The American political ideology is Progressive in the early twentieth century sense. Both political parties, the Democratic and the Republican, are heirs to Progressivism. But Progressivism was and is alien to at least two of the three primary American political belief systems. It is in part derived from European social democracy, and its emphasis on centralization is alien to all American political culture that is rooted in agrarian and small town life. Progressivism was brought to America in the late nineteenth century when many Americans (as many as ten thousand), such as John Dewey, attended German universities as graduate students. Progressivism was in part a reaction to the growth and power of large companies. It reflected an impulse to substitute government and centralized planning for free market processes. The argument that dominated the Progressive era was that big business had too much monopoly power and government was necessary to manage that power. Progressivism also emphasized local economic improvement such as housing reform and, as well, reflected professional interests in fields like law and medicine. Progressivism denied the viability of the small community because corporations had become international and small business could no longer compete with big. It argued for an activist federal government and ultimately the transfer of economic power from villages, towns and states to the federal government in order to better manage big business. Progressivism elaborated on many traditional themes in American culture, such as its emphasis on efficiency and morality, but it modified them by arguing that national legislation was needed to achieve them. The Republican Progressives, such as Herbert Hoover and to a lesser degree William Howard Taft, emphasized efficiency. Taft focused on application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to big business. Hoover favored the use of governmentally guided but voluntary cartels to restrict production and eliminate waste. In contrast, the Democratic Progressives, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, emphasized the moral aspect of Progressivism, Wilson with respect to international relations and the League of Nations and Roosevelt with respect to labor relations, work relief, business regulation and social security. Wilson cartelized American industry during World War I, but dismantled the cartels after the war. Like Wilson, Roosevelt attempted to cartelize industry under the National Industrial Recovery Act, but this 1933 law was declared unconstitutional. Thus, today's Democrats favor more government at the federal level, believe that government is more efficient than the market and advocate regulatory systems that cost small firms more than large firms to comply as a proportion of sales. The Republicans say they favor less government, but inevitably expand it, argue that markets are more efficient than government but increase the intensity of regulation anyway. Both parties favor monetary expansion that transfers wealth from workers to business owners and stock holders. Where monetary expansion does not provide a sufficient subsidy, direct bounties are increasingly available to big, but not to small, firms that fail.
Thus, both Democrats and Republicans favor a corporate-centered economy. Democrats use the Progressive rhetoric of morality while Republicans use the Progressive rhetoric of efficiency. But the Democrats are not particularly supportive of morality and the Republicans are not particularly supportive of efficiency. Both favor subsidies to big business; both favor a central bank that provides subsidies through inflation; both favor offering a privileged position to business; and both are responsive to the university ideology of elite America--the urban, collectivist, morally skeptical and issue-oriented culture of the news media, the mass-conformist urban culture and of universities.
American political culture at most loosely conforms to Progressivism, and it is puzzling as to why Americans have favored the modernist, large scale programs that Progressivism has to offer. It may be that the expansionist ethos of the frontier finds expression in the government expansionism of Progressivism. But government solutions reduce efficiency and have led to declining real hourly wages.
In a wonderful book, American Federalism: A View from the States*, Daniel Elazar argues (p. 113) that there are four key values in American culture: efficiency, commerce, legitimacy and agrarianism. The four values generate three underlying political cultures: individualistic, moralistic and traditionalistic. It is evident that although Progressivism stood for efficiency early in the twentieth century, today's economy has evolved past its chief solutions, scale, bureaucracy and hierarchy. Likewise, The evolution of technology has rendered the centralized media less relevant to public policy debate. Governments cannot manage large scale programs efficiently because the flexibility needed to organize an agency runs up against conflicts of interest and moral hazard, and the absence of incentives to encourage efficient operation. Progressivism leads not to efficiency but to inefficiency.
The three political cultures that Elazar describes, individualistic, moralistic and traditionalistic (p. 115) are as follows. "The individualistic political culture emphasizes the conception of the democratic order as a marketplace. In this view, government is instituted for strictly utilitarian reasons...politics is a business...politicians are interested in office as a means of controlling the distribution of the favors or rewards of government rather than as a means of exercising governmental power for programmatic ends..."
The individualistic world view does not lend itself to Progressivism unless there is widespread popular demand for Progressive reform. It encourages private initiative and is ambivalent about bureaucracy.
Elazar writes that "(t)he moralistic political culture emphasizes the commonwealth conception as the basis for democratic government. Politics, to the moralistic political culture, is considered one of the great activities of humanity...Consequently, in the moralistic political culture both the general public and the politicians conceive of politics as a public activity centered on some notion of the public good and properly devoted to the advancement of the public interest."
Elazar does not distinguish between moralists who advocate individualist solutions, such as the Libertarians, and moralists who advocate Progressive solutions. It would seem that increasingly the Progressives do not have a corner on this.
The Progressives built on the moralistic impulse, but there are some crucial differences. "The moralistic culture is localistic: the strong commitment to communitarianism characteristic of moralistic political culture leads to channel the interest in government intervention into highly localistic paths. A willingness to encourage local government intervention to set public standards does not necessarily reflect a concomitant willingness to allow outside governments equal opportunity to intervene...The moralistic political culture's major difficulty in adjusting bureaucracy to the political order is tied to the potential conflict between communitarian principles and the necessity for large-scale organization to increase bureaucractic efficiency, a problem that could affect the attitudes of moralistic culture states toward federal activity of certain kinds" (p. 118).
Finally, "(t)he traditionalistic political culture is rooted in an ambivalent attitude toward the marketplace coupled with a paternalistic and elitist conception of the commonwealth...Like its moralistic counterpart, the traditionalistic political culture accepts government as an actor with a positive role in the community, but it tries to limit that role in securing the continued maintenance of the existing social order" (p. 118). Government is viewed as a means of maintaining the existing order and a governing elite re enforces its own position. Participation in politics is viewed as a privilege and competition between elite-dominated factions characterizes party competition.
Elazar argues that centuries-long migration patterns from New England, which was characterized by the moralistic commonwealth culture; the Middle Atlantic, which was characterized by the individualistic culture; and the South, which was characterized by the traditional culture determined the political cultures of states in the 1980s. Elazar traces the migration patterns across the country, and argues that the Western states had cultures that combined the cultural values of the settlers.
Of the three cultural values, the one that is closest to Progressivism is the moralistic. In particular, the moralistic culture is issue-oriented and favors bureaucracy and government intervention. But Progressivism dispensed with the Puritan religious values that infused the early New England communities, and many Americans have not. Moreover, the attempt to impose a commonwealth culture on Americans who deviate sharply from the value system suggests problems, such as alienation. Moreover, the value system that Progressives advocate deviates sharply between Democrats and Republicans. Within the Democratic Party there are more mainstream and more elitist elements, who introduce a culture that does not correspond to the three cultures. Political correctness, identity politics and group rights, progressive education and dislike of the United States have become institutionalized cultural values among American elites but have little to do with legitimacy, agrarianism, efficiency or commerce. University trained elites have tended to view communities as clay to be molded rather than as ecological systems composed of human beings who are ends to themselves.
The mechanics of Progressive government necessarily deviate from the differentiated American political cultures. A single government that accrues substantial economic power must develop specific policies. And as the three cultures plus the elite, university culture, all have distance from each other, the single Progressive culture must as well have distance from all the others. As the complexity of policies and the size of government expands, the sum of the distances from the various American political cultures must also expand. Politics no longer reflects human values, but rather the views of the media, university elites and the outcome of struggle among moralists, individualists and traditionalists. The result may be said to be representative government, but it is an increasingly distant government. Progressivism placed too much Federal in Federalism.
*Daniel Elazar, American Federalism: A View From the States: New York, Harper and Row, 1984.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Paradox of Economies of Scale and Government Bounties to Big Business
One of the key arguments that economists and historians have traditionally made in favor of big business, and one that the public has generally accepted, is that it is necessary because of economies of scale. This image was exemplified by the Ford production plants of the 1920s, which could produce thousands of cars per week. The reason that economists and the general public have traditionally believed that economies of scale are important is that the fixed costs of production, costs that will be there whether one or a million units are produced such as advertising, rent, and administrative staff costs, when spread over a large number of units of output become lower per unit. The argument for scale amounted to an argument for centrally planned economies. In his book "Managerial Revolution", written in the 1930s before the murderous nature of Nazism had been fully revealed, James Burnham argued that a new managerial class was independent of owners and he cheered the advent of national socialism in Germany because government control and guidance of large industry reflected the realities of the new managerial power. Thirty years later, in the early 1960s, John Kenneth Galbraith described the economy of big business as based on planning by a "technocratic" elite in his book New Industrial State.
But while the public has accepted the argument that big business is necessary for consumerism because only large firms can produce large numbers of outputs, big business has tactically demanded and likely required government subsidies in order to survive. And there is a paradox. For if big business is most efficient, then why does it need subsidies? In his 1977 book Politics and Markets Charles Lindblom argued that business occupies a "privileged position". More fundamentally, ever since the days of Hamilton, and with the exception of some business interests in the late nineteenth century, much of American business has asked for two crucial kinds of subsidies: protectionist tariffs and monetary expansion. When Jackson abolished the Second Bank in the early 1830s he limited the degree of monetary expansion. That period, from the 1830s to 1900, was the period of greatest innovation in technology and strongest gains in real hourly wages of workers of any in American history. It was also a period of uncertainty, volatility and conflict between labor and management. However, even in the nineteenth century monetary expansion associated with the Civil War facilitated expansion of credit and therefore enhanced the size of business. By the late nineteenth century the Mugwumps, traditional, mostly Protestant (there were some Catholics and Jews as well in their ranks) Yankee elites in Boston and New York protested the support to speculators like Jay Gould that the monetary expansion had provided, coupled with erosion of their annuities and bank accounts.
The expansion of the railroads contributed mightily to the expansion of US markets into a single whole, and were the crucial step in making big business economically viable and efficient. But the railroads were largely the product of subsidy, and the canals that preceded them were government public works projects, not private enterprise. Neither the railroads or canals were entirely responses to market demand. Rather, they were made possible by land grants and rights of way granted by often corrupt state and local governments. An example is New York, where Jay Gould was so indebted to Boss Tweed that he paid Tweed's bail when Tweed was arrested for corruption. Thus, the Civil War inflation and government subsidies to railroads made expansion of the railroads possible. In turn, the railroads coupled with high tariffs made expansion of business possible. In turn, business enjoying both these supports and economies of scale, consolidated in the nineteenth century.
Late nineteenth century big business was poorly managed. It is likely that the labor conflicts and inefficiencies of the large firms were due to their too-rapid expansion. In management, experience is the foundation on which expansion depends. In a laissez-faire market, a firm becomes large as its managers gain expertise in one market and then duplicate the success in subsequent markets. An example is McDonald's. The founders of McDonald's, Dick and Mac MacDonald owned a single store in San Beranardino, California. Ray Kroc, a multi-mixer distributor, read about their success and visited the store. Kroc's vision of a national chain of stores led to his agreement with the McDonald brothers. But it took Kroc many years to make McDonald's a success. He had to learn the importance of standardization through multiple false starts in California. He had to learn the importance of professionalization of the franchisee relationship through mismanagement of franchises by his friends from his country club who did not focus on managing the stores. He had to learn how to use real estate investment to help finance store expansion and contribute to profit margins from Harry J. Sonneborn. He had to learn how to standardize equipment and the size of French Fries. Kroc did not conceptualize almost any of the food offerings, most of which were the result of suggestions from franchisees. He did not create the clown, which was the result of a local advertising campaign by one of his large Washington, DC franchisees.
Would any of the steps that McDonald's took have been made had there been a massive tariff on hamburgers or if state governments, in return for bribes, had offered exclusive distributorships to Ray Kroc, or if credit expansion through the Federal Reserve Bank had benefited McDonald's as it does Wall Street today? Would any of the innovation in McDonald's have occurred?
In the early 1960s Ronald Coase wrote about the reason that organizations reach a given scale or size. He argued that, like much else in economics, it is due to an equilibration of costs and benefits. The costs of scale include ability to manage, incentives to top management, conflicts between labor and management, difficulties in obtaining information about operations, inflexibility in changing direction when markets change and office politics. The advantages of scale include economies of scale and economies of scope, i.e., the ability to share information learned in one business to a different business, much as Time Warner's AOL unit was able to share information with Roadrunner (that's a joke; the Time Warner and AOL units were in constant conflict after their ill-advised and incompetently executed merger).
The subsidies to big business have increased, not diminished, over time. The Democrats have inadvertently or not, been big business's best friend by demanding regulation, supposedly in support of big labor, that squelches smaller firms by further increasing the advantages of scale economies. They have also established the Federal Reserve Bank, which once the Republicans realized was actually the most important of all the subsidies to big business went on a binge and nearly doubled the rate at which the money supply grew after 1971. The Democrats have never complained, and have follwed the same course since. Thus, both parties have seen subsidization of Wall Street and big business at public expense as the cornerstone of their economic policies. The Democrats came up with the idea and the Republicans enhanced it. I became a Republican because the Democrats are better at initiating big government programs that subsidize big business. They do it by telling everyone that they support the poor and that the regulation supports the poor. But there were no segregated inner cities before the Democrats began to "support" the poor.
Which will outbalance the other--office politics or economies of scale and scope? Clearly, if government is providing support to big business, the amount of support needs to be subtracted from the gains from economies of scale.
Moreover, time has revealed that scale is not the most important factor in management. The Japanese were able to defeat big American business not because of scale but because of skill. Wal-Mart was able to defeat K-Mart not because of scale (it was a smaller firm until the 1990s) but because of skill. In particular, management of information, incentives, labor relations, inventory, factory management, total quality management, technology, product design and marketing, and similar factors can generate competitive advantages. Large firms like Nike have found it necessary to emulate small firms. They outsource their manufacturing and reserve the product design and marketing for themselves. In effect, they are consultants who control the business. These ideas have been circulating for many years. Yet, they bring into question whether scale provides much of an advantage. Coca Cola has found that local manufacturers can out-think them with respect to understanding local tastes, and has had to scramble to decentralize in order to compete globally. Its original vision of a one-world market drinking trillions of gallons of Coca-Cola was illusory.
Thus, the American idea, rooted in the expansion into the frontier, that scale and the expansion of markets is necessary results in a paradox. If scale is the source of economic gains, then why are such extensive subsidies to big business necessary? And if scale is crucial, why has there been so much volatility in world business?
