of specific employees.

Congress should not, because of the misconduct of those ACORN employees who have now been terminated, permanently deny assistance to thousands of families who have been receiving ACORN's help to avoid predatory lending and foreclosure.

I have introduced a Senate amendment that would direct the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review and audit of federal funds received by ACORN, to determine whether any federal funds were misused and, if so, the amount of funds involved and how they were misused. GAO would be directed to submit a report to Congress identifying what steps have been taken to recover any funds that were misused, what steps should be taken to prevent the future misuse of any federal funds, and whether ACORN and federal agencies have taken all necessary steps to prevent any future misuse of federal funds. This information should guide our long-term decisions about funding received by ACORN.

I believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions, organizations and corporations should be held accountable for the policies they set, and entities should not be permanently cut off based on the actions of individual employees who violated the organization's policies and have been fired. We need a process for addressing wrongs and moving forward with policies that will prevent future misdeeds.

I will continue to support accountability in the use of federal funds, for ACORN and for every other recipient of federal dollars.

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Four Reasons Why Jews Are Leftists

Glenda writes:

>My Israeli girlfriend was here this weekend and I practically grilled her about why so many Jews were leftists. She isn't but if the O was pro Israel she might be.

My response:

I have four points about why Jews are leftists. The first point is the social structure in Europe. Conservatism in Europe, especially eastern Europe where most of the Jews lived, was virulently anti-Semitic to the point of frequent open murder in places like Poland and Russia. In Europe few by the late nineteenth century understood Lockean liberalism and freedom and in eastern Europe those ideas were never known. The two choices were state-based conservatism or state-based socialism. Those were the only two known alternatives in eastern Europe and largely are in Europe to this day. Hence, a large percentage of Jews were communists or leftists in response because that was seen to be the only alternative.

Second, Jewish leftism is due to lack of understanding of freedom (called "liberalism" before 1900). Most of the Jews who came here after 1880 were badly educated eastern Europeans who had suffered considerable discrimination under the Russian Czars. They arrived here at the same time that American elites such as Theodore Roosevelt had dropped belief in freedom and were advocating the welfare state of Bismarck. About 10,000 American graduate students (at a time 5% of the population went to college) attended graduate school in Europe after the Civil War and before World War I. These came back and founded the most important of the American graduate schools. They also came back advocating "Progressivism".

Culturally, the Jews focused on education, and by the early 1900s the American universities were increasingly advocating Progressivism. The German Jews who had been living here since the 1820s or 30s followed the Progressive bandwagon of Roosevelt, and they were an influence on the eastern European Jews (the New York Times is an example of this). No one ever taught the Jews about Locke or freedom and there was nothing in their culture to teach them. American institutions by the early twentieth century had already swung toward statism and Americans were willing to accept the idea that the radical ideas of Lockean liberalism were "conservatism" and the mercantilist/socialist ideas that were a reinvention of manorial feudalism were "Progressivism".

I have European students at Brooklyn College today who come here believing in socialism or statism and no one teaches them otherwise, except for me. Their ideas are scarcely different from those of their peasant ancestors ten generations ago. The last country to finally end manorial social structures was Sweden. There were remanants of serfdom in Sweden until the 1950s in the form the "bruk" system. The Swedes today are, of course, the leaders of socialism. They never left the Middle Ages.

Third, many Jews believe in charity and the idea of what today is called "liberalism" or "progressivism" claims to be charitable. Because they have been badly educated, many Americans, including many Jews, are not aware of the violent nature of government redistribution or the secondary effects described so eloquently in Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Many Jews believe that the socialist systems that caused anti-Semitism are more humane than the free market system, but lack the imagination to realize that the countries that their ancestors fled were largely socialist and the country to which they fled was based on Lockean individualism and freedom. Because they have been badly educated, It does not occur to them that the economic opportunities here were due to the economic system. Since they've been ideologically lied to in school and in college, they cannot figure out that the freedom they enjoy here and the economic opportunities were due to freedom, and as they attack freedom they are killing the economic opportunities and ending the tolerance (which has not happened yet but will if things continue on their current national socialist course).

Fourth, many Jews who arrived here after 1900 were faced within 30 years with the Great Depression. Although we now know that the Great Depression was caused by the Fed, it was blamed on free markets. This added to their emotional insecurity about freedom, an idea to which the Jews were never exposed and so fear. The fault is in large part with the Progressives of the early twentieth century. The German Jews, especially Adolph Ochs and the New York Times and also the progressive builder of New York City, Robert Moses, and progressives like co-founders of the New Republic, Walter Lippmann and Walter Weyl, played no small role.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Board of Elections Takes an Interest in Olive Day

In order to look at the filings of the Town in question and see what is reported, I would need to know which Town in Ulster County are you asking about?

