Mann to Man

The American Condition Politically, Culturally, Economically

My Photo
Location: Williamsburg, VA, United States

Raised in rural Greenbrier Co. WV, BS Chemistry WVU, PhD Chemistry, GA Tech,Chemistry Faculty, GA Tech, 1965-1969, Dir R&D BASF Fibers 1969-1982,Sr.Exec. R&D, Burlington Industries, 1982-1986,Owner/CEO Mann Industries (formerly BASF fibers)1988-1995, CEO/Owner The Mann Group Consultants, 1987-2009, wife Carol, daughters Leigh, Susan

Wednesday, April 18, 2012


I have mentioned several times that when I came out of political "retirement" in 2008 a substantial number of naturalized citizens came to me and my "team" offering help in working to defeat Mr. Obama. These people fall into the same category -- they had come to the USA to escape "Socialism" and Totalitarian rule in their native countries. They feared then, and do even more now, that Obama is like the Totalitarian rulers of the countries they fled. Whereas earlier they had fear, they now have evidence.

Previously, I have posted comments from some of these people, all of whom are loyal friends now and are fiercely pro-America. Most recently I posted a comment from one who fled Castro's Cuba saying "America is already not the nation I came to in 1960."This was in response to my oft-stated concern that we are losing "Traditional America" and re-election of Obama will finalize the loss.

Herewith are two comments to blog posts from another one of these loyal Americans, Sandra.
Sandra started life in Colombia and still has many ties to Central and South America. She confides in me many stories of how Obama is viewed in that region. Others do the same. I spent 20 years doing business in the region and know the truth, which the media don't tell us. Here are two of her most recent comments.

I just want to recommend a book " The Post-American Presidency"(The Obama Administration)by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer. Foreword by Ambassador John H. Bolton.
This is a must to be read by every American and other people that loves this country.

Obama is bringing America to its knees, this country that had dedicated all its power and resources to promoted freedom and prosperity in the world, has been push to the cliff. Every one that worry and cares about the future of our children and grand children, needs to get together, specially those that had been indifferent to join us now, and massively manifest rejection against Obama's Anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-prosperity policies. Americans always fought oppression. I been in the US for almost 25 years...and this is not the America I knew...

Tuesday, April 17, 2012


There is much that I have contemplated writing about the subject since we are losing primacy that has long been held by Traditional America in several areas. And, expected by other nations to be so. Today,  I was saddened to watch the symbolism of one such loss. While sitting in Duke University Hospital Pulmonary Clinic I watched Discovery being ferried to the Smithsonian on the back of a Boeing 747. Primacy gone in space travel and research!

The reduction in NASA's funding has far-reaching consequences! So much technology on which the USA operates, as well as much of the world, evolved from NASA's work. A whole new paradigm is now developing as the USA loses primacy, first to Russia and then to China in all likelihood.There's more loss coming.

In the room with me were two fairly young people, one woman and one man. They were watching the TV as intently as I was. I didn't think they appeared to be people who would be very concerned. Suffice it to say the dress was not traditional, not at all. Yes, I'm guilty of being judgmental and of being incorrectly so here.

The lady looked at me and said, "What do you think of that? I think it is wrong!" I told her I agreed with her and why I did so. She said, with focus on the man with her, "we now have to beg a ride from the Russians." And, "we are now subordinate to Russia and maybe China soon." She looked straight at me and asked, "what will this administration not do to hurt our country?" "We can spend on lavish parties for government employees, but we cut important stuff." She expressed more concern. No argument from me.

I was taken aback, but pleasantly so. We had a nice discussion, commiserating about our "loss of primacy in this area and more." She revealed she was a lawyer specializing in real estate law, but her passion seemed to be concern for our nation -- our "national condition." She was delightful, clearly an intelligent and thinking person. I found a new friend and some hope that there are  more like her. Together they may make a difference if they are given some help in asserting themselves and leveraging themselves with enough of their kind.  This lady made my day!

By the way, Today it is the young woman lawyer, yesterday it was a pharmacy assistant (another young lady) who surprised me by sharing her knowledge about who gets financial assistance with drugs and who doesn't. The fact didn't surprise me since I've seen it firsthand and also had another pharmaceutical rep tell me the same. But, that's a story for another write..........another day. It is all about the world of entitlements, who has them and how they get them..... and is not to be spoken or written about. BUT IT WILL BE. MUST BE!

