Political Class Dismissed

Sprawl is Buffalo’s biggest problem.

In other words, personal liberty caused 50 years of decline.

These leftists are F’in insane!

Wild & Crazy New York Governor’s race gets even more Insane

Paladino, Lazio, Redlich & Davis

From Eric Dondero:

As if the race for New York Governor couldn’t get any crazier. Now word comes that a 4th candidate on the Right is read to jump in, and on yet another third-party ticket. And he, like the others, claims some allegiance to the GOP.

Meet Carl Paladino, a multi-millionaire businessman from Buffalo. He’s a veteran of the Tea Party movement.

From the Daily Caller, March 2:

From the nascent Tea Party movement comes a potential champion. New York Tea Party leaders are urging Buffalo millionaire businessman Carl Paladino to enter the Republican gubernatorial primary and also petition a Tea Party Party onto the ballot. New York has a unique system where candidates can accept multiple party endorsements and win the cumulative number of votes cast for them on Election Day regardless of which party ballot position they won the votes.

Paladino, who is both a developer and lawyer, has a reputation for outspokenness and candor in the Buffalo business community… Paladino is like the character in the movie “Network,” who shouts “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” Brash, articulate and opinionated, Paladino is the kind of outsider who could bring the Republican Party back in the Empire State.

More

Carl Paladino, soon to be known by the Modonnaesque appellation, Carl, will be speaking at Knox Farm today at 2pm.

I have said for years that Richard Nixon was a liberal. Here’s the proof.

In the debates, Kennedy proudly proclaims liberalism and then Nixon says, “Me too.”

Great stuff, just the first 15 minutes is enough to get the point.

Save the date.

This will be revolutionary. While the established parties will choose candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled room, the tea party movement will choose its candidates at an open convention.

You won’t want to miss this.

Location to be announced.

The Constitution Does Not Protect Our Property
by Tom Mullen

The U.S. Constitution is widely believed to have been written to limit the powers of the federal government and protect the rights of its citizens. Inexplicably, this belief is held even by those who acknowledge that the constitutional convention was called for the express purpose of expanding the powers of the federal government, supposedly because the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak. That this was the purpose of the convention is not a disputed fact. Nevertheless, most people who care at all about the Constitution continue to believe and promote the “Constitution as protector of rights” myth.

To the extent that the Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government, with all other powers assumed to be excluded, it does set some limits on government. When one includes the first ten amendments of the Constitution, it also protects certain rights. Indeed, the ninth amendment makes the very important point that the specific protections of certain rights does not in any way deny the existence of others, while the tenth amendment makes explicit the implied limitation to enumerated powers in the Constitution itself. At first glance, the so-called “Bill of Rights” seems to confine government power within an airtight bottle, rendering it incapable of becoming a violator of rights instead of protector of them.

However, this theory does not hold up well under closer examination. To begin with, the Constitution itself does not protect a single right other than habeas corpus, and that comes with a built-in exception. What the Constitution does do is grant powers, and not just to a representative body, as the Articles of Confederation did, but to three separate branches. That leaves it up to the Bill of Rights to serve the purpose of protecting our rights. Generally, those ten amendments protect our rights under extraordinary circumstances, but not under ordinary circumstances. More specifically, the Bill of Rights provides protections for the individual during situations of direct conflict with the federal government, such as when one is accused or convicted of a crime, when one is sued, on the occasion of troops being stationed in residential areas, or when one speaks out against the government or petitions it for redress of grievances.

More

With zero ad spending and zero PR spending, and with a local and national media blackout, somehow my explosive little book has continued to sell.

Rumor has it that police busted up a pot-smoking class at a local suburban government school this week.

That’s chapter three in my book: your local gov. hs “is the best drug store in town.”

Kindle

Our Own Greek Tragedy

by Mark Steyn

While President Obama was making his latest pitch for a brand new, even more unsustainable entitlement at the health care “summit,” thousands of Greeks took to the streets to riot. An enterprising cable network might have shown the two scenes on a continuous split screen - because they’re part of the same story. It’s just that Greece is a little further along in the plot: They’re at the point where the canoe is about to plunge over the falls. America is further upstream and can still pull for shore, but has decided instead that what it needs to do is catch up with the Greek canoe. Chapter One (the introduction of unsustainable entitlements) leads eventually to Chapter 20 (total societal collapse): The Greeks are at Chapter 17 or 18.

What’s happening in the developed world today isn’t so very hard to understand: The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they’ve reached the next stage in social democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1, or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: 10 grandparents have six kids have four grandkids - i.e., the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 “lowest-low” fertility - the point from which no society has ever recovered. And compared to Spain and Italy, Greece has the least worst fertility rate in Mediterranean Europe.

