I just wrote the following e-mail to Bob Robbins, who inquired about responses to my efforts to obtain some administrative inquiry into the Barack Obama birth certificate question:
I posted the NY Board of Elections response in Postcards from the Edge. The NY Secretary of State told me that the Board of Elections handles this. It's probably a good idea to write to both because it varies by state. No other responses. In other words, I've written to my Congressman, the New York State Board of Elections, the Secretary of State, the IRS, the FEC, sent a petition to the FEC and all I've heard back in nearly a month is from the Board of Elections saying that they will think about looking into it. Democracy in inaction.
Here are links to the letters I wrote, they are on my blog:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/postcards-from-edge-of-americas.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-new-york-state-board-of.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-irs-and-mr-douglas-shulman.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-donald-mcgahan-and-federal.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-message-to-new-york-state.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-congressman-maurice-hinchey.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-message-to-new-york-state.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/freedom-of-information-act-request-for.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/request-for-investigation-of-obama.html
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Who Knows Where the Voter Fraud Goes?
On August 6 I noted that the McCain campaign needs to think carefully about fraud prevention. Yesterday, Pamela Geller(h/t Bob Robbins) covered an interesting story along the same lines:
PUMA* members were out and about in Denver trying to savor some of the ambiance when they were approached by a group of young people registering voters in Denver. They tried to register this group to vote — all of them are registered voters in other states. The young people never asked where they lived, only if they wanted to register to vote.
Bob also sent me a link to a Charles Krauthammer article in which Mr. Krauthammer wonders why there are no testimonials to Barack Obama's character. Whereas John Kerry could find a bunch of veterans and McCain has dozens of associates who will stand behind him, Obama has no one--he stands alone. Indeed, we cannot even figure out where he was born.
The mainstream media has been clownish with respect to its coverage of Mr. Obama because it has not functioned as one would expect of competent news sources. There have been few or no questions about Mr. Obama's past, his ethics, his associations in Chicago and the small matter of potential deception concerning his early life, to include allegations of forgery of his birth certificate.
The absence of "character witnesses" is consistent with my suspicion that Mr. Obama is a man who lacks character. What better way for a publicist to manage such a man's candidacy than to omit all history. This is very similar to how con men operate, and this is also why I have been suspicious for several months now about whether Mr. Obama may be exhibiting traits associated with sociopathy (also see here and here).
*PUMA stands for "Party Unity Up MY A** and is associated with disenchanted Clinton supporters.
PUMA* members were out and about in Denver trying to savor some of the ambiance when they were approached by a group of young people registering voters in Denver. They tried to register this group to vote — all of them are registered voters in other states. The young people never asked where they lived, only if they wanted to register to vote.
Bob also sent me a link to a Charles Krauthammer article in which Mr. Krauthammer wonders why there are no testimonials to Barack Obama's character. Whereas John Kerry could find a bunch of veterans and McCain has dozens of associates who will stand behind him, Obama has no one--he stands alone. Indeed, we cannot even figure out where he was born.
The mainstream media has been clownish with respect to its coverage of Mr. Obama because it has not functioned as one would expect of competent news sources. There have been few or no questions about Mr. Obama's past, his ethics, his associations in Chicago and the small matter of potential deception concerning his early life, to include allegations of forgery of his birth certificate.
The absence of "character witnesses" is consistent with my suspicion that Mr. Obama is a man who lacks character. What better way for a publicist to manage such a man's candidacy than to omit all history. This is very similar to how con men operate, and this is also why I have been suspicious for several months now about whether Mr. Obama may be exhibiting traits associated with sociopathy (also see here and here).
*PUMA stands for "Party Unity Up MY A** and is associated with disenchanted Clinton supporters.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin and the Media Clowns
Media bias in favor of America's first Indonesian presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has me laughing to tears. The bozos at MS-NBC (perhaps to commemorate Larry Harmon, the most famous Bozo, who sadly died last month) claim that the Republicans are "frantic". The Bozos at AP assert (ha, ha) that McCain is undermining his strategy of emphasizing experience. Juggler Chris Matthews (the very name makes me chuckle) asserts that Joe Biden is a brilliant choice while acrobats at AP (giggle) claim that a minor investigation of Palin that Mr. McCain knew about before the nod is going to become a serious issue (sic). Never mind Mr. Obama's repeated lying in his book and his association with a Weather Underground terrorist and felon Tony Rezko. I'm not up that early, but I heard CNN begins its broadcast day with "Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages..."
I have no doubt that Mr. McCain's strategic choice of Sarah Palin is excellent. She's more experienced than Barack Obama (she has actually served in an executive role) and he's strategically undercutting the Democrats on several levels.
The chief obstacle the Republicans have to overcome is the stupidity of the Bush administration--the big spending, lack of leadership, lack of vision and commitment to failed, social democratic ideas. With a great VP choice like Palin, the Democrats are likely to become increasingly confused.
