Is twitter...

Is twitter...
Ready for Hillary?

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Christine O'Donnell versus the Ruling Class

I spent several weekdays the last 3 weeks in October in Sussex County, the southernmost of Delaware's 3 counties (Kent and Newcastle being the middle and northern counties).  This was not new territory for me, as Rehoboth Beach is the Hamptons/Fire Island/Provincetown equivalent for DC urbanites like me, and I have DC friends and past customers and colleagues who have moved to Rehoboth or Lewes, and DC friends and former colleagues who own property in Milton and elsewhere.  Like many from DC, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, I think about retiring there.
I did some canvassing and phone banking for O'Donnell (I am definitely a partisan), but I also listened and observed, from lunch counters in Georgetown, to coffee shops and restaurants in Milton, to libraries in Lewes, to restaurants and bars in Rehoboth.  And one thing is clear:  Chris Coons is a complete non-entity with few fans.  In the bluest of blue Democratic precincts, Rehoboth Beach's bar the "Blue Moon," people think he will win and worry that O'Donnell (whose gay sister supports her campaign) is too "rightwing" and too unpredictable.  But no one has anything good to say about Chris Coons himself.

In one debate O'Donnell (who has beaten Coons in every debate, despite being outnumbered 3 to 1 or more, as the "journalists" moderating have clearly been simply on the attack against her) did something that a few other tea party supported candidates (particularly Sharon Angle) have done this year:  she made it explicit that her opponent is a profiteer off statism, that Chris Coon's family enterprise makes money off expanded government spending and regulation, in particular off the "Cap 'n' Tax" schemes to destroy jobs and industries that require fossil fuels.

When slimed as an October surprise on a web site with a possibly fictional kiss and tell story about a Halloween some years ago, that was bought and paid for and released a week before the election, O'Donnell appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show and said that this Halloween she would go out as a "citizen-politician."  And laughed.  This woman has balls of brass.  Whenever she gets to DC, whether it be now or when she defeats Coons next time around, she will eat Obama alive.
And the "class" issue is obvious to anyone with eyes who is actually in Delaware.  Only in rich areas favored by lawyers, lobbyists and others who make money off political connections, do Coons yard signs outnumber O'Donnell ones.  So in rural towns like Greenwood or Ellendale, and in rural areas between towns, O'Donnell signs far outnumber Coons's.  In Rehoboth Beach, where for example lobbyist Jack Abramoff's bought what had been a bed and breakfast and turned it into a satellite office, Coons' signs dominate.

Compare the average incomes of the towns where Coons and O'Donnell yard signs are more common.  (This was hard to do because up until about 10 days ago there was an extensive campaign by Coons supporters, if not the Coons campaign itself, to steal O'Donnell yard signs, including from the side yard on Chestnut Street at the house I was staying at in Milton.  Some of the perps were identified and apprehended, and claimed they were stealing signs so they could put them in their own yards.)  Greenwood has a median household income of $43,000 and Ellendale $44,000.  The state average for Delaware is $57,000, while Rehoboth Beach (even though full of retirees, singles, and imported eastern European lifeguard and retail labor) has a median household income of $62,000.  Upper middle class people for Coons!  (All data from:

If we look at who actually has yard signs in front of their houses, we see that Coons signs begin to outnumber O'Donnell signs by a factor of 4 to 1 or more as you get 2 blocks from the beach, where a new McMansion can easily be $3 million.  On one block of Rodney street alone, two blocks of the beach, four expensive looking, renovated houses have Coons signs.  The one O'Donnell sign is before a modest home that belongs to widow.  And who else lives there and has a Coons sign in their yard?

Well, the political class for one.  At 125 Stockley, 2 blocks from the Delaware Bay, Rehoboth Beach commissioner Paul Kuhns has a Coons sign.  At 41 Sussex, 3 blocks from the beach, Rehoboth Beach commissioner Patricia Coluzzi also has Coons signs.  Ms. Coluzzi is well known for her letters to the editor this electoral cycle supporting candidates who will ensure that no energy exploration ever takes place in Delaware or its bay.  Which is no doubt helpful in protecting the value of a $1, 2, or 3 million Rehoboth manse.  But doesn't do much to employ someone in Greenwood or Ellendale whose median household income is 2/3 that of the Rehoboth average.

