The Left Evolves

From Facebook: Timothy Lipson shared Political Follies's photo.

Read More

How to Unravel Social Security

PO Box 130

West Shokan, NY 12494

August 27, 2012

Mr. Chris Gibson, congressman

House of Representatives

502 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Gibson:

Here's an idea to help solve the federal government's Social Security conundrum.  Why not allow those who have been (and whose employers have been) compelled to contribute to it to request a refund of employee and employer contributions without interest?  The result may be a win-win: those who would rather put the money in financial markets than trust the federal government could do so, while the federal government would be off the hook for future liabilities that likely would exceed the lump sum payment because of inflation.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Cc: Mr. Barack Obama, president of the United States

Read More

Gary Johnson on Ron Paul

Read More

Dave Nalle on the RNC's Proposed Rules 12 and 15

Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, released this memo claiming that the Republican establishment is attempting to refashion the party's procedures to exclude the influence of Tea Party elements from the GOP. 

Fellow Texas Republican:

You may have thought that the story out of Tampa this week was going to be a celebration of the Romney-Ryan nomination, maybe spiced up with a bit of contention from the liberty wing of the party, but ultimately a celebration of party unity moving forward to defeat Obama in November.  That's what we all expected and that should have been the story.

But for grassroots Republicans the story out of Tampa is becoming something very, very different.  The presidential nomination, which was supposed to be the focus, is taking a backseat to a growing controversy over an attempt by a small group of elite party insiders and the Romney campaign to fundamentally change the rules and structure of the party to disenfranchise grassroots Republicans activists and turn the GOP from a party of the people into a party of top-down governance from a select class of professional political organizers.

One of the cornerstones of the Grand Old Party is a belief in republicanism and the idea that power is distributed and limited by checks and balances.  Those values are embodied in our Constitution and they were the basis of the Republican Party when it was founded and for most of its history.  Historically this has meant that most of the power in the Republican Party has rested with the party members in the states, working as delegates through their local and state caucuses and conventions to generate policy for the party in a unique collaborative process where the voice of the people could be heard strongly.

Now there are those in Tampa who seek to overturn this traditional structure of the party, set restrictions on the free choice of party members and introduce a new and alien process which would minimize the input of the party's rank and file and put power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests who can buy the loyalty of the mob.  They have borrowed the organizing structure of the Democrats and authored rules which would cause our delegates to be bound by the votes of primary voters who may not be Republicans or share our values, and they have further proposed the removal of control over the rule making process from the state parties to a small elite within the national committee of the party who can change the rules under which the party operates at any time.  Without fixed rules arrived at by the consent of the rank and file of the party we become pawns rather than participants in the political process..

These proposals which have come out of the Rules Committee in Tampa are contrary to the basic character of the party and they are opposed by many delegates who were not part of the handpicked group of insiders which dominated the committee.  Delegates from many states are speaking out in opposition and members of the committee who believe in a bottom-up party structure have issued a minority report to challenge what amounts to a powergrab by elite insiders and the Romney campaign.

I hope that the Texas delegation in Tampa will take the lead in opposing this coup within the party.  If you are a delegate, please join other Texans in supporting the minority report and opposing these changes.  If you are here at home, please reach out to any delegates you know and encourage them to stand up for the right of the state parties and the many dedicated Republicans who took part in the grassroots process which makes our party unique and protects the rights of all of its members.
I have attached copies of the proposed rules 12 and 15 which make these changes.  Please read them for yourself and see if they represent the kind of party governance you want to be under.  If you agree with me that they disenfranchise our party members and empower people who do not have the best interests of the party at heart, please join me in taking action to raise opposition before this issue is raised on the convention floor in Tampa on Monday.
Dave Nalle
Travis County Precinct 105 Chairman

Proposed Rules 12 and 15
"12: The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014."
"15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state's delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters."
"15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate."
"15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party."

Read More

Rasmussen's Odd Gary Johnson Coverage

A few months ago I noticed that the Rasmussen polling firm, which seems to represent the Republican establishment, is covering the presidential race in a peculiar way.  It asks prospective voters whether they will support Romney, Obama, or some other candidate.  The firm thereby marginalizes Gary Johnson, who is on the ballot in all 50 states  and threatens Romney, who is running neck and neck with Obama.  

Today, Rasmussen released special poll data that finds that, while 16% of voters like Gary Johnson, 20% don't; two percent consider him very favorably, but eight percent consider him very unfavorably.  Rasmussen links to the actual questions asked about Johnson, which are as follows:
 

1) If the Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or Libertarian Gary Johnson?

2) Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Gary Johnson?

What's odd is that in their analysis of their findings the Rasmussen people don't reveal what the percentage answers were to question one.  Elsewhere, they continue to reveal that four percent would vote for "some other candidate," but they don't say what percent answered "Gary Johnson" to question one.  Here is what they write:


>Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states but is largely unknown to the nation’s voters. 

