Skip to content

Month: October 2010

Only in Hackachusetts

Here in Hackachusetts, there is just so much going on in mighty hackdom, I just don’t know where to begin. First, there’s Congressman John Tierney’s wife, Patrice. According to this Boston Globe editorial,

Patrice Tierney pled guilty yesterday to four counts of aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns by her brother, Robert Eremian, who allegedly ran an illegal gambling and racketeering enterprise on the island of Antigua. Her other brother, Daniel Eremian, is also under indictment for racketeering, illegal gambling, and money laundering. Robert remains a fugitive. Patrice Tierney, according to her husband, agreed to pay Robert’s bills, including upkeep for their mother and Robert’s three children, out of a bank account into which Robert funneled at least $7 million.

According to Representative Tierney, Patrice didn’t know the money was shady, and thought she was telling the truth when she filed Robert’s income tax forms claiming the money was from “commissions.’’ But that’s not what she asserted in court: A guilty plea is an admission to having knowingly committed a crime. John Tierney’s statement said that Patrice agreed only that she should have been more inquisitive about the true nature of her brother’s income. It was, in fact, a stunning lack of curiosity, since he previously had been charged with illegal gambling in the United States.

Duh. So, this Patrice Tierney, wife of U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Neptune), is either just plain retarded, or just plain corrupt like her husband. Tierney’s Republican opponent is Bill Hudak. Dan Kennedy of Media Nation has more on Hudak.

And now we’re hearing that Democrat-turned-Independent candidate for governor Tim Cahill, the current state treasurer, is suing the Republican candidate, Charlie Baker’s campaign and the Republican Governor’s Association for infiltrating the Cahill campaign with Baker flunkies to sabotage Cahill and help Baker. Prior to this lawsuit, several Cahill campaigners, including Cahill’s running mate, had abandoned the Cahill camp and jumped to the Baker camp. Meanwhile, in the emails that Cahill is using as evidence against Baker, Baker is looking for evidence that Cahill is using recent state lottery ads as Cahill campaign ads at taxpayer expanse.

Meanwhile — yes, there’s more today — Democrat candidate for state auditor Suzanne Bump is being accused of tax cheating, by trying to avoid property taxes at both her homes, in Boston and Great Barrington, claiming both as primary residences. Her Republican opponent is Mary Connaughton, who has actual degrees in accounting and is an actual CPA. Bump’s experience is in Democrat politics and hackery. Now, I’m not a Republican, just an independent non-partisan anti-politics kind of guy, but these people in Hackachusetts really make me want to actually go vote for Republicans (which probably still won’t happen). Scary.

Speaking of “primary residence” politics, 34-year Democrat Congressman Ed Markey apparently doesn’t take care of his primary residence in Malden, where there supposedly are high grass and weeds, according to his Republican opponent, Gerry Dembrowski, who gives Markey the title, “The Undocumented Congressman”:

Jason Lewis’s Book on States’ Rights

Last night on his syndicated radio show, Jason Lewis discussed his newly released book, Power Divided Is Power Checked: The Argument for States’ Rights, and, while I haven’t read it, given how articulate he has been on his show in expressing these ideas of freedom and the Founders’ views on states’ rights, he probably communicates those ideas in this book just as well. (Here are some excerpts [.pdf] from Chapter 1 of the book.)

Now, he has said on his show that he isn’t exactly urging that states secede from the federal government’s control, but he is describing how people have a right to interact amongst one another voluntarily, and are not obligated to be compelled to be part of a “union” by force.

In the Chapter 1 excerpt cited above, Lewis has a reference to economist Thomas DiLorenzo, who has written several books about Herr Lincoln and the war between North and South and the Lincoln cult, and DiLorenzo’s noting that Lincoln could have ended slavery peacefully without waging war on the people of the Southern states but chose not to do that.

And Lewis writes in that chapter that motivations for the South’s secession weren’t really to do with slavery, as the popular myth suggests, but more to do with Lincoln and the North’s treatment toward the South economically:

Alexander Hamilton’s 1790 plan for a national bank, for instance, generally favored the North…it was federal protectionism designed to preserve the North’s manufacturing base that had long been an irritant simmering in the South. When Lincoln moved to raise tariffs on those Southern states that were heavily reliant on imports, he reopened an economic wound that went all the way back to the “tariffs of abominations” in 1828.

