Alan Keyes has taken a stand in the ongoing Obama birth certificate quest, according to NBC Augusta (h/t Sharad Karkhanis). The dashing and debonair Keyes has called the effeminate Obama's citizenship into question:
"According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.
"Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate.
"The Obama campaign countered similar accusations early in 2008 by posting Obama's certification of live birth, and saying: 'Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.'"
The site rather disingenuously publishes the computer print out presented by Janice Okubo and her associates in the Hawaii Department of Health. The question of interest is whether the information on the vault or original copy (not the computer record) raises questions about the identity of Obama's father or his religion of birth, in turn raising questions about Mr. Obama's integrity that his propagandists at NBC and the New York Times refused to raise.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
FrontPageMag Covers Mitchell Langbert's Rebuttal of Left Wing Extremists
Phil Orenstein has published an article in Frontpagemag concerning my rebuttal of an anonymous left wing extremist's assault on trustees of the City University of New York. Orenstein writes:
"Professor Mitchell Langbert posted a scathing reply to an extensively researched article, Look Who's Trusteeing at CUNY featured on the GC Advocate, the on-line student paper of the CUNY graduate Center. The writer excoriates City University of New York (CUNY) Chancellor Matt Goldstein, the CUNY Board of Trustees, and the Chairman of the Board, Benno Schmidt, as a 'veritable rogue’s gallery of hand-picked business elite.' The anonymous writer blames 'CUNY’s ruling body' for 'pushing to turn CUNY into ‘Walmart U,’' for hiking tuition and fees, shoving minority and working students out the door, and for the failure of the big bankers JP Morgan Chase and Citibank to provide student loans while their friends at the fed bail out Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae."
Orenstein adds:
"Instead of calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the rule of the Trustees and CUNY administration to be 'swept away' by the 'democratic' control of 'students, teachers and workers,' it’s the eccentric professors and CUNY officials running amok in radical politics and rallying for the defense of convicted terrorists and extremists, that have to be fired and directed to find a new line of work in a society 'under the rule of capital.'”
I must say: hear, hear. And read Phil's whole article here.
"Professor Mitchell Langbert posted a scathing reply to an extensively researched article, Look Who's Trusteeing at CUNY featured on the GC Advocate, the on-line student paper of the CUNY graduate Center. The writer excoriates City University of New York (CUNY) Chancellor Matt Goldstein, the CUNY Board of Trustees, and the Chairman of the Board, Benno Schmidt, as a 'veritable rogue’s gallery of hand-picked business elite.' The anonymous writer blames 'CUNY’s ruling body' for 'pushing to turn CUNY into ‘Walmart U,’' for hiking tuition and fees, shoving minority and working students out the door, and for the failure of the big bankers JP Morgan Chase and Citibank to provide student loans while their friends at the fed bail out Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae."
Orenstein adds:
"Instead of calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the rule of the Trustees and CUNY administration to be 'swept away' by the 'democratic' control of 'students, teachers and workers,' it’s the eccentric professors and CUNY officials running amok in radical politics and rallying for the defense of convicted terrorists and extremists, that have to be fired and directed to find a new line of work in a society 'under the rule of capital.'”
I must say: hear, hear. And read Phil's whole article here.
As "Big Three" Plea for Aid, Re-Watch Roger and Me
According to today's Wall Street Journal:
"Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would set aside $25 billion to help the [auto] industry, drawing from the $700 billion fund created to stabilize financial markets. The legislation would allow the auto companies and parts suppliers to receive 'bridge loans' of at least ten years with favorable interest rates. But there is resistance among many senior Republicans and the White House. If no decision is made this week, the issue will be kicked over to the new 111th Congress."
However, there is Senatorial resistance to approving the loans, and for good reason. The auto industry's problems literally span my life. In the late 1940s (I was born in '54) Peter Drucker wrote Concept of the Corporation in which he was mostly complimentary about the firm but raised questions about its labor relations and social responsibility practices. In the mid 1960s Ralph Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, which was critical of the Pinto and the Corvair, and GM's response was to try to frame Nader with a hooker. In 1972 John Z. De Lorean and J. Patrick Wright published On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors, which mocked GM's incompetent and manipulative management. By the late 1970s, the Big Three had failed to respond to the lean manufacturing and quality management initiatives of Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers. In 1980 Congress bailed out Chrysler with a loan guarantee. In the 1980s, the "Big Three" made some quality gains, but soon fell back on the strategy, which seemed bizarre and lame to me at the time, of manufacturing huge SUVs and ignoring quality. In the late 1980s, C Jackson Grayson and Carla Grayson O'Dell wrote American Business: A Two Minute Warning in which they described GM robots painting themselves instead of the cars, and hugely expensive robotized plants that were too inflexible to be competitive. In the late 1980s Michael Moore came out with Roger and Me. One of the themes of Roger and Me is GM's insistence that it is a private corporation and owes no special allegiance to the public or to its employees. In the film as elsewhere the firm opines that the moving of a large percentage of its plants to Mexico is a private, profit-maximizing decision and the public has no right to criticize its use of plant relocations or layoffs. But if plant relocation and layoffs are private decisions, why should the public be concerned about GM's bankruptcy risk?