But while the public has accepted the argument that big business is necessary for consumerism because only large firms can produce large numbers of outputs, big business has tactically demanded and likely required government subsidies in order to survive. And there is a paradox. For if big business is most efficient, then why does it need subsidies? In his 1977 book Politics and Markets Charles Lindblom argued that business occupies a "privileged position". More fundamentally, ever since the days of Hamilton, and with the exception of some business interests in the late nineteenth century, much of American business has asked for two crucial kinds of subsidies: protectionist tariffs and monetary expansion. When Jackson abolished the Second Bank in the early 1830s he limited the degree of monetary expansion. That period, from the 1830s to 1900, was the period of greatest innovation in technology and strongest gains in real hourly wages of workers of any in American history. It was also a period of uncertainty, volatility and conflict between labor and management. However, even in the nineteenth century monetary expansion associated with the Civil War facilitated expansion of credit and therefore enhanced the size of business. By the late nineteenth century the Mugwumps, traditional, mostly Protestant (there were some Catholics and Jews as well in their ranks) Yankee elites in Boston and New York protested the support to speculators like Jay Gould that the monetary expansion had provided, coupled with erosion of their annuities and bank accounts.
The expansion of the railroads contributed mightily to the expansion of US markets into a single whole, and were the crucial step in making big business economically viable and efficient. But the railroads were largely the product of subsidy, and the canals that preceded them were government public works projects, not private enterprise. Neither the railroads or canals were entirely responses to market demand. Rather, they were made possible by land grants and rights of way granted by often corrupt state and local governments. An example is New York, where Jay Gould was so indebted to Boss Tweed that he paid Tweed's bail when Tweed was arrested for corruption. Thus, the Civil War inflation and government subsidies to railroads made expansion of the railroads possible. In turn, the railroads coupled with high tariffs made expansion of business possible. In turn, business enjoying both these supports and economies of scale, consolidated in the nineteenth century.
Late nineteenth century big business was poorly managed. It is likely that the labor conflicts and inefficiencies of the large firms were due to their too-rapid expansion. In management, experience is the foundation on which expansion depends. In a laissez-faire market, a firm becomes large as its managers gain expertise in one market and then duplicate the success in subsequent markets. An example is McDonald's. The founders of McDonald's, Dick and Mac MacDonald owned a single store in San Beranardino, California. Ray Kroc, a multi-mixer distributor, read about their success and visited the store. Kroc's vision of a national chain of stores led to his agreement with the McDonald brothers. But it took Kroc many years to make McDonald's a success. He had to learn the importance of standardization through multiple false starts in California. He had to learn the importance of professionalization of the franchisee relationship through mismanagement of franchises by his friends from his country club who did not focus on managing the stores. He had to learn how to use real estate investment to help finance store expansion and contribute to profit margins from Harry J. Sonneborn. He had to learn how to standardize equipment and the size of French Fries. Kroc did not conceptualize almost any of the food offerings, most of which were the result of suggestions from franchisees. He did not create the clown, which was the result of a local advertising campaign by one of his large Washington, DC franchisees.
Would any of the steps that McDonald's took have been made had there been a massive tariff on hamburgers or if state governments, in return for bribes, had offered exclusive distributorships to Ray Kroc, or if credit expansion through the Federal Reserve Bank had benefited McDonald's as it does Wall Street today? Would any of the innovation in McDonald's have occurred?
In the early 1960s Ronald Coase wrote about the reason that organizations reach a given scale or size. He argued that, like much else in economics, it is due to an equilibration of costs and benefits. The costs of scale include ability to manage, incentives to top management, conflicts between labor and management, difficulties in obtaining information about operations, inflexibility in changing direction when markets change and office politics. The advantages of scale include economies of scale and economies of scope, i.e., the ability to share information learned in one business to a different business, much as Time Warner's AOL unit was able to share information with Roadrunner (that's a joke; the Time Warner and AOL units were in constant conflict after their ill-advised and incompetently executed merger).
The subsidies to big business have increased, not diminished, over time. The Democrats have inadvertently or not, been big business's best friend by demanding regulation, supposedly in support of big labor, that squelches smaller firms by further increasing the advantages of scale economies. They have also established the Federal Reserve Bank, which once the Republicans realized was actually the most important of all the subsidies to big business went on a binge and nearly doubled the rate at which the money supply grew after 1971. The Democrats have never complained, and have follwed the same course since. Thus, both parties have seen subsidization of Wall Street and big business at public expense as the cornerstone of their economic policies. The Democrats came up with the idea and the Republicans enhanced it. I became a Republican because the Democrats are better at initiating big government programs that subsidize big business. They do it by telling everyone that they support the poor and that the regulation supports the poor. But there were no segregated inner cities before the Democrats began to "support" the poor.
Which will outbalance the other--office politics or economies of scale and scope? Clearly, if government is providing support to big business, the amount of support needs to be subtracted from the gains from economies of scale.
Moreover, time has revealed that scale is not the most important factor in management. The Japanese were able to defeat big American business not because of scale but because of skill. Wal-Mart was able to defeat K-Mart not because of scale (it was a smaller firm until the 1990s) but because of skill. In particular, management of information, incentives, labor relations, inventory, factory management, total quality management, technology, product design and marketing, and similar factors can generate competitive advantages. Large firms like Nike have found it necessary to emulate small firms. They outsource their manufacturing and reserve the product design and marketing for themselves. In effect, they are consultants who control the business. These ideas have been circulating for many years. Yet, they bring into question whether scale provides much of an advantage. Coca Cola has found that local manufacturers can out-think them with respect to understanding local tastes, and has had to scramble to decentralize in order to compete globally. Its original vision of a one-world market drinking trillions of gallons of Coca-Cola was illusory.
Thus, the American idea, rooted in the expansion into the frontier, that scale and the expansion of markets is necessary results in a paradox. If scale is the source of economic gains, then why are such extensive subsidies to big business necessary? And if scale is crucial, why has there been so much volatility in world business?
Anti-Obama Protest in Denver
I just received this e-mail release from Andy Martin, who is going to the Denver convention to protest. Andy's group needs to use Saul Alinsky tactics to attract media attention, otherwise the media are in the grip of the big business-Soros-Obama machine.
The Stop Obama Coalition
http://StopObamaCoalition.com
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Director
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE August 20, 2008
NATIONAL ANTI-OBAMA MOVEMENT LEADER ANDY MARTIN UNVEILS PLANS FOR A "FIGHTING CAMP" IN DENVER
(NEW YORK)(August 20, 2008) The leader of the national anti-Obama movement, Andy Martin, will hold a New York news conference Wednesday, August 20th to announce that the Stop Obama Coalition plans a "fighting camp" in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.
"We are ramping up for the battle against Barack Obama," says Martin. "Our goal is to serve as a clearing house for everyone who wants some guidance on how to oppose Barack Obama for the presidency. We are nonpartisan, accepting Republicans, Democrats and independents. We are not 'extreme' in any direction. We are here to offer guidance to groups across the United States who want to oppose Barack Obama.
"And we are not mudslingers. On the contrary we believe the truth and the facts are our most potent weapons to defeat Obama. Unlike competing authors, my own book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, is the only one that has not been attacked for factual errors.
"In Denver we will be holding 'truth squad' sessions, interviews, news conferences and book signing events for my book Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. We will also be issuing new challenges to Obama through columns specially prepared for the National Convention. We have reserved a suite in Denver as our headquarters.
"As near as I can determine, I will be the only anti-Obama author actually in Denver.
"We obviously do not have equivalent resources to fight the billion dollar man, Senator Obama, who is supported by George Soros-financed tax exempt foundations and operatives who use tax exemptions to conduct their illegal pro-Obama political activity. But we can draw on a nationwide cadre of highly motivated anti-Obama voters. All volunteers.
"And we are organizers. By seeking to bring all of Obama's opponents-Republicans, Democrats and independents--together under a 'big tent,' we help implement democratic change in the Democratic Party while defeating Obama, the false prophet of change.
"We will fight Obama as long as our funds hold out," Martin states. "Depending on the fund raising of the Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama, we hope to be players in the race right through Election Day in November.
"We will be setting up in Denver Sunday evening, August 24th, when we plan to announce our location and local contact information."
Please read the Stop Obama Coalition's Palm Beach Declaration at http://StopObamaCoalition.com.
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is now raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
"The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised nothing. They can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:
WHO:
The Stop Obama Coalition, Executive Director Andy Martin
WHAT:
National anti-Obama leader Andy Martin unveils plans for "fighting camp" in Denver during the Democratic National Convention
WHERE:
909 Third Avenue, public sidewalk in front of FDR Station, New York
WHEN: Wednesday, August 20, 4:00 P. M.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329
TO PURCHASE BOOK: http://www.OrangeStatePress.com
ANDY DIRECT E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Stop Obama Coalition
Website: http://StopObamaCoalition.com
Media contact: Andy Martin, Executive Director
Tel. (866) 706-2639 Cell (917) 664-9329
E-mail: contact@StopObamaCoalition.com
Blog: www.StopObamaCoalition.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, can rest assured it is the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from the publisher or Amazon.com is now available.
----------------------------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. The views expressed are entirely independent of McCain. I am not a member of any political organization. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are running a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. We know how. We are the recognized experts in the field. I will, however, continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com. /s/ Andy Martin
----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
The Stop Obama Coalition
http://StopObamaCoalition.com
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Director
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE August 20, 2008
NATIONAL ANTI-OBAMA MOVEMENT LEADER ANDY MARTIN UNVEILS PLANS FOR A "FIGHTING CAMP" IN DENVER
(NEW YORK)(August 20, 2008) The leader of the national anti-Obama movement, Andy Martin, will hold a New York news conference Wednesday, August 20th to announce that the Stop Obama Coalition plans a "fighting camp" in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.
"We are ramping up for the battle against Barack Obama," says Martin. "Our goal is to serve as a clearing house for everyone who wants some guidance on how to oppose Barack Obama for the presidency. We are nonpartisan, accepting Republicans, Democrats and independents. We are not 'extreme' in any direction. We are here to offer guidance to groups across the United States who want to oppose Barack Obama.
"And we are not mudslingers. On the contrary we believe the truth and the facts are our most potent weapons to defeat Obama. Unlike competing authors, my own book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, is the only one that has not been attacked for factual errors.
"In Denver we will be holding 'truth squad' sessions, interviews, news conferences and book signing events for my book Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. We will also be issuing new challenges to Obama through columns specially prepared for the National Convention. We have reserved a suite in Denver as our headquarters.
"As near as I can determine, I will be the only anti-Obama author actually in Denver.
"We obviously do not have equivalent resources to fight the billion dollar man, Senator Obama, who is supported by George Soros-financed tax exempt foundations and operatives who use tax exemptions to conduct their illegal pro-Obama political activity. But we can draw on a nationwide cadre of highly motivated anti-Obama voters. All volunteers.
"And we are organizers. By seeking to bring all of Obama's opponents-Republicans, Democrats and independents--together under a 'big tent,' we help implement democratic change in the Democratic Party while defeating Obama, the false prophet of change.
"We will fight Obama as long as our funds hold out," Martin states. "Depending on the fund raising of the Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama, we hope to be players in the race right through Election Day in November.
"We will be setting up in Denver Sunday evening, August 24th, when we plan to announce our location and local contact information."
Please read the Stop Obama Coalition's Palm Beach Declaration at http://StopObamaCoalition.com.
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is now raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
"The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised nothing. They can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:
WHO:
The Stop Obama Coalition, Executive Director Andy Martin
WHAT:
National anti-Obama leader Andy Martin unveils plans for "fighting camp" in Denver during the Democratic National Convention
WHERE:
909 Third Avenue, public sidewalk in front of FDR Station, New York
WHEN: Wednesday, August 20, 4:00 P. M.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329
TO PURCHASE BOOK: http://www.OrangeStatePress.com
ANDY DIRECT E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Stop Obama Coalition
Website: http://StopObamaCoalition.com
Media contact: Andy Martin, Executive Director
Tel. (866) 706-2639 Cell (917) 664-9329
E-mail: contact@StopObamaCoalition.com
Blog: www.StopObamaCoalition.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, can rest assured it is the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from the publisher or Amazon.com is now available.
----------------------------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. The views expressed are entirely independent of McCain. I am not a member of any political organization. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are running a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. We know how. We are the recognized experts in the field. I will, however, continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com. /s/ Andy Martin
----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Two New York Sun Articles on Women
Today's New York Sun carries two amusing articles about women. First, the Sun reports that Den Hollander, a Manhattan attorney, is suing Columbia University because it offers women's studies courses. Mr. Hollander attended my alma mater, Columbia Business School, and he seems to be arguing that women's studies courses "teach girls unfairly" while there are no equivalent courses for guys. Too bad there's no legal cause of action for intellectual vacuity. Women's Studies Departments would lose that suit every time. (Uh oh, there goes my promotion...)
Second, Lenore Skenazy has an article "Wanted Ugly Women". John Molony, the mayor of Mount Isa, Australia, a mining town where there are five males to every female (and based on my experience with mining towns they are probably a young, rowdy bunch) has extended a public invitation: "With five blokes to every girl, may I suggest that beauty disadvantaged women should proceed to Mount Isa".
Feminists in Mount Isa and around Australia have leaped to attack Mayor Molony, and Askenazy asks: "Who is being abused?" by Molony's frank invitation.
What really made me laugh about the article is that instead of showing pictures of two of Mayor Maloney's invitees, the Sun attached pictures of Halle Barry and Christie Brinkley to the article! What a way to sell newspapers!
Mayor Molony and Den Hollander might strike up an alliance. Maybe the faculty and students of Columbia's women's studies department wish to emigrate to Mount Isa. I'm sure that the miners would find themselves enlightened.
My wife and I have had access to an apartment here in the city but sadly we will be leaving this fall or winter. One of the things I will truly miss is my daily New York Sun.
Second, Lenore Skenazy has an article "Wanted Ugly Women". John Molony, the mayor of Mount Isa, Australia, a mining town where there are five males to every female (and based on my experience with mining towns they are probably a young, rowdy bunch) has extended a public invitation: "With five blokes to every girl, may I suggest that beauty disadvantaged women should proceed to Mount Isa".
Feminists in Mount Isa and around Australia have leaped to attack Mayor Molony, and Askenazy asks: "Who is being abused?" by Molony's frank invitation.
What really made me laugh about the article is that instead of showing pictures of two of Mayor Maloney's invitees, the Sun attached pictures of Halle Barry and Christie Brinkley to the article! What a way to sell newspapers!
Mayor Molony and Den Hollander might strike up an alliance. Maybe the faculty and students of Columbia's women's studies department wish to emigrate to Mount Isa. I'm sure that the miners would find themselves enlightened.