As I mentioned, I haven’t read the book, but it is nice of Lewis and the publisher to provide that excerpt online so that we may have a feel for the direction of the book. As far as the book’s sales outlets, I don’t know exactly why the book isn’t available on Amazon.com, and, besides the book’s website, there isn’t that much mention of the book on the Internet, perhaps because it’s just out.

Now, the talk show host and that book’s author Jason Lewis considers himself a federalist, and anyone who’s familiar with me and this blog here knows that I am an Anti-Federalist. That’s because I like to deal with reality and truth. The federal government has done no good, only bad, and it is the federal government’s existence and actions that will be the main cause of the death of America, if that actually occurs.

Massachusetts’s Drooling Hacks

Also in Massachusetts, Republican candidate for state treasurer Karyn Polito (“That’s Karyn with a Y,” as the commercial goes) succeeded for a whole week as a state representative to block the state House Democrats’ passage of a $400 million spending bill (which will include spending on increasing the legislators’ paychecks) in the current informal session. In their regular session, they already passed the state budget for the next fiscal year. This is an informal session, in which “light” business gets taken care of. But the hacks wanted to spend right away (always the retarded Keynesians) the $400 million from federal “stimulus” money, that Rep. Polito thinks should be put away in the state’s “rainy day” fund, which is the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, she was two minutes late in arrival on Monday and the crooks passed that spending bill, federal “stimulus” money that will go toward the hacks’ increased paychecks among other things. But where were the other Republicans in the House? Why didn’t THEY block the bill? (No testicles.) And Will the Republicans in the state Senate block passage when it comes to a vote there? (I doubt it.)

Karyn Polito’s (“That Karyn with a Y”) Democrat opponent for state treasurer is Steve Grossman, former chairman of the national Democrat party and former president of AIPAC, and, as an Israel Lobby hack, he pushed for the Massachusetts state legislature to pass the Iran Divestment Bill (I know, I’ve mentioned that here before), which supposedly will cost Massachusetts taxpayers millions in readjustments and fees that also disrupts the state pension fund (which shouldn’t exist, but that’s for a different discussion). Apparently, Polito voted for the bill, perhaps not seeing the trouble ahead that it’s going to cause state taxpayers, and the state treasurer’s office in overseeing it (as well as trouble for the people of Iran — it is always the people of the country, not its government, who suffer from any kind of sanctions imposed against them).

College Not Worth the Price – Neither Is the Dollar

Bob Unruh has this article at WorldNetDaily on how the Obama Department of Indoctrination and Parasitism Education wants to license U.S. colleges and universities. Why didn’t Ronald Reagan do what he promised to do, and get rid of that Soviet-like agency? (What agency of the federal government isn’t Soviet-like?)

And yesterday Howie Carr on WRKO was discussing how many courses at Harvard University and other colleges are no longer using a final exam for passing the course. As the Boston Globe reports,

Across the country, there is growing evidence that final exams — once considered so important that universities named a week after them — are being abandoned or diminished, replaced by take-home tests, papers, projects, or group presentations. Anecdotally, longtime professors say they have been noticing the trend for years. And now, thanks to a recent discussion at Harvard University, there are statistics that make clear just how much the landscape has changed.

In the spring term at Harvard last year, only 259 of the 1,137 undergraduate courses had a scheduled final exam, the lowest number since 2002…

Howie Carr continued the discussion of college in general. The costs of higher education in the U.S. have gone up so dramatically in recent years, it’s really not worth it anymore. If I had a teenager at this time, I would probably encourage him or her to work full time after graduating from high school and maybe take college courses on a part-time basis. Having a part-time job during high school is also a good idea. It teaches the kids responsibility and encourages independence.

Howie’s 16-year-old daughter works in the radio studio with him, screening calls and otherwise helping the producer. I assume she gets paid like at any regular after-school part-time job. Well, it sounds like a good deal to me, for both of them: the daughter is getting on-the-job experience and learning responsibility (in the “real world”), and Howie knows where his daughter is and what’s she’s doing after school. He doesn’t have to worry about that. Working during high school and especially after graduating (instead of going to college) is probably much more beneficial than sitting in a college classroom having to write down the professor’s lecture on Marxism and environmentalism (that the students get in their Math and Physics classes, of course).