>A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 16% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable opinion of Johnson while 20% offer an unfavorable view. Only one-out-of-10 have a strong opinion of him: Two percent (2%) have a Very Favorable view of Johnson while eight percent (8%) have a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

The important questions concern Johnson's percentage and the extent to which he diminishes Romney's chance.  For some reason Rasmussen sidesteps giving the answer.   Given that  today (August 25) Obama is beating Romney by one or two points and has been since Ryan's nomination, that would seem to be an important question for the Republicans.  

Since the Republicans are the second of two big-government parties, and Americans, a nation of squealing rats on a sinking ship, are happy with their choices--squealers-in-chief Romney and Obama--I am getting my life boat in order.  Besides voting for Johnson, I am looking into buying real estate in Chile or Uruguay and am going down there for a first look this winter.  I have been told that the Bush family already owns a huge parcel in Uruguay.

Read More

Government Gone Wild

H/t Land of the Freebies, Home of the Enslaved

Read More

April Jones Battles Huntington's and Indiana's Oppression

April Jones

                Earl Key, an Indiana systems programmer, has seen his children suffer from the same disease that afflicted his late wife: Huntington's.  Huntington's affects 250,000 Americans. It reduces mobility and muscular function.  At first, it causes twitching called chorea.  At a later stage those afflicted become unable to care for themselves.   Its most famous victim was Woody Guthrie, author of "This Land is Your Land."

            April Jones, Key's stepdaughter when she was growing up, reunited with him 12 years ago.  Although Key is not her legal guardian, he has provided her financial support and regularly drives 200 miles from Illinois to Indiana to visit her.  But he was not consulted when Jones was seized against her will in 2011. Taken away from her apartment in handcuffs, she was forced into a police car and taken to a hearing in the court of Judge G. Thomas Gray in Martinsville, Indiana, forced to reside in a hospital behavioral ward, and then confined to a nursing home--all against her will.   Lumar Griggs, whom, Jones told me, she hates, was appointed her guardian and given the authority to agree to forcible administration of Haldol, powerful psychotropic medication that Jones does not want to take.  

            Jeffrey Schaler, an American University public affairs professor who has written on the rights of the disabled and mentally ill, says that he gets so many letters from citizens who have been troubled by this issue that he "finds it overwhelming."  He says:  "Adult Protective Services (APS) and Social Services generally are horrible in the way they engage in taking people away from families.  It's frightening.  I just hear the stories and people asking for help."  

            David Smith is interim legal services director of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services.  He says that in Indiana the guardianship process depends on a physician's report to the court that indicates incapacity and inability to make decisions.   Also, the court needs to determine who, in the ward's interest, should be appointed guardian.  In Jones's case, Judge Gray automatically assigned her guardianship to someone with whom he has a relationship:  Griggs.  In virtually all cases the guardian is given total authority over the person's decision making.  This is so even if the individual, like Jones, is competent.  Indiana's legal system gives Jones fewer rights than New York's mental patients.  In New York, unless they pose a danger, mental patients can refuse drugs.  In Indiana the government has assigned a guardian who dictates to Jones that she take powerful anti-psychotic medication--even though she is not psychotic--that she thinks is killing her.  

History

            In January 2011, Jones's landlord accused her of dropping cigarette ashes on her bed. It is unknown whether the landlord contacted APS.  APS's Cindy Jones filed an emergency petition with Morgan Superior Court in Martinsville.     

            Three years earlier, in 2008, Judge Gray had appointed the same guardian, Griggs, when Jones had been living in a Martinsville woman's shelter.  Subsequently, Jones moved to Illinois, and Indiana dismissed the guardianship after the Illinois courts made a determination that Jones did not need a guardian.  Jones then returned to Indiana to be closer to her family.

             According to Key, APS encouraged Jones's physician to write a report based on six-month-old information; the report recommended involuntary confinement.   Judge Gray did not allow Jones to speak at the emergency hearing; her next friend Key was not present.  The US Supreme Court has held that, in cases of involuntary treatment of a mental patient, there must be due process.  

            Jones told me that after forcing her to stay in the hospital, Griggs improperly changed the status on her forms to "voluntary."  Jones told me that she believes that the stress from these events has shortened her life. 

            Griggs, Judge Gray and Bloomington, Indiana APS have not responded to my requests for statements.

Key Petitions Federal Court

             Key petitioned the federal district court in 2011. Key's petition says that Jones has been "drugged into submission."  He accuses Griggs of manipulating the nursing home staff; although they stopped giving Jones Haldol in April, 2011, they resumed giving it to her in July 2011 because, Key alleges, Griggs encouraged it. 

            Although Jones did not fall prior to her forced residency in the Parkview nursing home, since being forced to take Haldol she has suffered many bruises and repeatedly has fallen on her head.  Key writes: "April walked into that nursing home fully cognitive, living a life not unlike anyone else's. The past 19 months have literally destroyed her."  Key sent me photos, submitted to federal court as part of his petition, of wounds and bruises that Jones has incurred under Griggs's guardianship.

             Key's petition also states that Jones so fears Griggs and the Parkview Nursing Home that she has expressed concern that they will isolate her in retaliation for the petition. 

            It also states that after issuing the decree to put Jones under Griggs's guardianship, Judge Gray stepped into the gallery and smilingly asked Griggs, “Are we keeping you filled up?”

