Mitchell Langbert's Blog

Speaker Moonbeam Advocates Lunar-Based Stimulus

2012-02-01T14:47:00.001-05:00

When I heard Newt Gingrich say that he aims to build an American colony on the moon I was not surprised. The Republicans have a habit of aiming to prove that they can spend as much as Democrats. It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who invented big government Progressivism. A project of the size that Gingrich proposes would cost in the trillions. According to The Washington Post a moon colony project was scuppered in 1989 when the $700 billion price tag (in current dollars) was released. Building a colony on the moon is not the way to explore space. Drones can do so at a fraction of the cost, and can go much further. What possible scientific gain would come from planting thousands of people on the moon?

Not surprisingly, The Washington Post is supportive of Speaker Gingrich's lunatic proposal. He is going Obama one better in ignoring the Constitution of the United States, emphasizing public at the expense of private spending, and using failed Keynesian stimulus ideas to buy votes.

Marxist Gives Good Analysis of American Economy

2012-01-25T04:05:00.000-05:00

H/t Jon Nadler of Kitco. Professor Wolff is a Marxist who gets most of what has been going on in the US economy right. He does not seem to understand the role of the Fed, monetary policy, and the banking system in creating the problems he describes. Otherwise, he hits quite a few nails on their heads.

Tea Party, RIP

2012-01-23T10:00:00.000-05:00

H/t Frank Stephenson on Facebook

Gingrich, Like Cagney, Is Better than Romney

2012-01-22T07:06:00.000-05:00

Newt Gives It to the Taxpayers

The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.

Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.

Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?

Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.

That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.

The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.

As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.

Ron Paul Marginalizes CNN

2012-01-19T23:54:00.003-05:00

The CNN South Carolina Republican debate this evening, facilitated by CNN's John King, paid more attention to Ron Paul than did the Fox debates, but, like Fox, CNN aimed to avoid covering Paul, for Paul threatens corporate interests. Time Warner owns CNN; Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. Paul's reference to the corporate media is more threatening to them than Newt Gingrich's elitist media. Given that Paul's results have doubled Gingrich's in the first two races (although Gingrich is out-polling Paul in South Carolina), there were many CNN camera shots that excluded Paul but included Gingrich, Romney and Santorum. There were long periods when King completely ignored Paul. Even on medical issues, concerning which Paul has more competence than the other candidates, King ignored him. Eventually, someone in the audience cried out about the imbalance, and King relented.

Even more revealing was Anderson Cooper's "360" post-debate analysis. There was almost no mention of Paul. I watched it simply to see how infrequently they mentioned Paul. I left the room a few times, but I don't think they mentioned him at all.

Paul's anti-Fed platform profoundly threatens Anderson Cooper's employer, Time Warner, which would not have been formed 11 years ago without the Federal Reserve Bank's counterfeit liquidity. That AOL-Time-Warner merger bought martinis for investment bankers at the expense of the average American's real hourly wage. What better example of mal-investment than Time Warner itself? What greater waste? How much did the Fed extract from the public to finance sleazy Wall Street investment bankers' fees for that value-destroying merger? To hear Paul condemning mal-investment and the corporate media on Time Warner itself, the belly of the Wall Street beast, was cause for celebration.

It is Paul who is marginalizing CNN, King, and Cooper, not the reverse. Only Paul raised the key issue: America's debt and its monetary policies. Only Paul was willing to state the obvious--America's, both Democrats' and Republicans', monetary policy is bankrupt.

As the public is beginning to see that only Ron Paul raised the chief issue facing America, monetary policy, his numbers will continue to outpace expectations. If he can continue the 20% level that he has won in New Hampshire and Iowa, he will transform American political dialogue. Paul is the most radical major candidate since Eugene V. Debs polled 913,693 votes for the Social Democratic Party in 1920. The Progressive system that socialist Debs advocated, and that Republican socialist Theodore Roosevelt implemented, has failed. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party willing to discuss its failure.

We Do Not Need the Establishment Media to Spread Paul's Message.

2012-01-11T12:57:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul's second place showing in New Hampshire frightens the Establishment: Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Bank, the money center banks, and the the nexus of institutions that surround these, especially the legacy media from MS-NBC to Rush Limbaugh. According to The State Column Paul's popularity had surged five percent in a Reuters Poll prior to his win in New Hampshire. Now that he has come in second with better than 20 percent of the New Hampshire vote Paul's issues cannot be ignored. If the Establishment continues to play its ignore-and-defame game, Paul's movement will continue to grow. The end result will be the Fed's curtailment or abolition whether or not the Establishment is willing to debate him. We do not need the Establishment media to spread Paul's message.

Paul's movement will grow because numbers bestow credibility, and the pain that the Fed and Wall Street have inflicted on the average American is becoming increasingly evident over time. Our economic future is bleak; but our recent economic past is bleak too. Real wages have been stagnant for the past 40 years, a stagnation unknown prior to the abolition of the gold standard, the expansion of the Fed's money-creation powers, and the expansion of government regulation under the Great Society. The gold standard's abolition unshackled the Fed's power to destroy the American economy. The massive harm it had done in the 1940s and 1950s through the federal urban renewal program that decimated America's cities expanded into a series of massive stock market, real estate, and financial bubbles that dwarf all past eras' financial instability. The long term effects of the Progressive destruction of America's wealth will be felt for another century.

The most recent Fed-induced crisis began with the culmination of the long Reagan-initiated stock market bubble of the 1980s and 1990s, the short Bush real estate bubble of the early 2000s, and the collapse of European socialism in Greece, Spain and other southern European states, whose recent history is still another part of the sequence of Fed-induced bubbles.

Ron Paul's strong showing augurs well for the future of America because the alternative to a decentralization and libertarian reorganization of the American republic is fascism, that is, increasing stagnation, decline, and government suppression.

To put Paul's performance in perspective, recall how radical his platform is. He is calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank, and he has received more than 20 percent of the vote. Paul is a more radical candidate than the Communist Party's, and the Establishment would probably prefer a CP candidate to Paul. No major candidate has called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank in decades, possibly since the Fed was established in 1913. The Republicans who dominated the 1920s, especially Warren G. Harding and his vice president and successor Calvin Coolidge, did not question the Progressive institutions that Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson, had forged on behalf of Wall Street.

Until now, the media has been able to marginalize the few who have raised the gold standard and the Fed as issues. But the Internet has increasingly made the legacy media obsolete, and the argument against the Fed is powerful. Few institutions in world history have caused so much harm as has the Federal Reserve Bank. The academic and Establishment ideologues who defend the Fed do not have historical evidence or palpable economic outcomes on their side. The Fed has gradually destroyed the American dream. Today, American industry is a pathetic shell of its former self, and its banking and business leaders empty-headed cuckoos who depend on public welfare and are unable to refrain from common criminality--witness the recent Corzine scandal.

Until this year, the Establishment has been successful at preventing large scale discussion about the Federal Reserve Bank. Even now, the legacy media attempts to deflect discussion of Paul's chief issue by calling him names and raising difficult-to-explain positions like his opposition to federal laws like the Civil Rights Act. It is difficult for Paul to explain complex positions to bubble-brained television announcers and to overcome a legacy media drumbeat of lies, such as Gary Weiss's recent syndicated column.

I am getting back into gold soon. But the instability, decline, income inequality, and large scale business criminality that directly results from Progressivism is under direct threat, and this can only mean a reassessment of the wealth-reallocation machine that makes holding gold desirable. The Establishment is likely fearful, but it will have to engage Paul or cope with an ever more radical response.

Republican Debate a Big Government Stew with Small Government Seasoning

2012-01-08T00:02:00.001-05:00

Tonight's Republican debate was a big government stew with small government seasoning. Ron Paul, who remains the only Republican candidate to raise the possibility of shrinking government, was the seasoning. Stew-meat-and-potato candidates Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman talked about the importance of the private sector and job creation, but they had nix to say about how to cut government. Gingrich said he favors less government; nevertheless, he offered ideas about how an ever-bigger government can spend on infrastructure. He, like rest of the beef, potatoes, and onions of the big-government Republican stew, had no specific plans to make government smaller; Gingrich and Romney merely say they like the private sector. Big government Progressives of the past like George W. Bush, George H. Bush, and Richard M. Nixon said the same kinds of things and did nix to shrink government. We can expect the same from tonight's stew meat.

Ron Paul may have been the small government seasoning, but I found him not seasoning enough. He made a number of good points, such as his mentioning that none of the other candidates had a any ideas on how to shrink government. But he erred in saying that the Fourth Amendment prohibits states from banning contraceptives. The decision that claimed this, Griswold v. Connecticut was the pivotal case of federal judicial imperialism that led to Roe v. Wade (the significance of this question escaped Mitt Romney, who seemed to not have heard of Griswold).

Paul's position is wrong if he claims to be the constitutionalist candidate. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In deciding Griswold, the Supreme Court claimed that there are penumbras to the Constitution. But that claim is a flat contradiction of the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment precludes any concept of penumbras. It says that powers need to be delegated. The claim that delegation can be through non-delegation, i.e., through penumbras or shadows, is self-contradictory. Hence, Paul advocates expansion of federal power. This is understandable when considering that many libertarians apply a state minimization approach--if something reduces government then they are for it. Griswold reduced government when defined as the sum of state and federal government, but it sledge hammered states' rights. In the long run states' rights reduce government because the states can compete. By instituting federal control, the federal government imposes ever more fascistic control.