And the political class of Delaware, is in line for some dough if the Obama regime gets to keep raising taxes and spending for its slush funds.  Last year Rehoboth Beach got $140 million of Obama stimulus to spend to "redo" its boardwalk, 10 times the annual city budget of $14 million. Even in towns where city commissioners and mayors are only paid small stipends, having a say in funneling that kind of money is something we know the political class will fight tooth and nail for.

What We Saw at the Stewart-Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity

Jon Stewart's rally -- I see White People!

Overwhelmingly white, designer-label dressed, and metrosexual. Asians far outnumbered African Americans, and Latinos and working class people were totally absent. Yale and Princeton sweatshirts outnumbered University of Maryland garb. Afterwards by 1:30 pm it was standing room only and long waiting lines in the expensive restaurants of Penn Quarter. Then Stewart's fans got back on Amtrak and the Chinatown bus (which was almost all white for the first time ever) to return to the West Village and Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights.

The "liberal" ralliers were admonished from the stage not to leave trash like the people at the One Nation rally and the Obama inaugural.  I didn't stay to see how well they did with that but as you can see, they had no problem sitting on the art in the Sculpture Garden.

Why Obama Is Worried About Illinois W. Virgina and Delaware Senate races.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

They Don't Like Black People -- Juan Williams/NPR Edition

I update this list of major "progressives," or as I call them, pro-regressives, who can live anywhere they want who almost always choose to live in all white neighborhoods, and only on rare occasion choose to live in a gentrifying neighborhoods where upper middle class, mainly white, bureaucrats and politicos are displacing black people.

Like MSNBC, National Public Radio is also almost all white hosted, with at most one black female host with an afternoon, non-drive time show, with a very small audience.  Now NPR fires its one black male commentator.  The two NPR executives involved, Vivian Schiller and Ellen Weiss, also fit the mold:  both live in lily white zip codes of a majority black city.  Schiller lives in Bethesda's 20817, which is 3.01% black.  Weiss and famous leftist rabbi husband David Saperstein live in Chevy Chase DC 20015 which is around 9% African American (in a city that is 55% African American).

From MSNBC to the Washington Post to the Democratic Party, the flaks and cogs of the Obama regime all choose to live in lily white neighborhoods.  Even the few people of color among them.

I guess running the modern day slave trade, where you sell black kids to the educrat unions for Democratic Party campaign contributions, makes you feel too guilty to face your victims!  (See: "Waiting for Superman.")

Paul Begala (Democratic strategist, Clinton advisor, CNN chatterer, Freddie Mac lobbyist)
1.8% African American
1581 Highland Glen Place
McLean, VA 22101

David Brock (Media Matters for America)
0.53% African American
2310 California Street
Washington, D.C. 20008


73 Park Avenue
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware 19971
Rehoboth is actually almost 6% African American, though as everyone who spends the summer there knows, the African Americans who live there are heavily segregated in areas farther from the beach, in homes worth less than $200,000, while whites like Brock live near the beach in properties averaging $450,000 that can easily be worth several million.

The founder of the smear and distraction group Tedium Tatters has two homes, one owned with his restraunter/interior designer partner James Alefantis.  Both his Embassy Row home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood and his vacation home in the gay DC colony in Rehoboth Beach are as free of black people (save the help) as they can be.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (Obama regime flak)
0.53% African American
3067 Whitehaven Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20008

Anita Dunn (Obama White House)
3.2% African American
4413 Stanford Street
Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Karen Finney (Democratic National Committee)
2020 12th Street NW #717
Washington DC 20009
Ms. Finney's zip code, 20009, is plurality white in a black majority city, but her neighborhood, Dupont Circle, within that zip code is overwhelmingly majority white (  Her building, 2020 Lofts, are infamous for having been initially purchased largely by speculators (  Her loft and many surrounding lofts of the new "U" were built by displacing lower income black homeowners.  I suspect she thinks she is living an urban, integrated life (she blogs often about her bi-racial family).  But like the other Democrats and Obama regime flaks she does not live in a historically black neighborhood like LeDroit Park or Crestwood or a working class black neighborhood like Anacostia or Riggs Park.

David Ignatius (The Washington Post)
0.53% African American
3400 Ordway Street NW
Washington, DC 20008

Rachel Maddow (all-white hosted MSNBC)
2.7% African American
130 Jane Street (West Village)
New York, NY 10014

Chris Matthews (all-white hosted MSNBC)
3.2% African American
9 East Kirke Circle
Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Andrea Mitchell (all-white hosted MSNBC)
0.6% African American
2710 Chain Bridge Road
Washington, DC 20016

Nancy Pelosi
4% African American
3030 K Street NW #214
Washington DC 20007

Anthony Podesta
0.53% African American
2438 Belmont Road NW
Washington DC 20008
Podesta funds Tedium Tatters, ThinkRegress and other websites that regularly libel the tea party movement as racist.