If you prefer, you may wish to file a complaint with our Enforcement Unit.

Please let me know how we may assist you?

Patricia M. Lloyd

>>> "Mitchell Langbert" 10/15/2009 3:16 PM >>>
Dear Board of Elections;

I have a question. I am aware of a Town that provides in-kind benefits in the form of trash removal and police serving as labor for a Democratic Party fundraiser in the town. The Democratic Party holds an annual fundraising event and the Town pays police to entertain children. When other groups (such as the Republican Party) hold equivalent fundraisers (that are much smaller as the Democratic fundraiser is the largest event) they are charged for park cleanup and there are no services provided, but when the Democrats hold their fundraiser they are not charged, services are donated by the Town and the amounts are much larger into the thousands of dollars (whereas the other groups are small).

Is it legal for the Town to subsidize the Democrats and not the Republicans or anyone else?


Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY

Man of Great Deeds and Few Words: Chris Johansen Files Complaint with State Comptroller

Chris Johansen filed the following complaint with the New York State Comptroller:

This complaint takes place in the Town of Olive in Ulster County New York. I am reporting the use of town funds and services being used to sponsor an event put on by the town Democratic committee.

On Sept 12th of this year the town Democratic committee (ODC) put on the annual event called Olive day. There are as many as 30 booths rented to anybody who wants one with checks made out to the O.D.C..There is a booth that sells beer for the O.D.C.. These are just some of the money makers for the O.D.C. at this event.
Services that the Town payed for at this event include.

1. There are 7 or 8 town police officers there to put on a bike rodeo for the children.

2. There are two town laborers and a town truck picking up garbage all day

3. This garbage is deposited in a town highway dump truck which on Monday hauled it to Resource recovery in Kingston where it was dumped

On 10/13/09 at a public town board meeting I voiced this complaint. The supervisor with his three democratic board members advised me that Olive day was a town event. He did not explain why my check for booth space is made out to the O.D.C.

The O.D.C. deposits thousands from Olive day while the town picks up the bill for the Expenses.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Democratic Party Shenanigans in the Town of Olive

I just received this e-mail from a friend who lives in the Town of Olive:

>When googling "fundraiser for the Olive Democrats at Davis park ny" you see this,..

Ulster County Democrats
Sunday, September 9—Olive Day, Davis Park, West Shokan. Sunday, September 9—Esopus Democrats Annual Picnic, Freer Park, Noon--? - Cached - Similar

but when you click on it and go there, you see they deleted that blog post and now it just starts at the last blog being Tuesday, August 4, 2009, LOL,... you have them running to cover there tracks!

(are tax payers picking up the tab for Esopus Democrats Annual Picnic, Freer Park also?)(and how far up that ladder does this scam go?)

Glenda McGee Tells It Like It Is

Dear Editor,

In a small town it seems there is a personal nature to an election that is unfortunate and I think unwise.

When voting for your personal interests means not voting for people you are friendly with and have happily done town business with, an election challenge to incumbents can be misinterpreted as a personal affront. But is that wise?

When voting I disavow "feelings" and assess the best economic choice that serves my fiscal well being. I swear I would vote against my own son if I thought he was going to raise my taxes. "Sorry, kid."

The team challenging our Town of Olive incumbents is running on the Republican and Conservative lines this year.

They have made a commitment to a hiring freeze and a frozen budget. They will actually refuse the health care package and will not take a health care buyout.. Vince Barringer, running for supervisor, will take a ten thousand dollar pay cut as well. I really appreciate that.

Because the Republican / Conservative candidates are making a clear commitment to thrift at their own personal cost, I am convinced that this year I should vote the Republican Conservative ticket for the first time.

By the way, these candidates will require a town board majority to halt the growing town budget burden.

These are new and scary times. We New Yorkers will soon pay a huge government mandated obligation to make up the pension shortfall of the New York State employees. Spam and water for dinner anyone? The tax burden we face will be enormous and will threaten the home ownership of those who live on the fiscal edge. Federal spending on the "Stimulous Package" has lowered our dollar index value from 99 to 75 in the past eight months. Yikes, there goes the buying power of the American dollar.

When I vote for Vince Barringer and the rest of the Republican/Conservative ticket November 3rd., I will not be voting against anyone. I will be voting for my economic survival.


Glenda Rose McGee