Equally unconvincing is Paul's apparent claim that the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to require that states sell contraceptives because banning them would interfere with interstate commerce. That would imply that the federal government has the power to require that the states do anything it wants, since anything can be imported across states. A national building code, for instance, could be viewed as a matter of interstate commerce. In fact, that is precisely how the Democrats overturned judicial resistance to the National Labor Relations Act.

Paul claims to favor the Constitution, and Griswold is very much in the anti-constitutionalist, "living constitution" tradition. If the Fourth Amendment is extended to "penumbras" and then foisted on the states through another series of illegitimate decisions starting with Gitlow v. New York, then pretty much anything goes as far as reinterpreting states' rights and the Constitution out of existence.

Rather than Paul's government minimization approach, federal government minimization is closer to the Constitution. Take the First Amendment, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This could not have meant that the states are forbidden from establishing a religion because all of them had established religions at the time the First Amendment was written. States have the right to establish a religion, although I don't favor their doing so.

My chief criticism of Paul, though, is that he should do more to state his case. The Republicans' debates are staged by media lackeys of the same special interests who gain most at public expense from the Federal Reserve Bank: Wall Street, big government, banks and big business. As a result, the Republican debates are exercises in pointlessness. Paul was right to point this out, and thankfully there is a Ron Paul to do so. At the point where he brought up monetary policy and the Fed there was a palpable freeze in the audience. Discussion of the Fed and monetary policy are not permissible ingredients in big government stew. For that reason, Paul needs to do more to bring the debate about the Fed to the fore. No institution has been more destructive of the nation's welfare. It takes guts to say things on national television that the debate planners don't want a candidate to mention. Paul is three quarters of the way there. But he needs to be more aggressive.The seasoning needs to be stronger.

Students React to My Senior Seminar Course

2012-01-06T16:01:00.003-05:00

Hi there Prof Langbert;

This is ______ from your intercession 2011 human resources class and fall 2011 business seminar class. I just completed my curriculum in Brooklyn College. I found out today when I checked my degree-progress in the school's website. I just wanted to thank you again. I had a wonderful time taking your class and thank you again for the good grade that you gave me. Brooklyn College was my second choice when I enrolled back to college but I'm glad that I ended up in Brooklyn College. I had a great experience at Brooklyn College. My experience there is something that I will remember for many years to come. Again, Thanks much, have a nice day, cheers!

Sincerely;

Good morning Professor,

I would like to thank you for being such a dedicated professional. Overall your class was my favorite at Brooklyn College. I'm looking forward to a long life of continued education, success, and most of all, happiness! Happy New Year to you and your family!

Dear Professor Langbert:

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with me. I enjoyed taking your class. Have a Merry Christmas and a wonderfully, Happy New Year.

Dear Professor Langbert,

Thanks for the advice. ( I believe I'm using advice correctly this time :-) ). Thanks for the knowledge you've imparted to me during the semester. The classes on success, goal seating and ethics were informative and enlightening.

Best wishes. Happy Holidays!

Regards

By regular mail:

Professor Mitchell Langbert:

Thank you for the knowledge imparted to me during this semester. It was enlightening and has given me confidence to succeed. The books we covered were enlightening and thought-provoking. I thoroughly enjoyed the books The Fountainhead, Ragged Dick, How to Win Friends and Influence People, and The Millionaire Next Door.

Once again, thank you.

My Letter to the Kingston Freeman Concerning Gary Weiss's Op Ed

2012-01-02T00:16:00.002-05:00

The Kingston Freeman published my letter in response to Gary Weiss's Op Ed concerning Ron Paul:

Dear Editor:

Congressman Ron Paul disavows letters which he says he did not write (syndicated columnist Gary Weiss, The Street – Freeman website, Dec. 28, “Ron Paul captures the crackpot vote").

Contrast that Christmas-sized portion of hate doled to Paul to your handling of Barack Obama.

In 2008, there was no criticism of then-Sen. Obama’s associations with anti-Semites and felons, to include Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Pfleger. In contrast, Weiss convicts Paul without trial.

Paul is the only candidate to question both parties’ refusal to discuss the bipartisan commitment to the Federal Reserve Bank and its creation of income inequality by diverting wealth from the public to Wall Street.

As Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson of the Jerome Levy Institute reveal, in the past few years the Fed has purchased $29 trillion in assets. The assets were financed with dollars the Fed printed from thin air.

We have not felt the effects because central banks prop up the dollar.

To the extent that the toxic assets are less than the $29 trillion, there is a loss to the public, likely in the trillions.

The entire American GDP is about $14 trillion.

But that’s the least of it.

By tripling the money supply since 2008 (from $800 billionto nearly $3 trillion), the Fed and the two major parties have opened the doorto the money center banks increasing the American money supply 30-fold.

The potential instability exceeds that of the 1930s.

So far, only Paul has raised these issues.

Maybe I can see Weiss’ point:

Why discuss the Fed when there are plentiful opportunities in the op-ed marketto call Paul, R-Texas, and his supporters names, but few to discuss substantiveissues?

MITCHELL LANGBERT

West Shokan

mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

Democratic Fascism and Partisan Hate in the New America

2012-01-01T01:16:00.000-05:00

The word fascism is overused, and historians use it incorrectly. It was Mussolini's, not Hitler's, system. The Latin word fasces refers to rods tied together and carried with an ax's blade, as pictured (h/t Wikipedia). The fasces was carried before Roman magistrates as a symbol of Roman power. Left-wing historians have ideological motivation to misuse the word. Mussolini was an unpleasant dictator, as were the emperors of Rome, but far worse crimes were committed under left-wing and other socialist systems, whether Russian, Chinese, German, or Cambodian, and whether before, during, or after World War II, than under Rome or Mussolini's fascism. The correct term of opprobrium is socialism, not fascism.

The historical reason for the word fascism's overuse is that during World War II the American media wanted to downplay the identity of the name of the political and economic system of our chief enemy, Nazism, taken from the first two syllables of the German Nationalsozialismus, or national socialism, and of one of our allies, the Soviet Union. The name of Hitler's Nationalsozialismus was the same as Stalin's socialism in one country. The two phrases are translatable in the same way. Although Hitler emphasized antisemitism to a greater degree than did Stalin, Stalin's national socialism was antisemitic. American historians, who, like The New York Times, are in the left-wing propaganda-and-lying business, have continued fictitious use of the word fascism. Of course, public propaganda is a cornerstone of fascism, and both the American media and the American academic establishment have eagerly participated in American fascism.

Granted the word's widespread misuse, the dictionary defines fascism as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

The US has deemphasized racism. But in other ways it has become fascist. The president has increasing power; dissent is forcibly suppressed through recent laws like the Defense Authorization Act; industry is increasingly regimented, regulated, and subsidized; American nationalism has become increasingly violent and imperialistic.

As De Tocqueville predicted in 1836, the great danger to American freedom is tyranny of the majority. De Tocqueville could foresee an America of 150 million people (in 1830 America's population was 30 million), but he could not foresee electronic media. The potential for manipulation implicit in electronic media eliminates any difference between tyranny of the majority and European fascism.

Hitler practiced the big lie; the American media offers the big omission. Claiming that the Fed's political redistributive tactics are subtle technocratic matters, the media misleads the public into thinking that Wall Street's conversion of public resources through monetary policy, including TARP, $29 trillion in Fed toxic asset purchases, the tripling of the nation's money supply, and ongoing monetary expansion, are necessary and sophisticated policies mandated by ethereal theory to which only they are privy. Further examples of Wall Street's ongoing conversion of public assets include the 1980s silver bubble, the Mexican debt crisis, Long Term Capital Management, Salomon Brothers, the carry trade, and the Fed's subsidization of today's hedge funds. Economists, who are on the payroll, claim that they and the money center banks, who openly claim the need for subsidization, know what's best. According to these economic experts and bankers, George Soros and Warren Buffett must be subsidized. They then claim that their "conscience" impels them to favor reduction of "income inequality" by taxing middle class Americans and using the blood money to pay interest on treasury bonds used to finance the wages of unionized government workers who earn more than those taxed.

A failed, government-run education system facilitates American fascism. A recent report found the following:

Our nation's graduating high school class of 2011 had a 32 percent proficiency rate in math and a 31 percent proficiency rate in reading, leaving many to question whether schools are adequately preparing students...Although math performance levels among countries that ranked 23 to 31 aren't significantly different from that of the U. S., 22 countries outperform the U. S. in the number of students reaching math proficiency... While 42 percent of white students were identified as proficient in math, only 11 percent of African American students, 15 percent of Hispanic students, and 16 percent of Native Americans were proficient.

The dumb are easily manipulated. But even well educated Americans have been drawn onto the fascist bandwagon. In particular, the manipulation has taken a partisan turn. In deemphasizing racism American fascism has removed the scapegoating that European tyrants have used to galvanize tyrannical democratic impulses in Europe. In its place is partisan hatred, which works like racism. Among the perpetrators are Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and similar talk radio sources on the right, and The New York Times, MSNBC, and similar outlets on the left.