Harry Reid
6.8% African American
1155 23rd Street NW N2E
Washington DC 20037
Reid's neighborhood  has about half as many African Americans as the national average.  But since it is in a majority black city, it is viewed by local black residents as an all white neighborhood.  It has a slightly higher percentage of African Americans than those of the other Democrats because it has a transient black residents who are students at George Washington University.

Eugene Robinson (The Washington Post)
2.5% African American (i.e., his own family)
5302 18th Street North
Arlington, VA 22205

Vivian Schiller (NPR)
3% African American
BETHESDA,  MD  20817-4668

Ellen Weiss & Rabbi David Saperstein (NPR)
9% African American
5351 29th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20015

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Coons chickens out of all future debates: toe tapping in Delaware

2010's mid-term elections have seen a number of female challengers to male incumbents observe that these male politicos are remarkably sniveling, whiny, worm-tongued and unmanly.  And indeed many male politicians are:  Congressman Anthony Weiner is one part Barney Fife, one part Eddie Haskell and two parts weasel and Senator Harry Reid is one part Wally Cox and one part dessicated cadaver.

And then there's Delaware Senatorial candidate Chris Coons.  That voice.  One part Wally Cox and one part Dana Carvey's Lyle the effeminate heterosexual.  That voice sets off my gaydar even as his bald blandness, mental conventionality and ethical cravenness make him physically and personally repellent.

The poor little career bureaucrat whined at his debate against challenger Christine O'Donnell at Widener Law School for the moderators to protect him.  He was so ignorant that even when O'Donnell questioned him about whether the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution he kept insisting it is in the First Amendment.  (It isn't, and some of the so-called "liberal" media covering it are so dumb that they didn't realize that either. Though the absence of that phrase is a common trope in tea party, Constitutionalist and conservative discussions.)  Nor could Coons, a law school graduate, name the 5 freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment (speech, press, assembly, religion, and petition of grievances).

Like the C-Span debate, which O'Donnell won even though it was 3 against one (Coons, Wolf Blitzer, and an ignorant and smug female journalist who no one had ever heard of before and no one will ever hear of again, brought in just for her anatomy), O'Donnell remained composed and in control.  This debate was more like 5 against one, with questions being submitted by local journalists from the "Newcastle Pennysaver" and the "Sussex County Shopper," on such extremely relevant topics as whether Congress should have to declare war against Mexican pirates and drug lords in order for federal agents to apprehend them, and whether the tea party's platform is mainly to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments (this latter issue being a complete fabrication or delusion on the part of the PennySaver journalist -- no significant discussion of such occurs in the tea party movement, which is all about reducing taxes, spending, debt, and federal and executive power).  Apparently in the offices of the "Dover Gazette and Fish-wrapper" the fact that the exploding deficits and centrally planned interest rates jiggered by the Federal Reserve System and the federal government to finance their expansion of power are leading to a great depression and perpetual debt slavery for Americans and their children and grandchildren is not an issue.  In other words, like Coons, they are too dumb or craven to grasp our plight.  They still think if you inflate or tax or borrow a dollar out of the economy to fund porkulus, you will not destroy the jobs that dollar had been supporting.  That is, they are the people who got us into the situation we are in.  (Newcastle County, over which Coons presided raising taxes and spending, will go bankrupt in 4 years.  It has a budget surplus when Coons was elected.)

Back to Loony Coons.  He has dropped in the polls after every debate with O'Donnell, he has asked Obama to come campaign for him, and there seems to be an organized campaign among his supporters to steal O'Donnell yard signs.  He is refusing to go to any more debates, claiming that debates already scheduled at Delaware colleges do not fit his schedule and that taxpayer groups that have invited the candidates to debate are "special interest groups."  (O'Donnell appeared before mainly "liberal" and Democratic groups when invited, like the Jewish Community Center and the Unitarian Church.)