As far as continuing learning, though, after high school, there are inexpensive alternatives available and many of them are available online. For instance, Gary North, who is an economist and historian, and a regular columnist for LewRockwell.com, has a lot of information and advice on education, among other things, on his website, GaryNorth.com, some of the information for free and some of it on paid subscription.

There is just so much information available online for free, in history and economics especially, but also in other areas. If given an adequate list of websites, any 18-year-old can learn much more than he will in a four-year college education that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course, in pursuing careers that involve studying chemistry and biology and so on, you might have to attend formal, regularly structured classes that involve experiments and laboratory analyses. But my point is, higher education has become such a top-down, authoritarian scheme now, very Marxist in its collectivist destruction of individual initiative, in which many of these institutions do not allow or tolerate dissent in discussions or the contributions by students of ideas that go against the professors’ rigid belief system or rigid, well, I guess “claptrap” is a good word for it.

Education should be free, I mean “free” in the sense of free from that top-down authoritarian intolerance and free from that Marxist claptrap. Am I all wet on that? We need that kind of freedom in the same way we need monetary freedom. People have an inherent right to be free, and a right to not be bound and forced to be dependent on and forced to use a government-issued, State-mandated paper currency that has no value, and have a right to use whatever means of trade and commerce one wants to use in a free market of competing currencies. Education should be competitive in the same way.

The Hamiltonian central banksters saw how having a central bank and centralized currency monopoly would give the central government and its politicians and bureaucrats more power, as the masses were forced by law to be dependent on them and their centralized, government-mandated worthless paper money.

That top-down, authoritarian government money supply power and mass dependence is part of the origins of how education in America had become more corrupting, less demanding of responsibility, and less demanding of rational thought and intellectual curiosity, and more dependent on a more powerful centralized government for answers. Note how the public school system in America began around mid-19th Century, near the time that Herr Lincoln usurped monetary power by implementing his mandatory Legal Tender laws and national bank cartel.

We need to decentralize education, and that means completely privatizing all of it, as well as completely decentralizing the monetary system, and that means completely privatizing that as well, and allow for competing currencies, and ending the Federal Reserve System.

New Fall TV Season Begins With First Episode of The Supreme Court Show

The Supreme Court begins its new Fall season today with a very controversial and dramatic episode, in which those with a weak stomach may want to change the channel. For instance, should the court allow or deny protesters their say at military funerals? It’s too bad such a clear issue has to be made so complex. If the cemetery or funeral home is on private property, then of course the protesters can’t be allowed to protest the funerals, unless the owner of the property says yes. If this is a “public” cemetery, or publicly owned and operated (by the state or local government), then of course the protesters have every right to protest and exercise their First Amendment right of free speech — that’s on public (i.e. everybody’s) property. If the community at large doesn’t like that, then they’ll have to privatize the property.

Hmmm, let’s see, what other issues are the brilliant Supreme Intruders going to hear about today? There is a case asking whether Arizona state income tax credits for people who donated to scholarship organizations violated the “Establishment Clause” simply because some of the organizations happen to be religious organizations. Of course it doesn’t violate the so-called “Establishment Clause,” because that state income tax itself violates the people’s right to their earnings and their right to their property and wealth not be taken from them. Also, some people are viewing a “tax credit” as state money that is being given to a resident or organization, which even Chris Matthews of all people said that it is not the government’s money, it is the individual’s money in the first place. And people have a right to donate to whomever they want. The State has no right to decide who gets a “tax credit” and who doesn’t, because the State has no right to confiscate anyone’s money. The whole system’s screwed up, and all of these issues are made to be increasingly complicated because the real issues of State violations of individual rights and property rights are never being addressed.

Another issue being heard by the High-And-Mighties is that of Arizona’s law against businesses hiring “illegal immigrants.” Whatever they decide, they probably will not recognize a businessman’s right to hire whomever he wants, and a Mexican’s right to work at the private Arizona business when the business owner is a willing and consenting employer. That employee-employer contract is a private contract, and it’s nobody else’s business. It is doubtful that a court with a monopoly in the administration of “law and justice” will recognize anyone’s inherent rights of freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract, and it is doubtful that as long as the society has a government-run education system that a majority of the population will ever understand such rights.