A recent example was in my local newspaper, The Kingston Freeman. A writer named Gary Weiss wrote a Op Ed that spews hate toward Ron Paul. Without evidencing knowledge of the facts, Weiss calls Paul a racist, but he does not discuss Paul's key issue: the Fed. Weiss is a writer who has studied Wall Street but is ignorant of Wall Street's dependence on the Fed. This is not surprising because he is a product of the American education system. (The Freeman published my letter in response to Weiss's article.) Similarly, a friend who, under Bush, claimed to favor civil liberties and oppose the Patriot Act, continues to support Obama despite his signing the Defense Authorization Act. Defying logic, he blames Bush. He showed me an article in The New York Times that claims that Obama's economic policies, I imagine including Obama's health care and cap and trade proposals, are due to Bush. In other words, the partisan media, like the Nazi propaganda agencies, toss logic to the winds. Much as the German media blamed Jews for a bad economy, The New York Times says that Barack Obama's massive transfers of wealth to Wall Street are George Bush's fault. Of course, Rush Limbaugh says that the Republicans' failure to cut government was the Democrats' fault. Fascists do not reason.

American fascism is likely to accelerate. With his Defense Authorization Act in place, Obama now can declare martial law. Americans face economic decline that directly results from the Federal Reserve Bank's mismanagement of the nation's resources, over-expansion of the money supply, concomitant transfer of wealth (through monetary expansion) to privileged elites, especially Wall Street, real estate interests, and government beneficiaries, and the gutting of the American manufacturing base through a combination of low interest rates and global subsidization of the dollar. American consumers have benefited at the expense of de-masculinization of the work force and the exit of manufacturing jobs.

The shrill, fascistic partisanship in the American media, to include Fox and The Freeman, Limbaugh and Matthews, The Times and The Wall Street Journal, suggest the beginnings of an irrational, potentially violent response to declining wealth (which has been transferred to Wall Street) and economic opportunity. The final transition to an American dictatorship may well occur within our lifetimes.

Tom Deweese Speaks in Santa Cruz

2011-12-27T10:51:00.001-05:00

Tom Deweese speaks in Santa Cruz. I heard Tom speak in the Albany area about two months ago (H/t Chip Mellor). He's a great speaker. Will America awaken to escalating totalitarianism?

Why Academics are Pro-Fed Ideologues

2011-12-26T14:35:00.003-05:00

"Tuition has been rising at leading institutions for the past quarter century at rates far ahead of inflation, reflecting the rising prosperity of the top 5 or 10 percent of the wealth distribution. Philanthropists continue to lavish large donations on prestigious institutions. College and university endowments, fueled by the stock market boom of the past quarter century, have reached levels never dreamed of before. In 1981 only one institution (Harvard) had an endowment exceeding $1 billion; as of 2007, more than sixty institutions had endowments in excess of $1 billion. Harvard's endowmnet reached $29 billion in 2006. Yale's $18 billion, Stanford's and Princeton's $14 and $13 billion respectively. Princeton's endowmeent is nearly $2 million per student, which effectively yields about $100,000 per student annually, a sum tht is more than double the annual tuition. Many state universities, such as Michigan, Virginia, and Texas, have accumulated large endowments even though they receive annual subventions from the public treasury."

--James Piereson, "The American University: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" in Robert Maranto, Richard E. Redding, and Frederick M. Hess, editors, The Politically Correct University.

Without the Fed, endowments would be at 1981, or perhaps 1937, levels. There would be much less income inequality because the only possible explanation for a rising stock market is subsidy from the Fed at public expense. This occurs because consistent reductions in interest rates increase the present values of future corporate earnings--the chief determinant of stock prices. Hence, the Fed's low interest rate regime directly subsidizes stockholders at the expense of the general public. Income inequality results from the same Fed policies. The wealth consumed by stock and real estate investors, including universities, who produce nothing (in the case of universities, less than nothing) but enjoy increases in asset values, comes from wage earners in the form of an increasing gap between productivity increases and wages. That gap cannot continue. Eventually, the public will either stop working or vote the bums who have subsidized the super-rich, including university endowments, at the expense of the producers of wealth, out of office. Or, perhaps, the nation will simply collapse due to public mismanagement.

Ron Paul Revolutionizes Political Dialogue

2011-12-24T16:42:00.002-05:00

Ron Paul is phenomenal. In the past six months, friends who watch television news tell me, the line has been "he can't win." Kingston, New York's crusading newspaper publisher Mike Marnell gave his response in a bold headline to The Lincoln Eagle's 18,000 readers: "Ron Paul Can Win!" Iowa now supports Marnell's prophecy. According to the left-leaning Huffington Post, which has been more open minded toward Paul's pro-freedom views than Fox's militaristic socialists:

Paul is currently leading the Republican presidential field in Iowa, his approval rating among the state's voters having risen this past week from 21 to 23 percent, compared with Romney's 20 percent and Gingrich's 14 percent, according to the latest Public Policy Poll.

The claim that Paul can't win echoes Barry Goldwater's history. The last major libertarian presidential candidate, Goldwater lost in a 1964 landslide to Lyndon Baines Johnson, who spent billions on a war on poverty that preceded decades-long increases in income inequality. Seven years after Goldwater's loss, President Richard M. Nixon said, "We are all Keynesians now." But state intervention has caused a declining economy, destroyed the manufacturing base, and limited the average American's income. In response, the Libertarian Party, on whose ticket Paul has run as a presidential candidate, was founded. Since then, Wall Street's control has escalated as the Federal Reserve Bank has created a three-decades long financial bubble that masked the crumbling of the American economy due to Fed-induced mal-investment.

The past century has been a reversal of the nation's early history. In the late nineteenth century, the period of the nation's rapid economic growth and innovation, when there was limited government intervention in the economy and no Fed, real wages were growing 3/4 of a percent a year, and millions of immigrants flocked here. But the German historical school of economists, which evolved into today's Democrats and Republicans, advocated expansion of government into a Roman-style mixed economy. The Germans lost two world wars but won the ideological battle. Today, our two parties' ideologies are Rome's and Bismarck's, and the trend toward totalitarianism in today's America is as relentless today as it was in 1920s Germany.

Today we don't need a Hitler or Stalin to lead America's former liberal democracy into totalitarianism. It is already totalitarian, and the media and the two party system ensure totalitarianism's extension. But there is a contradiction, for the Wall Street-Washington nexus makes ever bolder moves that unmask its totalitarian aims. The result is increasing public recognition that Ron Paul's ideas represent the future.

The television networks are megaphones of the American power elite, a nexus of Wall Street, commercial banks, corporations, media, government, and academia. The public has heretofore acquiesced in America's corrupt dictatorial state because indoctrination in public schools and universities convinces most that current political arrangements are inevitable and that the only legitimate voices are those of the two dictatorial parties: the Democrats and Republicans.

Paul and the Consciences of "Liberals" Who Handed $50 Trillion to Wall Street

According to a recent report by James Felkerson of the University of Missouri and the Jerome Levy Economic Institute concerning the 2008 bank mismanagement crisis:

When all individual transactions are summed across all unconventional LOLR facilities, the Fed spent a total of $29,616.4 billion dollars! Note this includes direct lending plus asset purchases...Three facilities—CBLS,PDCF, and TAF—would overshadow all other unconventional LOLR programs, and make up71.1 percent ($22,826.8 billion) of all assistance.

The entire American GDP is $14 trillion. In other words, Wall Street, the two parties, their "progressive" academic servants, and their media megaphone make the bizarre claim that financial institutions that cost $30 trillion are producing value for a $14 trillion economy. Given the absurdity of the media's and academe's politically correct positions, it is amazing that Paul's poll numbers are so low in Iowa.

But that's not all. A similarly large potential transfer of wealth was the tripling of Federal Reserve bank credit and the monetary base to subsidize the same mismanaged commercial banks and Wall Street. Based on the monetary expansion that will follow, banks can potentially print $18 trillion dollars, decimating the holdings of bank depositors and wages in the interest of Wall Street hedge funds, banks, big corporations, stockholders, and government.

The trend toward centralization of authority and public immiseration is now escalated in the political sphere. President Obama has signed the $690 billion Defense Authorization bill. Lindsay Graham says that "the homeland is part of the battlefield," according to Judge Napolitano in the video below. According to the video, Congress has voted for (and more recently President Obama has signed) a law to allow the military to imprison American citizens without charge by calling the world, including the United States, a battlefield. Congress and the president are now an illegitimate, unconstitutional tyranny.

Paul Opens Dialogue on American Totalitarianism

Given the extremism in Washington, Ron Paul is the only moderate, the only legitimate major candidate running for president. If the American public does not awaken in 2012, freedom may be lost. But even if he does lose but fortune nevertheless preserves freedom's remnants, his successes will stimulate the dialogue necessary to energize the movement to disestablish the Fed and begin building the long road from Rome to freedom.

Obama Proposes Gosplan Style Rural Councils

2011-11-30T09:41:00.001-05:00

H/t Redeemer Broadcasting. The Democratic commentator on this video laughably claims that the Keystone Cops in Washington can revitalize the Midwestern economy. Maybe they'll print another $3 trillion and have Chicago banks lend it to a new group of poor home buyers.

Student is Offended By Grade

2011-11-13T01:05:00.001-05:00

A Student Writes

Thank you for takingthe time out to grade our group's paper. I just wanted to say that I was alittle offended when you commented on us having "Poor writingskills". I know that by no means are we perfect in writing. And it's probablya good thing neither of us are looking to become journalist. However, Ipersonally, feel insulted to hear that in my senior year I confused words thatwould potentially be an embarrassment in business writing.

I would like to give you a little bit of a background on me:

I was once a high school drop-out and did not attain my GED until ...