So you can’t borrow against the future because, in the most basic sense, you don’t have one. Greeks in the public sector retire at 58, which sounds great. But, when 10 grandparents have four grandchildren, who pays for you to spend the last third of your adult life loafing around?

More

March 4, 2010

PRESS RELEASE

From: Carl P. Paladino
To: Congressman Brian Higgins

Brian, you have a dilemma. Those overwhelming progressive liberal views that you suppressed in the past have now combined with an ego, arrogance and indifference that has outgrown our community and blossomed into an unacceptable conflict with the views of your moderate working class constituency.

On behalf of the working men and women of Western New York, we warn you that the tax, social and business burdens of the democrat sponsored Health Care Bill in its present form, are overwhelmingly at odds with the best interests of the people you represent. If you vote for it we will vehemently oppose your re-election. Your infatuation with Nancy Pelosi, as with Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, is off the reservation. You should consider serving the interests of those who you represent.

The constant drumbeat of Paterson’s petty alleged offenses is designed to distract the public’s attention from the much larger crimes of the Albany establishment such as making NY the least free state with higher taxes than Vietnam and China. It’s also designed to spare Prince Andrew from a primary against a black man. White liberals tend to fare badly against black candidates these days.

Baseball tickets? Wow!

PCD is a great place to come to find out about the latest political class con job.

As I argue in my last book and reiterate in my next (out next week, FINALLY?), politics is rigged but direct action works.

Yet, I cannot seem to convince many people of this obvious fact.

Debra Medina spent $500,000 from about 20,000 people for the privilege of getting killed in the Texas primary the other day. Not to mention there are probably 5000 burned out volunteers right now.

What was accomplished?

Now, imagine if these 20,000 people had pulled thier kids or grandkids out of government school. Wow!

A freakin revolution begins.

Folks, this is the year and so I am going to play the role of the skunk at the garden party.

Instead of going to rallies in DC or seminars where you can talk to other members of the “chess club,” consider adopting a tactic that might actually work. After 40 years of failing to rein in government through politics, it is time for a new strategy.

I happen to have picked up John Calhoun’s marvelous Disquisition on Government at Rust Belt Books the other day and perused it.

Proving once again that it is easier to destroy than to construct, Calhoun simply demolsihes the case for limited government in the first part of the book. His effort to make the case for government limited by concurrent majorities later in the book is not successful in my view.

Here’s a sample gem from the book:

In order to form a just estimate of the full force of these advantages — without reference to any other consideration — it must be remembered, that government — to fulfill the ends for which it is ordained, and more especially that of protection against external dangers — must, in the present condition of the world, be clothed with powers sufficient to call forth the resources of the community, and be prepared, at all times, to command them promptly in every emergency which may possibly arise. For this purpose large establishments are necessary, both civil and military (including naval, where, from situation, that description of force may be required) with all the means necessary for prompt and effective action — such as fortifications, fleets, armories, arsenals, magazines, arms of all descriptions, with well-trained forces, in sufficient numbers to wield them with skill and energy, whenever the occasion requires it. The administration and management of a government with such vast establishments must necessarily require a host of employees, agents, and officers — of whom many must be vested with high and responsible trusts, and occupy exalted stations, accompanied with much influence and patronage. To meet the necessary expenses, large sums must be collected and disbursed; and, for this purpose, heavy taxes must be imposed, requiring a multitude of officers for their collection and disbursement. The whole united must necessarily place under the control of government an amount of honors and emoluments, sufficient to excite profoundly the ambition of the aspiring and the cupidity of the avaricious; and to lead to the formation of hostile parties, and violent party conflicts and struggles to obtain the control of the government. And what makes this evil remediless, through the right of suffrage of itself, however modified or carefully guarded, or however enlightened the people, is the fact that, as far as the honors and emoluments of the government and its fiscal action are concerned, it is impossible to equalize it. The reason is obvious. Its honors and emoluments, however great, can fall to the lot of but a few, compared to the entire number of the community, and the multitude who will seek to participate in them. But, without this, there is a reason which renders it impossible to equalize the action of the government, so far as its fiscal operation extends — which I shall next explain.

Enjoy.

A Disquisition on Government

John C. Calhoun

In order to have a clear and just conception of the nature and object of government, it is indispensable to understand correctly what that constitution or law of our nature is, in which government originates; or, to express it more fully and accurately — that law, without which government would not, and with which, it must necessarily exist. Without this, it is as impossible to lay any solid foundation for the science of government, as it would be to lay one for that of astronomy, without a like understanding of that constitution or law of the material world, according to which the several bodies composing the solar system mutually act on each other, and by which they are kept in their respective spheres. The first question, accordingly, to be considered is — What is that constitution or law of our nature, without which government would not exist, and with which its existence is necessary?