Monday, April 16, 2012


"President" Obama announced that "of course he would be angry" if the charges of impropriety by Secret Service agents were to be proved.

How many ways can Obama personalize his job as CEO of the United States of America? How many ways can he prove that he is not a CEO and won't be.... can't be because of background and personality.

If Mr. Obama were CEO of a corporation (purely hypothetical and rhetorical) his board would have been obligated to remove him for any one of many gaffs and inappropriate actions. Most recently his comments to Medvedev would have demanded it. Of course, there arm other reasons to fire him as CEO.

It is not expected of Mr. Obama that he express anger, it is expected that he will stand tall as a CEO and govern, take action against improper behavior, set the direction for his company (USA) and more. The top of the any organization establishes the culture of the organization, the personality and more. The CEO takes charge of solving problems, all of them, and doesn't make excuses that they aren't his problems. They become his when he takes the oath of office. OBAMA DOESN'T SEEM TO REALIZE THIS. His supporters allow him to think so.

America's culture is being transformed negatively. It's not acceptable. When will all Americans come to this reality? Seems a majority never will. Very sad!


Today the news media talking heads are saying that "President" Obama must finally denounce the scurrilous, dispicable sorry excuse of humanity, Bill Maher, for his gutter (synonymous with Maher) comments re Ms. Romney not having worked.

NO. I disagree! It is too late for Obama to disavow Maher and his commentary. Obama and all of his shills, and every Democrat in the USA, should instinctively condemn Maher, Hilary Rosen and all of their ilk who engage in such disgusting tactics. They show their concurrence by waiting until they are forced by public opinion to capitulate.

Unfortunately, such scurrilous commentary is now EXPECTED OF THE DEMOCRATS. Yes, I've said it because it is true.

Bill Maher and his ilk now DEFINE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. More later if you don't know the scores of other Obama shills who are cut from the same cloth, molded in the same muck! Damn them for highjacking the once proud, respectable and honorable Democratic Party of some of my favorite forebearers.

Sunday, April 15, 2012


I'm totally disgusted and fed up with Warren Buffett shilling for Obama on taxation. It would seem that they are in a contest to see who can be the most dishonest with the American people.
Do they really think Americans are as stupid as they would imply with their claims of taxing the rich to help the middle class? Or, are they just being dishonest assuming enough Americans will simply reflexively accept their claims. Yes to both!

I've reported Buffett's dishonesty in taking every tax shelter he can take and his refusing to write a check to the US Treasury to show he is serious and honest. He isn't!

I've written about Buffett's many foundations that are tax shelters pure and simple, and the billions he has sheltered in them.

I suspect most may not know that Buffett's company is also in a huge tax dispute with the IRS, said to be $1 Billion.

What I do understand is that a huge voting bloc of dependent class people, many of them capable of earning a living, some not able, will buy into their deception. This is Obama's the voter bloc.

What is so disgusting and, after seeing the effects for so long, is that so many people who should be categorized as "thinking people" and people who should be "concerned about honesty and integrity" in government as well as the solvency of America, also accept their deception and simply take it as a Democratic program that they are obligated to support. WHY??

This Buffett Rule nonsense is but one example of the worst in government from the worst among us being elected to high office.... or to any office with control of our destiny.

As a final note, I just remembered that when elected Governor of CA, Arnold Swartzeneger named Buffett as one of his first advisers. Buffett's first public proposal was to increase taxes. If he is the astute businessman he is purported to be, could he not have given more comprehensive advice on how to restructure California's dying financial system?? No! Apparently, only taxes. For the skeptic, even if Swartzenegar was a failure, the concept is still correct and valid. Buffett was fired! Swartzenegar was not totally ineffective.


Please watch this insightful commentary by Dennis Prager. His commentary re our not knowing what it is to be American since we haven't taught our progeny, is spot on. It is part of my concern when I write, and speak, often about the loss of "Traditional America." It is a serious problem.