I respond:

I’m very sorry you feel insulted as that was not my purpose. Mypurpose is to help you advance by pointing out a deficiency that you arecapable of correcting. One of the very serious mistakes the educational systemmakes is emphasizing self-esteem at the expense of hard skills. I don’trecall which paper is yours, but if I said that the writing needs work, that ismy true belief. It has nothing to do with insulting you. It is a way tohelp you achieve your goals. I am on your side. I could do whatmost others do and what I did for years: ignore the writing issue and pretendthat all is well. But that is not going to help you.

If you look at your pique from my standpoint, you might considerthat I pay a price for what I do with the grading. I could give everyone an Aor B+ and say everyone’s paper’s great. Instead, I spend a week of my timethoroughly reviewing your work and giving you pointers as to how to improve. I don’t get paid more for doing that rather than just giving everyone anA or B+ and doing little more.

As far as your background, given the impressive gains you’vemade since returning to school, I would think that you would appreciate myselfless and unrewarded efforts in helping you improve. I’m not BSing you, trying to make myself into a VIP, or building my own ego. This is apainful, time consuming process for me that I do to help you. I get nothing inreturn for it. I could not do it. But that wouldn’t be of help to the students.

Thomas Jefferson Defines the Issue Today

2011-11-10T05:52:00.001-05:00

Jerry Doyle Slams Faux News--Unfair and Unbalanced

2011-11-10T05:40:00.000-05:00

"We're going to invalidate the poll because we didn't like the results"

--Bill O'Reilly, unfair and unbalanced

Mississippi Becomes the 44th State to Reject Kelo v. New London Ruling

2011-11-09T22:45:00.004-05:00

I just received this e-mail from Christina Walsh of the Institute for Justice. This is good news.

Mississippi Becomes the 44th State to Reject Kelo v. New London Ruling
EminentDomain Reform Passes with 73 Percent of Vote

Jackson,Miss.— In a tremendous victory for property rights, 73 percent of Mississippiansyesterday overwhelmingly rejected the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New Londonto become the 44th state to pass stronger protections for property ownersagainst eminent domain abuse.

Initiative 31 amends the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit the governmentfrom seizing private property by eminent domain and handing it to other privateentities. Government agencies that take private property by eminentdomain for a public use must own and use that property for 10 years beforeselling or transferring it to a new, private owner. Restricting thetransfer of the property the government acquires by eminent domain discouragesthe forced transfer of property from one private owner to another private ownerunder the guise of “economic development” and will protect the vast majority ofproperty owners in Mississippi.

“Mississippians and their property are safer today—their homes, farms orbusinesses cannot be taken by eminent domain simply to be to be handed over toothers for private profit,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney DanaBerliner.

Mississippi had been one of only seven states that have not yet enacted anytype of eminent domain reform since the Kelo decision which took away the homesof seven New London, Conn., families for private development and sparked anationwide backlash against eminent domain for private gain. IJrepresented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In 2009, Governor Haley Barbour vetoed a strong eminent domain reform billthat passed overwhelmingly by both houses of the state legislature,” saidChristina Walsh, director of activism and coalitions at the Institute forJustice. “Like all typical eminent domain abuse apologists, Barbourclaimed that economic growth would screech to a halt if big corporationscouldn’t use eminent domain to seize perfectly fine private property. Aswe demonstrate in Doomsday, No Way: EconomicDevelopment and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform, that’sfalse—and yesterday’s vote demonstrates that Mississippians recognize that,even if Barbour refuses to.”

This was the third attempt to reform Mississippi’s eminent domain laws. Alawsuit was filed earlier this year to keep Mississippians from voting onInitiative 31 but IJ and the Mississippi Farm Bureau worked to keep it on theballot.

IJ filed an amicus brief in the Mississippi Supreme Court on behalf of theSouthern Christian Leadership Conference – Jackson Chapter and the MississippiChapter of the National Federation of Independent Business. In aSeptember 2011 ruling the Supreme Court allowed the initiative to remain on theballot but said it could be challenged if enacted.

“Voters in Mississippi spoke loud and clear: The government doesnot have the power to take their property and give it to a private developer,”said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. “Mississippi canfinally be added to the list of states that have reformed their laws to providebetter protections for property owners against government abuse.”

Miami Herald's Leonard Pitts Unschooled on Race and Conservatives

2011-11-07T23:47:00.003-05:00

Leonard Pitts, Jr. writes a spin piece in today's Seattle Times (h/t Adam Schmidt on Facebook). Pitts argues that African Americans would be insane to support conservatives because conservatives have always been anti-Black.

Pitts illustrates the historical ignorance that characterizes the American left and its pitiful media. Social conservatives in New England were the leaders of the abolitionist movement. For example, John Brown's father was associated with Oberlin College, where Charles Finney, leader of the Second Great Awakening, was president. Oberlin, a Calvinist Presbyterian School, was the first college to admit African Americans in 1835. Wikipedia writes of Charles Finney:

In addition to becoming a popular Christian evangelist, Finney was involved with the abolitionist movement and frequently denounced slavery from the pulpit. In 1835, he moved to Ohio where he became a professor and later president of Oberlin College from 1851 to 1866. Oberlin became active early in the movement to end slavery and was among the first American colleges to co-educate blacks and women with white men.^[8]

^{Pitts is also wrong because, later in the 19th century, the Mugwumps, who tended to support laissez faire as well as reforms such as the Pendleton Act, tended not to be anti-Black. They were the post-bellum Republican elitists during the period of carpetbaggers and Reconstruction. During Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan's first victims were African American Republicans. George Wallace, the leader of 1960s racism, was a Democrat and a supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt.}

^{As Pitts points out, the worst racists were Democrats. Although Pitts calls them conservatives, the racist Democrats voted for Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt just as the northerners did. Pitts's argument is circular: racism is conservative, therefore, conservatives are racists. But the advocates of limited government were not necessarily more racist than the supporters of big government and big business--the GOP. On the one hand, it is true that Andrew Jackson, the founder of today's Democratic Party, was a racist and that his Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney was responsible for the Dred Scott decision. But the New York labor unions were probably more anti-African American than Jackson was. That The Miami Herald's syndicated columnist Pitts is apparently unfamiliar with the Draft Riots and organized labor's sympathy for the South during the Civil War is an embarrassment to the pathetic legacy of American journalism.}

Pitts's argument is tautological: racists are conservative,therefore conservatives never stood up for blacks. In fact, the first“conservatives” might be said to have been the pro-laissez faire Mugwumps, who favored the gold standard, opposed tariffs, and favored limited government. The founder of The Nation, EL Godkin, was not overly supportive of African Americans, buthe was no racist. The Republican Party in the late 19^th centurywas a big government, pro business party, and mostly laissez faire (at least in words).

At the same time, theProgressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, were frequently overt racists. Eugenics was a significant facet of Progressivism, and as C. Vann Woodward points out in The Strange Career of Jim Crow, Jim Crow exploded during the Progressive era, not the Gilded Age, which was characterized by policies and leadership that conservatives support today.

One source of Pitts's confusion (besides being due to an ideologically extremist university and educational system that indoctrinates in left wing groupthink rather than educates, leaving people like Pitts ignorant) is thatpopular lingo confuses laissez faire with conservatism and social democracy orsocialism with liberalism. Thus, the Wikipedia article calls Charles Finney "progressive," but he would be considered a social conservative today.

On the one hand, the first big government socialist president inAmerican politics was Theodore Roosevelt, and he was not a racist. On the otherhand, the first president who was a conservative (defined in opposition to the first "liberal," Roosevelt) was William Howard Taft, andhe wasn’t a racist either. Roosevelt backed Taft before helearned that Taft would not support regulatory solutions to the trust issue—thathe would instead support a litigated settlement in the StandardOil case. The Taft Supreme Court (Taft was the only president to later become Chief Justice) was conservative. Roosevelt ran against Taft in 1912, electing racist-cum-Progressive WoodrowWilson in Taft’s place. Wilson began the American socialist project bypushing through the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank the following year,1913. He also implemented Jim Crow in Washington, DC.

Princeton, of which Wilson had been president, has been well known as the most anti-Semitic of the Ivy League universities. Here is what Wikipedia says about Taft:

Taft met with and publicly endorsed Booker T. Washington's program for upliftingthe black race, advising them to stay out of politics at the time and emphasizeeducation and entrepreneurship. A supporter of free immigration, Taft vetoed a lawpassed by Congress and supported by labor unions that would have restrictedunskilled laborers by imposing a literacy test.^[63]

Moreover, the Southern Democrats, the racists, repeatedly supported left-wing Democrats. They voted for Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Adlai Stevenson. It was not until the 1960s that racism and the Republican Party crossed paths. By then, both parties had become advocates of Progressivism and supporters of the Roosevelt/Rockefeller agenda. In 1944, the entire Jim Crow South voted for the paragon of American socialism, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Alabama, for example, the state remembered for Rosa Parks and the Montgomery boycott of the 1950s, voted 81% for FDR. In 1952 and 1956, the most social democratic candidate between FDR and BHO was Adlai Stevenson. In 1956, the ONLY states in which Stevenson won were the Jim Crow states: Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

So Mr. Pitts, you're a doody head.

Fox News Channel: Where Truth Goes to Die

2011-11-07T01:19:00.002-05:00

A Society Whose Citizens Refuse to See and Investigate...

2011-11-07T01:17:00.001-05:00


This appeared on Facebook

Spend, Spend, Spend

2011-11-04T13:23:00.001-04:00

H/t Dennis Blankshine and Amanda Panda on Facebook. Left Click on picture to enlarge.

Under Executive Order of the President

2011-11-04T13:02:00.000-04:00

H/t James M. Debrango on Facebook. Left click on image to enlarge.