Here is a fundraising letter I received from John McCain:
I am honored to announce that I have chosen Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as my choice for the Republican nominee for Vice President. As a father with three daughters, I can't express how proud I am to choose the first female Republican Vice-Presidential nominee.
Sarah Palin is a trailblazer and a reformer. As the first female governor of Alaska, she challenged a corrupt system and has been a tireless advocate for reform - passing a landmark bill on ethics reform. She has taken on the old politics in Alaska and reformed the state's energy industry. She rejects wasteful pork barrel spending. She's fearless - exactly the type of leader I want at my side and the type of leadership we will bring to Washington.
My friends, together Sarah Palin and I make the strongest presidential ticket and I know that she joins me in asking for your support as we head into our Convention week in Minnesota. We're shaking things up in this campaign - and Governor Palin and I are ready to bring real reform to Washington.
The polls indicate this will be a tight race as we head into the fall campaign against Senators Obama and Biden. I expect the polls to remain close all the way up to Election Day and that is why any help you can give today will go a long way to make history on November 4th.
You may already know that I have decided to accept federal matching funds for the final months of this campaign- keeping a campaign promise I made. But that means that August 31st marks the last day I can accept your primary contribution. Will you make an immediate donation of whatever you can give- whether it's $50 or $500 to ensure Governor Palin and I win in November?
You can be assured that as President and Vice President, Governor Palin and I will always put country before all else. We are ready to lead and I ask that you join our campaign today. Your support is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Image Blocked
John McCain
P.S. I have chosen Governor Sarah Palin as my running mate and today we held a joint campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio. I hope you'll visit my website to financially support our ticket as we head into next week's Republican Convention. Thank you.
The Beginning of Cafeteria Societies
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government* makes the case that governments are instituted by the consent of the governed and that governments are instituted in order to maximize human freedom. Much of Locke's thinking was influenced by the American frontier, and it is evident that the Founding Fathers adapted Locke's work in their thinking about government in part because they saw the Declaration of Independence as a compact to which Americans freely consented. Locke saw the colonies as emerging in this way too. In chapter VIII, "Of the Beginning of Political Societies" Locke discusses how someone can consent to being a member of a political society. He argues that owning land in a nation or living there does not make a man a member of the society:
"this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he found there."
Locke sees the freedom to leave one's country of birth and to pursue citizenship in a different state as possible because of the existence of the American frontier. If one can pick up and move to a Pennsylvanian wilderness, then one has a choice. But such wildernesses no longer exist.
The impetus to adopt the Progressive ideology occurred right at the time that the historian Frederick Jackson Turner claimed that the American frontier had closed. The nineteenth century American belief in laissez-faire psychologically depended on the existence of a frontier. Part of the response to the sense of loss from the closing of the frontier and the end of expansive growth and (mistakenly thought) the beginning of decline, were imperialism and intensification of racism. Thus, the Spanish-American War, Progressivism and intensification of Jim Crow laws all occurred at the same time. These were all the product of a win-lose mentality, a belief that freedom is possible only when physical expansion is possible. Wilson and other Progressives believed that foreign markets would be necessary to sell "overproduced" American goods. A little earlier, economists like DA Wells had argued that "overproduction" was an ongoing problem and that business needed to consolidate. Progressives focused on the need for government to control big business. This way of thinking is the flip side of expansionism. Both are win/lose psychologies.
In a win-lose psychology, one believes that in order to gain, something must be lost. That was a primary assumption of mercantilism, and so the laissez-faire of the American nineteenth century was a mercantilist laissez-faire. It replaced mercantilism's emphasis on community with Lockean individualism but it retained the win-lose psychology of mercantilism. Thus, Jacksonian democracy was racist and focused on land expansion and suppression of the Indians.
The question that intrigues me about Locke's contractualism is whether it would be possible in a non-mercantilist, non-expansionist laissez-faire framework. The expansion necessary for increasing human welfare is mental, not physical. It is not a win-lose process, but a win-win one, whereby technological genius and creativity increment human welfare. This process is possible in all phases of the economy.
But not all Americans agree with this potential. America has become divided into factions. We are no longer a single people. In the nineteenth century there were ideological factions as there are now. Likewise, there were geographic and economic ones. The Civil War was fought for this reason.
But for the most part, the factions of the nineteenth century were not mutually incompatible. This was in part because of the frontier, and in part because alternative modes of government were still possible in the various states. Federalism still permitted considerable discretion among the states. As well, the states diverged on a few key issues, such as slavery, but all Americans shared a belief in individual liberty.
Today, the basic foundation of American culture and government is splitting into the America of liberal collectivism and the America of individualism.
Unlike the nineteenth century differences between the commercial interests of Boston and the agrarian interests of Virginia, collectivism is incompatible with individualism. The most important reason is that the collectivists or Progressives insist on centralization. They have accomplished this through educational systems; creation of an elitist psychology that has enabled the Supreme Court to deviate with respect to values from a large portion of Americans; and emphasis on collectivist federal programs such as Social Security and the income tax that require participation. Most of all, the Progressives have emphasized centralization, and do not tolerate state-level deviation from the broad Progressive program and will violently quell any individual resistance.