My wife and I have had access to an apartment here in the city but sadly we will be leaving this fall or winter. One of the things I will truly miss is my daily New York Sun.
Hamilton on Federalism: The Federalist Papers No. 32-34
The Federalist Nos. 32 and 33 concern taxation. The constitution did not aim to consolidate the states into a single whole. Rather, "the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation". State sovereignty would be "alienated" only when the Constitution granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it gave authority to the Union but prohibited the States from exercising similar authority; and where a power granted expressly to the Union would be contradicted if similar authority were given to the states. The states and the federal government have coequal powers to tax except for exports and imports. Under the constitution the federal government has all powers that are "necessary and proper" for implementing the powers that the Constitution grants it, and "the Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
Hamilton asks in No. 33: "Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union?" The national government "must judge in the first instance of the proper exercise of its powers...If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as hte exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Hamilton does not introduce the Supreme Court in this discussion.
"...a law (passed by the Union) for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of a State (unless upon exports and imports) would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution...It is to be hoped and presumed, however ,that mutual interest would dictate a concert in this respect which would avoid any material inconvenience. The inference from the whole is that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent..."
In No. 34 Hamilton reemphasizes that "the particular states under the proposed Constitution, would have coequal authority with the Union in the article of revenue, except for duties on imports." But the states have more limited needs for revenue than does the federal government, in Hamilton's view. Future contingencies respecting the federal government would be unlimited, especially because of the threat of European wars. State budgets would likely be no greater than 200,000 pounds, but the potential exigencies of the union were likely unlimited.
He got the the 200,000 pounds part wrong, but forecasted the federal budget with uncanny accuracy. The point is that there is a partnership between state and federal governments, and in Hamilton's elitist view, the central government was to be more dominant than the states. The states need from one tenth to one twentieth of the resources, the federal government from nine tenths to nineteen twentieths. The ratio isn't as lopsided as Hamilton thought it would be, but he anticipated Progressivism nicely.
Thus, he argues for a concurrent jurisdiction in the article of taxation, a partnership between the States and the Union.
Hamilton asks in No. 33: "Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union?" The national government "must judge in the first instance of the proper exercise of its powers...If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as hte exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Hamilton does not introduce the Supreme Court in this discussion.
"...a law (passed by the Union) for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of a State (unless upon exports and imports) would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution...It is to be hoped and presumed, however ,that mutual interest would dictate a concert in this respect which would avoid any material inconvenience. The inference from the whole is that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent..."
In No. 34 Hamilton reemphasizes that "the particular states under the proposed Constitution, would have coequal authority with the Union in the article of revenue, except for duties on imports." But the states have more limited needs for revenue than does the federal government, in Hamilton's view. Future contingencies respecting the federal government would be unlimited, especially because of the threat of European wars. State budgets would likely be no greater than 200,000 pounds, but the potential exigencies of the union were likely unlimited.
He got the the 200,000 pounds part wrong, but forecasted the federal budget with uncanny accuracy. The point is that there is a partnership between state and federal governments, and in Hamilton's elitist view, the central government was to be more dominant than the states. The states need from one tenth to one twentieth of the resources, the federal government from nine tenths to nineteen twentieths. The ratio isn't as lopsided as Hamilton thought it would be, but he anticipated Progressivism nicely.
Thus, he argues for a concurrent jurisdiction in the article of taxation, a partnership between the States and the Union.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Alexander Hamilton on the Second Amendment
Hamilton's Federalist No. 29 is about the issue of regulating militias. On the one hand, it was necessary to form a "well regulated" militia in order to reduce the need for a standing army. Thus, an armed population was necessary in order to form a militia. As well, Hamilton argued that a select corps of militia ought to be formed, and that in order to eliminate the threat that the militia might pose to freedom, it was necessary for the public to be able to stop any attempt of the government to suppress freedom and therefore important that the public at large should hold firearms. This argument is clear in the Federalist 29. Those who argue just one half of the equation, that the arms were necessary to form the militia and deny that they were necessary to defend against the potential for a government assault on freedom are simply uninformed about the history of Federalism and the liberal spirit in which the United States was founded. Arguably the public can and ought to, in the view of the founders, confront attempts to suppress the ownership of firearms. A Supreme Court that adjudicates in favor of the suppression of the right to bear arms has completely lost touch with the Constitution and is no longer a constitutional body.
Hamilton writes in Federalist 29:
"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Those historians and political scientists who argue against American exceptionalism would do well to consider that few other major polities have respected the individual sufficiently to consider private ownership of firearms a bulwark against tyranny. In nations like Russia, France, Germany and Italy, guns are routinely regulated. Backward-thinking mercantilists who have cheered Hitler and Stalin, now advocate for a botched interpretation of the Second Amendment that would enhance their own power and the power of government that represents economic elites to suppress freedom.
Hamilton writes in Federalist 29:
"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Those historians and political scientists who argue against American exceptionalism would do well to consider that few other major polities have respected the individual sufficiently to consider private ownership of firearms a bulwark against tyranny. In nations like Russia, France, Germany and Italy, guns are routinely regulated. Backward-thinking mercantilists who have cheered Hitler and Stalin, now advocate for a botched interpretation of the Second Amendment that would enhance their own power and the power of government that represents economic elites to suppress freedom.
WHAT's IN A NAME?
Howard S. Katz wrote this blog here.
8-18-08
In commenting upon the recent (July-August) decline in commodity prices, Bloomberg news service recently reported:
"Commodities, measured by the CRB, are down 20 percent….”
Bloomberg, 8-15-08
This would seem to be an unobjectionable statement, mathematical in its precision. There is, alas, one problem. What is the CRB?
The Commodity Research Bureau was an organization founded in the 1930s by a group of economic types to study the commodity markets. In the mid-1950s, they started to compile an index of the most prominent commodities to do for commodity traders what the Dow Jones Index had done for stock traders. This index was called the Commodity Research Bureau (CRB) Index, and for half a century it served its function well. It told commodity traders what commodities as a whole were doing.
But in 2004, with the founding generation gone, the CRB, now a successful and established organization, had passed into the hands of a new generation. A generation educated in the new way of gathering knowledge. The new generation sought knowledge by hiring a group of authority figures with long and impressive titles to rework the CRB.
I will save you a lot of complicated mathematics and say that the new index they came up with was half crude oil. Each commodity was given a special weighting, and when all the calculations were in, crude oil and its associated commodities (heating oil, unleaded gasoline and natural gas) had a weighting of close to 50%. Since there was a high probability that the other commodities in the index would cancel each other out, the new index pretty much moved up and down with crude oil. The authority figures with their impressive titles had taken away the CRB index and in its place put in its place one commodity. It would have been like taking away the Dow Jones Index and substituting a new index based on GM. GM may be an important stock, but it isn’t a proxy for the market.
Fortunately, the new Commodity Research Bureau knew that they could not just throw out the old CRB Index. That would risk another group picking it up and taking their business away from them. So they kept the CRB Index and changed its name to the Continuous Commodity Index. The new index they called the Reuters/Jeffries CRB Index (hoping that it would be abbreviated to CRB Index and thus confused with the old index).
Of course, if one wants an objective record of what commodities have been doing for the past half century, then one needs to track the same index over that period. It would not be valid to track the DJI from 1956 to 2004 and then switch to GM all the while calling the whole thing the DJI.
In short, the new Reuters/Jeffries CRB is a worthless piece of garbage, and any commodities trader with half a brain will give it no further thought. It was to head off this kind of thinking that the modern CRB gave the new index the name of the old one and changed the old one’s name.
Now perhaps you might say, “Well, these people originated the index. They named it in the first place. They have the right to change the name to anything they want.” The problem, however, is that a name stands for an object. If a young couple has a child, they have the right to call him “Bill.” But if they have a second child 20 years later, they do not have the right to call this second child Bill and rename the first. The character of the first child has become associated with the name “Bill.” People who know him will become confused, and his reputation may (undeservedly) suffer. This is the kind of confusion inherent in the idea that definitions are arbitrary.
Let me take another example. Ever since there has been a science of economics, economists have known what money is. Money was the economic good with which you could buy things. For example, if you want to buy a car and go to the dealer, the dealer will only accept one thing in exchange. If you bring a famous painting to exchange for the car, you will be refused. They will tell you, “Sell the painting for money, and come back and give us money for the car.”
But in the 1980s, Milton Friedman announced a new “money” (which he called M-2), which included short term loans (bank certificates of deposit). This has the same problem as the painting above. It cannot be used to buy things. If you take a bank CD to the car dealer, he will tell you politely to turn it in for money and come back. Soon M-2 had spawned a dozen brothers, up to M-13.
To come up with something like this takes a Nobel Prize winner. Oh, excuse me. I forgot that there is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in economics. It was not one of the 6 prizes described in Alfred Nobel’s will. Indeed, it came along more than 70 years later. Somebody just announced that they were giving a prize in honor of Alfred Nobel. By calling their prize by this name, they were trying to give it the distinction and honor which the prize had acquired over the years. The world press fell for it hook, line and sinker.
The creation of M-2 is a serious problem because in trying to predict a rise in prices, one must take account of any rise in the money supply. If two people cannot agree on what money is, then they cannot predict when prices will rise. Prices only rise as a result of an increase in the economic good which is used to buy things.
Another of my favorite examples is the concept of capitalism. This concept was first used by Karl Marx, and he never defined what capitalism was. For the next century, Marx’s followers would call anything they did not like “capitalism.” For example, Hitler called himself a socialist (as in National Socialist – NAZI), but his leftist enemies called him a capitalist. Adam Smith never used the word. Neither did the classical economists (including Herbert Spencer). I have learned from bitter experience that whenever I hear the word, I am sure to be served up a pastry of confused gobbledegook.
The advantage of simply making up one’s own definition is that you can prove pretty much anything you want. But this is a big disadvantage in the honest search for truth. If you want your ideas to correspond to reality, then you must have accurate definitions of the concepts you use. And since any society has intuitive definitions for all its concepts, intuitive definitions which capture our minds and in terms of which we think, your explicit definitions have to correspond to these intuitive definitions. Otherwise you will confuse the two. Pretty soon you have won the argument and lost the search for truth. (The intellectual world is full of people who “cleverly” start out with formal definitions they know will lead to the conclusion they wish to reach. But these definitions do not correspond to the concept. For example, some sound money types, with whom I am in basic sympathy, defined inflation as an increase in the money supply. They did this so that they could “prove” that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. They have been hammering away at this point for over half a century and have still not convinced any of their opponents. If they define inflation as a general rise in prices, they will have a bit more success.)
For example, I define a witch as a woman who has magical powers used for evil. I don’t believe that witches exist. But when I define the concept, I have to put into words the (intuitive) idea of the people in my culture even if they do believe in witches. If I don’t do that much, then I will never be able to convince them that witches don’t exist.
The problem is that modern intellectuals support the arbitrary nature of definitions. It creeps into our culture, and it makes (most) people stupid. For example, do you remember being told early in the year 2000 that the DJI was going to 35,000? It was in all the papers. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal cooperated in shoving that idea down our throat. Did you buy stocks just before the horrific bear market of 2000-2002? Well, you are allowed a few mistakes, but you are expected to learn from them.
When I first took philosophy courses at Harvard, I was told that all they could teach me was that they didn’t know anything. Hey, wait a minute. The reason I went there in the first place was that they told me they knew more than anyone else. If they couldn’t teach me anything, then what was I paying them money for? How about a class action suit to get my tuition money back?
One of the things I learned about Harvard was that of all the things I learned there, nothing worked. I couldn’t do anything with my “knowledge.” Fortunately, I studied on my own before going to college, and this gave me some ability to question my professors. After college, I continued to study on my own, and now I realize that they are nothing but a collection of frauds.
Unfortunately, this collection of frauds continues to corrupt our youth and dominate our society. They make everybody dumb. We are so dumb that we even buy Books for Dummies. In a previous generation, any book reader would have been offended by such a title, and a book with such a title would not have sold. Today’s book buyer meekly accepts it because he feels himself to be a dummy.
Unlike my college professors, readers of this blog are expected to admit and learn from their mistakes. If it doesn’t work, then it isn’t true.
If you do nothing more than read The Federalist Papers or some of the other works of the Founding Fathers, you realize that the intellectual level has collapsed over the past 2 centuries. We are now seeing the cultural and economic collapses which are the result of this. And if nothing is done to stop it, we will eventually follow the path of ancient Rome.
# # #
Howard S. Katz can be visited at http://www.thegoldbug.net.
8-18-08
In commenting upon the recent (July-August) decline in commodity prices, Bloomberg news service recently reported:
"Commodities, measured by the CRB, are down 20 percent….”
Bloomberg, 8-15-08
This would seem to be an unobjectionable statement, mathematical in its precision. There is, alas, one problem. What is the CRB?
The Commodity Research Bureau was an organization founded in the 1930s by a group of economic types to study the commodity markets. In the mid-1950s, they started to compile an index of the most prominent commodities to do for commodity traders what the Dow Jones Index had done for stock traders. This index was called the Commodity Research Bureau (CRB) Index, and for half a century it served its function well. It told commodity traders what commodities as a whole were doing.
But in 2004, with the founding generation gone, the CRB, now a successful and established organization, had passed into the hands of a new generation. A generation educated in the new way of gathering knowledge. The new generation sought knowledge by hiring a group of authority figures with long and impressive titles to rework the CRB.
I will save you a lot of complicated mathematics and say that the new index they came up with was half crude oil. Each commodity was given a special weighting, and when all the calculations were in, crude oil and its associated commodities (heating oil, unleaded gasoline and natural gas) had a weighting of close to 50%. Since there was a high probability that the other commodities in the index would cancel each other out, the new index pretty much moved up and down with crude oil. The authority figures with their impressive titles had taken away the CRB index and in its place put in its place one commodity. It would have been like taking away the Dow Jones Index and substituting a new index based on GM. GM may be an important stock, but it isn’t a proxy for the market.
Fortunately, the new Commodity Research Bureau knew that they could not just throw out the old CRB Index. That would risk another group picking it up and taking their business away from them. So they kept the CRB Index and changed its name to the Continuous Commodity Index. The new index they called the Reuters/Jeffries CRB Index (hoping that it would be abbreviated to CRB Index and thus confused with the old index).
Of course, if one wants an objective record of what commodities have been doing for the past half century, then one needs to track the same index over that period. It would not be valid to track the DJI from 1956 to 2004 and then switch to GM all the while calling the whole thing the DJI.
