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

Sunday, August 26, 2012



Please read the piece immediately below --- then go my response that Obama is the candidate of the 60s anti-American culture.

First posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 in part


I have tried to analyze the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement in order to understand who the people really are versus the romanticized version portrayed by the media. What is the true essence of the movement. What's the motivation of the demonstrators. What are their goals. How do they truly compare with Tea Party people?

The media typically characterize the OWS demonstrators in favorable terms as objecting to "Wall Street excesses." They do so even after violence and extremely slovenly and illegal behavior has been clearly shown to be prevalent, even anarchy! Politicians and activists have glorified them. More recently the focus is on police excesses. For sure, there may have been some of this, but it is not the prevailing character of the demonstrations. Congress people, even the president, call them "concerned grass-root citizens exercising their rights." They "understand" the "frustrations" of the OWS demonstrators. Delusional or disingenuous?
It is entirely legitimate, to characterize enough of the OWS demonstrators as ANARCHISTS to characterize the entire movement as ANARCHY. Furthermore, it is no longer OWS, it is now "OCCUPY THE NATION," and it would seem, even the world. It's now compelling to recall Obama's declaration to "change America" mentioned later below.

 Tea Party people, on the other hand are spoken of by media and politicians in the most disparaging terms -- barbarians by VP Biden(D), sons of bitches to be "taken out," by AFL-CIO union head, Richard Trumka (D) in the presence of President Obama(D) who didn't object, terrorists by Pelosi(D), Paul Krugman(D), Jeneane Girafolo(D), Margaret Carlson (D), and others of their ilk. In the very beginning, Nancy Pelosi called Tea Partiers "Astroturf," not grassroots at all. Media and others must make special effort to find anything illegitimate or illegal about the Tea Partiers -- a sign by a single person, a statement or two, but nothing bordering on anarchy. Largely peaceful.
It is legitimate, and entirely accurate, to characterize the Tea Party demonstrators as peaceful, law abiding citizens exercising their rights to express dissent against government excesses -- spending, debt, regulations that stifle the economy and job creation. They are people who are demonstrating TO PROTECT TRADITIONAL AMERICA and restore what has been lost. 
Tea party people are "TRADITIONAL AMERICANS, the OWS and others of the ilk, are ANARCHISTS.
I get no satisfaction from this assessment. Much to the contrary. It is profoundly saddening to see traditional America so in decline as to anticipate her demise in favor or a nation in the image of those who have disdain for her. Sadly, this includes some of the highest officials in government, their empty commentary to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Irrespective of the stated grievances of those few demonstrators who can put 3 words together coherently, this is very reminiscent of the 60s sub- and counter-culture. So, is it not expected that our senior Democrats, people of the 60s movement, and media would support them. These people high jacked the traditional Democratic Party and have converted it into radical Progressivism (aka collectivism). To deny it is to be delusional.
I've long asserted that the 60s radicals are now in control of Congress and have finally achieved their takeover of America -- Pelosi, Reid, late E. Kennedy, Shumer, Dodd, Frank, Dingle, Waxman, Waters, and many more. How did they achieve a takeover? For decades hey couldn't get one of theirs elected since Carter (D) put sand in their gears. Clinton (their greatest hope) rather turned on them as he was forced to do by a Republican Congress. So, they found an attractive well-spoken young modern-day candidate who was actually born into the sub-culture, raised in it, educated in institutions that supported and glorified it, lived it as an adult organizing (unionizing) those who fed at the trough to become acolyte voter blocs, associated with them openly in "church" (Wright) and in social and academic life (Ayers, and many who are now Czars and other operatives. He held the trump card of being black, a "victim" of America's "sin" of slavery, although he had led a life of privilege. The American voter was gullible and non-discerning enough to elect him in spite of the fact that he had no defining qualifications. None! 
The Tea Party folks, like them or not, brought focus on the destruction of traditional America (debt, economic decline, fraud, cultural decay, and overall decline of the American way). The destruction is somewhat bipartisan, especially debt, but the result is a crisis "not to be wasted" as Rahm Emmanuel(D) said.
Those who had gained control were not about to let go of their gains. So was born a counter movement, "Occupy Wall Street" that has become, in essence, "Occupy America." Obama's promise to "Change America and then Change the World" is being played out by this movement. Supporters of the movement are the same as Obama's supporters and puppeteers ( the Edgar Bergens to his Charley McCarthy). 

The election of 2008 set up the transformation of "traditional America." The 2012 election will decide if the transformation is permanent. Sad, but realistic.

