Showing posts with label impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impeachment. Show all posts

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Shakespeare on Dershowitz



Toward the end of  Shakespeare's Henry V, Fluellen, King Harry's self-appointed mentor, remarks on the king's glorious victory at Agincourt:

FLUELLEN
By Jeshu, I am your majesty's countryman, I care not
who know it; I will confess it to all the 'orld:  I
need not to be ashamed of your majesty, praised be
God, so long as your majesty is an honest man.
What Dershowitz did in his speech yesterday is outline in vivid terms the contours of duties of public officials to the public and to the nation, both in economic and in democratic terms.  No one has fashioned a regime of fiduciary duty of elected officials, but it needs to balance these concerns.  Dershowitz is not only resolving the impeachment debate but also outlining a doctrine of what the public ought to require of democratically elected politicians.

Dershowitz is now the most illustrious alum of Brooklyn College. I need not be ashamed, praised be G-d.

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Across the Board Cuts Needed to Drain the Swamp


The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

This is a letter of support in light of the unfair allegations that Democratic Party and fake media extremists have brought against you.  Fake journalists have made absurd claims about the significance of your conversation with Prime Minister Zelensky, including the fiction that you withheld aid or in some way functioned as a mafia boss.  Seeing the absurd spectacle of Neil Cavuto pretending to be an objective journalist while basing all of his questioning on false assumptions and outright lies isn’t surprising, but it is one more nail in the coffin of the credibility of television news.

The bigger question is how to move forward given that this series of events has revealed deep-seated corruption within the intelligence agencies.  When you were elected, I was skeptical of the expression “deep state.” As a libertarian, I was aware that the state is fundamentally corrupt.  However, I was unaware of the deep partisan infiltration of the intelligence agencies.

When you are elected to a second term, I urge you to follow the libertarian approach of across-the-board budget cuts to agencies.  This is an approach that will be a baby step toward curing the federal deficit but a leap toward draining the swamp.  The concept of corporate culture is that behavior patterns in organizations become ritualized. Cultures are collective mental programming that are next to impossible to change.  This insight was made in the 1950s by the sociologist Philip Selznick in his book Leadership in Administration.  Because you are primarily a real estate developer used to contractual relationships, you seem to have proceeded in your efforts to drain the swamp without addressing the deep cultural impediments.   

The solution that Selznick offers to change cultures is the same that libertarians have urged to cut costs:  sharply cut the staffing.  As well, shuffling personnel and hiring from without will be useful. Director Henry King’s 1949 film 12 O’Clock High depicts the reshuffling and firing approach to culture change.

As you know, the federal debt is at levels that may threaten economic growth in the short run and certainly will do so in the long run.  Across-the-board cuts in federal agencies of, say, 50% of staff in agencies like the CIA, NSA, DOL, and DOE along with reshuffling of assignments of existing staff will shake up the corrupt, deep-state culture if not end it entirely.  Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the Squad, and the radical steps they are taking may make such a radical approach possible after 2020 because they are losing credibilty.  

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Cc: Neil Cavuto Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell


Mr. Joseph Maguire
Director, National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
Washington, DC 20511

Dear Mr. Maguire:

I have written to the president suggesting that radical culture change is needed in the intelligence community. The leaking of a presidential conversation is neither heroic nor legal, and it is not the work of a whistleblower. Rather, it is reflective of an intelligence community that has run amok with partisanship and corruption.

As I mention in the attached letter to the president, the antidote for a corrupt culture is across-the-board firing.  I suggest that half of all intelligence personnel be terminated. They are no longer serving the public, and the culture in the agencies is rotten.  Once half have been fired, the remaining personnel should be reshuffled. New personnel without the taint of the rotten culture that has evolved can then be hired.

This kind of step is unknown in government bureaucracies, but it is evident that it has become necessary.