It's not just that he is dumb, a bot programmed long ago by some Marxist professor, unable to fathom how our predicament and the looming disaster was caused by the government intervention he wants more of.  (Coons has complained that Delaware is a refuge for "old people taking advantage of its low tax rates" as New Jerseyans and others leave high tax states as soon as they retire and can escape.)   It's not just that he is in fact a profiteer off the government he wants to expand, both as a career politician and as an Al Gore style war profiteer in the Green war on industrial civilization and prosperity.  He is also unmanly, unlikely to have the cojones to face down the establishment, the Obama regime, or the crises headed for us.  He is indeed, as Harry Reid said, Harry Reid's pet and indeed his lap dog.  And a fixed one at that.

O'Donnell debate

Debate in the race between Loony Coons and Christine O’Donnell for U.S. Senate.
WHO:Presented by 1150 AM WDEL.
WHERE: Ruby R. Vale Moot Courtroom, Widener Law, 4601 Concord Pike, Wilmington. The courtroom is just inside the main law building front entrance. Tuesday, Oct. 19, 8 to 9:30 a.m. and be broadcast live on 1150AM 
and at

Monday, October 18, 2010

Jack Conway is right: we are all Satanists now!

I was afraid that Kentucky Demwit Senatorial candidate Jack Conway would push it and discover that we are ALL Illumaniti witches descended from a Bilderberger project to hybridize humans, reptilians, and Greys.

Thank Hecuba my spells stopped him from seeing the whole truth.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Atlas Runs

TIA Daily • October 12, 2010
An Interview with Stephen Bailey
by Robert Tracinski