In short, the new Reuters/Jeffries CRB is a worthless piece of garbage, and any commodities trader with half a brain will give it no further thought. It was to head off this kind of thinking that the modern CRB gave the new index the name of the old one and changed the old one’s name.
Now perhaps you might say, “Well, these people originated the index. They named it in the first place. They have the right to change the name to anything they want.” The problem, however, is that a name stands for an object. If a young couple has a child, they have the right to call him “Bill.” But if they have a second child 20 years later, they do not have the right to call this second child Bill and rename the first. The character of the first child has become associated with the name “Bill.” People who know him will become confused, and his reputation may (undeservedly) suffer. This is the kind of confusion inherent in the idea that definitions are arbitrary.
Let me take another example. Ever since there has been a science of economics, economists have known what money is. Money was the economic good with which you could buy things. For example, if you want to buy a car and go to the dealer, the dealer will only accept one thing in exchange. If you bring a famous painting to exchange for the car, you will be refused. They will tell you, “Sell the painting for money, and come back and give us money for the car.”
But in the 1980s, Milton Friedman announced a new “money” (which he called M-2), which included short term loans (bank certificates of deposit). This has the same problem as the painting above. It cannot be used to buy things. If you take a bank CD to the car dealer, he will tell you politely to turn it in for money and come back. Soon M-2 had spawned a dozen brothers, up to M-13.
To come up with something like this takes a Nobel Prize winner. Oh, excuse me. I forgot that there is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in economics. It was not one of the 6 prizes described in Alfred Nobel’s will. Indeed, it came along more than 70 years later. Somebody just announced that they were giving a prize in honor of Alfred Nobel. By calling their prize by this name, they were trying to give it the distinction and honor which the prize had acquired over the years. The world press fell for it hook, line and sinker.
The creation of M-2 is a serious problem because in trying to predict a rise in prices, one must take account of any rise in the money supply. If two people cannot agree on what money is, then they cannot predict when prices will rise. Prices only rise as a result of an increase in the economic good which is used to buy things.
Another of my favorite examples is the concept of capitalism. This concept was first used by Karl Marx, and he never defined what capitalism was. For the next century, Marx’s followers would call anything they did not like “capitalism.” For example, Hitler called himself a socialist (as in National Socialist – NAZI), but his leftist enemies called him a capitalist. Adam Smith never used the word. Neither did the classical economists (including Herbert Spencer). I have learned from bitter experience that whenever I hear the word, I am sure to be served up a pastry of confused gobbledegook.
The advantage of simply making up one’s own definition is that you can prove pretty much anything you want. But this is a big disadvantage in the honest search for truth. If you want your ideas to correspond to reality, then you must have accurate definitions of the concepts you use. And since any society has intuitive definitions for all its concepts, intuitive definitions which capture our minds and in terms of which we think, your explicit definitions have to correspond to these intuitive definitions. Otherwise you will confuse the two. Pretty soon you have won the argument and lost the search for truth. (The intellectual world is full of people who “cleverly” start out with formal definitions they know will lead to the conclusion they wish to reach. But these definitions do not correspond to the concept. For example, some sound money types, with whom I am in basic sympathy, defined inflation as an increase in the money supply. They did this so that they could “prove” that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. They have been hammering away at this point for over half a century and have still not convinced any of their opponents. If they define inflation as a general rise in prices, they will have a bit more success.)
For example, I define a witch as a woman who has magical powers used for evil. I don’t believe that witches exist. But when I define the concept, I have to put into words the (intuitive) idea of the people in my culture even if they do believe in witches. If I don’t do that much, then I will never be able to convince them that witches don’t exist.
The problem is that modern intellectuals support the arbitrary nature of definitions. It creeps into our culture, and it makes (most) people stupid. For example, do you remember being told early in the year 2000 that the DJI was going to 35,000? It was in all the papers. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal cooperated in shoving that idea down our throat. Did you buy stocks just before the horrific bear market of 2000-2002? Well, you are allowed a few mistakes, but you are expected to learn from them.
When I first took philosophy courses at Harvard, I was told that all they could teach me was that they didn’t know anything. Hey, wait a minute. The reason I went there in the first place was that they told me they knew more than anyone else. If they couldn’t teach me anything, then what was I paying them money for? How about a class action suit to get my tuition money back?
One of the things I learned about Harvard was that of all the things I learned there, nothing worked. I couldn’t do anything with my “knowledge.” Fortunately, I studied on my own before going to college, and this gave me some ability to question my professors. After college, I continued to study on my own, and now I realize that they are nothing but a collection of frauds.
Unfortunately, this collection of frauds continues to corrupt our youth and dominate our society. They make everybody dumb. We are so dumb that we even buy Books for Dummies. In a previous generation, any book reader would have been offended by such a title, and a book with such a title would not have sold. Today’s book buyer meekly accepts it because he feels himself to be a dummy.
Unlike my college professors, readers of this blog are expected to admit and learn from their mistakes. If it doesn’t work, then it isn’t true.
If you do nothing more than read The Federalist Papers or some of the other works of the Founding Fathers, you realize that the intellectual level has collapsed over the past 2 centuries. We are now seeing the cultural and economic collapses which are the result of this. And if nothing is done to stop it, we will eventually follow the path of ancient Rome.
# # #
Howard S. Katz can be visited at http://www.thegoldbug.net.
The Federalists' Error: National Size and the Evolution of Faction: Progressivism's Hamiltonian Root
Montesquieu had argued that only small republics are possible, but Madison and Hamilton argued the reverse. Their claim was that small republics lead to conflict among factions, but that large size reduces factional conflict. In the Federalist No. 10 Madison argues:
"The question resulting is whether small or extensive republics are most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations..."
The first, in Madison's view, is that because there is a greater absolute number of capable representatives in a large than in a small republic but because legislatures are limited in size, "the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the samll republic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic the former will present a greater option and consequently a greater possibility of a fit choice."
Also, in Madison's view, "as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center on men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive nad established characters."
However, Madison tempers his argument in the next paragraph by noting that "by enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances...as by reducing it too much you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.."
The second factor favoring large scale or size, in Madison's view is "the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interest, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily they will concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens."
In the Federalist No. 27, Hamilton argues:
"Unless we presume at the same time that the powers of the general government will be worse administered than those of the State governments, there seems to be no room for the presumption of ill will, disaffection or opposition in the people. I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration. ..the general government will be better administered than the particular governments: the principal of which are that the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option, or latitude of choice, to the people...And that on account of the extent of the country from which those, to whose direction they will be committed, will be drawn, they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill humors or temporary prejudices and propensities which in smaller societies frequently contaminate the public deliberations, beget injustice and oppression of a part of the community, and engender schemes which, though they gratify a momentary inclination or desire, terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction and disgust."
First, notice that Hamilton's argument in favor of the expertise of the federal government is precisely the one used by the Progressives from the 1890s through the 1930s in arguing for enhancement of federal power. Hamilton argued that central government would be more rational, and the Progressives argued that centrally placed experts would be able to administer anti-trust and other regulatory systems more rationally.
Naturally, the federalist system works much better than the Anti-Federalists of the 1780s feared. However, it is also true that as the Progressives' centralizing strategy of enhancing the federal government has developed, faction has played an increasing role. Not necessarily the kind of faction about which the Federalists and the Progressives through Herbert Hoover were often concerned such as agricultural versus manufacturing interests, or labor versus management, i.e., broad social groupings, but rather special interests.
Mancur Olson* posed the argument that small rather than large factions or groups are effective in the regulatory process. Large size stimulates special interest involvement in the legal and regulatory process to the benefit of small factions. The is counter-intuitive, and Hamilton and Madison did not have the advantage of as much historical evidence as Olson had. The reason is that as the scope of the republic gets larger, the benefit from special interest lobbying also gets larger. The larger the benefit, the greater the incentive for specific firms and industries to form factions and lobby. Larger size reduces the cost per citizen of rent extraction. Large size makes the formulation for scattered and poorly coordinated factions difficult, but corporations are compact. Corporations did not exist in the Federalist era. Thus, history revealed the opposite trend: the centralization of power in the Federalist era led to special interest factions having greater power than they had in the more decentralized nineteenth century. Of course, the corporate form of organization, which flowered in the late nineteenth century contributed to this, but so did the Progressives emphasis on expertise in a centrally situated state. The economic incentives are powerful enough that special interests are able to overcome the best efforts (if there are indeed such efforts) of centrally placed experts. Moreover, the factions are able to employ experts that are superior to the government's resulting in all too fequent cases of regulatory capture by corporations.
Decentralizing the economy would reduce the incentives for lobbying and raise the costs of lobbying. As a result, the advantage that corporations and small groups that face high benefits from lobbying gain in a more centralized federal system is likely to be reversed. First, the benefit will be on average 1/50th the size it currently is for each lobbying episode. Second, the costs of lobbying will be 50 times greater because there are 50 states. Clearly, lobbying will become more expensive and more complex, making regulatory influence more difficult.
Although Hamilton and Madison may have been right in the environment in which they lived, where there were no large corporations, where the entire US population was less than four million and where benefits from lobbying were negligible by today's standards, in today's world lobbying functions like a competitive auction. To the extent that it interferes with democracy, raising the transaction costs of lobbying and reducing the benefit from each lobbying episode will enhance democracy and limit the private gains at public expense that lobbyists can accrue.
"The question resulting is whether small or extensive republics are most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations..."
The first, in Madison's view, is that because there is a greater absolute number of capable representatives in a large than in a small republic but because legislatures are limited in size, "the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the samll republic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic the former will present a greater option and consequently a greater possibility of a fit choice."
Also, in Madison's view, "as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center on men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive nad established characters."
However, Madison tempers his argument in the next paragraph by noting that "by enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances...as by reducing it too much you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.."
The second factor favoring large scale or size, in Madison's view is "the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interest, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily they will concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens."
In the Federalist No. 27, Hamilton argues:
"Unless we presume at the same time that the powers of the general government will be worse administered than those of the State governments, there seems to be no room for the presumption of ill will, disaffection or opposition in the people. I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration. ..the general government will be better administered than the particular governments: the principal of which are that the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option, or latitude of choice, to the people...And that on account of the extent of the country from which those, to whose direction they will be committed, will be drawn, they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill humors or temporary prejudices and propensities which in smaller societies frequently contaminate the public deliberations, beget injustice and oppression of a part of the community, and engender schemes which, though they gratify a momentary inclination or desire, terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction and disgust."
First, notice that Hamilton's argument in favor of the expertise of the federal government is precisely the one used by the Progressives from the 1890s through the 1930s in arguing for enhancement of federal power. Hamilton argued that central government would be more rational, and the Progressives argued that centrally placed experts would be able to administer anti-trust and other regulatory systems more rationally.
Naturally, the federalist system works much better than the Anti-Federalists of the 1780s feared. However, it is also true that as the Progressives' centralizing strategy of enhancing the federal government has developed, faction has played an increasing role. Not necessarily the kind of faction about which the Federalists and the Progressives through Herbert Hoover were often concerned such as agricultural versus manufacturing interests, or labor versus management, i.e., broad social groupings, but rather special interests.
Mancur Olson* posed the argument that small rather than large factions or groups are effective in the regulatory process. Large size stimulates special interest involvement in the legal and regulatory process to the benefit of small factions. The is counter-intuitive, and Hamilton and Madison did not have the advantage of as much historical evidence as Olson had. The reason is that as the scope of the republic gets larger, the benefit from special interest lobbying also gets larger. The larger the benefit, the greater the incentive for specific firms and industries to form factions and lobby. Larger size reduces the cost per citizen of rent extraction. Large size makes the formulation for scattered and poorly coordinated factions difficult, but corporations are compact. Corporations did not exist in the Federalist era. Thus, history revealed the opposite trend: the centralization of power in the Federalist era led to special interest factions having greater power than they had in the more decentralized nineteenth century. Of course, the corporate form of organization, which flowered in the late nineteenth century contributed to this, but so did the Progressives emphasis on expertise in a centrally situated state. The economic incentives are powerful enough that special interests are able to overcome the best efforts (if there are indeed such efforts) of centrally placed experts. Moreover, the factions are able to employ experts that are superior to the government's resulting in all too fequent cases of regulatory capture by corporations.
Decentralizing the economy would reduce the incentives for lobbying and raise the costs of lobbying. As a result, the advantage that corporations and small groups that face high benefits from lobbying gain in a more centralized federal system is likely to be reversed. First, the benefit will be on average 1/50th the size it currently is for each lobbying episode. Second, the costs of lobbying will be 50 times greater because there are 50 states. Clearly, lobbying will become more expensive and more complex, making regulatory influence more difficult.
Although Hamilton and Madison may have been right in the environment in which they lived, where there were no large corporations, where the entire US population was less than four million and where benefits from lobbying were negligible by today's standards, in today's world lobbying functions like a competitive auction. To the extent that it interferes with democracy, raising the transaction costs of lobbying and reducing the benefit from each lobbying episode will enhance democracy and limit the private gains at public expense that lobbyists can accrue.
Hamilton on the Limits of Decentralization
Federalism has always meant a partnership among the states and between the states and the federal government. Just as there are certain public goods that are indivisible so that individuals cannot purchase them and so devolve upon government, so there are federal goods that the states cannot divide and pay for individually and so must devolve upon the federal government. Defense and foreign policy are indivisible not only among individuals but also among the states. In an economy with an enhanced level of decentralization as existed in the late 18th and 19th centuries it is beneficial for defense and foreign policy to be handled by the federal government. In the Federalist Papers No. 25 Hamilton wrote this:
"It happens that some States, from local situation, are more directly exposed. New York is of this class. Upon the plan of separate provisions (of defense), New York would have to sustain the whole weight of the establishments requisite to her immediate safety, and to the mediate or ultimate protection of her neighbors. This would neither be equitable as it respected New York, nor safe as it respected the other States. Various inconveniences would attend such a system. The States, to whose lot it might fall to support the necessary establishments, would be as little able as willing for a considerable time to come to bear the burden of competent provisions. The security of all would thus be subjected to the parsimony, improvidence or inability of a part. If the resources of such part becoming more abundant and extensive, its provisions should be proportionally enlarged, the other States would quickly take the alarm at seeing the whole military force of the Union in the hands of two or three of its members...Reasons have been already given to induce a supposition that the State governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in any contest between the federal head and one of its members, the people will be most apt to unite with their local government..."
Thinking of subsequent events, the Civil War and 9/11 for instance, Hamilton's vision was accurate, not just about federalism but about New York as well.