Locke argued that citizenship depends on agreement. Those who do not agree with the collectivist program ought to have some rights. So far, they have allowed the collectivists to intimidate them, and have acquiesced in seeing their rights whittled.
What might be a better approach? One might be the creation of cafeteria societies. Might Americans be allowed to choose among several alternative social structures? Why must all Americans make do with the failed ideas that Washington has imposed. In industry, benefit plans have been adopted that give employees a choice. Why can we not have two or three competing social security, welfare, taxation and health insurance schemes? Those who prefer low taxes and less benefits might choose one state, while those who prefer high taxes might choose the other. Democrats and Republicans could each have the system that they prefer. The two systems would be conjoined through a common defense and tariff policy, but Americans could begin to have governments that they believe in.
John Locke's idea of contractual government might point the way to a future that is characterized by flexibility and choice rather than the heavy, violent hand of collectivist Progressivism. America needs to think about how to reassert the basic Lockean compact.
*John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Edited with an Introduction by CB Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing, 1980
"this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he found there."
Locke sees the freedom to leave one's country of birth and to pursue citizenship in a different state as possible because of the existence of the American frontier. If one can pick up and move to a Pennsylvanian wilderness, then one has a choice. But such wildernesses no longer exist.
The impetus to adopt the Progressive ideology occurred right at the time that the historian Frederick Jackson Turner claimed that the American frontier had closed. The nineteenth century American belief in laissez-faire psychologically depended on the existence of a frontier. Part of the response to the sense of loss from the closing of the frontier and the end of expansive growth and (mistakenly thought) the beginning of decline, were imperialism and intensification of racism. Thus, the Spanish-American War, Progressivism and intensification of Jim Crow laws all occurred at the same time. These were all the product of a win-lose mentality, a belief that freedom is possible only when physical expansion is possible. Wilson and other Progressives believed that foreign markets would be necessary to sell "overproduced" American goods. A little earlier, economists like DA Wells had argued that "overproduction" was an ongoing problem and that business needed to consolidate. Progressives focused on the need for government to control big business. This way of thinking is the flip side of expansionism. Both are win/lose psychologies.
In a win-lose psychology, one believes that in order to gain, something must be lost. That was a primary assumption of mercantilism, and so the laissez-faire of the American nineteenth century was a mercantilist laissez-faire. It replaced mercantilism's emphasis on community with Lockean individualism but it retained the win-lose psychology of mercantilism. Thus, Jacksonian democracy was racist and focused on land expansion and suppression of the Indians.
The question that intrigues me about Locke's contractualism is whether it would be possible in a non-mercantilist, non-expansionist laissez-faire framework. The expansion necessary for increasing human welfare is mental, not physical. It is not a win-lose process, but a win-win one, whereby technological genius and creativity increment human welfare. This process is possible in all phases of the economy.
But not all Americans agree with this potential. America has become divided into factions. We are no longer a single people. In the nineteenth century there were ideological factions as there are now. Likewise, there were geographic and economic ones. The Civil War was fought for this reason.
But for the most part, the factions of the nineteenth century were not mutually incompatible. This was in part because of the frontier, and in part because alternative modes of government were still possible in the various states. Federalism still permitted considerable discretion among the states. As well, the states diverged on a few key issues, such as slavery, but all Americans shared a belief in individual liberty.
Today, the basic foundation of American culture and government is splitting into the America of liberal collectivism and the America of individualism.
Unlike the nineteenth century differences between the commercial interests of Boston and the agrarian interests of Virginia, collectivism is incompatible with individualism. The most important reason is that the collectivists or Progressives insist on centralization. They have accomplished this through educational systems; creation of an elitist psychology that has enabled the Supreme Court to deviate with respect to values from a large portion of Americans; and emphasis on collectivist federal programs such as Social Security and the income tax that require participation. Most of all, the Progressives have emphasized centralization, and do not tolerate state-level deviation from the broad Progressive program and will violently quell any individual resistance.
Locke argued that citizenship depends on agreement. Those who do not agree with the collectivist program ought to have some rights. So far, they have allowed the collectivists to intimidate them, and have acquiesced in seeing their rights whittled.
What might be a better approach? One might be the creation of cafeteria societies. Might Americans be allowed to choose among several alternative social structures? Why must all Americans make do with the failed ideas that Washington has imposed. In industry, benefit plans have been adopted that give employees a choice. Why can we not have two or three competing social security, welfare, taxation and health insurance schemes? Those who prefer low taxes and less benefits might choose one state, while those who prefer high taxes might choose the other. Democrats and Republicans could each have the system that they prefer. The two systems would be conjoined through a common defense and tariff policy, but Americans could begin to have governments that they believe in.
John Locke's idea of contractual government might point the way to a future that is characterized by flexibility and choice rather than the heavy, violent hand of collectivist Progressivism. America needs to think about how to reassert the basic Lockean compact.
*John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Edited with an Introduction by CB Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing, 1980
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