Only last Thursday I had a nice discussion with a well-informed woman who has experience in Washington (in government). When I mentioned that a great concern of mine (which she has read here, it turns out) is that we are "losing the America that I grew up in." Her comeback was, "That America is no longer." 

Have we already lost her? Surely, if those in control today remain in control, she is gone.


I am posting this link for readers' perusal and commentary if you have any. I will suggest you consider the intent of this in conjunction with the recent executive order giving the president the right to take control of all services and all assets in case of emergency. Let's realize that such action is to be taken only in times of "emergencies." What are our emergencies, what are Obama's emergencies? They are different from "we the people" in my opinion. More later.


Hilary Rosen, Obama's frequent visitor to OUR White House, is archtypical of the type of person that has highjacked the once honorable and proud Democratic Party, that of most of my forebearers. If you haven't heard Rosen's gutter comment about Mrs. Romney never having worked, you should seek it out and listen, not only to the comment but to her later defense of the indefensible. She is in the same league as Bill Maher and other radical Progressives. 
I was raised by one of these mothers who "never worked" a la Rosen. Her priorities were taking care of my sister and me and our father while making a home for all of us. NOT easy. Her dedication to family and her faith defined her...a wonderful person. 
Once while I sat with Mom in her waning days (her winter season of life), Maher asserted on CNN that any person of faith was stupid. Later he said "anyone that believes the Jesus story is and Idiot." My mother was astounded. She was also deeply hurt. I hope to be able to confront the sorry piece of humanity before my checkout date. Would Maher apologize? Hell NO. He is always "right." He's also typical of the radicals who have taken over the Democratic Party. Also, he is a supporter of Obama and has publicly given $1 million to Obama's reelection.
Mrs. Romney should not expend one breath of air defending herself. Push it back into the disrespectful mouth and mind of Ms. Rosen. If you've already guessed it, yes, I'm very angry at those who highjacked the Democratic Party of my great and honorable forebearers.
The people like my parents, and others of their kind are the ones who made America the greatest nation. It's the sub-culturists such as Ms. Rosen, projeny of the misguided radicals of the sub-cultural 60's who are transforming America and pushing "Traditional America" into the waning days of the winter season of her life. 
The sub-culturists worked more-or-less surreptitiously for 6+ decades until finding and electing their patron saint, Barrack Obama. He is one of them, a product of the sub-culture himself, born into it, raised in it, "educated in it" and is now enjoying the power given to him without any qualifications to have been elected. Now he is doing their bidding as he builds a Totalitarian state. Before you simply object, please look at his actions....and even his words. Yes, I'm angry, but I am more saddened by the reality that people like Ms. Rosen and Bill Maher and their ilk are in control through their president. 

Oh yes, I know his surrogates have thrown her under the bus, but only after she stated her (and their) true belief. Messed up! Got off script with true feelings. But, they knew her all along.

Thursday, April 12, 2012




I am altering my post of 04/11 in which I recommended Republicans support Obama and Buffett but assure the "Buffett Rule" only applied to the top earners -- Buffett and his ilk. I realize the inevitability of such a tax being expanded to every tax payer except, of course, those of the dependent class who pay no taxes today. Therefore, I propose that Buffett and all of those who claim to "want to pay more taxes" (but don't write volunteer checks!) sign a pledge to that end. Then develop legislation to tax just those people, with specific names, and deny all of the shelters they use now -- foundations and all deductions. Illegal? Not to worry. Do it by executive order whereby everything is "legal."

The only people to whom this tax would be extended would be those who asked to be included -- call it an "opt-in with Buffett rule." Below is a modification of a post I made on October 11 to this effect. 

 If this seems silly, it may be, but it is no sillier than Obama's and Buffett's charade. But, it is honest!


I suggest Republicans stop objecting to taxing Warren Buffett more and honor his "wishes." They should line up all of those high rollers who have supported Buffett.... yes, take names! Then introduce a bill to tax Buffett and all of his supporters specifically by name at 90% of all income over $3 million, including capital gains. Eliminate tax dodging facilities such as their foundations, which probably would not pass scrutiny for effectiveness anyway. Bill Gates has reported his foundation's funding for education has failed to improve education. Let's require an audit of all of Buffett's foundations. Now!
I will try to find a sponsor for such a bill. Maybe we can take up collection to rent a bus, or at least a stretch van, to tour the country to sell the plan. Or maybe Obama would let us tag along on his million-dollar bus. Or, maybe Buffett will fund our travels and expenses. We'll call the plan the The Buffett Hypocritic Tax in his honor (oops, must find a different word).