"It happens that some States, from local situation, are more directly exposed. New York is of this class. Upon the plan of separate provisions (of defense), New York would have to sustain the whole weight of the establishments requisite to her immediate safety, and to the mediate or ultimate protection of her neighbors. This would neither be equitable as it respected New York, nor safe as it respected the other States. Various inconveniences would attend such a system. The States, to whose lot it might fall to support the necessary establishments, would be as little able as willing for a considerable time to come to bear the burden of competent provisions. The security of all would thus be subjected to the parsimony, improvidence or inability of a part. If the resources of such part becoming more abundant and extensive, its provisions should be proportionally enlarged, the other States would quickly take the alarm at seeing the whole military force of the Union in the hands of two or three of its members...Reasons have been already given to induce a supposition that the State governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in any contest between the federal head and one of its members, the people will be most apt to unite with their local government..."
Thinking of subsequent events, the Civil War and 9/11 for instance, Hamilton's vision was accurate, not just about federalism but about New York as well.
Velvet Hammer of Ironic Surrealism Posts
Mitchell
Just in case you weren't aware. Jerome Corsi brought up the fraudulent COLB on Fox and Friends yesterday morning.
A Freeper posted a transcription.
[Corsi on Fox News 8/15/08]
Jerome Corsi...There are substantive issues...They said I got the incorrect date of Senator Obama’s marriage...what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anyone supposed to piece together...
Steve Doocy - What do you mean they have a false birth certificate???
J - The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released and the campaign refuses to release it...
S - couldn’t that just be a state of Hawaii produced duplicate...?
J - No, it’s a, there’s been a good analysis of it on the internet, it’s been shown to have watermarks from photoshop, it’s a fake document that’s on the webs site right now and the original birth certificate, the campaign refuses to produce.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2062283/posts?page=30#30
Isn't that rich? ;) From his mouth to the MSM's ears. And of course since Media Matters is all over 'The Obama Nation' story they have published the rumor on their website.
- Velvet Hammer
Ironic Surrealism II
Just in case you weren't aware. Jerome Corsi brought up the fraudulent COLB on Fox and Friends yesterday morning.
A Freeper posted a transcription.
[Corsi on Fox News 8/15/08]
Jerome Corsi...There are substantive issues...They said I got the incorrect date of Senator Obama’s marriage...what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anyone supposed to piece together...
Steve Doocy - What do you mean they have a false birth certificate???
J - The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released and the campaign refuses to release it...
S - couldn’t that just be a state of Hawaii produced duplicate...?
J - No, it’s a, there’s been a good analysis of it on the internet, it’s been shown to have watermarks from photoshop, it’s a fake document that’s on the webs site right now and the original birth certificate, the campaign refuses to produce.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2062283/posts?page=30#30
Isn't that rich? ;) From his mouth to the MSM's ears. And of course since Media Matters is all over 'The Obama Nation' story they have published the rumor on their website.
- Velvet Hammer
Ironic Surrealism II
FEDEX TRACKING NUMBER FOR FEC PETITION
The following is the FEDEX tracking number for the petition I have mailed to Donald McGahan, chief of the FEC:
8668 4531 1020
The following is the FEDEX tracking number for the letter I sent to Ms. Janice Okubo concerning her misinterpretation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and to which she did not respond:
8665 5102 3295
8668 4531 1020
The following is the FEDEX tracking number for the letter I sent to Ms. Janice Okubo concerning her misinterpretation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and to which she did not respond:
8665 5102 3295
Petition with over 5,400 Signatures Sent to Donald McGahan, Federal Elections Commission
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) petition has over 5,450 signatures. I removed a couple of signatures and comments that were inappropriate or included inappropriate remarks. I am fedexing the petition to Mr. Donald McGahan, Commissioner of the FEC and copying the cover letter to the other members of the commission.
The Fedex Tracking Number for the petition is: 8668 4531 1020
My transmittal letter is as follows:
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
August 6, 2008
Mr. Donald F. McGahan, II, Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463
Dear Mr. McGahan:
I enclose herewith a petition with 5,451 signatures that I circulated 10 days ago. The petition is available for public view at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/index.html
In addition, the signatures can be viewed online at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/signatures.html
I called your office on Friday and your secretary informed me that you had not responded to my letter of more than one week ago.
Much of the concern of the 5,450 plus signers of the enclosed petition is the lack of responsiveness and attention that the Federal Elections Commission and the state boards of election have paid to verification of candidates’ identities. There seems to be no governmental body, including the Federal Elections Commission, that is willing to step forward and say that it is responsible for the competent administration of elections. In particular, you should be requiring fingerprint, birth certificate, passport, criminal record, driver record and insurance, credit history and similar information of all candidates under your jurisdiction. I do not understand how you can verify the financial information about and ethics of candidates if the same candidates may be committing identity theft and may not legally be candidates at all as defined under federal elections law. Are you certain that no federal candidate at present has engaged in identity theft?
The petition reads as follows:
The signers of this petition request the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States. Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate; that the FEC not monitor his campaign finances during the primary or election; that votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states' boards of elections not be recorded and displayed by the FEC; and that Mr. Obama be considered in violation of 2 USC 437g for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
This letter and my earlier letter, like the petition, have been posted on the World Wide Web at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
Cc: Steven T. Walther, Vice Chairman
Cynthia L. Bauerly, Commissioner
Matthew S. Petersen, Commissioner
Caroline C. Hunter, Commissioner
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner
The Fedex Tracking Number for the petition is: 8668 4531 1020
My transmittal letter is as follows:
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
August 6, 2008
Mr. Donald F. McGahan, II, Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463
Dear Mr. McGahan:
I enclose herewith a petition with 5,451 signatures that I circulated 10 days ago. The petition is available for public view at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/index.html
In addition, the signatures can be viewed online at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/signatures.html
I called your office on Friday and your secretary informed me that you had not responded to my letter of more than one week ago.
Much of the concern of the 5,450 plus signers of the enclosed petition is the lack of responsiveness and attention that the Federal Elections Commission and the state boards of election have paid to verification of candidates’ identities. There seems to be no governmental body, including the Federal Elections Commission, that is willing to step forward and say that it is responsible for the competent administration of elections. In particular, you should be requiring fingerprint, birth certificate, passport, criminal record, driver record and insurance, credit history and similar information of all candidates under your jurisdiction. I do not understand how you can verify the financial information about and ethics of candidates if the same candidates may be committing identity theft and may not legally be candidates at all as defined under federal elections law. Are you certain that no federal candidate at present has engaged in identity theft?
The petition reads as follows:
The signers of this petition request the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States. Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate; that the FEC not monitor his campaign finances during the primary or election; that votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states' boards of elections not be recorded and displayed by the FEC; and that Mr. Obama be considered in violation of 2 USC 437g for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
This letter and my earlier letter, like the petition, have been posted on the World Wide Web at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
Cc: Steven T. Walther, Vice Chairman
Cynthia L. Bauerly, Commissioner
Matthew S. Petersen, Commissioner
Caroline C. Hunter, Commissioner
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner
Additional Message to the New York State Board of Elections
Last, week, New York State's Secretary of State forwarded my letter to New York's Board of Elections. I wrote a follow up letter to the Board (James A. Walsh, Douglas A. Kellner, Evelyn J. Aquila and Gregory, P. Peterson) and included the following message:
PS—This letter has been posted on my blog since last week. In addition, I am forwarding a petition with more than 5,400 signatures from around the country to the Federal Elections Commission requesting them to take responsibility to verify candidates’ identities. There seems to be no governmental body, including the Board of Elections of New York State, that is willing to step forward and say that it is responsible for the competent administration of elections. In particular, you should be requiring fingerprint, birth certificate, passport, criminal record, driver record and insurance, credit history and similar information of all candidates for office, state and federal, on any ballot in New York State, and this information should be public record. So far, I know of no body involved in the administration of elections that is willing to require of political candidates the same information that many employers require of their employees, who are also voters. Are you certain that no New York candidate has engaged in identity theft?
PS—This letter has been posted on my blog since last week. In addition, I am forwarding a petition with more than 5,400 signatures from around the country to the Federal Elections Commission requesting them to take responsibility to verify candidates’ identities. There seems to be no governmental body, including the Board of Elections of New York State, that is willing to step forward and say that it is responsible for the competent administration of elections. In particular, you should be requiring fingerprint, birth certificate, passport, criminal record, driver record and insurance, credit history and similar information of all candidates for office, state and federal, on any ballot in New York State, and this information should be public record. So far, I know of no body involved in the administration of elections that is willing to require of political candidates the same information that many employers require of their employees, who are also voters. Are you certain that no New York candidate has engaged in identity theft?
Obama's Abortion Lie
Brutally honest (h/t Rick) has a blog about Barack Obama's position on abortion. The gist is that Obama lied about his position on abortion. What? I can't believe it. Obama really lied?
>"So Obama's goal is to reduce the number of abortions, a goal he deems worthy of pursuing:
"'Because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.'
"Really?
"The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.
"The number of abortions fell at least in part because the proportion of women ending their pregnancies with an abortion dropped 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, hitting the lowest level since 1975, according to a nationwide survey.
"Well... I'm sure Barack simply made a mistake, after all there's nothing in his history that would suggest that he has anything in mind but to reduce the number of abortions...
"Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2555123713188257297o the IL bill for the past 4 years.
"Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts...
Read the whole thing here.
>"So Obama's goal is to reduce the number of abortions, a goal he deems worthy of pursuing:
"'Because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.'
"Really?
"The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.
"The number of abortions fell at least in part because the proportion of women ending their pregnancies with an abortion dropped 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, hitting the lowest level since 1975, according to a nationwide survey.
"Well... I'm sure Barack simply made a mistake, after all there's nothing in his history that would suggest that he has anything in mind but to reduce the number of abortions...
"Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2555123713188257297o the IL bill for the past 4 years.
"Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts...
Read the whole thing here.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Andy Martin on Barack Obama
I just received the following press release from Andy Martin. Although it is out of date, it makes some interesting claims. Andy Martin accuses Barack Obama of repeated lying. What do you know? :
NEW YORK News Conference:
Obama Panics: Andy Martin's book forces Obama to admit he is illegitimate
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE JULY 14, 2008
OBAMA AUTHOR ANDY MARTIN FORCES OBAMA TO ADMIT HE'S ILLEGITIMATE
MARTIN SAYS RELEASE OF HIS BEST-SELLING BOOK PROMPTS OBAMA TO PANIC, MAKE ADMISSION OF ILLEGITIMACY
MARTIN ACCUSES OBAMA OF KNOWINGLY AND PERSISTENTLY LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR DECADES OVER HIS PARENTS' "NON-MARRIAGE"
MARTIN'S CONTROVERSIAL BEST SELLER STARTS TO IMPACT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
MARTIN CALLS OBAMA A "GIRLY MAN" FOR USING HIS WIFE TO ADMIT HE'S ILLEGITIMATE; OBAMA'S NO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ANDY SAYS
(NEW YORK)(July 14, 2008) Legendary Chicago Internet columnist and Obama author Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Monday, July 14th to drop the first of several bombs on the Obama campaign: Obama is illegitimate and his parents were never married.
For the past four years one man has made Obama miserable: Chicago writer Andy Martin. Martin's accurate original article is cited as the source of later rumors concerning Obama's Islamic family roots. Martin has relentlessly and accurately investigated Barack Obama's lies.
"Obama knew we were working the 'illegitimate' story, and we were preparing a series of news conferences in conjunction with my book Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," Martin will state. "The Obama campaign also knew we were planning a lawsuit over his illegitimate birth. So they tried to use Obama's wife to do damage control. It was one of the most cowardly gestures in American political history.
"Jesse Jackson does not have to perform surgery. Obama is a 'girly man' who used his wife to ooze out the truth about his lies and his parents' lies. What kind of a commander-in-chief would the cowardly Obama be? Who would follow a leader into battle that was afraid to admit his parents were not married?
"Barack Obama, Senior, and Anne Dunham never married. Obama knows this fact. This is also why he keeps his white grandmother a virtual prisoner; she knows too, and she won't lie.
"Through the past several decades Obama has pretended he 'didn't know' the facts about his illegitimate birth. He thought he could get away with the big lie. And he almost did get away with it. But we kept digging. And we are still digging. We have more to come.
"We plan two weeks of news conferences and other Obama-related disclosures, all timed to coincide with release of my book. The book was mailed to some Washington media last Friday, and Monday afternoon it will be delivered in Midtown to Fox News, MSNBC and others. Demand for review copies has been so heavy we have already had to reorder. We expect the first truckload of Obama books to reach the warehouse early next week, depending on production schedules at the printer.
"The release of my book and attendant publicity has prompted Obama to panic. My book is the literary equivalent of a bone-jarring tackle in football, causing the ball carrier to fumble. Obama has been forced to drop the pretense his parents were married. It is time he told us the truth. His parents were never married, he knew his parents were never married; he repeatedly lied about his lack of knowledge concerning his parents' non-marriage. He should admit that is why he keeps his white grandmother virtually imprisoned and away from any media contact. He should beg the American people for forgiveness. Otherwise, his campaign is bakacht.
"If Obama had simply told the truth, the matter would probably be forgiven. But he repeatedly lies and pretends he 'doesn't know.' The cover-up is always worse than the crime. Jesse knows the truth. That is why Jackson has contempt for Obama.
"I criticized Obama for running a bogus campaign ad saying he grew up with a 'strong family and strong values.' The whole commercial was a lie. His father was a rake who never married his mother, and his mother showed abysmally poor judgment in being impregnated by a married man. Hardly a 'strong family' and certainly not 'strong values.' Quite the contrary. Shameful values is more like it.
"His mother was promiscuous and had a child out of wedlock, in 1961, when that was still scandalous behavior. Is this Obama's idea of 'family values?' Obviously, he has been deceiving the American people and hoping his advertising lies could overcome the truth. He has failed. My book is only the first step in our organized effort to deconstruct the mirage Obama created for the Democratic Party, and is now trying to re-create for the American people. Ironically, we're running a better and more focused campaign against Obama than John McCain is.
"We will have more to say about Obama later in the week," Martin will state.