Why Pro-Freedom Voters Will Reject the GOP in 2012

2011-11-03T01:44:00.002-04:00

The question an American voter needs to ask is, "Do I support a centrally planned, government directed economy, or a free market?" The two major parties are committed to big government and central planning; if you oppose socialism, voting for either major party is a wasted vote. Although Herman Cain pleads otherwise, three facts suggest that he is lying, just as other Republican candidates, including Ronald Reagan, have lied, about their commitment to freedom.

First, Cain continues to support the $2 trillion TARP bailout (see video below). He objects to its execution, but not its intent. Second, Cain was a president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. His intimate involvement with the biggest and most sensitive of government institutions renders his claims of being in favor of anything other than socialism suspect. The days when Milton Friedman could call himself a libertarian and still support the Fed are passed. You either support freedom and liberty OR support the Fed--there is no middle course; the same choice was evident to Jacksonian Democrats with respect to the Second Bank of the United States. Third, Cain has not brought to the fore concerns about the $16 trillion Fed asset purchases and up to $30 trillion monetary expansion ($3 trillion in the past three years, with a potential expansion by banks through fractional reserve banking to $30 trillion). These steps are more significant than Obamacare; Cain's avoiding their discussion camouflages his socialism.

Since the Civil War the federal government consistently has increased the scope of its central planning and government intervention. The leading party with respect to this trend until the 1930s was the GOP, especially Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. A segment of the GOP became a force for small government because of the Civil War's forcing former northern Democrats (who were the limited government party at least until 1896) into the GOP. Other reasons Republicans became associated with advocacy of limited government were the Democratic Party's backing of Populist William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s.

Despite the GOP's small government strand, its establishment strand never relinquished its commitment to big government. Democrat Woodrow Wilson oversaw enactment of the first income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, but establishment Republican Theodore Roosevelt made Wilson's election possible. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate to defeat the relatively conservative incumbent, William Howard Taft.

In the 1950s, the big government GOP establishment put forward Dwight D. Eisenhower to defeat Taft's son, Senator Robert Taft, also a limited government advocate. This was accomplished in part by New York Times support for Eisenhower. In other words, big government Republicans have been willing to defeat small government Republican candidates by running against them as third party candidates (Theodore Roosevelt) and by sabotaging legitimately run campaigns (Eisenhower). Through deception, legacy media support, third party candidacies, and outright lies (claiming that they are for small government, as did Reagan and George H. Bush) the big government strand of the Republican Party has marginalized the small government strand.

The only way to resolve the intense conflict within the GOP is for those who favor freedom to bolt. The reason is that the GOP has become so extreme in its socialism that it has supported literally handing the entire economy to control of failed banks. The economy amounts to $14 trillion; the subsidies to banks potentially amount to tens of trillions.

There are other reasons as well. First, Republican support for radical environmentalism, such as the extremist UN Agenda 21 that the George H. Bush administration signed. Second, Richard M. Nixon's termination of the gold standard. Third, George W. Bush's tax and spend policies such as his prescription drug plan and the bailout. Fourth, the failure of the GOP to reduce the size of government under Ronald Reagan or the Newt Gingrich Congress. This failure occurred during years when the GOP controlled all three houses of Congress.

Only two candidates now support a pro-freedom platform. These are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. The cause of freedom will be better furthered by reconstructing the Republican Party into a pro-freedom party. This would undo the damage that the Rockefeller Republicans, with the support of The New York Times and talk radio, have done to the small government strand within the GOP.

It is more important for those who support freedom to now aim to reconstruct the GOP. The choice between socialists like Romney and Cain and a socialist like Obama is no choice--voting for any of the alternatives to Paul or Johnson is a wasted vote.

How Iceland Defeated Its Bankers

2011-11-03T00:13:00.001-04:00

It's not rocket science. Just let them fail. None of the chief Republican candidates other than Ron Paul and Gary Johnson opposed the largest step toward socialism since another Republican, Richard Nixon, abolished the international convertibility of dollars into gold: the Bush-McCain-Obama bailout of Wall Street. H/t Peter C. Bisulca on Facebook.

Henry David Thoreau: Forgotten Libertarian

2011-11-02T10:03:00.001-04:00

Some Thoreau quotes from Walden and Civil Disobedience that I recently assigned to my senior seminar class:

a. "I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with success unexpected in common hours. He will put something behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves within, around, and within him...In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."(Walden, p. 256.)

b. "Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed and in such desperate enterprises? If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured and far away. It is not important that he should mature as soon as an apple tree or an oak. Shall he turn his spring into summer? If the condition of things which we were made for is not yet, what were any reality which we can substitute?" (Walden, p. 258.)

c. "However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are. It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault finder will find faults even in paradise. Love your life, poor as it is." (Walden, p. 259.)

d. "I would not be one of those who will foolishly drive a nail into a mere lath and plastering; such a deed would keep me awake nights. Give me a hammer, and let me feel for the furring. Do not depend on the putty. Drive a nail home and cinch it so faithfully that you can wake up in the night and think of your work with satisfaction--a work at which you would not be ashamed to invoke the Muse. So will help you God, and so only. Every nail driven should be as another rivet in the machine of the universe, you carrying on the work." (Walden, p. 261).

e. "The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow,--one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance, whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the alms-houses are in good reapair; and before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the mutual insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently...It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradiction of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have the other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support..." (Civil Disobedience, p. 7.)

f. "...any man more right than his neighbors, constitutes a majority of one already." (Civil Disobedience, p. 10.)

g. "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. (Civil Disobedience, p. 11.)

h. "A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight." (Civil Disobedience, p. 12.)

i. "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined."

Blind faith in Bad Leaders Is not Patriotism

2011-11-02T06:54:00.003-04:00

H/t Liberty Non-Compliance and Flo Hoffman on Facebook.

Ron Paul or None at All

2011-11-02T06:48:00.002-04:00

H/t Andrew Nappi and Daniel Parkman on Facebook.

1984 Was NOT Supposed to be an Instruction Manual

2011-11-02T06:38:00.004-04:00

H/t Mackenzie Stout on Facebook

Communist Manifesto Inspires Saugerties Supervisor Greg Helsmoortel

2011-10-31T20:08:00.000-04:00

I just received this from Gaetana Ciarlante, LCSWR

Letter to the Editor for pubilcation in this week's issue:

Dear Editor,

There is great concern by Saugerties citizens over the plans that the current town council led by Supervisor Helsmoortel have for Saugerties. Saugerties now has headquarters for the very rich at Diamond Mills and shelters for the poor being housed at the Wenton Hotel, Hickory Ridge, the Commons and plans for more homeless Shelters and “Keeps” which this town board is embracing with our tax dollars. Indeed the Town Boards continued polarization between the "Haves" and the "Have nots" is a page from the Communist Mainfesto in which the middle class is eroded away. In the case of Saugerties it is being accomplished through taxes and regulations. We pay the bills and get bombarded with regulations and taxes at every attempt to maintain our homes and our property while their practice of taxing through back door deals is making it next to impossible for many who take pride in owning our own homes and living independently to continue to do so.

While it is true that state regulations are imposed upon the town there is much discretion as to the degree with which the town embraces these. Helsmoortel and his board have demonstrated a record of embracing all taxes, controls and government programs. For example while Helsmoortel defends his PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) for Dickinson Keep that may initially bring in slightly more money than New York State's 581A Tax Law, he cannot substantiate the reasons for granting this PILOT for 30 years. Developer Larry Regan stated many times during the Planning Board’s meeting that if the town did not want Dickinson’s Keep he would go elsewhere with the project. But in fact he reported finding that the town board welcomed his "Affordable" Housing Development while most of the tax paying citizens are finding it to be Unaffordable. The application to the state for Dickinson’s Keep includes a letter of endorsement for this project written by Helmoortel in January 2011 to the New York State Commissioner of Housing and Community Development.

A true leader of the people would seek out methods to alleviate the burden of its citizens, however no such action has ever come from this town board even after requested of them. Rather Helsmoortel portrays himself to his constituents as a victim of higher government when in fact he stands to gain personally through real estate transactions while the local workers and retirees place their homes on the market and prepare to flee for their own survival. Knowing the pain inflicted on his people (vocalized clearly at the appeals to the infamous property tax re-evaluation of 2010 and many times since) a true leader would take into consideration the needs of his people. At the very least there would be an appeal of the process to higher government of which Helsmoortel claims to be victim. Rather it took members of SACRED (Saugerties Assertive Citizens for Responsible Economic Development) to contact their State Representatives, of which Assemblyman Peter Lopez was the sole responder, to request a repeal of the regulations of New York State 581A. Meanwhile Helsmoortel and his Board continue to use every opportunity to apply new taxes and new regulations on the citizens of Saugerties.

Last week Helsmoortel placed a full page ad quoting Saugerties School Superintendent, Seth Turner, as saying he did not know how much the Dickinson's Keep project will cost without an in-depth study. While Helsmoortel tries to use this response from Seth Turner to support his full speed ahead attitude with Dickinson's Keep Turner comments in fact support that the Town board is careless and neglectful and imposes upon our town a project without knowing the impact both financially and socially. In no way did Turner minimize the figure of $500,000 per year but in fact kept open the possibility that it may cost far more.