But thank God the newest invader, Elena Kagan, has to recuse herself from several cases because of her conflicts of interest, having been the Obama Solicitor General arguing cases on Obama-Dictator’s behalf. In fact, why doesn’t Elena Kagan recuse herself from all the cases, as she has no idea what the Founders’ ideas of Liberty and individual rights are all about, and doesn’t agree with the idea of natural rights, that all human beings inherently have an inalienable right to one’s own life and Liberty, from which such rights include the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others. These natural rights are recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and are the reasons why we don’t allow theft and trespass. Kagan doesn’t believe that individuals have those inalienable rights, and that is why she’s as dangerous as Obama.

Let’s hope for a cancellation of this awful show, The Supreme Court Show.

“Original Intent”

A few days ago, The Rev. Beck was discussing regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and Sunstein’s reference to conservatives’ belief in the Founders’ “original intent” in their Constitution (or, more accurately, CONstitution,). Of course, The Rev. Beck doesn’t see how the conservatives themselves throw original intent out the window when it comes to their trashing of Due Process and Habeas Corpus, among other important aspects of the Founders’ “original intent,” in the conservatives’ support of the Bush-Obama presumption-of-guilt policies of indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, torture and assassination of those the dictator deems a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant.” Glenn Greenwald has this excellent piece on Andrew Sullivan’s defense of the president’s unchecked executive power.

The central rhetorical premise of Bush defenders was that if they just scream “Terrorist!!’ and ”we’re at war!!!!” enough times, and loudly enough, then it would make basic precepts of due process, Constitutional safeguards and the rule of law disappear.  If they demonized their targets enough (this is a really bad Terrorist who wants to kill Americans, with nukes if he can!!) — or manipulatively invoked 9/11 enough times….then it would mean that anything goes, that no compliance with law is or should be required to do anything to them (a claim that always led to the unanswerable question:  if it’s really so obvious that this is a really bad Terrorist, then why not prove it in court?)…

…What possible justification exists for ignoring that Constitutional provision?  Even if we are at war, there is, manifestly, no “war exception” to the Constitution. “War” is not, and never has been, a cognizable excuse for disregarding Constitutional guarantees — at least not in a republic that still adheres to the rule of law.

What? The “Rule of Law?” Since when do conservatives believe in the Rule of Law? And since when do the Left believe in the Rule of Law either? We don’t hear Cass Sunstein and other leftists complaining about Obama’s anti-civil liberties policies of rendition and indefinite detention and anti-human rights policies of remote-controlled drone bombings killing innocent human beings in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And the Left-installed ObamaCare will be a major violation of civil liberties and human rights in America. ObamaCare will give to every government official in the country — federal, state and local, and in every branch of government, executive, legislative and judicial — overwhelmingly unlimited access into every citizen’s private medical information. Anyone who doesn’t believe that such personal information will be used against people for political purposes probably hadn’t lived in the old Soviet Union, or hasn’t studied history. And, besides those reasons for repealing ObamaCare, just the facts of SovietCare — not very much different from ObamaCare — show what violations of human rights we are looking forward to, as Yuri Maltzev has explained:

Being a People’s Deputy in the Moscow region from 1987 to 1989, I received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities….

Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist Party officials, as early as 1921 (three years after Lenin’s socialization of medicine), realized that the egalitarian system of healthcare was good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers — but not as private users of the system…

After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all…

Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of healthcare. In Russia, patients over 60 are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 are often denied even elementary forms of healthcare….

In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoys priority treatment…

Socialized medical systems have not served to raise general health or living standards anywhere. In fact, both analytical reasoning and empirical evidence point to the opposite conclusion. But the dismal failure of socialized medicine to raise people’s health and longevity has not affected its appeal for politicians, administrators, and their intellectual servants in search of absolute power and total control…

When it comes to “original intent,” not only did the Founders intend that all human beings have the right to life and liberty, the right to be presumed innocent, but they didn’t intend to have a government that would involve itself in the private health matters of the citizens. It is doubtful that Obama and Nancy Smelgrosi understand that.