TO PURCHASE BOOK: http://www.OrangeStatePress.com
ANDY E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
NEW YORK News Conference:
Obama Panics: Andy Martin's book forces Obama to admit he is illegitimate
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE JULY 14, 2008
OBAMA AUTHOR ANDY MARTIN FORCES OBAMA TO ADMIT HE'S ILLEGITIMATE
MARTIN SAYS RELEASE OF HIS BEST-SELLING BOOK PROMPTS OBAMA TO PANIC, MAKE ADMISSION OF ILLEGITIMACY
MARTIN ACCUSES OBAMA OF KNOWINGLY AND PERSISTENTLY LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR DECADES OVER HIS PARENTS' "NON-MARRIAGE"
MARTIN'S CONTROVERSIAL BEST SELLER STARTS TO IMPACT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
MARTIN CALLS OBAMA A "GIRLY MAN" FOR USING HIS WIFE TO ADMIT HE'S ILLEGITIMATE; OBAMA'S NO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ANDY SAYS
(NEW YORK)(July 14, 2008) Legendary Chicago Internet columnist and Obama author Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Monday, July 14th to drop the first of several bombs on the Obama campaign: Obama is illegitimate and his parents were never married.
For the past four years one man has made Obama miserable: Chicago writer Andy Martin. Martin's accurate original article is cited as the source of later rumors concerning Obama's Islamic family roots. Martin has relentlessly and accurately investigated Barack Obama's lies.
"Obama knew we were working the 'illegitimate' story, and we were preparing a series of news conferences in conjunction with my book Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," Martin will state. "The Obama campaign also knew we were planning a lawsuit over his illegitimate birth. So they tried to use Obama's wife to do damage control. It was one of the most cowardly gestures in American political history.
"Jesse Jackson does not have to perform surgery. Obama is a 'girly man' who used his wife to ooze out the truth about his lies and his parents' lies. What kind of a commander-in-chief would the cowardly Obama be? Who would follow a leader into battle that was afraid to admit his parents were not married?
"Barack Obama, Senior, and Anne Dunham never married. Obama knows this fact. This is also why he keeps his white grandmother a virtual prisoner; she knows too, and she won't lie.
"Through the past several decades Obama has pretended he 'didn't know' the facts about his illegitimate birth. He thought he could get away with the big lie. And he almost did get away with it. But we kept digging. And we are still digging. We have more to come.
"We plan two weeks of news conferences and other Obama-related disclosures, all timed to coincide with release of my book. The book was mailed to some Washington media last Friday, and Monday afternoon it will be delivered in Midtown to Fox News, MSNBC and others. Demand for review copies has been so heavy we have already had to reorder. We expect the first truckload of Obama books to reach the warehouse early next week, depending on production schedules at the printer.
"The release of my book and attendant publicity has prompted Obama to panic. My book is the literary equivalent of a bone-jarring tackle in football, causing the ball carrier to fumble. Obama has been forced to drop the pretense his parents were married. It is time he told us the truth. His parents were never married, he knew his parents were never married; he repeatedly lied about his lack of knowledge concerning his parents' non-marriage. He should admit that is why he keeps his white grandmother virtually imprisoned and away from any media contact. He should beg the American people for forgiveness. Otherwise, his campaign is bakacht.
"If Obama had simply told the truth, the matter would probably be forgiven. But he repeatedly lies and pretends he 'doesn't know.' The cover-up is always worse than the crime. Jesse knows the truth. That is why Jackson has contempt for Obama.
"I criticized Obama for running a bogus campaign ad saying he grew up with a 'strong family and strong values.' The whole commercial was a lie. His father was a rake who never married his mother, and his mother showed abysmally poor judgment in being impregnated by a married man. Hardly a 'strong family' and certainly not 'strong values.' Quite the contrary. Shameful values is more like it.
"His mother was promiscuous and had a child out of wedlock, in 1961, when that was still scandalous behavior. Is this Obama's idea of 'family values?' Obviously, he has been deceiving the American people and hoping his advertising lies could overcome the truth. He has failed. My book is only the first step in our organized effort to deconstruct the mirage Obama created for the Democratic Party, and is now trying to re-create for the American people. Ironically, we're running a better and more focused campaign against Obama than John McCain is.
"We will have more to say about Obama later in the week," Martin will state.
TO PURCHASE BOOK: http://www.OrangeStatePress.com
ANDY E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Social Democracy and the Achievement Motive
There may be a deepening rift between American culture and its political structure. The cause is the shift from what Louis Hartz calls the Horatio Alger psychology of late nineteenth century America to the credentialism and "rationalization" that Progressivism initiated in the early twentieth century. I put rationalization in quotes because although the Progressives and their predecessors, the Mugwumps, along with early management theorists like Frederick Winslow Taylor and Fayol believed that bureaucracy, tight structure, merit-based systems and the like fostered efficiency, this was only a partial truth. Merit and structure foster efficiency where change is limited but may not be so important where change is rapid. Also, the measurement of ability is riddled with error, even when it is done properly, which it rarely is. The best measures of ability explain 25-30 percent of the variance in performance for a specific job. There has never been any serious effort to predict long-term, say life-long achievement. There are measures that may predict future success, but the book "Millionaire Next Door" suggests that the key variables, ethics, time preference, thrift, interpersonal skills, type B personality, and a stable family are not generally discussed in the personnel psychology literature or tangentially so. But most firms do not utilize valid criteria in hiring. So even the modicum of rationality that the Progressives advocate have not been implemented in most firms.
More importantly, American society has chosen to replace achievement and market success with college and graduate school diplomas in making selection decisions. This removes achievement from the equation, and stratifies society. Part of selection into college is family background, and part is IQ as tested by the various scholastic aptitude tests. Neither of these is identical with achievement. The correlation between IQ and job performance is about .55, which means that about 30 percent of the variance in job performance is due to IQ, 70% is not. The correlation becomes much weaker when one looks at life success over the long term. Success and short-term job performance are two different things. Ethics and the Aristotelian virtues (courage, prudence justice and sophrosunae, self-control, balance or moderation) play a significant role over the long term. The point isn't to diminish the importance of IQ or raise the importance of ethics. Rather, the point is that structure rather than market have increasingly predetermined outcomes, and rough measures of potential rather than human excellence have been rewarded. In the nineteenth century Whig philosophers could argue that wealth reflected religious or moral virtue. In the twentieth century, one can argue that wealth reflects gaming some corporate HR department's slapdash interview process or the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which is only a hair better.
Thus, rather than achievement creating economic success, Progressivism decreed that success would be administered. The attack on achievement that began with the Progressive movement's emphasis on rationalized human resource management criteria and the related emphasis on professional degrees was carried forward by the social democracy of the New Deal, which reflected the ultimate fulfillment of the Progressives' agenda. The New Deal established the paradigm that experts can rationally determine the equitable distribution of wealth; that the very wealthy can retain their wealth intergenerationally through family trusts but that up-and-coming entrepreneurs would be heavily taxed upon death; that the use of coercion in the redistribution of wealth is acceptable; that the monetary system can and should be used to redistribute wealth as well as various compulsory welfare systems, such as social security and unemployment insurance.
The "conservative" attack on the New Deal focused on the unemployment insurance. In effect, the Democrats forced the Republicans into the same corner that Jefferson forced Hamilton, and the Republicans took the bait. The Republicans did not frame their complaints about the New Deal in terms of its bias toward the wealthy, in part because the Democrats were able to sufficiently cloak the bias by throwing up red flags that likely they anticipated the Republicans would charge. Social insurance is a small matter, and it could have been done voluntarily as many firms such as General Electric had been demonstrating by the 1920s through welfare capitalism. The public works of the Hoover and Roosevelt administration were nothing new. They had characterized American government since the pre-revolutionary days, and if anything were more voluntaristic than the approach that was often used in colonial America: forced labor.
What changed during the Progressive era was increasing subsidization of big business (which had always been subsidized) through the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, which increasingly became a conduit for subsidization of big business at the expense of small and at the expense of taxpayers. This can be coupled with regulation such as securities regulation, pension regulation, and health and safety regulation which purported to help small investors and employees but served the purpose of excluding entrepreneurial initiative and further consolidating power in the hands of large corporations and banks, which have through the twentieth century proved decreasingly efficient.
Thus, Progressivism attacked the achievement motive in two ways. First, by rationalizing selection for elite jobs, first through civil service and then through inept but rigid personnel requirements involving college diplomas that reflect IQ and class but not achievement. Second, Progressivism instituted a progressive process of regulation whereby elites could secure their position in the name of helping underprivileged groups whose lot became increasingly worse the more the social democrats helped them.
As a result, and because the debate between the advocates of achievement and social democracy devolved into a debate between two parties that advocate social democracy, the Democrats and the Republicans, the political and economic elite, through Progressivism, slowly wrenched America's heart out of its casing, and ate it, blood dripping from its Progressive chin. In effect, in the twentieth century Progressivism reversed the democratic and laissez-faire achievements of the nineteenth.
Louis Hartz wrote the following about those nineteenth century achievements:
"Freedom from state control went hand in hand with the religion of opportunity, which in the broadest sense democratized economic power and made it acceptable to the egalitarian ethos of a liberal society. Technically, of course, this correlation was not essential. One could have the Horatio Alger dream functioning in the context of the old Whig paternalism: Ragged Dick could dream of making his million in a business fostered by the government itself, and we cannot excuse Hamilton from his failure to grasp the Alger secret by referring to the state of the American economy. There was sheer blindness, sheer failure to understand America in the Hamiltonian attitude. At the same time the capacity of Whiggery to dispense with the state, or at least a portion of the state, did make certain things possible. One was a full appropriation, or perhaps one should continue to say "confusion" of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian symbolism. That symbolism had assailed the state for granting the corporate charter and thus interfering with individual enterprise. Now, with the reliance on the state diminished, the capture of this symbolism was facilitated. The granting of the corporate charter could be confused with corporate regulation, the corporation could be confused with the individual, and Jackson could be turned inside out. The antagonism of state and individual, originally created to disadvantage the corporation, could be twisted to its defense. Down to the present day it is the genius of this achievement to convert the ideological Jefferson into his own worst enemy."*
Hartz's point is brilliant although his history is inaccurate in several ways. The point is that the corporation became a vehicle for individual achievement. But through a process of increasing government support as well as economies of scale and foreign trade advantages, the corporation became ever-increasing in size. Rather than demand that corporations prove themselves in the market, the Progressive era established exponentially greater supports for big business. This enhanced support had a range of economic and social effects. One of these was an attack on the achievement motive through credentialism, regulatory obstacles to new enterprise ideas, and the inheritance tax, which excludes the economic elite through the institute of family trusts, restricting the inter-generational evolution of family firms.
*Louis Hartz, "Government-Business Relations" in Economic Change in the Civil War Era: Proceedings of a Conference on American Institutional Change, 1850-1873, and the Impact of the Civil War Held March 12-14 1964. David T. Gilchrist and W. David Lewis, editors. Greenville, Delaware: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation.
More importantly, American society has chosen to replace achievement and market success with college and graduate school diplomas in making selection decisions. This removes achievement from the equation, and stratifies society. Part of selection into college is family background, and part is IQ as tested by the various scholastic aptitude tests. Neither of these is identical with achievement. The correlation between IQ and job performance is about .55, which means that about 30 percent of the variance in job performance is due to IQ, 70% is not. The correlation becomes much weaker when one looks at life success over the long term. Success and short-term job performance are two different things. Ethics and the Aristotelian virtues (courage, prudence justice and sophrosunae, self-control, balance or moderation) play a significant role over the long term. The point isn't to diminish the importance of IQ or raise the importance of ethics. Rather, the point is that structure rather than market have increasingly predetermined outcomes, and rough measures of potential rather than human excellence have been rewarded. In the nineteenth century Whig philosophers could argue that wealth reflected religious or moral virtue. In the twentieth century, one can argue that wealth reflects gaming some corporate HR department's slapdash interview process or the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which is only a hair better.
Thus, rather than achievement creating economic success, Progressivism decreed that success would be administered. The attack on achievement that began with the Progressive movement's emphasis on rationalized human resource management criteria and the related emphasis on professional degrees was carried forward by the social democracy of the New Deal, which reflected the ultimate fulfillment of the Progressives' agenda. The New Deal established the paradigm that experts can rationally determine the equitable distribution of wealth; that the very wealthy can retain their wealth intergenerationally through family trusts but that up-and-coming entrepreneurs would be heavily taxed upon death; that the use of coercion in the redistribution of wealth is acceptable; that the monetary system can and should be used to redistribute wealth as well as various compulsory welfare systems, such as social security and unemployment insurance.
The "conservative" attack on the New Deal focused on the unemployment insurance. In effect, the Democrats forced the Republicans into the same corner that Jefferson forced Hamilton, and the Republicans took the bait. The Republicans did not frame their complaints about the New Deal in terms of its bias toward the wealthy, in part because the Democrats were able to sufficiently cloak the bias by throwing up red flags that likely they anticipated the Republicans would charge. Social insurance is a small matter, and it could have been done voluntarily as many firms such as General Electric had been demonstrating by the 1920s through welfare capitalism. The public works of the Hoover and Roosevelt administration were nothing new. They had characterized American government since the pre-revolutionary days, and if anything were more voluntaristic than the approach that was often used in colonial America: forced labor.
What changed during the Progressive era was increasing subsidization of big business (which had always been subsidized) through the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, which increasingly became a conduit for subsidization of big business at the expense of small and at the expense of taxpayers. This can be coupled with regulation such as securities regulation, pension regulation, and health and safety regulation which purported to help small investors and employees but served the purpose of excluding entrepreneurial initiative and further consolidating power in the hands of large corporations and banks, which have through the twentieth century proved decreasingly efficient.
Thus, Progressivism attacked the achievement motive in two ways. First, by rationalizing selection for elite jobs, first through civil service and then through inept but rigid personnel requirements involving college diplomas that reflect IQ and class but not achievement. Second, Progressivism instituted a progressive process of regulation whereby elites could secure their position in the name of helping underprivileged groups whose lot became increasingly worse the more the social democrats helped them.
As a result, and because the debate between the advocates of achievement and social democracy devolved into a debate between two parties that advocate social democracy, the Democrats and the Republicans, the political and economic elite, through Progressivism, slowly wrenched America's heart out of its casing, and ate it, blood dripping from its Progressive chin. In effect, in the twentieth century Progressivism reversed the democratic and laissez-faire achievements of the nineteenth.