Meanwhile it remains a mystery as to why Helsmoortel would have requested and hired a specific attorney from Albany, John Vagianelis, to represent the Town of Saugerties while knowing that Vagianelis’ law firm also represents the Funding Company through which Regan Development Corp. would seek their funding for Dickinson's Keep. This conflict of interest was pointed out by Town Supervisor Candidate Kelly Myers at the town informational hearing on October 11. Shortly afterwards, Helsmoortel removed Vagianelis but surely would have continued if not for Kelly's diligent work and courage in bringing forth this conflict of interest. The Town of Saugerties already has its own competent attorney, John Greco. The questions remain as to:

1. Why Greco was not used to represent Saugerties in the Dickinson's Keep deal?

2. How much did the town pay Vagianelis?

3. What is the plan is to have Vagianelis repay that money to the town?

4. What is Helsmoortel's explanation for actively requesting Vagianelis when the town already has its own attorney?

The deals negotiated through Vagianelis for Dickinson Keep and any other project in which he had such a conflict of interest must be considered null and void and monies paid to him should be repaid to the town. When asking Helsmoortel about these dealing with Vagianelis at the October 19 Town Board meeting he responded to me with an attitude of arrogance, contempt and disrespect and offered little information.

While the project of Dickinson’s Keep may appear on the surface to be of benefit to the poor that too is highly doubtful and will be the subject of future writings.

During the meetings with SACRED Kelly Myers came forward to assist the property owners and has become an active member.

Though very knowledgeable, she repeatedly displays the attributes of integrity, courage, and humility. Her attitude is filled with respect, gratitude and compassion. Without prompting or invitation Kelly Myers, Joe Roberti Sr. and Pam Riggins have attended all the meetings related to Dickinson's Keep and investigated these improper proceedings. Joe has many years of experience with volunteer organizations and government committees. Everyone who knows Joe recognizes his hard work and tireless investigation of issues put before him before making decisions.

I am not one who advocates change for the sake of change; however our current Town Board demonstrates the meaning behind "Nero fiddled while Rome burns." Leanne Thorton has become the hostess who gives out awards but steers clear of any independent thinking or judgment; She said voted against the repeal of the PILOT, brought forth by Jim Bruno after he learned Larry Regan had provided the board with mis-information, and justified her actions by saying she didn't know enough about it. Leanne needs to learn that government is not a garden party and the role of government is to protect, not entertain the people. This Saugerties town council falls far short and has become self-serving. In conclusion our current Town Board can best be described as careless, arrogant and without regard. At worst it is conspiring, ruthless, corrupt and illegal in its deal making.

It's time for a big change. Kelly Myers will lead the town effectively and with compassion. Joe Roberti Jr. and Pam Riggins promise hard work and diligence in their roles on the town council.

And always remember that is our duty as citizens in a democracy to play an active role, stay aware and defend liberty at every opportunity.

Let's take back our freedom and let it begin in Saugerties.

Sincerely,

Gaetana Ciarlante, LCSWR

Obama versus Paul

2011-10-30T22:13:00.000-04:00

H/t Donald Meinshausen on Facebook

Saugerties Meeting Re Public Housing

2011-10-30T22:07:00.002-04:00

From Patriot 246:

ATTENTION: IMPORTANT MEETING

Malden Firehouse

Tuesday November 1, 2011

7:00 PM

Topic:

§ A 40 unit rental housing development with a total of 106 bedrooms (Dickenson Keep)

with a

§ $500,000 Projected School Tax Increase for Town of Saugerties Property Owners

with a

§ 30 year PILOT for developer/owner (Regan Development Corporation) to pay $13,000 per year for school taxes.

with

Written support for this development provided by Senator John Bonacic and Supervisor Greg Helsmoortel and the Town Board.

Come, learn more and speak your mind.

Hosted by SACRED (Saugerties Assertive Citizens for Responsible Economic Development)

Republican Mathematics

2011-10-29T22:40:00.001-04:00

David Rockefeller = Nelson Rockefeller = Nixon = Kissinger = H. W. Bush = W. Bush = Romney = Cain = Santorum = Gingrich = Obama.

Or, to put it as a poster here just did, choosing between Romney and Obama is like choosing between Chase and Wells Fargo.

Crimes are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them

2011-10-29T02:40:00.000-04:00

H/t Heath Kinsey and MacKenzie Stout

GOP: Don't Count on Our Votes

2011-10-29T02:23:00.001-04:00

H/t Wonder Wendy on Facebook

Bringing the Inner City to Woodstock

2011-10-26T03:22:00.000-04:00

I just sent this letter to the editor of The Woodstock Times.

Dear Editor:

The tip-off as to what is behind the regional push to build inner-city style section eight housing in rural villages like Boiceville and Woodstock was the support The New York Times offered to it in a September spin piece. Public-private partnership housing like the Woodstock development subsidizes regional and global banks. In particular, besides receiving a virtually risk-free return the banks receive a tax credit. In Woodstock, Key Bank receives a tax subsidized, nearly risk free return on its $15 million RUPCO-linked loan to build the Woodstock project. Perhaps The Woodstock Times and Paul Smart should rename themselves The Bankers’ Voice.

Allow me to refresh your memories about The New York Times’s history with respect to supporting subsidization of banking interests through urban renewal. In the 1940s and 1950s The Times sang Robert Moses’s praises to the heavens as he took a sledge hammer to New York City’s economy, destroying more housing units than he built, destroying neighborhood after neighborhood, and draining the City’s character, all in the name of urban renewal. The story is in Robert Caro’s Power Broker. At the same time, Moses, with The Times’s support, devastated the environment outside the city with road building, subsidization of automobile use, and suburbanization on Long Island, in New Jersey and in Westchester.

Having trashed megapolis, by the late 1990s, The Times supported a final step to expansion of suburban housing through the subprime housing bubble. One example was Steven A. Holmes’s September 30, 1999 Times article. The Bush era housing bubble did almost as much harm to America’s economy as Robert Moses’s urban renewal did to New York City. New York City never came back from its urban renewal-induced collapse; Bush and Obama transferred wealth to banks to delay a collapse. In a properly functioning economy the banks that lent and invested in subprime mortgage securities would have closed. But The Times, MSNBC and Fox objected (since, after all, they are owned by interests tightly linked to the banks), and Obama followed through on Bush’s monetary expansion and bailout. The publicly described bailout of $2 trillion was miniscule compared to Federal Reserve Bank asset purchases in excess of $16 trillion, larger than the entire US economy of $14 trillion. But the Obama Fed’s largest subsidy to banks has been the expansion of the monetary base, which has more than tripled. Obama’s tripling of the monetary base signifies as much as a 30-fold increase in the US money supply when banks convert the base into loans under fractional reserve banking.

The potential 30-fold increase in the money supply, which has occurred virtually unreported by The Times, Republican or Democratic talk radio, or television news, is potentially the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. It is a transfer from working, middle class Americans to banks, Wall Street, shareholders, hedge funds, real estate interests, and government. The Woodstock Times and Paul Smart have lent their support to this transfer, sheepishly following The Times’s rhetoric. Without this transfer there would be zero interest in public housing in Woodstock or Boiceville.

Because the bursting of the subprime bubble has limited the Robert Moses-approach to urban renewal, a new approach had to be created. The new approach is to advocate once-again- environment-destroying urban-style development, except that now it is to be in rural areas. Rather than bankrupting urban centers, the large regional and money center banks will suck small towns dry. The development is couched, ironically, in environmentalist rhetoric, just as the rhetoric that advocated the subprime bubble was couched in rhetoric that claimed benefits for the poor. The only beneficiaries then and now were banks, Wall Street, and related economic interests. The current bubble in rental properties and REITS reflects this new tactic. “Smart growth” and “green development” are code words for “more subsidies to banks. “ I pity Woodstock for what your naiveté will do to your once beautiful tourist center.

Because the Federal Reserve Bank has created such a large amount of money while federal and state policies and banking interests have done so much to destroy the America’s real economy, I am expecting ever more creative and ever more destructive policies, all of which will entail expansion of bank lending. These will take on green rhetoric and make use of manufactured fears: from the left, the superstition that environmental regulation and new kinds of light bulbs can affect global warming; from the right, the claim that Islam is a threat or that it is imperative for the US to build democracies in Arabia and Africa.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Can an Ulster County PAC Counteract Banking Pressure Favoring Public Housing

2011-10-22T17:52:00.000-04:00

I sent the following message to a number of activists in Ulster County. The push for public housing is likely linked to banking interests.

Dear Friends:

I have been thinking about contributing to State Senator Bonacic’s Democratic opponent in the next election. However, a political action committee (PAC) that would oppose candidates, Democratic and Republican, who implement, side with, fail to revoke, propose or support public housing and the kind of plan that the Olive Democrats have proposed (see attached), might be a better way to go. I would be interested in discussing this idea with the local tea parties and other activists. We are up against significant financial interests, specifically large regional and money center banks, who benefit from the comprehensive plans and RUPCO-style developments. I draw this conclusion after an in-depth interview today with two RUPCO representatives.

I have been thinking about your excellent work respecting State Senator Bonacic and his involvement with the Regan developers and the comprehensive plan trend. I was similarly concerned about the heavy GOP presence at the LEED ceremony last summer on behalf of a corrupt Kingston developer who has been heavily involved with public contracts in Kingston. Both Democratic and Republican parties are tainted, and a freedom-oriented movement needs to think about financially supporting opposition candidates, whether Democratic or Republican.