Sincerely,



Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

How Judge Napolitano Got It Wrong


I was listening to Judge Napolitano on Shepard Smith on Wednesday, Sept. 25.  (I have been using Fox as background while I'm entering data.)

There seems to be a confusion on the part of Judge Napolitano and other commentators about the recent Ukrainian issue. This has been caused by a familiar left-wing tactic of taking control of nomenclature, and Mr. Napolitano falls prey to this tactic, for his analysis presumes that there was, in the president's mind, concern for Biden qua candidate and not Biden qua criminal.

The president may have been seeking a quid pro quo only if he was attempting to find information about a political candidate to oppose him. He would not have been seeking a quid pro quo if he was attempting to investigate Joe Biden as a criminal.  

There is plenty of evidence that Biden has behaved criminally, and there is no justification for claiming that the president cannot enforce the nation's laws. Judge Napolitano assumes that the president was campaigning merely because the left has defined the conversation in this way and not  because the president was seeking to drain the swamp, which he has repeatedly stated he aims to do.  

In discussing this issue, the Democrats have staked out the claim that the president was seeking information about a political candidate.  However, there is zero evidence that that is the case. In discussing this issue, it is disingenuous to say "political candidate." It is honest to say that it may be that he was seeking to obtain information about a criminal, Biden, and it may be that he was seeking to obtain information about a political candidate.  Neither is clear.  

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Letter to Congressman Maurice Hinchey Requesting Impeachment of President Ocheeseball

Dear Congressman Hinchey:

President Barack Obama lied to Congress recently when he claimed that his health care proposal (a) excludes non-citizen immigrants, (b) would not involve rationing that would limit care to many elderly Americans and (c) will be a stable system that will not result in fascist control of the entire health system by an increasingly totalitarian American state.

I urge you to propose to impeach President Obama for lying to Congress. His irresponsible lying is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the American people.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Would Obama Be The First President to Be Removed?

The McCain-Palin ticket has a good chance of winning despite its continuing sag in the polls. But an Obama-Biden win is certainly a possibility. Senator Obama has engaged in considerable deception concerning his upbringing. As well, ACORN, the community activist group with which he has been directly involved, is engaging in criminality and voter fraud on his behalf and has been doing so for months. Senator Obama's close friend, Tony Rezko, has been convicted of criminal fraud. Senator Obama engaged in fraud in connection with a real estate purchase with Mr. Rezko. At the same time, the Obama campaign has engaged in an unprecedented degree of election fraud. The media has been lying on Obama's behalf for months, to the point where it has been willing to sacrifice its own paper-thin credibility in order to further Senator Obama's candidacy. All of this caps off a candidate whose grasp of the issues is as paper thin as the media's reputation, which was exemplified, for example, when Senator Obama became confused over the status of Jerusalem in the Middle Eastern conflict.

I have worked with individuals engaging in fraud before and so have gradually become attuned to sociopathy's practical implications. In teaching, I have integrated some of my experiences into several classes, including conflict and negotiation and organizational behavior. The psychological construct of sociopathy plays an important but not carefully investigated role in business. As well, the annals of history and politics are littered with sociopathic personalities.

Many sociopaths rely on deception. When unethical behavior, be it repeated lying as in the case of Barack Obama, stealing, fraud or more serious crimes, is part of a conscienceless individual's way of behaving, it is imperative to keep such behavior secret and for the sociopath to move on when his behavior is uncovered. In the case of Senator Obama, he will occupy the most visible office in the United States, so moving on will not be an option.

It is true that for the next two years both houses of Congress may remain Democratic and so an impeachment is unlikely. It is also true that the Constitution's restraints on political power have eroded to the point where a sociopath in the presidency would probably be able to abridge or attack rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Progressives started the nation along that path a century ago, and now the door is open for a convincing sociopath to become a dictator. Obama may be that dictator. Moreover, the nation is going to be going through several strains, particularly in the all-important economic realm, where we are likely to see brisk inflation and reduced economic performance. This will be exacerbated if the Democrats impose heavy taxation and punish small business through regulation. As well, there may be a terrorist strike or an attack on Israel in response to a president who is soft on terrorism.