Wednesday, April 11, 2012


President Obama's press promotion today of the so-called "Buffett Rule" to "tax high income earners" was an affront to the intelligence of all Americans. He deserves profound criticism! Buffett himself is also deserving of criticism for his hypocrisy, and for promoting himself in this charade. Others who should be called out are the fawning fools surrounding Mr. Obama in the promotion. Special mention is due the attractive woman standing to his left who displayed her admiration with little, if any, constraint. Folks, is this what governance has come to with the Obama administration? Sadly it is.

Mr. Obama, go ahead and promote taxing Buffett and his ilk as much as you want. Get the legislation in Congress according to the constitution. Just have some honesty and assure that only those you speak of get the additional taxation and not the lower earners that are surely surreptitiously in your sights. Republicans, support him and help him assure the restrictions I mention are fixed. Get this issue off the table!! Drive the issue back to Buffet, who obfuscated and stalled as usual when challenged to go ahead and write the Treasury a big check. He won't. He uses all loopholes possible to minimize taxes.

I have posted pieces before on Buffett's hypocrisy. I invite you to search that title and other "Buffet" pieces for more details. A few of his "shelters" include foundations for each family member, $1.9 Billion to Gates' foundation in 2011 and $2.0 Billion of his deceased wife's wealth to a foundation in 2004. He takes a pittance of salary, taxed at ordinary rates, and takes all of his earnings in capital gains taxed at 15%. His holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, was a defunct textile company Buffett purchased to shelter earnings from his insurance businesses. Check it out!

Of the many disgusting aspects of Obama's presentation, perhaps the most disgusting was his assertion that students would have to pay higher interest on their student loans.

Obama nationalizes the student loan business taking it away from banks and immediately uses it as an excuse to raise taxes!!!   Wake up Americans!

This assertion is blatantly dishonest, and just plain unacceptable, as were his claims that "seniors would not get their social security checks if the debt ceiling wasn't raised!" There was no mention though of stopping payments to those who never paid a cent into the SS trust fund...... "trough feeders," who never worked and never will. IF THIS SOUNDS HARSH, SOMETIMES TRUTH DOES HURT A BIT. It's time to bring some truth to Obama's administration.  

Sure, I'll be criticized for this, maybe even targeted, but somehow this message has to get out.I feel the sting of the sword already. I've felt it before.

I'm herewith asking every thinking and caring American to get active in combating the dishonesty, dissembling, obfuscation and subterfuge we are witnessing at levels never before experienced.


I wrote this reply to a comment by Kathryn of NC to my post "Ronmey's Challenge..... As an afterthought, I've decided to post it. I hope all will consider the essence of Obama's re-election and what it means to all of America and not just what it may mean for personal special issues. Under a Totalitarian rule, your personal issues will be decided for you and you will comply. It's that simple yet that serious.
Kathryn, I understand your comment re McCain. If you've read my very first post, Obama and the Debt Ceiling," you will know why I came out of political "retirement" to try to get McCain elected. Obama was the most undefined candidate in history -- no job with accountability, historical records sealed (even all academic ones), unbelievable anti-American associations and a strong bent toward "Socialism" that now manifests itself as true "imperialism" going toward "Totalitarianism." He is, in my opinion and from my considered observations, anti-American. This election is not like any in history. If Obama is elected, he will take a license to be a dictator. He is already ignoring separation of powers. Surely, I'm not so naive as to not know that many people will laugh at this and think the worst of me for it. But, elect him (a high probability) and watch the transformation accelerate. For that reason, once again I will do all I can to defeat him even with less than an ideal candidate.....but one who is pro-American. You may differ with me, but I will ask you and your friends to consider this seriously. It is serious! Normal issues must be subordinated to protecting America. Traditional America is in the winter season of her life with Obama's re-election.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012


Today there is considerable dialogue regarding various political, economic and governing systems. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of us have less than a thorough understanding of each system and how the various systems differ. It is common to speak of our American system of government as simply a "Democracy" when, in fact, our founders were intent on forming a Constitutional Republic. The Republic has been under attack for decades, never more than now.