In contrast to GM, Toyota provides lifetime employment to its employees and has moved a number of plants to the US. Toyota does not complain about labor or fixed costs, but has been criticized for the inflexibility of lifetime employment. GM has laid off workers throughout its history yet now complains about pension and health insurance costs.
Most readers of my blog are not probably fans of Michael Moore. I too disagree with his dream of imposing a Cuban-style $250 per year health program on Americans, or a French-style program that WOULD NOT provide for sewing any of the fingers back on (if you saw Sicko you know what I'm talking about).
Nevertheless, Roger and Me is a good movie, and it should be mandatory for all the Democrats eager to provide subsidies to firms that have insisted on the importance private property rights.
The following is Siskel and Eberts's review of Roger and Me from 1989. General Motors went bankrupt in the 1910's, and the DuPonts took it over in the 1920s and ejected the CEO, Willy Durant. Is GM a firm that has looked out for Americans? Is it a firm that you or I really want to support out of our hard earned money? And why can't they build cars that Americans want to buy?
"Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would set aside $25 billion to help the [auto] industry, drawing from the $700 billion fund created to stabilize financial markets. The legislation would allow the auto companies and parts suppliers to receive 'bridge loans' of at least ten years with favorable interest rates. But there is resistance among many senior Republicans and the White House. If no decision is made this week, the issue will be kicked over to the new 111th Congress."
However, there is Senatorial resistance to approving the loans, and for good reason. The auto industry's problems literally span my life. In the late 1940s (I was born in '54) Peter Drucker wrote Concept of the Corporation in which he was mostly complimentary about the firm but raised questions about its labor relations and social responsibility practices. In the mid 1960s Ralph Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, which was critical of the Pinto and the Corvair, and GM's response was to try to frame Nader with a hooker. In 1972 John Z. De Lorean and J. Patrick Wright published On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors, which mocked GM's incompetent and manipulative management. By the late 1970s, the Big Three had failed to respond to the lean manufacturing and quality management initiatives of Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers. In 1980 Congress bailed out Chrysler with a loan guarantee. In the 1980s, the "Big Three" made some quality gains, but soon fell back on the strategy, which seemed bizarre and lame to me at the time, of manufacturing huge SUVs and ignoring quality. In the late 1980s, C Jackson Grayson and Carla Grayson O'Dell wrote American Business: A Two Minute Warning in which they described GM robots painting themselves instead of the cars, and hugely expensive robotized plants that were too inflexible to be competitive. In the late 1980s Michael Moore came out with Roger and Me. One of the themes of Roger and Me is GM's insistence that it is a private corporation and owes no special allegiance to the public or to its employees. In the film as elsewhere the firm opines that the moving of a large percentage of its plants to Mexico is a private, profit-maximizing decision and the public has no right to criticize its use of plant relocations or layoffs. But if plant relocation and layoffs are private decisions, why should the public be concerned about GM's bankruptcy risk?
In contrast to GM, Toyota provides lifetime employment to its employees and has moved a number of plants to the US. Toyota does not complain about labor or fixed costs, but has been criticized for the inflexibility of lifetime employment. GM has laid off workers throughout its history yet now complains about pension and health insurance costs.
Most readers of my blog are not probably fans of Michael Moore. I too disagree with his dream of imposing a Cuban-style $250 per year health program on Americans, or a French-style program that WOULD NOT provide for sewing any of the fingers back on (if you saw Sicko you know what I'm talking about).
Nevertheless, Roger and Me is a good movie, and it should be mandatory for all the Democrats eager to provide subsidies to firms that have insisted on the importance private property rights.
The following is Siskel and Eberts's review of Roger and Me from 1989. General Motors went bankrupt in the 1910's, and the DuPonts took it over in the 1920s and ejected the CEO, Willy Durant. Is GM a firm that has looked out for Americans? Is it a firm that you or I really want to support out of our hard earned money? And why can't they build cars that Americans want to buy?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Meeting of Republican Liberty Caucus and Libertarians of Mid Hudson Valley
Several members of New York's Republican Liberty Caucus met with about 15 Town of New Paltz and Westchester County Libertarians this evening (Tuesday) at the College Diner in New Paltz, New York. Carl Svensson, founder of the New York Libertarian Caucus organized the meeting, and I felt the meeting was a success. The attendants ranged from college students at SUNY New Paltz who have organized a campus Libertarian Club to a retired math professor and a recent candidate for mayor of Peekskill, New York who lost by only two percent. The meeting focused on strategy rather than ideology and the attendees are thinking of ways to get involved in Republican politics and to potentially run for office in several cases. The dynamic and lovely Raquel Okyay was in attendance. Carl Svensson is doing an excellent job, and we anticipate that the meetings will continue next month. I am on the state board of the RLC. As long as the ideological discussion can be minimized and the focus remain on action toward a few well defined goals, the group can potentially make a dent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