RUPCO told me today that Key Bank lent the $15 million for the Woodstock housing project and that on top of the low risk return the bank gets a tax credit under New York State law; RUPCO says that large, not local, banks tend to be the ones involved in financing the housing projects on which it works—the reason for the comprehensive plan push regionally may be related to this. The contractors tend to be local, RUPCO said.

Support for Olive style comprehensive plans and public housing trend has been bipartisan because of the money flows. The banks and developers are fertile sources of political donations. It is evident that significant financial interests are pushing for the plans and for increased public housing construction despite, or perhaps because of, the failure of the banking system and the housing bubble the banking system created and was bailed out of during the last decade.

A PAC targeted at both Republicans and Democrats who support public housing and/or the kind of comprehensive plan that Olive has adopted may be necessary to combat the money flow into the coffers of the two parties. Would your organization be interested in supporting this idea? Would the other Tea Parties? I believe that by working together we can identify candidates, Democratic and Republican, who ought to be defeated and then focus contributions intelligently.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Ron Paul Revolution

2011-10-22T15:12:00.001-04:00

H/t Dave Grain on Facebook. There was only one candidate in the last Republican presidential debate who favors freedom, reduced government, and the American way of life: Ron Paul. The legacy media has done as much as possible to avoid discussing him, and his colleague/competitor Gary Johnson was blacked out of the GOP debate.

State Senator Bonacic (R-NY) Sees No Crime in Public Housing

2011-10-21T06:33:00.003-04:00

Press on image to enlarge.

I received the following from Patriot246:

If you have read the links which I sent you earlier this week and if you have checked the elections donations websites for Senator Bonacic you will see the connection between this senator and Regan Development. We need to let Senator Bonacic know that we are aware of his continuing support for this Un-AFFORDABLE Housing Project. Please call him at 518-455-3181 or email him at bonacic@nysenate.gov

We suggest that you ask him the following questions:

1) "Does your support for the Dickinson's Keep project in Saugerties stem from your receipt of campaign contributions from Larry Regan? "

2. "Is Dickinson Keep being financed with our federal taxpayers dollars through Hinchey?"

3. " Why do you continue to support this project knowing it will dramatically increase the property tax burden on your Saugerties constituents and in some cases cause them to lose their own home in order to subsidize it?"

I'd appreciate hearing the results of your call.

Together we can win this!!!

Cain versus Unable: 666 is 999 Upside Down

2011-10-20T23:52:00.001-04:00

I'm not for Cain or Unable, but I found this picture to be interesting. From Wikipedia: In the Greek New Testament, Cain is referred to as εκ του πονηρου.^[3] In at least one translation this is rendered "from the evil one",^[4] while others have "of the evil one."^[5] Some interpreters take this to mean that Cain was literally the son of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. A parallel idea can be found in Jewish tradition,^[6] that the serpent (Hebrew nahash נחש) from the Garden of Eden was father to firstborn Cain. Copied from Francisco M. Pohole's Facebook account.

Gus Hall to Run in Republican Presidential Primary: Opponents Call Him a Small Government Extremist

2011-10-20T02:54:00.007-04:00

Gus Hall, once head of the Communist Party, USA, has returned to run in the Republican presidential primary. "I am delighted to run against socialists of another school," Hall said. Mitt Romney, Republican frontrunner, calls Hall a "small government extremist." Romney adds, "Hall's a Tea Partier who wants to turn the clock back on government. You can't cut government to the levels Hall advocates. My friends on Wall Street won't stand for it. Who would bail them out?"

Hall has called for a tax plan similar to Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, but Hall's is a 4-4-4 plan. "I see no need for government spending that would require 9-9-9," Hall insists. As well, Hall has suggested that a Department of Education ought to be in the business of improving education. "We communists believe that government works." In contrast, the Republican candidates support the Department of Education even though educational results have declined during its existence.

Hall agrees with Newt Gingrich that a central bank is necessary to a "progressive" or modern society. After all, centralization of credit is plank 5 in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. No wonder that Gingrich, Romney, Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum agree--centralized credit is necessary.

When asked what he'll do if he loses, Hall remarks, "I'll probably work on Wall Street. They are the biggest supporters of all ten planks. They are socialists I believe in."

Pro-Obama Wall Street Demonstrators Are Anti-Semitic

2011-10-19T02:09:00.003-04:00

The National Conference on Jewish Affairs has called for President Obama to denounce the prevalent anti-Semitism among the anti-Wall Street demonstrators. But they are supporters of President Obama.
Hat/Tip Poor Prof.

Pathetic Crew of Republican Candidates are Big Government Drones

2011-10-19T01:49:00.004-04:00

Unfortunately, CNN excluded one of the few imaginative voices in the Republican Party, Gary Johnson, from Tuesday night's debate. Of the candidates present, only Ron Paul had anything to say in support of freedom and against socialism. Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which would impose a sales tax on lower income people, is cruel. Rather than think of new methods of taxation, Republicans should be thinking of new ways to restrain spending. Ron Paul was the only candidate at the debate who is not a socialist.

Ron Paul has a plan to terminate five cabinet positions: the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education. He has also proposed to close a large number of unproductive military bases in places like Spain and Korea that do not protect the United States. None of the other candidates was willing to discuss these proposals when Paul brought them up. Instead, they remain loyal to a dishonest Federal Reserve Bank system that has sucked working Americans dry financially. That Main Street Republicans support any among this bank of candidates is an indictment of the democratic process.

I can see why Comrades Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann remain silent about the Departments of Energy and Education. Since they were established, education results have collapsed and energy costs have exploded, and neither agency, which together employ thousands of unproductive bureaucrats, has anything useful to say about either subject. But this topic was avoided. To socialists like Gingrich and Romney, the Department of Education is a necessity.

Mr. Cain, a former Federal Reserve official who has participated in the legalized theft involved in the bailout and the central bank-based fractional reserve system, offered a defense of Wall Street, a socialist cancer on American capitalism. Mr. Cain has participated in a racketeering organization, and his appeal to Republicans suggest a profound stupidity and incompetence among rank-and-file Republicans and the inept media that they consume, specifically including talk radio.

Except for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, voting for a Republican in 2012 will be a wasted vote.

But Who's Bailing Out the Wall Street Protestors?

2011-10-18T22:53:00.000-04:00

H/t Bruce Majors and Trish DeBroeck on Facebook:

Herman Cain Flip Flops on Fed Audit, Bailout

2011-10-18T22:42:00.002-04:00

H/t Gigi Bowman on Facebook.

Sentor Bonacic Supports Unaffordable-to-the-Taxpayer "Affordable" Housing

2011-10-16T23:17:00.003-04:00

H/t Patriot246

Wurtsboro – Construction has barely begun at the Horizons at Wurtsboro senior citizen housing complex, yet there is a waiting list of applicants far beyond the 49 apartments that will be available.
Officials from Regan Development, the Village of Wurtsboro, Town of Mamakating and the state ceremonially broke ground Friday to herald the start of the first affordable senior housing in the area. Senator John Bonacic said this type of housing is in great demand. “The need for affordable housing is insatiable; when we’re done with this project we could do 100 more, and there still would be a need,” he said. The project will include 42 one-bedroom apartments and six two-bedroom facilities. All will be rented at below market rents because of public financing from the New York State Housing Trust Fund and federal tax credits from the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Private equity financing and construction and permanent financing were also involved.

The company is currenlty accepting applications for the next 30 days. Interested persons may call them at (914) 693-3011 for brochures and applications.

My response:

Dear Senator Bonacic:

I am sick of big government Republicans backing corrupt backroom deals like the Regan Development "affordable" housing projects in Wurtsboro and Saugerties. The projects may be affordable to your rich cronies at Regan Development but they are not affordable to the taxpayers whom you have molested.

I am a registered Republican, but I will be backing (both financially and with my time) your opponent in the next election. The reason is that the only thing worse than a Democrat is a big government Republican who lies to the Republican Committee and says he favors small government while, at the same time, supporting taxpayer-exploiting housing developments that run moderate income homeowners out.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Is It Time to Buy More Gold?

2011-10-16T15:46:00.000-04:00

Lucianne.com carries a Bloomberg piece (h/t Kitco) saying that professional investors are boosting their gold positions. Maybe it's time to add to my position. It's difficult after a period of loss to bravely attempt to time markets, but why not buy during a sale? Of course, the same argument could be made with respect to the housing market. A friend told me that a house that had been listed for $400,000 in the Town of Olive, where I live, was recently sold at auction for $130,000. Will there be further declines, or is this the bottom? When I bought my house in 1997 Olive was called "low-tax-Olive." Because of incompetent Town negotiations with the City of New York, which pays much of the Town's taxes via its largest reservoir, the Ashokan, our taxes have signficantly escalated. So buying property on speculation is risky, which will contribute to plunging real estate prices.

Fraud in the Name of the United Nations

2011-10-16T15:38:00.000-04:00

This is a good one. What's probably lost on the bozo who sent this is that the UN itself is fraud.
Attention:

This is to bring to your notice that the meeting which has been going on with WORLD BANK AUDITORS AND UNITED NATION REPRESENTATIVE has been concluded in Nigeria. So we wish to notify all the scammed victims, such as Contract payment, Lottery Winners and Fund inheritance etc , due to unauthorized/incapability of financial Institutions/security companies in releasing such huge sum of money due to Fraud, terrorist and money Laundry activities that has been designed by fraudsters.

The UNITED NATION/WORLD BANK AUDITORS has agreed to compensate all the scammed victims with the sum of (US$350,000.00) Three Hundred and Fifty thousand Dollars. We found your name in our list and that is why we are contacting you, these have been agreed upon and have been signed.