When Mr. Obama was running for president, I was among the first to speak of him as a "Socialist." His every presentation hinted of that philosophy and ideology. Even now, pundits and others speak of his intent to convert America to European Socialism. Two things are wrong with that characterization, even though the allusion is that Americans should not accept it -- and they shouldn't.

First, too many people think of anything and everything "European" as being superior, or at least desirable. Few notions could be further from the truth. Europe is largely in shambles.  In spite of that, many do want us to go their way. It would be a disaster!

Second, it has become apparent that Mr.Obama's ambitions are not just that, rather he seems firmly headed toward Totalitarianism. His flouting of the separation of powers and his and his Attorney General's abrogation of the rule of law strongly suggest it. It is my concern that if reelected he will do all possible to achieve that ambition.

Please read Chuck Misak's scholarly article below for an understanding of why some of us have such concerns. I know full well that some left-leaning people and some who are just not willing to see this undesirable truth will condemn this point of view. I simply ask that all readers examine the facts, the evidence and his actions and make your own conclusions. Thank you.


by Charles Misak

Some terms we use to discuss various economic and political systems mean different things to different people. What I’ll try to do in this paper is provide a basic or classical definition of these different systems, as they were described by their originators or by practice in different nations. This discussion will be limited and will not discuss all the systems that exist, or all the variations that have been practiced. For that, it can be rightfully charged as being simplistic. But hopefully, it will serve to clarify more precisely what is meant by some of the more common terms we use today in our discussions.


SOCIALISM. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned by the state or a cooperative of people. The state determines the allocation of capital resources, the allocation of labor, the products to be produced, the prices, and the wages and salaries. Personal economic freedom does not exist. Central planning is obviously a requirement. Socialism’s record is dismal and there are many reasons for that, which I won’t get into, some of which should be self apparent (just think about personal motivation and what happens when our federal govt tries to plan/run anything). The colossal demise of the USSR—the world’s largest experiment in socialism-- should have silenced the proponents of socialism forever, but it’s not looking that way. And, there are reasons for that too.

In terms of a likely political system to be married to this type economic model, F.A. Hayek, noted Austrian economist, believed that any movement toward socialism would run a huge risk of developing in to a totalitarian government. Jean Revel, the French journalist and philosopher who has extensively studied socialism, stated that the very essence of socialism is totalitarianism. They’re both probably correct about nations that are completely socialistic, but perhaps not regarding “mixed” systems.

What are some example of socialist countries? The former USSR, most former Eastern bloc countries, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Maoist China, and some others.

Although socialistic thoughts and writings had been around for years, it was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who developed this concept to a high degree. Their argument was that the proletariat (the worker bees) had long been exploited by the bourgeois (capitalists) and they should rise up, in armed revolution if necessary; seize control of the government and all forms of capital, to include all the land. (More on this later as Marx moves from socialism to communism). It was their view that socialism would be a specific historical place that would displace capitalism and would precede communism. Thus, as outlined by Marx, socialism was an economic system, a political system (the proletariat is in charge of the government), and a social system.

What socialism is not? Some nations are mostly capitalistic, have parliamentary democracies, and support a robust welfare system. Thus countries like Norway, Denmark, are not socialist countries. That terms applies only to nations where private individuals/companies do not own the majority of the means of production

A distinction could be made between nations based upon their degree of welfare programs, from nations with cradle to grave social support to those with little social support. This would be a comparison of social welfare programs and not economic systems, per se.

Another distinction or variant worthwhile of discussion is a system where all companies, capital assets are owned by private companies but whose operations and decisions are tightly controlled or set by the state. Such was the case in Nazi German, where all publicly owned companies/industries were privatized by the Nazis, but very tightly controlled, managed by the Nazi party.