Editor's Note: There are a number of people who are running for Congress, and a few who are already in Congress, who are fans of Atlas Shrugged and are influenced by Ayn Rand's ideas. I've already described them as a potential Atlas Shrugged Caucus. But the first and so far the only fully fledged Objectivist to run for Congress is Stephen Bailey, who is running as a Republican in Colorado's second district. See his campaign website,, which bears the wonderful tagline: "Liberty Is Prosperity." Now there's a campaign slogan!I recently asked Mr. Bailey some questions about his candidacy, about what he intends to do in Congress, and about the challenges of running for office as an Objectivist. I also asked about his chances, and he gave me the numbers I was hoping to see: the incumbent is below 50% in the latest internal polls, and voters are split evenly on the generic ballot question. That means Bailey has a real chance to take a "safe" seat that has been held by a Democrat for the past 40 years—particularly if this turns out to be as bad a year for the Democrats as I am expecting.
This race is going into its final weeks, and every little bit counts, so please make sure to scroll to the bottom of this article and see what you can do to help Bailey win.—RWT
TIA Daily: What motivated you to run for Congress?
Stephen Bailey: I've always been interested in politics as an armchair observer and commentator. However, the decision to run began in late 2008 when the TARP bailout legislation was first brought to a vote. I was on a business trip in Europe and celebrated when the bill was defeated. When Congress and President Bush signed the TARP bailout two weeks later, against the wishes of the American public, it initiated the chain of events that led to the creation of the Tea Party movement and my resolve to not allow my country, my freedom, and my family's freedom to be destroyed. That resolve accelerated over the next year as President Obama and the Democrats rammed one tyrannical bill after another down our throats, engorging themselves and their political cronies in an orgy of spending that is bankrupting America.
TIA Daily: As an Objectivist, you are radically pro-capitalist in your views—more radical than most of the voters who would be your constituents. How do you deal with that problem? How do you find common ground to campaign on, without compromising your principles?
Bailey: While campaigning, I primarily stick to general principles. I realize that the rest of the country may not be ready or willing to move as quickly as I would like towards the objective of fully restoring our freedoms and constitutionally limited government. However, I also know that the majority of people 
are ready to move in that direction.
One of the worst acts that this Congress and the prior Congress committed is forcing through legislation that the country did not want. It started with the TARP bailouts in the previous Congress and continued through with just about everything the current Congress has done. In a conflict between individual rights and the majority opinion, given where we are today, I will work to move us ever closer to the full protection of our rights but at a pace that the country can reasonably adapt. However, I will not support any attempts to further restrict or infringe our rights. If the country is not ready to take a step, then it is a sign that further education is required. The failure will be mine, and those who are like-minded, not the country's, if we fail to convince a majority of the veracity of our individual-rights and free-market ideology.
TIA Daily: If a new Republican-led Congress convenes in January, what do you think should be its top priorities?
Bailey: It is obvious that the economy and jobs are the top issues. Those are to be addressed by relieving the economy of the extreme regulatory, tax, and litigation burdens our government has placed on it. Providing that relief will mean cutting government, which will bring spending in alignment with tax revenues.
For me, corruption is a co-equal number one priority. We did not arrive at this sorry state by accident. The procedures of Congress have been structured to enable corruption. Junk legislation is added directly or as amendments to "must pass" legislation. To check corruption, legislation must be limited to a single subject, constitutional authority [must be] cited, and [it must be] limited in size and scope. Earmarks may be a tiny percentage of overall spending, but they enable corruption. Earmarks must be banned. The reconciliation process (conference committees) must be discarded. One chamber of Congress initiates legislation (by the Constitution, the House must originate all revenue raising bills) and rejects it or approves, sending it to the other chamber. The receiving chamber rejects it and it dies, approves it unmodified and sends it to the president, or approves with amendments. In the latter case, it is remanded back to the originating chamber to consider the amendments. It is forwarded to the president only if all amendments are approved.
Vote buying must be made illegal and the best way to do that is to ensure all legislation applies equally to every American. Technically, this would be an aspect of the process of validating the constitutionality of the bill, as the Constitution guarantees equal protection of all of our rights.
If these reforms are not enacted, Republicans will not earn the trust of Americans and any gains made over the next few years will be temporary.
TIA Daily: A Republican Congress is likely to face opposition from a president who has proved not to be willing to tack to the right, as Bill Clinton did, in response to the prevailing political winds. What do you think you can accomplish in the face of presidential opposition?
Bailey: We can balance the budget. The president cannot authorize any expenditure without enabling legislation from Congress. Congress can approve appropriations that bring the budget into balance and fund only government operations and services that Congress chooses to fund.
Sure, President Obama can veto appropriations legislation for not funding things he wants funded. But, Congress can hold strong and refuse to give. When your objective is to balance the budget, the longer the government goes without spending money, the easier it is to achieve your objective.
Also, the Constitution gives each chamber of Congress full control over their operations. The anti-corruption reforms to Congress's procedures can and should be enacted without any input or approval from the president.
Finally, Congress has oversight responsibilities. Congress can hold hearings to investigate everything that the executive branch is doing and has done, to hold the president accountable between January 1, 2011 and January 20, 2013.
TIA Daily: We can't have smaller government without tackling the long-term, inexorable growth of the big middle-class entitlements: Social Security and Medicare. What do you propose to do with these programs over the long term, and do you think the American people would be willing to embrace this solution?
Bailey: I believe the American people will be willing to embrace reforms to the "sacred" entitlement programs under one condition. First, we must cut spending in all other areas except for the entitlements and the constitutional functions of the federal government—national defense, the judiciary, etc. Even in these constitutionally authorized areas, budget cuts must be considered as appropriate while fulfilling the responsibility of protecting individual rights.
After everything that can be cut is cut, and we sell off surplus assets to pay down the debt and reduce the annual debt service costs, then the American people will acknowledge and accept that reform of these entitlements cannot be avoided.
Poverty-related programs, if they are to survive, must be transitioned to the states. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to run these programs. Transitioning them to the states will eliminate the federal level of bureaucracy overhead while placing the programs within local control and accountability. Since state and local governments cannot print money or borrow unlimited amounts, fiscal discipline will be exercised as voters directly recognize the costs of these programs.