In considering this, I assume, as an incontestable fact, that man is so constituted as to be a social being. His inclinations and wants, physical and moral, irresistibly impel him to associate with his kind; and he has, accordingly, never been found, in any age or country, in any state other than the social. In no other, indeed, could he exist; and in no other — were it possible for him to exist — could he attain to a full development of his moral and intellectual faculties, or raise himself, in the scale of being, much above the level of the brute creation.

I next assume, also, as a fact not less incontestable, that, while man is so constituted as to make the social state necessary to his existence and the full development of his faculties, this state itself cannot exist without government. The assumption rests on universal experience. In no age or country has any society or community ever been found, whether enlightened or savage, without government of some description.

Having assumed these, as unquestionable phenomena of our nature, I shall, without further remark, proceed to the investigation of the primary and important question — What is that constitution of our nature, which, while it impels man to associate with his kind, renders it impossible for society to exist without government?

The answer will be found in the fact (not less incontestable than either of the others) that, while man is created for the social state, and is accordingly so formed as to feel what affects others, as well as what affects himself, he is, at the same time, so constituted as to feel more intensely what affects him directly, than what affects him indirectly though others; or, to express it differently, he is so constituted, that his direct or individual affections are stronger than his sympathetic or social feelings. I intentionally avoid the expression, selfish feelings, as applicable to the former; because, as commonly used, it implies an unusual excess of the individual over the social feelings, in the person to whom it is applied; and, consequently, something depraved and vicious. My object is, to exclude such inference, and to restrict the inquiry exclusively to facts in their bearings on the subject under consideration, viewed as mere phenomena appertaining to our nature — constituted as it is; and which are as unquestionable as is that of gravitation, or any other phenomenon of the material world.

More

“We are going to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.”

This lie used to be the staple of Republicans conning the conservative rank and file. They have been doing this for 45 years at least.

Here’s the con. Conservative Republicans say they favor smaller government but they fear that if they actually specified a route to get there, they might lose votes, and be deprived of their true goal: power. So, for many years, they have conned the masses by saying they will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, a meaningless assertion.

Now, even liberals like Obama and Pelosi have gotten in on the con.

I have a notion about all this.

The market is the sum total of all voluntary economic transactions among the 6.8 billion people on the planet.

Liberalism is the dumb idea that politicians and bureaucrats can beat the market, that is, make society better by forcing their own ideas onto others they don’t know regardless of their preferences.

But people don’t like to be pushed around so, after the politicians create all their programs, human nature not having changed one bit, many people choose to game the programs for their own self-interest, regardless of the wishes of the gun-wielding pols. Then, when the pols see that their programs are not working out as intended but are working out as the people intend, they scream “waste, fraud and abuse.” My hypothesis is that this cliché is simply a confession by the politicians that they have failed to beat market forces. Those same forces of people seeking transactions that benefit themselves continue under government programs, except without the market-imposed need to serve the interests of others.

I have a better idea than eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Let’s eliminate its cause: liberalism.

Debra Medina’s hapless campaign was put out of its misery by the voters yesterday and little did I care since she could not name a single budget cut after being asked repeatedly. It was like Jack Quinn Jr. (or Sr.) was running. Some tea party candidate! But she really killed herself by hedging on 911 Truth.

Then we have the Birthers. Guys, who gives a shit where Obama was born? You should be focused on where Progressivism/Liberalism was born (on 27 May 1861).

The Bunning episode shows we have 100 liberals in the Senate. Liberalism, an idea, is the problem, not one loony liberal named Obama.

As for 911, look, the fact that the Feds have lied about every war and foreign incident since 1861 does not mean they are lying about who did 911. I can tell you that as I walked out of the federal courthouse that morning, where I was supposed to give a summation in support of Yemeni deli owners against Buffalo cops, I already knew who did it and why. Hello! It was blowback.

If you really think 911 was an inside job, then should take up arms against the Feds right now. If you really think they blew up babies on planes, then they are mass murdering swine who must be stopped immediately.

But you really don’t believe that, do you?

The MSM is trying to portray liberal Jim Bunning as a villain because he wants increases in spending to be paid for by cuts so the debt does not rise.

He has no problem with paying able-bodied people not to work so he is, by definition, a liberal.

But for showing this modest concern for the insane federal debt, he is viciously attacked.

All you can do is laugh at the madness.

Vote here.

Since Medina hinted she might be a truther, her campaign for Texas governor has virtually disappeared. She is not even listed in the latest polls on Real Clear Politics. Yikes!

Can I just say this to ALL LIBERTY MOVEMENT CANDIDATES? If you don’t hire a good consultant, you are screwed.

Not that I’m looking for business, hah hah.

Next time you interview a consultant, ask them, if you have less experience that JO, and you are charging a lot more, why should I hire you again?