A final note on socialism, from George Bernard Shaw about the simple mindset of the Fabian Socialist Society: “Under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you hadn't character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner, but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

CAPITALISM. Think we all know about this fine friend. First described in extensive writings by Adam Smith in 1776. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of the means of production (capital assets). The profit motive drives entrepreneurs to produce products the customer desires and sell them in a free and open market (no price fixing, no government interference). Prices, as well as wages, are determined by supply and demand. Financial rewards to entrepreneur and investors depend upon correctly ascertaining the customer’s desires and needs and providing the product at attractive prices. The system is based upon profit and loss, with the loss as an important factor in efficient capitalism. Losses weed out inefficient or mismanaged companies and result in survival of the fittest. What this means, at the end of the day, the customer is going to get the biggest bang for his bucks. Note that government interference (in terms of bailouts and subsidies) directly interfere with the important capitalistic process of weeding out losers—and thus providing the cheapest and best products for the consumer.

Historical record of capitalism vs. socialism: Milton Friedman, the most renowned American economist of the 20th century, has stated that the only cases in recorded history where the masses have escaped grinding poverty is by unleashing the productive forces of capitalism and free trade. And there are plenty of recent examples to prove that point: Think of impoverished conditions in the USSR, leading to the disintegration of the union; think of Cuba; think of North Korea’s and old East Germany’s economic plights; and compare these to economic conditions to capitalist South Korea and West Germany. How neo-socialists can ignore these facts is a matter for psychologists to explain.

Prominent economists such as Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and even John Maynard Keynes all agreed that capitalism is vital for freedom to survive and thrive. It has, however, worked in countries with less than sterling human rights records, such as Singapore and lately the mixed economy that China has become.

Hayek agreed with Adam Smith that there is an unquestioned role for government in a capitalistic system, such as developing laws to ensure fair and open competition, prevent price fixing, fraud, and the like. In addition they agreed they have a duty to look after public welfare in areas such as working conditions, safety of products, etc.

The attacks on capitalism, by the socialists, have been on two fronts: It results in an unfair distribution of wealth and is subject to periods of mass unemployment and financial crises. Milton Friedman believes that government is responsible for most, if not all recessions and depressions. He places the blame for the Great Depression on Federal Reserve gross mismanagement of the money supply. And many lay the worldwide financial crisis primarily at the feet of the US Govt for directing or intimidating banks to lower their traditional mortgage lending standards, then incentivizing Freddie and Fannie (quasi government companies) to buy sub-prime loans from the financial institutions who made the loans. (In fairness, a lot of major financial institutions followed suit and bought a lot of risky mortgages, packaged them as CDOs and sold them worldwide). Add to that a lot of cheap money available and walla, a bubble is created, which burst in a big way.

COMMUNISM/MARXISM. Communism, as defined by Karl Marx and Engels, was the final transformation of a society and followed the socialist phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx’s defining description of communism was: The abolition of private property. (And he meant ALL private property—my cousin in then Czechoslovakia had his business confiscated, his farm land confiscated, and the family home that had been used since the early 1700s confiscated). In this final stage, there would be a classless egalitarian society, one without need for a government—i.e. the proletariat would have abolished its own supremacy. Countries and nationalities would disappear. As Marx stated: “The working man has no country.” The division of products would be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Further, Marxism abolished eternal truths, all religion (he stated “religion is the opium of the people”), and all morality. What a neat system, eh?

How any thinking man could buy into such gibberish renders me incredulous. Marx never held a job, never was in the real world—very much like Obama. He went from a drunken college student to radical magazine and newspaper writer and was ran out of three countries. As we see next, though, he did provide an ideology for despots to use to advance their lust for power… Kind of like Islamic radicalism today. Just go to the Koran and you find the rationale you need to murder people.

NOTE: A Communist economic/political/social system as prescribed by Marx has never existed—or even close to it. That should not be surprising. It’s an abject illogical concept. Countries that call themselves Communist do so to provide some degree of legitimacy to their government, or so they think.

LENINISM/STALINISM. Marxism was used by Lenin and more strongly by Stalin to legitimize the totalitarian socialist state of the Soviet Union. Leninism/Stalinism has been described as a masterly achievement in transforming Marxism into the official ideology of a rigid, totalitarian state. To force compliance with Stalinism and keep the people “in line”, Stalin had millions murdered. The same thing is true with all totalitarian regimes. The “Black Book of Communism” by Stephen Courtois, made a macabre inventory of eighty million deaths due to Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism—and Maoism.