The retirement programs—Social Security and Medicare—must be transitioned to personal responsibility. If a safety net remains for impoverished seniors, it will be the same poverty programs available at the state and local levels. These programs must be transitioned over a long period of time as current and near retirees do not have the ability to become independent and save sufficient funds for their retirement. Measures such as increasing the retirement age and means-testing can be considered to increase near-term solvency. However, as we move to younger adults with increasingly greater periods of time in which they can save for their retirement, we can transition that responsibility from the government to the individual. This transition will benefit the individuals, as they will have a property right in their retirement. Today, their retirement security is subject to the political whim and plundering of the Treasury by politicians.
The free market insurance industry will step in to offer products such as level, term health insurance to provide predictability for retirees' long-term health insurance costs, disability insurance in case of debilitating injury or illness, and even birth defect or child-age discovered medical condition insurance.
TIA Daily: What is the most important thing you think you could do, as a congressman, to have a positive impact on US foreign policy, particularly with regard to the war in Afghanistan and the threat from Iran?
Bailey: Require Congress to have a vote declaring war on Islamic terrorism. This would force the President to justify the war, clearly identify the enemy and victory as well as the means by which victory is to be achieved. If Congress declares war, then we will have finally provided our service members with the complete and unambiguous moral sanction that they have been deprived. And we will finally have a clear objective, clear enemy, and a clear means for achieving the objective.
In addition, Congress can hold hearings to assist in the battlefield of ideas as well as influencing the president's plans.
TIA Daily: As an Objectivist, how do you deal with the issue of religion, which puts you at odds with parts of the Republican "base"?
Bailey: I don't bring up religion because I am running for Congress, not to be their minister or deacon. A few have asked. I address the question as a more general question on morality. I respond by stating that I seek to live my life by the highest moral standards. I value honesty and integrity. When people hear me speak, they can see my sincerity. They also know that I'm a protector of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. That makes me an ally, and not at odds with them. As their representative, it is my responsibility to protect their rights, not to tell them how to live.
TIA Daily: My sense is that there are a large number of more radical, principled pro-free-marketers running for office this year under the banner of the Republican Party. There were a lot of them in the primaries, and a good number of those made it through to win the Republican nomination. What do you think are the chances of reforming the Republican Party, and how do you think it should be done?
Bailey: I believe that if either of the parties is open to being reformed, it is the Republican Party. The Democrat Party is clearly under the full control of committed statists—socialists and communists. It will become increasingly difficult for moderate Democrats at the grass-roots level to stay with the party as the politicians under the Democrat umbrella exercise increasing levels of deceit and worse. The Republican Party is composed of very principled people that respect honesty and integrity. The grassroots level has been very committed to these principles as well as being fiscally conservative.
Internally, the Republican Party has had a long-standing split between the social libertarians and the social conservatives. Therefore, I believe it is possible to reform the Republican Party to be the party of a single over-riding principle: the non-initiation of the use of force and the guardians of individual rights.
TIA Daily: There are probably a lot of other Objectivists—hopefully some readers of TIA Daily among them—who are watching your campaign and thinking: if Stephen Bailey can do it, maybe I can, too. Do you think it's time for Objectivists to start running for office, and what advice would you give to anyone who is interested?
Bailey: My objective was not to be the first Objectivist to run for office. My objective is to fight for our freedoms and constitutionally limited government dedicated to the protection of our rights. I've been asked if it is still too early. I don't know if it is too early. What I know is that it will soon be too late, at least in my lifetime, for an Objectivist to run if we don't change the direction of our country.
Objectivists need to continue with their educational and cultural efforts. However, we also need to become directly involved. It is difficult to compromise but not impossible. The status quo is what it is. Any movement towards the ideal society we seek is an improvement. It took nearly 250 years to go from the Declaration of Independence to the status quo. It took about 100 years to go from John Locke's treatise on government to the US Constitution. We need to be in this for the long run. That means education 
and participation in the day-to-day governing of our country and communities.
It is also worthwhile to remember Plato: one of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors.
Some advice for any Objectivist that is considering running for political office:
Politics is different from education and advocacy. You must understand the difference. As a politician, anything you say can and will be interpreted as a political or legislative initiative you are promoting. Politics is not ethics. In politics we are concerned about the protection of rights. Any venture into how people should be living their lives will be interpreted as you advocating for the government to enforce people to live their lives in that manner. It is impossible to stay completely away from ethics. But when you venture there, the burden is on you to ensure that the audience understands that this is your personal perspective and recommendation and not that you believe the government should be enforcing it.
TIA Daily: You are running against a wealthy Democratic incumbent, and I can't help noticing that Colorado's second district includes Boulder. It's been a long time since I've visited Boulder, but my impression is that it's not exactly a right-wing hotbed. So how is the campaign going? What is your strategy, and how do you view your chances?
Bailey: The campaign is going well. Our strategy was born of necessity and circumstance. The seat is considered a safe seat for Democrats because Boulder County accounts for about 36% of the typical turnout. We knew that fundraising would be a tremendous challenge. That left us with running a grassroots campaign. There are a tremendous number of motivated people this year and they have been helping with the campaign—walking, calling, and spending time at town and county fairs. On the other hand, many Democrats, especially in Boulder County, appear dismayed at the consequences of achieving their objective in electing progressive Democrats. It is unclear how they will vote. Most working class Democrats are not happy with the direction of the country. They know more about economics than Obama or anyone on his economic team!
Given the circumstances, we are doing very well. Our latest poll (a few weeks old) shows the generic ballot test as a tie—within the margin of error. (A generic ballot test asks if you would vote for the Democrat or Republican if that is all you knew about the candidates.) Nearly 60% of the district believes the country is on the wrong track. In the head-to-head matchup, the incumbent is polling under 50%. These numbers are really unprecedented for this district. Our challenge has been to increase name identification, hold the incumbent accountable for voting for this mess, and to get our message out.
We have done everything we can with the resources we have available. Mail ballots will be hitting mailboxes tomorrow. Victory on November 2 will depend on turnout and the overall anger and disgust level in the district. This will be a big year for Republicans. It could be big enough to carry this district along with my message. The Club for Growth is tracking the district in their 150 Democrat seats at risk.
TIA Daily: If TIA Daily's readers want to help your campaign, in these crucial closing weeks, what can they do?
Bailey: If you know anyone in the district, call them and promote my candidacy to them, and ask them to spread the word to everyone they know.
Contact Cloud Downey at to make calls on behalf of the campaign.
If you know people in the media, tell them about the campaign and ask them to interview me and promote the campaign. We have plenty of information on the incumbent as well.
Contribute! Although the time is short, we can still influence late-deciding voters.
TIA Daily: Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Good luck—and I hope to see you in Washington in January. 