Louis Hartz wrote the following about those nineteenth century achievements:
"Freedom from state control went hand in hand with the religion of opportunity, which in the broadest sense democratized economic power and made it acceptable to the egalitarian ethos of a liberal society. Technically, of course, this correlation was not essential. One could have the Horatio Alger dream functioning in the context of the old Whig paternalism: Ragged Dick could dream of making his million in a business fostered by the government itself, and we cannot excuse Hamilton from his failure to grasp the Alger secret by referring to the state of the American economy. There was sheer blindness, sheer failure to understand America in the Hamiltonian attitude. At the same time the capacity of Whiggery to dispense with the state, or at least a portion of the state, did make certain things possible. One was a full appropriation, or perhaps one should continue to say "confusion" of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian symbolism. That symbolism had assailed the state for granting the corporate charter and thus interfering with individual enterprise. Now, with the reliance on the state diminished, the capture of this symbolism was facilitated. The granting of the corporate charter could be confused with corporate regulation, the corporation could be confused with the individual, and Jackson could be turned inside out. The antagonism of state and individual, originally created to disadvantage the corporation, could be twisted to its defense. Down to the present day it is the genius of this achievement to convert the ideological Jefferson into his own worst enemy."*
Hartz's point is brilliant although his history is inaccurate in several ways. The point is that the corporation became a vehicle for individual achievement. But through a process of increasing government support as well as economies of scale and foreign trade advantages, the corporation became ever-increasing in size. Rather than demand that corporations prove themselves in the market, the Progressive era established exponentially greater supports for big business. This enhanced support had a range of economic and social effects. One of these was an attack on the achievement motive through credentialism, regulatory obstacles to new enterprise ideas, and the inheritance tax, which excludes the economic elite through the institute of family trusts, restricting the inter-generational evolution of family firms.
*Louis Hartz, "Government-Business Relations" in Economic Change in the Civil War Era: Proceedings of a Conference on American Institutional Change, 1850-1873, and the Impact of the Civil War Held March 12-14 1964. David T. Gilchrist and W. David Lewis, editors. Greenville, Delaware: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation.
Janice Okubo on Obama Birth Certificate
Janice Okubo had stated that she believed the Obama birth certificate was accurate on June 13 and June 27 according to Politifact, a website of the St. Petersburg Times. On June 13, Janice Okubo stated that the Certificate of Live Birth that Politifact sent her was real:
"'It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy."
Then, on June 27 Politifact repeated this narrative.
It is not clear that Ms. Okubo's statements conflict with Pamela Geller's claim that the certificate is a forgery. There is a big question and three small questions. The big question is why is there no administrative body handling this instead of a St. Petersburg journalist?
One small question is whether the copy that the Obama campaign sent to Poltifact has the same problems that the copy on the Obama website has. Ms. Okubo does not state that she sent the birth certificate to Mr. Obama, which was the impression I had initially from her statement to the Hawaii newspaper.
Hence, the second small question is whether Dan Nakaso of the Hawaii newspaper exaggerated the extent of her verification.
The third small question is that I wonder if the St. Petersburg newspaper would be willing to permit a forensics expert to review their copy.
I have written the following to Amy Hollyfield of Politifact:
I appreciate your work on the Obama birth certificate. After your article's publication, questions about it's being a forgery were raised at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html. The key problem for me with respect to this issue is why the United States administrates an elections system without requiring identification and background information as part of the public record, to include not only birth certificates but also fingerprinting, criminal record, marriage certificate, etc. We live in an age of identity theft, yet there is no administration of verification of candidates' credentials. I have inquired with the Federal Elections Commission, my state's (and other states') board of elections, my state's secretary of state, the IRS (which administrates campaign funding) and my Congressman. We have a sorely mismanaged election system that could use professionalization of its administration, as in requiring birth certificates and the like from all candidates. Is anyone sure that of all the state legislatures, Congressmen, Senators and local elected officials that there is not one or even a few who have relied on stolen identities?
To this end, I have developed a petition to the FEC at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/petition-to-request-federal-elections.html
Several of the 5,200 people who have signed it have wondered why candidates run without ID verification while someone like you is the one to attempt to verify Mr. Obama's birth certificate.
I would like to make an inquiry. Since you have a hard copy of the purported certificate, would you make it available to a forensics expert to verify? Ms. Okubo did not confirm that she actually sent you the certificate. Rather, she confirmed that it looked like a real certificate. Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs states that a forensics expert determined that the certificate posted on the website is a forgery. Would your newspaper be willing to allow or commission an independent forensics expert to further document your story?
Best wishes,
Mitchell Langbert
"'It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy."
Then, on June 27 Politifact repeated this narrative.
It is not clear that Ms. Okubo's statements conflict with Pamela Geller's claim that the certificate is a forgery. There is a big question and three small questions. The big question is why is there no administrative body handling this instead of a St. Petersburg journalist?
One small question is whether the copy that the Obama campaign sent to Poltifact has the same problems that the copy on the Obama website has. Ms. Okubo does not state that she sent the birth certificate to Mr. Obama, which was the impression I had initially from her statement to the Hawaii newspaper.
Hence, the second small question is whether Dan Nakaso of the Hawaii newspaper exaggerated the extent of her verification.
The third small question is that I wonder if the St. Petersburg newspaper would be willing to permit a forensics expert to review their copy.
I have written the following to Amy Hollyfield of Politifact:
I appreciate your work on the Obama birth certificate. After your article's publication, questions about it's being a forgery were raised at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html. The key problem for me with respect to this issue is why the United States administrates an elections system without requiring identification and background information as part of the public record, to include not only birth certificates but also fingerprinting, criminal record, marriage certificate, etc. We live in an age of identity theft, yet there is no administration of verification of candidates' credentials. I have inquired with the Federal Elections Commission, my state's (and other states') board of elections, my state's secretary of state, the IRS (which administrates campaign funding) and my Congressman. We have a sorely mismanaged election system that could use professionalization of its administration, as in requiring birth certificates and the like from all candidates. Is anyone sure that of all the state legislatures, Congressmen, Senators and local elected officials that there is not one or even a few who have relied on stolen identities?
To this end, I have developed a petition to the FEC at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/petition-to-request-federal-elections.html
Several of the 5,200 people who have signed it have wondered why candidates run without ID verification while someone like you is the one to attempt to verify Mr. Obama's birth certificate.
I would like to make an inquiry. Since you have a hard copy of the purported certificate, would you make it available to a forensics expert to verify? Ms. Okubo did not confirm that she actually sent you the certificate. Rather, she confirmed that it looked like a real certificate. Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs states that a forensics expert determined that the certificate posted on the website is a forgery. Would your newspaper be willing to allow or commission an independent forensics expert to further document your story?
Best wishes,
Mitchell Langbert
Comments on Janice Okubo's Story Switch
Phil writes:
>"Any shots of Obama wining and dining Janice Okubo on his vacation in Hawaii?"
I respond:
You can't help but wonder. She certainly did NOT write to me that she had given the campaign a certificate and that the one posted was accurate. Instead, she wrote to me that the freedom of information act does not apply to Hawaii. She saved this other information for later. I do not know the reason for the difference.
Mairi writes:
>"SHEESH! Do you believe these guys? They have no respect for us at all. Just label everyone out there a "crackpot" and have done with it. NOT!
I have written to Dan, but don't expect to hear from him any more than I expect to hear from Dan White......Maybe it goes with the name? LOL!
Janice is a REAL disappointment. Typical, "say one thing one day, and something different the next". I must applaud your efforts. Dealing with this as much as you have must be very aggravating.
Sincerely,
Mairi
I respond:
Not so aggravating, just tiring as I should be working on other things. I got the traffic up on my blog so I'm happy about that. I do not expect that I will single handedly reform the system, so I expect little. The one who irritates me is that reporter Dan Nakaso from the Hawaii newspaper. He ran a story without speaking to the other side. That's sleazy.
>"Any shots of Obama wining and dining Janice Okubo on his vacation in Hawaii?"
I respond:
You can't help but wonder. She certainly did NOT write to me that she had given the campaign a certificate and that the one posted was accurate. Instead, she wrote to me that the freedom of information act does not apply to Hawaii. She saved this other information for later. I do not know the reason for the difference.
Mairi writes:
>"SHEESH! Do you believe these guys? They have no respect for us at all. Just label everyone out there a "crackpot" and have done with it. NOT!
I have written to Dan, but don't expect to hear from him any more than I expect to hear from Dan White......Maybe it goes with the name? LOL!
Janice is a REAL disappointment. Typical, "say one thing one day, and something different the next". I must applaud your efforts. Dealing with this as much as you have must be very aggravating.
Sincerely,
Mairi
I respond:
Not so aggravating, just tiring as I should be working on other things. I got the traffic up on my blog so I'm happy about that. I do not expect that I will single handedly reform the system, so I expect little. The one who irritates me is that reporter Dan Nakaso from the Hawaii newspaper. He ran a story without speaking to the other side. That's sleazy.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Does Jack Cafferty Suffer From Old Age Dementia?
I seldom watch CNN, but when I am forced to watch it in my health club I often hear Jack Cafferty remarking about John McCain's age. Ageism is a form of bias, and the low, tasteless quality of the pro-Obama media exhibits itself in Cafferty. Problem solving ability peaks at about age 20, but knowledge of how to solve problems, i.e., experience, compensates for loss of mental acuity. There are few breakthroughs in math or physics made by those above age 30, but there are a large number of literary, artistic, philosophical, legal and business breakthroughs made by old people.
I looked up Jack Cafferty's age on Wikipedia. He was born in December 1942, while John McCain was born in August 1936. The difference between Cafferty and McCain is a tad over six years. Perhaps it is Cafferty, rather than John McCain, who suffers from senility.
Unlike Cafferty, I am not one to make ageist comments, but Mr. Cafferty lives in a glass house and has been throwing stones. So here goes. I wonder if Cafferty gets the news right since he might be suffering from old age dementia. Can we trust Cafferty to be a good newscaster? He seems illogical. He is past the age for ordinary onset Alzheimer's, and his lack of awareness and tastelessness suggests acceleration that condition.
I looked up Jack Cafferty's age on Wikipedia. He was born in December 1942, while John McCain was born in August 1936. The difference between Cafferty and McCain is a tad over six years. Perhaps it is Cafferty, rather than John McCain, who suffers from senility.
Unlike Cafferty, I am not one to make ageist comments, but Mr. Cafferty lives in a glass house and has been throwing stones. So here goes. I wonder if Cafferty gets the news right since he might be suffering from old age dementia. Can we trust Cafferty to be a good newscaster? He seems illogical. He is past the age for ordinary onset Alzheimer's, and his lack of awareness and tastelessness suggests acceleration that condition.
Janice Okubo Denies Impropriety with Posted Birth Certificate
Dan Nakaso of the Honolulu Advertiser writes an article about Janice Okubo and the Obama birth certificate (h/t Ray). First, I copy from the article, then my e-mailed response follows:
Birth certificate in high demand:
Hawai'i birth certificates — just as with death, marriage and certain divorce documents — are released only to people with a "tangible interest," such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. (Requests for divorce decrees after 2002 go through the state judiciary.)
"'Our state law is very firm on information on vital records. ... You cannot receive someone else's birth certificate — to protect the person's confidential information,'" Okubo said
"'The Obama campaign said it has posted a copy of his birth certificate at www.fightthesm ears.com in response to Internet chatter that the Illinois senator is not a natural-born citizen. But the posting has done little to curb the nearly weekly requests to the Health Department for copies of the original', Okubo said.
"'Some skeptics point to the lack of an official state seal on the birth certificate posted on the Obama campaign Web site.'
"'But seals often are placed on the back of the birth certificate', Okubo said, 'and whether it shows through depends on how much force was put into it.'"
"'Others wonder why a large black rectangle appears next to the words, "CERTIFICATE NO'."
"'The thing that's redacted is just our file number," she said. "Potentially, if you have that number, you could break into the system.'"
"'Health officials contacted the Obama campaign a few months ago in response to the persistent inquiries "to see if they could try and resolve the issue with the people who were asking questions,' she said.
"'They responded and apparently it isn't good enough that he posted his birth certificate,'" Okubo said. "They say they want it because they claim he is not a citizen of the United States. It's pretty ridiculous."
My response to Dan Nakaso, the Advertiser reporter, via e-mail:
I am submitting a petition to the Federal Election Commission on Monday concerning the lack of an administrative system whereby identification and other information necessary to verify a candidate's eligibiligity are collected, reviewed and made available to the public as exemplified in the current questions about Mr. Barack H. Obama's birth certificate. At present, no state or federal agency, to include the state boards of election, the Federal Election Commission, the state Secretaries of State, the Internal Revenue Service (which oversees federal campaign money) or any other administrative body oversees collection of identification information, to include birth certificates, fingerprinting, drivers' licenses, criminal records and related information. In an age of identity theft, are we certain that no elected officials have made use of falsified identification? As a result, more than 5,100 people have signed the petition. Perhaps Ms. Okubo's story shifting and Mr. Obama's unresponsiveness to repeated inquiries have contributed to the public good by bringing the need for a comprehensive identification process for political candidates.
The petition is located at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/index.html
When I contacted Ms. Okubo in July to request a copy of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, she refused to provide it, but she did NOT indicate that there is a publicly available birth certificate nor did she indicate that she could verify the certificate as reflecting the true one. She could have mentioned that she had given a birth certificate to the Obama campaign but she did not. She could have verified that the one posted is the same one she gave them, but she did not do that either. Nor does she confirm this in your article.
There have been allegations that the certificate posted on the Obama website is a forgery on the Atlas Shrugs and other blogs that I've partially compiled here:
http://www.showusthecertificate.blogspot.com/
In particular, note Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
Ms. Okubo does not state in the article that the certificate posted on the website is the same as the one she provided to Mr. Obama. And why did she neglect to tell me in her letter in July that a certificate was posted?
In addition, as a reporter have you contacted Mr. Obama to request a copy of the certificate, or have you accepted a single source? In your article, you do not quote Pamela Geller, Larry Johnson, or other bloggers who have taken an interest in this. You only quote Ms. Okubo, whose story now is not the one that she wrote to me about last month.
The fact that the Hawaii Revised Statutes permit anyone with a "direct and tangible interest" in the birth certificate ought to mean that anyone can obtain Mr. Obama's birth certificate since we all have a direct and tangible interest in it.
More than 5,100 individuals from around the country have signed the petition requesting the FEC investigate the birth certificate. The matter is one of inept administration of elections at the state and federal level.
Birth certificate in high demand:
Hawai'i birth certificates — just as with death, marriage and certain divorce documents — are released only to people with a "tangible interest," such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. (Requests for divorce decrees after 2002 go through the state judiciary.)
"'Our state law is very firm on information on vital records. ... You cannot receive someone else's birth certificate — to protect the person's confidential information,'" Okubo said
"'The Obama campaign said it has posted a copy of his birth certificate at www.fightthesm ears.com in response to Internet chatter that the Illinois senator is not a natural-born citizen. But the posting has done little to curb the nearly weekly requests to the Health Department for copies of the original', Okubo said.