MIXED ECONOMIES. These economies have a blend of state owned enterprises and private industries and free markets. There are several examples of this; the most recent notable has been China, which has grown exponentially since introducing private businesses and markets in to their economies. Other variations exist, such as state ran capitalism (state owned enterprises, operated to make a profit, normally from worldwide sales) and a system called market socialism. And there is a term used to describe state intervention in the economy to provide favors to certain companies—called crony capitalism. We have a few doozies in that area—Freddie and Fannie, Solyndra and several others. The tab for the losses these companies have racked up is picked up by the taxpayer.


DEMOCRACY. A democracy is simply rule by the majority. The minority only have the rights given to them by the majority. This is frequently characterized as “mob rule” or a dictatorship of the majority. Our Founders were very familiar with this system and wanted no part of it. Fareed Zakaria, in his book “The Future of Freedom” describes illiberal democracies where authoritarian leaders are elected in free elections-which then proceed to deny citizens basic rights and commit crimes against their own citizens. Hitler, for example, became the Chancellor of Germany via free elections. Suffice it to say: Elections are no guarantee of freedom and liberty for citizens.

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. America's fine system, we know well (or we used to). This system is guided by a written constitution which establishes the branches of government, outlines responsibilities, and limits of authority. The citizen remains the sovereign and minority rights are fully protected by law.

TOTALITARIAN/OLIGARCHY. Rule is by one individual or a small group. Citizens have only the rights, privileges given them by the present government—subject to change on a moment’s notice. Examples are Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, and like type totalitarian regimes. Freedom and liberty are but a wishful dream.

Many of these systems simply take no account of the nature of man—his aspirations, his motivation, his desire for freedom and liberty. To the group I am addressing there is only one system that meets our needs and desires: A capitalistic economic system and a constitutional republic. To us, liberty is THE highest political end. Nothing should be allowed to come between liberty and us.

Then we ask, why do some people keep bringing up socialism, communism when the record is PERFECTLY clear. I can only tell you what Jean Revel states in his book: There is a totalitarian impulse in man, who makes him want to rule—or for some strange reason, to be ruled. Next, many will accept a socialist system if they do not want to compete, and do not want to be held accountable. They can “hide” in a socialist system. To me, anyone who supports these type philosophies is simply a loser.

Suggested postings: What type systems do we presently have in the US today… (maybe it’s Obamaism?). 

Note: I am fortunate to have many friends and associates who have not only intense interest in but profound knowledge of politics, economics and governance and how our American system as a Constitutional Republic is both misunderstood and challenged. I am pleased that they are willing to share their knowledge. I am especially gratified that Chuck Misak is one of those

Saturday, April 7, 2012


I wrote this as a note to some friends this morning, but it was suggested I post if for further perusal. Obama has proven to be all I speak of below. His threat to the Supreme Court is further proof that he has no respect for the separation of powers ..... but, what more proof do thinking people need. The non-thinking don't care, and that's a major problem.
I have much more to write but have had some difficulty getting it done. Will try a bit harder this weekend and next week.

You may have seen this. Will have now! I am skeptical of anything from Steele. My opinion is that Santorum and Gingrich shot themselves down and didn't have the funds to keep up with Romney. Unfortunately, I believe Romney has less than a 50:50 chance of beating Obama and his media sycophants. And, if Romney can't connect better with people, articulate his vision more persuasively, and define Obama for what he is and isn't, his chances diminish more.
What's worse is that, even if Romney can turn in a great campaign performance, too many voters are dumber than the river rocks I saw near my Greenbrier River/Organ Cave, WV childhood home last weekend.
As I've watched Obama the past 2 weeks, it's clear that he is both totally incompetent and is absent any sense of honor, integrity and decency. He is not only functionally inept ( I guess that would be dysfunctional to a real wordsmith) and his whole demeanor is that of a shyster.....surely it isn't presidential. Laurence J. Peter must have had Obama in mind when he wrote of his famous "Principle." Obama reached his operational peak on the streets of Chicago as a union organizer. But, like a parasite, he'll bring down a great host....a nation!