Saturday, October 9, 2010

President Obama Implores Supporters, "Don't Make Me Look Bad" in Midterm...

Class Analysis

Say the words “class analysis” or “class conflict” and most people will think of Karl Marx. The idea that there are irreconcilable classes, their conflict inherent in the nature of things, is one of the signatures of Marxism. That being the case, people who want nothing to do with Marxism quite naturally want nothing to do with class analysis.

So it ought to be of interest to learn that Marx did not originate class analysis or the idea of class conflict. These things have their roots in radical liberalism, or libertarianism, predating Marx’s writings. Indeed, Marx himself paid homage to the originators, a group of historians in post–Napoleonic France who have been neglected by all but a handful of modern-day libertarians. (In this article I draw on four of those libertarians, the historians Ralph Raico, Leonard Liggio, and David M. Hart, and economist-historian Walter E. Grinder.)
The names of the key 19th-century French historians are Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, and Augustin Thierry, whose publication, Le Censeur européen, was a hotbed of radical liberal thought. As related by Raico, Grinder, and Hart, Comte and Dunoyer were influenced by the important, but underappreciated, French liberal economist J.B. Say, whom Murray Rothbard lauded as brilliantly innovative, the superior of Adam Smith. (Comte eventually married Say’s daughter.) Indeed, the seeds of a radical liberal class theory were to be found in the second and subsequent editions of Say’s Treatise on Political Economy (first published in 1803), which reflected his response to Napoleon’s military spending and economic manipulation.
As Say wrote in another of his works,
The huge rewards and the advantages which are generally attached to public employment greatly excite ambition and cupidity. They create a violent struggle between those who possess positions and those who want them.
According to Hart, Comte and Dunoyer were struck by Say’s view that services provided in the marketplace are productive — that is, useful — “immaterial goods” and that the entrepreneur, like the laborer, is a producer. Hart writes,
A consequence of Say’s view is that there were many productive contributors to the new industrialism, including factory owners, entrepreneurs, engineers and other technologists as well as those in the knowledge industry such as teachers, scientists and other “savants” or intellectuals.
This is important to the issue of class, the purpose of which is to identify the exploiters and exploited. As everyone knows, Marx, at least in some of his writings, thought only workers were industrious, with owners of capital belonging to the exploiting class (with the state as its “executive committee”). He placed owners of capital among the exploiters because of his labor theory of value (inherited from Adam Smith and David Ricardo): since the value of goods was equivalent to the socially necessary labor required to produce them, the profit and interest collected by “capitalists” must be extracted from workers’ just rewards — hence their exploitation. If the labor theory of value fails and if exchange is fully voluntary, void of state privilege, then no exploitation occurs. (Marx’s exploitation theory was later systematically refuted by the Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk.)

Thus it is crucial to see that the thinkers from whom Marx apparently learned about class analysis put in the productive class all who create utility through voluntary exchange. The “capitalist” (meaning in this context the owner of capital goods who is unconnected to the state) belongs in the industrious class along with workers.
Who were the exploiters? All who lived forcibly off of the industrious classes. “The conclusions drawn from this by Comte and Dunoyer (and Thierry) is that there existed an expanded class of ‘industrials’ (which included manual labourers and the above mentioned entrepreneurs and savants) who struggled against others who wished to hinder their activity or live unproductively off it,” Hart writes.
The theorists of industrialism concluded from their theory of production that it was the state and the privileged classes allied to or making up the state, rather than all non-agricultural activity, which were essentially nonproductive. They also believed that throughout history there had been conflict between these two antagonistic classes which could only be brought to end with the radical separation of peaceful and productive civil society from the inefficiencies and privileges of the state and its favourites.
Thus political and economic history is the record of conflict between producers, no matter their station, and the parasitic political classes, both inside and outside the formal state. Or to use terms of a later subscriber to this view, John Bright, it was a clash between the tax-payers and tax-eaters.