Insider Trading at the Fed, Thanks to Herr Lincoln

I very much appreciate Robert Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal.com for his post featuring this Special Report by Reuters on how former Federal Reserve employees profited from their access to Fed secrets by providing the info to big Wall Street investors. To me, that’s like “insider trading,” but in this case the Fed is a government institution, so they’re taking inside secrets of an institution to which the general public doesn’t have access. And yes, the Federal Reserve is a public, government institution, regardless of the state-propagandists suggesting that it’s “private,” consisting of “private” banks, as Murray Rothbard pointed out:

It is little known, however, that there is a federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional committee knows of, or can truly supervise, its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation’s vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody…

But it is one thing to say that private, or market, activities should be free of government control, and “independent of politics” in that sense. But these are government agencies and operations we are talking about, and to say that government should be “independent of politics” conveys very different implications. For government, unlike private industry on the market, is not accountable either to stockholders or consumers. Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes “independent of politics” it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public’s ability to change its personnel or to “throw the rascals out.” If no person or group, whether stockholders or voters, can displace a ruling elite, then such an elite becomes more suitable for a dictatorship than for an allegedly democratic country. And yet it is curious how many self-proclaimed champions of “democracy,” whether domestic or global, rush to defend the alleged ideal of the total independence of the Federal Reserve…

When you have a state-protected monopoly of money production (i.e. legalized counterfeiting), state-protected legal monopoly of control over the money supply, and a state-protected cartel of banks in which prospective competition is forbidden to enter into the business, the Fed is not only a government institution, but is literally a criminal racket. So that makes the secrets within that institution and the people who profit from that insider knowledge even more criminal.

So, this kind of “insider trading,” if you will, goes on in these years following the time when society’s little p-word state-parasite Rudy Giuliani persecutes a totally innocent individual Michael Milken for doing nothing but making lots of money. America has become such a place of mass resentment toward someone who gets rich not by feeding at the public trough, which is what Rudy has done most of his adult life (along with Barney Frank, Dick Cheney and the rest of the political misfits of our time), but by honest interactions in the marketplace. Speaking of the former New York Mayor’s persecution of Milken when Rudy was U.S. Attorney, as Paul Craig Roberts noted,

Giuliani leaked to his media pimps that a 98-count indictment was coming down against Milken. As Milken had done nothing and Giuliani had no case against him, Giuliani’s strategy was to coerce Milken into a plea bargain. When Milken failed to send his attorneys to work out a plea arrangement, Giuliani used Laurie Cohen to report eighteen times in the Wall Street Journal that Milken would imminently face an expanded superseding indictment of between 160 and 300 counts.

To increase the pressure on Milken, prosecutors threatened to indict Milken’s younger brother, Lowell, unless Milken made a plea deal. US Attorney General Dick Thornburgh quipped to his deputies: “A brother for a brother.” Afterwards, Giuliani’s assistant US attorney, John Carroll, told Seton Hall Law School students in April 1992 that Lowell Milken was a “sort of ready chip in the negotiations.” Giuliani even went so far as to send FBI agents to hound Milken’s 92-year old grandfather.

Thank God Giuliani didn’t get that Republican presidential nomination. Yech! He is just another disgusting example of the Left’s envy and resentment toward the rich. Michael Milken clarifies several myths on his website, including the myth that he was ever involved in insider trading. He wasn’t. Rudy just made it up, to pursue his own career in siphoning taxpayer dollars and at the same time persecute people who had honestly achieved more in life than Rudy ever will (and I mean honestly: being mayor or president obviously isn’t included in the “honest” category).

And now we have the criminals at the Fed and formerly at the Fed and profiting from their insider knowledge, and the Wall Street criminals who profit from the Fed and from various other criminal-government institutions and policies. We can thank the chief fascist-mercantilist Honest Abe for much of this. Lincoln’s Legal Tender laws, which mandated that all Americans use the fiat paper currency issued by the U.S. government, preceded the Federal Reserve and “Federal Reserve Notes” by about 50 years. Lincoln’s National Bank Act created the bank cartel protected by the government. These fascist acts by Herr Lincoln unconstitutionally restricted Americans’ rights of trade and commerce, as well as property and association rights. We have a God-given right to open a bank and have customers deposit their money, and a right to deposit our money in any bank we want, whether it is “permitted” by the State or not, and it’s the same thing with currency.

The involvement of the State in money and banking has corrupted those activities, because the State itself is an institution with the power of compulsion over others which should never be allowed in a free society. That unchecked power is what paved the way for a Rudy Giuliani to persecute an innocent individual like Michael Milken, and paved the way for corrupt Fed cronies to get away with profiting from insider information at the expense of the American people. And it has also paved the way for a socialist Wall Street Bailout that even Inspector Neil Barfsky couldn’t control.

And Giuliani and his ilk are further reason why the State should not have a monopoly in law and justice.