You are advised to contact Mr. Larry Levi with your full contact details, for your ATM Card delivery. This method of payment is for security purposes and for your easy withdrawal from any ATM machine world wide. So contact the paying bank on the emails below.

Name: Mr. Larry Levi

email: larryevi@yahoo.co.jp

email: udbnudb@collector.org

Fax: +234-9-6721671

Mr. Kofi Annan

Former Secretary (UNITED NATIONS)

Ron Paul Takes Herman Cain to School

2011-10-15T23:45:00.001-04:00

From the Daily Paul site, h/t Mike Marnell. While Paul wants to abolish the Fed, Cain and Romney, looking on, are insiders who have benefited directly from the Fed. Alan Greenspan's record is one of having created the tech bubble that led to his real estate bubble. That is who Herman Cain aims to emulate. If you like to be destroyed financially, keep voting for Cain and Romney, and listen to the New York Times's moronic comments about Paul's eyebrow.

There Is No Lesser of Two Evils in The American Two-Party System: Both Stink

2011-10-14T12:56:00.003-04:00

When the Democrats controlled the presidency and the Republicans controlled the Congress during the 1990s there was less impetus to socialism than when the Republicans controlled all three branches. A split government means less growth in government and less corruption than a Republican government. I totally disagree with President Obama's philosophy, but an Obama presidency and a Republican Congress is to be preferred to a Cain-or-Romney presidency and a Republican Congress.

There is no reason to believe that the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils. Government grew at a slower clip under Clinton than under Bush. George H. Bush signed Agenda 21, and George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act. George W. Bush oversaw a massive monetary inflation. The Bushes are good socialists and good globalists. Romney and Cain are equivalent to Bush. They are in the Rockefeller Republican mold, that is, they out-Democrat the Democrats.

On the one hand, there is a Republican Party that has made repeated inroads on freedom and taken repeated steps toward socialism, to include the bailout, the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve Bank's stimulation of the economy during the Bush administration, and the Patriot Act. On the other hand there is a Democratic Party with similar aims.

There is no lesser evil in the two party system. Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations dominate both parties. With 1500 Council members at the time, Reagan appointed 80 high level appointees who belonged to the Council. The Council on Foreign Relations' publication, Foreign Affairs, has for decades provided a steady drumbeat in favor of one world government and socialism. The publication is not balanced and does not tolerate pro-American or libertarian views, nor does it tolerate views that are critical of communism. Yet, Reagan was eager to appoint its members to high level posts.

The widespread delusion that there is a difference between the two parties is a product of the Wall Street-financed media, to include Fox, Talk Radio, and the Democratic Party stations. Wall Street finances and controls them. They reflect the interests of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank.The fantasy that there is a difference between the Republicans who appointed Greenspan and Bernanke and the Democrats who reappointed them is exactly what the Establishment wants--a deluded public.

Romney or Cain: the GOP Goes Down in Flames

2011-10-13T22:52:00.016-04:00

Among those who follow the Ron Paul campaign, the legacy media's ongoing distortions are a running comedy. Jon Stewart satirized them in the video below. Paul's Republican support has been as high as 10% but now, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, has fallen to 5%. The Wall Street Journal covers the poll in today's (Thursday, October 13th's) issue. The Journal excludes Paul from coverage by limiting its front page graph to the four frontrunners, one of whom, Newt Gingrich, has roughly the same level of support that Paul had in previous weeks when the mass media omitted him.

If Romney, Cain, or Gingrich is the Republican presidential nominee he will lose because the Paul vote will not go to him. We have had enough of the corporatist socialism of the Rockefeller Republicans.

The reason for the skewness in The Wall Street Journal's and Fox's Paul coverage is that their owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has tended to advocate one world government, big government, and the enviro-fascism in UN Agenda 21, which George H. Bush signed. The Council on Foreign Relations, founded in the early 1920s to further corporatist aims and associated with David Rockefeller since 1949, is a bulwark of support for the Federal Reserve Bank, the recent Wall Street bailouts, and the century-long socialist trend initiated under the Theodore Roosevelt administration. In fact, it was Theodore Roosevelt's Wall Street-financed third party candidacy that led to Bernard Baruch's protege, Woodrow Wilson, being elected over William Howard Taft, who opposed a Federal Reserve Bank. Wilson appointed Samuel P. Bush governor of the first Federal Reserve bank board. Samuel P. Bush was George W. Bush's great grandfather. The socialist- corporatist musical chairs has gone on ad nauseum.

Since the Progressive era, the Council on Foreign Relations has repeatedly advocated and pushed through one foreign policy fiasco after the next, all of which have contributed to the weakening of American economic dynamism, the flattening of real hourly wage growth, and ever-increasing incursions on economic freedom and civil liberties that have culminated in the Patriot Act and the recent bailouts.

Cain is a former Federal Reserve Bank officer; as an employee of Bain Capital Management, a private equity firm, Romney is also intimately linked to Wall Street. Gingrich's reputation precedes him. Only foolishness or ignorance would motivate someone who believes in freedom to vote for Romney, Cain, or Gingrich. All three are ideologically similar to Barack Obama, and all three answer to the same Rockefeller-led banking interests.

Enough Republicans are fed up to bolt so that more of the same will fail. I certainly am. In 2004, I did vote for George Bush, whose family has had intimate ties to the Council on Foreign Relations for three generations. Bernard Baruch personally asked Samuel P. Bush to serve on the War Industries Board before Wilson appointed him to the Fed Board of Governors.

Dumber than dumb, in 2008 I contributed to Wall Street-bailout-supporting John McCain. Today, I have made my first contribution to the Libertarian Party. Absent a victory by Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I will give more.

Town of Olive, Board Member Bruce Lamonda, Olive Town Board, and Supervisor Berndt Leifeld Mismanage Special Reserve Funds

2011-10-13T13:10:00.002-04:00

The Town of Olive has mismanaged its special reserve funds according to a report from the New York State Comptroller's office.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/reservefunds.pdf

Points from the above report that should have been brought up at the October 10, 2011 meeting:

Currently, the Town of Olive does not budget reserve funds in its annual budget. This is poor practice. Written reserve fund policies ought to be developed. Legal counsel concerning the establishment and continuation of funds needs to be sought on an ongoing basis. The board should be provided with ongoing reports of reserve fund activity. There should be ongoing review of reserve funds and on-the-record discussion of whether the reserves are reasonable and necessary. Reserve balances should only be retained at appropriate levels. The board should openly discuss whether the needs of taxpayers are being met. Boards should also periodically assess the reasonableness of the amounts accumulated in their reserves. All reserve fund transactions should be transparent to the public. When conditions warrant (subject to legal requirements), the board should reduce reserve funds to reasonable levels or liquidate and discontinue a reserve fund that is no longer needed or whose purpose has been achieved.

In general, boards should behave as though they have fiduciary duties to the public. That means disclosure and reasonable discussion of management policies that are public. Reasonable discussion includes evaluation of the purposes and limits of the reserve funds, and whether the funds ought to be discontinued.

Quotations from the above report:

1. Reserve funds should be used for appropriate, stated purposes that are well designed. They should not be parking lots for excess cash.

2. Local governments and school districts should balance the desirability of accumulating reserves for future needs with the

obligation to make sure taxpayers are not overburdened

3. There should be a clear purpose or intent for reserve funds that aligns with statutory authorizations.

4. Each statute that authorizes a reserve fund should set forth a particular underlying purpose for the fund.

5. All too often, however, reserve funds are established and substantial cash is accumulated without due diligence in monitoring the reasonableness of reserve fund balances.

6. Is the board provided with periodic financial reports on reserve fund activity?

7. Are reserve balances at an appropriate level?

8. finance reserve funds on a regular basis should develop a written policy that communicates to taxpayers why the money is being set aside, the board’s financial objectives for the reserves, optimal funding levels, and conditions under which the assets will be utilized. Boards should also periodically assess the reasonableness of the amounts accumulated in their reserves.

9. Boards should also periodically assess the reasonableness of the amounts accumulated in their reserves. When conditions warrant (subject to legal requirements), the board should reduce reserve funds to reasonable levels or liquidate and discontinue a reserve fund that is no longer needed or whose purpose has been achieved.

10. All reserve fund transactions should be transparent to the public.

11. Ideally, amounts to be placed in reserve funds should be included in the annual budget.

HUD, Section 8 Housing Assault Saugerties, NY

2011-10-12T23:52:00.006-04:00

It appears that developers Regan Development Corporation, Dickerson’s Keep LLC, and Orange County Rural Development Advisory along with Saugerties Town Supervisor Gregory L. Helsmoortel and New York State Housing and Community Renewal Commissioner Darryl Towns, likely funded through HUD, are at their economy-destroying worst in Saugerties, NY. The townspeople are rightly up in arms at a proposal to build a tax exempt cluster housing that will raise taxes on homeowners. With double talk of and bogus studies of "shortages" by Ulster County's inept department of economic development, the town supervisor and developer aim to provide economy-destroying subsidized housing at the expense of taxpayers who have been thrown out of work by excessive taxation.

Saugerties's Darryl Towns and the developers are economic illiterates who have never heard of markets addressing shortages.

The Daily Freeman has posted edited video of the meeting.

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/video/?va_id=2926879&pl_id=21369&ref=synd

Olive Town Clerk Sylvia Rozelle Responds to My Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) Request

2011-10-11T20:48:00.001-04:00

Click on the image to see a full size copy.