Political economy and liberty
Hart stresses that Comte and Dunoyer’s work took Say’s analysis up a notch. Where Say regarded economics and politics as separate disciplines, with the latter having little effect on the former, the liberal class analysts saw that Say’s own work had more radical implications. “The science of political economy was ‘value laden’ as we might say and implied quite specific policies on property, government intervention in the economy and individual liberty, something Say did not appreciate but which Dunoyer and Comte incorporated into their work,” Hart writes.
As both Hart and Raico point out, Comte and Dunoyer also absorbed much from another great liberal, Benjamin Constant, who had penned important essays showing that an “era of commerce” had replaced the “era of war” and that the modern notion of liberty — the private life — was poles apart from the ancient notion of liberty — participation in politics. As Hart puts it,
Dunoyer was interested in the sentence “[t]he unique end of modern nations is peace (repos), and with peace comes comfort (aisance), and the source of comfort is industry,” which nicely summed up his own thoughts on the true aim of social organisation.
Raico has also pointed out that liberal class analysis is to be found in the writings of the Manchesterite peace and free-trade activists Richard Cobden and John Bright and of Herbert Spencer. He quotes Bright on the fight against the Corn Laws (grain import tariffs):
I doubt that it can have any other character [than that of] ... a war of classes. I believe this to be a movement of the commercial and industrial classes against the Lords and the great proprietors of the soil.
Indeed, Raico emphasizes, the Manchester School understood that war and other political intrigue were motivated by the political class’s quest for unearned wealth. Such ideas were also present among other liberal thinkers, including Thomas Paine, John Taylor of Caroline, John C. Calhoun, Albert Jay Nock, and Ludwig von Mises.

Class warfare and statism
What is the upshot of this admittedly truncated overview? The government’s coercive taxing power necessarily creates two classes: those who create and those who consume the wealth expropriated and transferred by that power. Those who create the wealth naturally want to keep it and devote it to their own purposes. Those who wish to expropriate it look for ever more-clever ways to acquire it without inciting resistance. One of those ways is the spreading of an elaborate ideology of statism, which teaches that the people are the state and that therefore they are only paying themselves when they pay taxes.
The state’s officers and the court intellectuals at universities and the news media go to great lengths to have people believe this fantastic story, including the setting up of schools. Alas, most people come to believe it. The role of war is to scare people into paying taxes for their own alleged protection and to keep the wealth flowing to the exploiters with a minimum of grousing.

What can libertarians do about it? First, they must themselves understand liberal class theory. They must not shy away from it because it was hijacked by the Marxists. Second, they should use whatever influence they have to raise the class-consciousness of all honest, productive people. That is, the industrious must be shown that they are daily victims of the ruling political class.

For further reading

Hart, David M., and Walter E. Grinder. “The Basic Tenets of Real Liberalism. Part IV Continued: Interventionism, Social Conflict and War.” Humane Studies Review 3, no. 1 (1986):1–7.

Liggio, Leonard P. “Charles Dunoyer and French Classical Liberalism.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1, no. 3 (1977): 153–78.

Raico, Ralph. “Classical Liberal Exploitation Theory: A Comment on Professor Liggio’s Paper.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1, no. 3 (1977): 179–83.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor ofThe Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” 

This should happen every time the Bitch in Chief dares to show his ugly flop-eared mug in public - Man Heckles Obama In Maryland: "You're A Liar"

RealClearPolitics - Video - Man Heckles Obama In Maryland: "You're A Liar"

Good work brave guy!

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Barney Frank in 2005 What Housing Bubble

Obama afraid of more questions from real voters, has casting call for Potemkin Village townhall

PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, DC   PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, DC MTV, BET, and CMT (prods.) are casting the audience for a town hall meeting with President Obama. Shooting Oct. 14 at 4 p.m. in Washington, DC. Seeking—Audience Members: males and females, 18+. To apply, email and put "Town Hall" in the subject line. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are ...[more]