Any disruption is likely to give a President Obama a pretext to impose martial law and constraints on speech. Attacks on his opponents would be consistent with the way his campaign has acted toward McCain supporters. The angry comments, the willingness to stifle the speech of any who disagree, the threats, the vulgarity and the violence associated with the Obama campaign expresses an underlying thugishness on the candidate's part.

Should Obama win, as his sociopathy reveals itself through strikes against opponents, incompetence and corruption, there may be many surprised Americans, who have thought that by "change" Obama meant better living standards and better ethics. In turn, corruption associated with his administration would open the door for impeachment as Americans, many of whom will get past the "denial" characteristic of victims of con men, will be filled with anger that they have been duped. The force for impeachment will be greater than it was for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush because the distance between how Senator Obama has represented himself and who he really is is far greater than has been the case for any previous President. As well, the criminality, corruption and cynicism that surrounds Senator Obama's presidential campaign exceeds that of President Richard M. Nixon, who resigned. The result will be massive social division within the United States and very likely a turning over of both houses of Congress in two years. The anger may be sufficient for Congress to act constitutionally, despite a President Obama's efforts to suspend the Constitution.

Americans must be vigilant as to any efforts by the mainstream media to encourage further erosion of Constitutional liberties.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi Re Impeachment of President George W. Bush

PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
September 20, 2008

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
House of Representatives
450 Golden Gate Ave. 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

I have also written to Senator McCain and Congressman Kucinich, John Conyers and my representative Maurice Hinchey concerning the impeachment of President George Bush. I am a laissez-faire Republican who has contributed to several Republican candidates. The recent bailout of AIG Insurance Company is a significant breach of the Constitution of the United States and so provides grounds for impeachment that you hitherto considered to be unavailable. The ownership of an insurance company is not a power granted to the federal government and has no serious justification either economically or because of the federal government's police powers. Justification of the AIG bailout would require accepting the claim of presidential economic omniscience. But the Constitution grants no such omniscience and no such power to the president.

Because President Bush has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, President Bush deserves to be impeached.

The presidential oath of office reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

At this juncture there is sufficient public support for an impeachment of President Bush. You may not agree with my reasons, and I may not agree with yours, but I think that more than half of the public would support a hearing.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Cc: Congressman Ron Paul
2445 Rayburn House Bldg
Washington, DC 20515

Letter to John Conyers, Chair House Judiciary Committee, Re Impeachment of President George W. Bush

PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
September 20, 2008

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Conyers:

I am also writing to Senator McCain and Congressman Kucinich concerning the impeachment of President George Bush. I am a laissez-faire Republican who has today come to the conclusion that President Bush is morally unfit for office and ought to be impeached. As I wrote to Senator McCain and Congressman Kucinich, the recent bailout of AIG Insurance Company is a significant breach of the Constitution of the United States. The ownership of an insurance company is not a power granted to the federal government and has no serious justification. Because President Bush has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, President Bush deserves to be impeached.

The presidential oath of office reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I believe that at this juncture there is sufficient public support for an impeachment of President Bush. You may not agree with my reasons, and I may not agree with yours, but I think that more than half of the public would support a hearing.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Letter to John McCain and Dennis Kucinich Requesting That Congress Impeach President George W. Bush

PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
September 21, 2008

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich
House of Representatives
2445 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Senator McCain and Congressman Kucinich:

This is a respectful suggestion that you jointly, on a bi-partisan basis, initiate impeachment of President George W. Bush. The recent bailout of AIG Insurance Company is a significant breach of the Constitution of the United States. The ownership of an insurance company is not a power granted to the federal government and has no serious justification. Because President Bush has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, President Bush deserves to be impeached.

The presidential oath of office reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.