            When I questioned Smith about the appeal process for guardianships, he told me that in Indiana appeals must be made to the same court that authorized the guardianship.  When I questioned whether there might be psychological bias on the part of a court that has already made a decision, he told me that Indiana does not recognize the possibility of bias on a court's part.

            While driving with Key, Jones said over the telephone that she did not want to stay at the Parkview Nursing Home.  She said that she dislikes Griggs, whom she called a mean, controlling person.  She began to cry when she said that she wanted to be with her "dad," Key.  

             

            On August 16, 2012 Key signed a Reply Brief for the US Court of Appeals in Muncie on Jones's behalf. He is now waiting for a reply from a three-judge panel as to the constitutionality of Jones's treatment at the hands of Adult Protective Services.  Key, who is not a lawyer and has been handling the case himself, has asked The Lincoln Eagle to make a public appeal for an attorney who can help him with the case, even if the attorney is not a member of the Indiana bar. 

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D. is political editor of The Lincoln Eagle.  Since 2008, when he first blogged about this issue, he has received several requests for assistance from victims of Adult Protective Services actions around the country. 

Read More

Connecticut's Bell Girls Support Chick-fil-A

Connecticut's Bell girls know more about the Constitution and the ideas behind it than Rahm Emmanuel, Michael Bloomberg, Thomas Menino, and Edwin Lee combined.

Read More

Ryan and Obama: Squeakers in Chief

Here's a video of Paul Ryan supporting the concept of economic stimulus.  He only opposed it when Obama did it;  he favored it when Bush did it. If Ryan and Obama are the best the US can do, the country is beyond repair. America is a nation of squeaking rats on a sinking ship led by squeakers in chief Ryan and Obama.

Read More

Letter to Rahm Emmanuel Re Chick-fil-A

PO Box 130

West Shokan, New York 12494

August 21, 2012

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel

121 N LaSalle Street
Chicago City Hall 4th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Mr. Emmanuel:

I am organizing a group of 50 to rent a bus to drive to our nearest Chick-fil-A. I had not heard of the chain before your remarks about it, for its nearest outlet is two hours from my home. The bus will leave from Kingston, New York, and many of my friends are enthusiastic about the event.

We intend to party, drink a keg of beer, read the alien-to-you Constitution of the United States, and burn your, Obama's and the Chicago Skyline's images--along with those of 1935 Berlin and Moscow. 

I had been in Chicago as an expert witness in 2005, enjoyed it, and had planned to return. Because of your remarks I will never set foot in Chicago again; it is as dead to me as Dachau, which I also visited once before: when I was a senior at Sarah Lawrence College in 1975.

You well illustrate a phenomenon that I have witnessed since my childhood in the 1960s: America is a country where the worst get to the top.  Since the early 19th century political leadership has been the nation's weak point, and you represent a new low.  

 Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Read More

Money Supply Zooms, Inflation Will Follow

Since late 2007 the money supply (M1) has zoomed up from $1.4 trillion in November 2007 to $2.3 trillion in July 2012, according to the Federal Reserve Bank.    That's an increase of 64%.  The economists who, for the past four years, have been talking about the risk of deflation must have been out of their minds.  Moreover, the monetary base, which banks use to inflate the money supply up to ten times the reserve amount (known as the reserve ratio), has increased from $825 billion in January 2008  to $2.7 trillion on August 8, 2012. That's an increase of 318%.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices have increased a mere 10.5% from December 2007 (CPI = 207.3) to July 2012 (CPI = 229.1).   The dollar's fall against relatively stable currencies, the Swiss frank and the Chinese yuan, has also been modest.  According to the Fed, the dollar has fallen from 1.12 Swiss franks on January 2, 2008 to 0.97 Swiss franks on July 8, 2012.  That's a fall of 13.4% percent.  The dollar fell a similar 12.8% against the Chinese yuan during that period.

I obtained the graph below from the Council on Foreign Relations. 

 

Part of the explanation of the low inflation rate and modest decline in the dollar is the increasing gap between foreign and US holdings of  each others' financial assets.  The imbalance is pronounced with respect to treasury bonds (graph also courtesy of the Council on Foreign Relations):




The absolute amount of borrowing has increased in step with the foreign share.  If treasuries yield 1.8% and the dollar is decreasing in value by 2.75% (12.8% / 4 years, 8 months), then China has been consistently losing money on its Treasury bonds.  Of course, by purchasing the bonds China stimulates demand for the dollar, which strengthens US demand for its manufactures.  Assuming China profits from the sale of its manufactures, it may be breaking even or better because of the treasury bond losses.  

Is this system stable?  It would seem that if the US monetary base has increased 318%, then the money supply will eventually follow--perhaps to the tune of 10 x $1.9 trillion (the increase in the monetary base) = $19 trillion, or 700% times the current money supply.   If so,  the losses that foreigners sustain from holding treasury bonds will increase, and many will sell in order to ease their pain.  The result will not be a trip to the field of dreams, but to an American citizenry facing a falling standard of living, perhaps markedly so, as inflation takes off.

Read More