"'Some skeptics point to the lack of an official state seal on the birth certificate posted on the Obama campaign Web site.'
"'But seals often are placed on the back of the birth certificate', Okubo said, 'and whether it shows through depends on how much force was put into it.'"
"'Others wonder why a large black rectangle appears next to the words, "CERTIFICATE NO'."
"'The thing that's redacted is just our file number," she said. "Potentially, if you have that number, you could break into the system.'"
"'Health officials contacted the Obama campaign a few months ago in response to the persistent inquiries "to see if they could try and resolve the issue with the people who were asking questions,' she said.
"'They responded and apparently it isn't good enough that he posted his birth certificate,'" Okubo said. "They say they want it because they claim he is not a citizen of the United States. It's pretty ridiculous."
My response to Dan Nakaso, the Advertiser reporter, via e-mail:
I am submitting a petition to the Federal Election Commission on Monday concerning the lack of an administrative system whereby identification and other information necessary to verify a candidate's eligibiligity are collected, reviewed and made available to the public as exemplified in the current questions about Mr. Barack H. Obama's birth certificate. At present, no state or federal agency, to include the state boards of election, the Federal Election Commission, the state Secretaries of State, the Internal Revenue Service (which oversees federal campaign money) or any other administrative body oversees collection of identification information, to include birth certificates, fingerprinting, drivers' licenses, criminal records and related information. In an age of identity theft, are we certain that no elected officials have made use of falsified identification? As a result, more than 5,100 people have signed the petition. Perhaps Ms. Okubo's story shifting and Mr. Obama's unresponsiveness to repeated inquiries have contributed to the public good by bringing the need for a comprehensive identification process for political candidates.
The petition is located at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/index.html
When I contacted Ms. Okubo in July to request a copy of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, she refused to provide it, but she did NOT indicate that there is a publicly available birth certificate nor did she indicate that she could verify the certificate as reflecting the true one. She could have mentioned that she had given a birth certificate to the Obama campaign but she did not. She could have verified that the one posted is the same one she gave them, but she did not do that either. Nor does she confirm this in your article.
There have been allegations that the certificate posted on the Obama website is a forgery on the Atlas Shrugs and other blogs that I've partially compiled here:
http://www.showusthecertificate.blogspot.com/
In particular, note Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
Ms. Okubo does not state in the article that the certificate posted on the website is the same as the one she provided to Mr. Obama. And why did she neglect to tell me in her letter in July that a certificate was posted?
In addition, as a reporter have you contacted Mr. Obama to request a copy of the certificate, or have you accepted a single source? In your article, you do not quote Pamela Geller, Larry Johnson, or other bloggers who have taken an interest in this. You only quote Ms. Okubo, whose story now is not the one that she wrote to me about last month.
The fact that the Hawaii Revised Statutes permit anyone with a "direct and tangible interest" in the birth certificate ought to mean that anyone can obtain Mr. Obama's birth certificate since we all have a direct and tangible interest in it.
More than 5,100 individuals from around the country have signed the petition requesting the FEC investigate the birth certificate. The matter is one of inept administration of elections at the state and federal level.
George Phillips for Congress
I attended a fundraiser at the Steelhouse on the Rondout along the river in Kingston, NY for George Phillips, a Binghamton Republican who is challenging Maurice Hinchey. Raqul Okyay was there. Raquel blogs about the Phillips campaign here .
>"George Phillips worked as a high level aide for Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, and has years of experience assessing and advancing community needs. George Phillips, if successful in November, will undoubtedly be a fresh face and much needed change in Congress. A Congress plagued with low approval ratings and the nickname 'do nothing'."
Okyay points out that incumbent Hinchey has been squandering taxpayer money on alternative energy schemes that apparently do not interest private sector investors or Hinchey himself, who has apparently not put any of his own money into Solar Thin Films, but has put the taxpayer on the hook for $50 million.
Phillips is fine candidate. He visited us at our West Shokan cabin in June, so the fundraiser was the second time we got to meet. He is a smart, dynamic candidate and would do a better job than the incumbent.
>"George Phillips worked as a high level aide for Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, and has years of experience assessing and advancing community needs. George Phillips, if successful in November, will undoubtedly be a fresh face and much needed change in Congress. A Congress plagued with low approval ratings and the nickname 'do nothing'."
Okyay points out that incumbent Hinchey has been squandering taxpayer money on alternative energy schemes that apparently do not interest private sector investors or Hinchey himself, who has apparently not put any of his own money into Solar Thin Films, but has put the taxpayer on the hook for $50 million.
Phillips is fine candidate. He visited us at our West Shokan cabin in June, so the fundraiser was the second time we got to meet. He is a smart, dynamic candidate and would do a better job than the incumbent.
PRESS RELEASE E-MAILED CONCERNING FEC PETITION
I have e-mailed the following press release to the New York media and to several of the national media outlets, overall, about 50 or 60 outlets, including the major New York City newspapers:
Professor Collects over 5,100 Signatures Requesting FEC to Investigate Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/signatures.html
I began collecting signatures 8 days ago, over 5,100 people have signed so far without any mass media exposure. I have also written to Barack Obama several times, to the IRS, to the New York State Board of Elections, and to the State Department with a freedom of information act request for copies of Mr. Obama's passport applicatons. I had Fedexed Donald McGahan, chair of the FEC last week, and they received the FEDEX a week ago. I called the FEC today and told them that the petition is on the way. Media exposure would be helpful. By way of background, I am an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College and blog at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com The petition and my letter to Mr. McGahan read:
Petition:
The signers of this petition request the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States. Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate; that the FEC not monitor his campaign finances during the primary or election; that votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states' boards of elections not be recorded and displayed by the FEC; and that Mr. Obama be considered in violation of 2 USC 437g for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
Letter to Mr. McGahan:
Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463
Dear Mr. McGahan:
I would like to file a formal complaint with the Federal Elections Commission requesting verification of the natural-born U.S. citizenship of Mr. Barack Obama, and revocation of the registration and recognition of Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States if that citizenship is not verified as described below within 7 days of the FEC receipt of this letter. Mr. Obama has not shown that he fulfills the Constitutional requirement for president, to be a “natural born citizen”, Article Two, Section 1.
The basis for this complaint is:
a) Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate, with the Hawaii file number visible, upon my previous repeated request and the requests of others.
b) Significant analysis of the electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website as the certificate indicates forgery.
c) The electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website has the Hawaii state birth certificate filing number blacked out, eliminating any objective information that links the image to an actual certificate on file (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html).
If Mr. Obama produces a certified, stamped copy of the original birth certificate with all information visible, I request as the complainant to see that document in person to examine its authenticity, including electronically, before the FEC finalizes its response; and the opportunity to verify the authenticity with the issuing state official. This process should require no more than two business days, and may take place in at the FEC office in Washington.
If the certificate is not produced in 10 days and verified by the FEC and myself within another 5 days, this complaint requests the following four remedies:
1) Mr. Obama’s registration as a presidential candidate is rejected (as filed on FEC Form 2).
2) Mr. Obama’s campaign finances will not be monitored by the FEC as a candidate, during the primary or election.
3) Votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states’ boards of elections will not be recorded and displayed by the FEC.
4) Mr. Obama will be considered in violation of 2 U.S.C. 437g, for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
I ask for expedited formal response and resolution of this request, given that the national convention furthering the candidacy will occur in three weeks, and given that this document is easy to produce upon personal request of Mr. Obama to the Hawaii state government. Please note the FEC can request it directly, as qualifying under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 338-18 has having “a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
This request is made with the utmost respect for the presidential election process and the candidates involved, in the desire to resolve this question quickly and confirm their integrity. If a similar request is appropriate to be made to all presidential candidates by the FEC it must not slow down this specific request.
If the FEC decides it does not have jurisdiction in this matter, please respond within three business days of receipt of this complaint with the agency or governmental organization that is responsible for enforcing Article Two, Section One of the Constitution that requires natural-born citizenship for candidacy for the president of the United States. Please include the basis for such jurisdiction by that agency or organization. Please respond by email to: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
203 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, New York 12494
Cc: Steven T. Walther, Vice Chairman
Cynthia L. Bauerly, Commissioner
Matthew S. Petersen, Commissioner
Caroline C. Hunter, Commissioner
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner
Professor Collects over 5,100 Signatures Requesting FEC to Investigate Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/signatures.html
I began collecting signatures 8 days ago, over 5,100 people have signed so far without any mass media exposure. I have also written to Barack Obama several times, to the IRS, to the New York State Board of Elections, and to the State Department with a freedom of information act request for copies of Mr. Obama's passport applicatons. I had Fedexed Donald McGahan, chair of the FEC last week, and they received the FEDEX a week ago. I called the FEC today and told them that the petition is on the way. Media exposure would be helpful. By way of background, I am an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College and blog at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com The petition and my letter to Mr. McGahan read:
Petition:
The signers of this petition request the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States. Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate; that the FEC not monitor his campaign finances during the primary or election; that votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states' boards of elections not be recorded and displayed by the FEC; and that Mr. Obama be considered in violation of 2 USC 437g for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
Letter to Mr. McGahan:
Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463
Dear Mr. McGahan:
I would like to file a formal complaint with the Federal Elections Commission requesting verification of the natural-born U.S. citizenship of Mr. Barack Obama, and revocation of the registration and recognition of Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States if that citizenship is not verified as described below within 7 days of the FEC receipt of this letter. Mr. Obama has not shown that he fulfills the Constitutional requirement for president, to be a “natural born citizen”, Article Two, Section 1.
The basis for this complaint is:
a) Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate, with the Hawaii file number visible, upon my previous repeated request and the requests of others.
b) Significant analysis of the electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website as the certificate indicates forgery.
c) The electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website has the Hawaii state birth certificate filing number blacked out, eliminating any objective information that links the image to an actual certificate on file (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html).
If Mr. Obama produces a certified, stamped copy of the original birth certificate with all information visible, I request as the complainant to see that document in person to examine its authenticity, including electronically, before the FEC finalizes its response; and the opportunity to verify the authenticity with the issuing state official. This process should require no more than two business days, and may take place in at the FEC office in Washington.
If the certificate is not produced in 10 days and verified by the FEC and myself within another 5 days, this complaint requests the following four remedies:
1) Mr. Obama’s registration as a presidential candidate is rejected (as filed on FEC Form 2).
2) Mr. Obama’s campaign finances will not be monitored by the FEC as a candidate, during the primary or election.
3) Votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states’ boards of elections will not be recorded and displayed by the FEC.
4) Mr. Obama will be considered in violation of 2 U.S.C. 437g, for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
I ask for expedited formal response and resolution of this request, given that the national convention furthering the candidacy will occur in three weeks, and given that this document is easy to produce upon personal request of Mr. Obama to the Hawaii state government. Please note the FEC can request it directly, as qualifying under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 338-18 has having “a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
This request is made with the utmost respect for the presidential election process and the candidates involved, in the desire to resolve this question quickly and confirm their integrity. If a similar request is appropriate to be made to all presidential candidates by the FEC it must not slow down this specific request.
If the FEC decides it does not have jurisdiction in this matter, please respond within three business days of receipt of this complaint with the agency or governmental organization that is responsible for enforcing Article Two, Section One of the Constitution that requires natural-born citizenship for candidacy for the president of the United States. Please include the basis for such jurisdiction by that agency or organization. Please respond by email to: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
203 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, New York 12494
Cc: Steven T. Walther, Vice Chairman
Cynthia L. Bauerly, Commissioner
Matthew S. Petersen, Commissioner
Caroline C. Hunter, Commissioner
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner
FEC Petition Now Has Over 5,100 Signatures
The petition to Mr. Donald McGahan now has over 5,100 signatures. I will mail it to him with copies to the media on Monday. I am e-mailing a press release today. The list of signatures is located at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/signatures.html
Phone Call to Donald McGahan's Federal Election Commission Office
I just telephoned Donald McGahan's office at the Federal Election Commission. They informed me that they have not responded to my letter of last week requesting an investigation of allegations of fraud concerning Mr. Obama's birth certificate and asking the FEC to investigate the eligibility of a candidate.
I informed Mr. McGahan's office that our petition now has over 5,000 signatures and that I would forward the petition to him with copies to the media on Monday. I suggested that if the FEC is not responsible to ensure that the individuals filling out FEC documentation are actually candidates, then the FEC ought to say so to me in writing.
I informed Mr. McGahan's office that our petition now has over 5,000 signatures and that I would forward the petition to him with copies to the media on Monday. I suggested that if the FEC is not responsible to ensure that the individuals filling out FEC documentation are actually candidates, then the FEC ought to say so to me in writing.
Third Request to Barack Obama to Open His Birth Certificate Information
Someone told me that a letter to the Senate office concerning the birth certificate might not go through because it is campaign related and legislative and government offices are prohibited from dealing with campaign issues. I have therefore written to Mr. Obama's campaign:
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
The Honorable Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear Senator Obama:
There have been accusations that you have refused to allow your birth certificate to be released to the public because you are interested in manipulating your opposition into thinking that there is a problem with it. An image of your birth certificate that has been posted to your campaign website and to the Daily Kos site has been alleged to be a forgery (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/forensic-expert.html). I understand that you have campaigned on the premise of change and openness and therefore ought to have an interest in disproving this accusation of old-fashioned manipulation and deception.
Under the State of Hawaii's Revised Statutes HRS Section 338-18 the State of Hawaii may disclose your birth certificate to anyone who has a "direct and tangible interest". I am asking you to authorize, in writing, the State of Hawaii Public Health department to make your birth certificate available to all Americans because all Americans have a direct and tangible interest in it. I also ask you to forward a copy of your authorization letter to me.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
The Honorable Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear Senator Obama:
There have been accusations that you have refused to allow your birth certificate to be released to the public because you are interested in manipulating your opposition into thinking that there is a problem with it. An image of your birth certificate that has been posted to your campaign website and to the Daily Kos site has been alleged to be a forgery (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/forensic-expert.html). I understand that you have campaigned on the premise of change and openness and therefore ought to have an interest in disproving this accusation of old-fashioned manipulation and deception.
Under the State of Hawaii's Revised Statutes HRS Section 338-18 the State of Hawaii may disclose your birth certificate to anyone who has a "direct and tangible interest". I am asking you to authorize, in writing, the State of Hawaii Public Health department to make your birth certificate available to all Americans because all Americans have a direct and tangible interest in it. I also ask you to forward a copy of your authorization letter to me.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