Saturday, August 25, 2012



I am re--posting an article published in 2011 explaining why I opposed Barack Obama's election in 2008. It was posted with reference to the debt ceiling negotiations at the time and included recommendations for Obama not to run again in 2012.
After viewing Dinesh D'Souza's documentary, I am posting this in hopes some will view the film and, with this information, realize that what the film depicts was predictable. My hope is that thinking people will forgo political prejudices and preferences and vote to preserve traditional America, the nation we love, and to maintain the greatness and preeminence in the world. She is now under attack.

For 12 years, I stayed out of political activity, being content to write and speak about selected issues, especially from personal experiences working in many countries. I tried to learn how each nation's people viewed the United States. The most repeated comment about the USA was “the world needs America” and they wanted us to be “strong.” I saw respect and admiration for America.
In 2008 Barack Obama's candidacy for President caused me to exit political “retirement.” Soon, I heard more anti-American rhetoric from Obama and his associates than I heard in 20 years working outside the USA. Little was known about Obama. There was less to define him than any presidential candidate in history. He had no accomplishments to qualify him to lead the world's greatest nation. However, I soon learned he didn't view America in that light. In hiring for any job, records of accomplishments, including academic records, are first considerations. To be a top executive, leadership qualities are profoundly important as are personality and vision. Obama showed no attributes to qualify him as a top executive, surely not the presidency of the United States. There was almost nothing to define him as such.

Obama's academic records were sealed. There's only one reason to seal them... to hide negative information. His work record was confined to “community organizing” (aka unionizing and voter block building), a short law career and a sometimes lecturer in law. His records in the Illinois legislature and in the US Senate were minimal. His personality was clearly self-centrism. Narcissism! His declaration that he would “change America and then change the world” and his assertion to supporters that “we are the ones we have been waiting for” defined him so. His main attributes to many people were, he was not Bush, he had a”D” by his name and he “could talk”. However, critical assessment of his speeches showed them to be devoid of substance, forceful but shallow! He showed a strong bent toward socialism/Marxism and his associates more so -- radical. Obama would not have been prepared for the presidency at any time, but surely not for perilous times as we are now in. Our national condition is critical. I took on the task to defeat him in our area.

Among hundreds of volunteers who came out to defeat Obama were many naturalized citizens who got involved because they saw in Obama the “same characteristics” they had “seen in the revolutionaries and collectivists in their native countries.” They started life in Cuba, Columbia, Mexico, Peru, and both Eastern and Western Europe. These people are fiercely pro-American.
Obama's speech in Cairo after assuming the presidency showed his disdain for America. To him, America has been an arrogant nation, divisive and derisive.” Of course, he sees himself as better than that and is sure others do, a figment of of his and his supporters' imaginations.

He didn't create the economic meltdown of 2008, as he reminds us constantly, but he has made it worse, contrary to his hype and the assertions of the sycophantic media and press. His every policy initiative is antithetical to economic expansion, what we need most urgently.

His Keynesian economic stimulus plan, absent jobs, is a complete failure, as was expected. His catering to unions, a major voter and funding bloc, is beyond irresponsible when job creation is the issue. His efforts to use so-called green technology to suddenly grow the economy as he mandates an exit from the oil-based one shows a dearth of understanding, and suspends common sense. Any leader, any executive with a vision and experience in problem solving, knows the axiom that one re-invents in time of strength, not in times of distress. With no experience, how could Obama know this? It doesn't keep him from his arrogant demands though. Then there is Obamacare!

There is much more failure to speak of, but let's fast forward to the recent “debt ceiling” spectacle. It has been an exercise in hypocrisy, ineptitude, false choices, class warfare and more.

Hypocrisy and false choices. The level of debt at 100 % of GDP is of paramount concern. While it is reported as only 60-70% of GDP, $14 trillion of debt and $14 trillion of GDP is 1:1. It's reported falsely because only the “outside debt” is considered. Debt to social security, for example, is not counted. False choice? Yes! Obama scared seniors by telling them that without the debt ceiling he wanted, he couldn't pay social security retirement checks. Truth is the social security trust fund has on it's balance sheet over $5 Trillion of IOUs with approval of bonds to fund them. Also, what is the “debt” owed seniors, who have paid into it, vs that too others who feed at the trough? Pure dishonesty!

More hypocrisy and ineptitude. Obama says he wants higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires, who are allegedly “willing to be taxed more.” Republicans ineptly don't call his hand. Many, if not most, of these high rolling titans are on Wall Street, and in other parts of the economy-controlling financial industry. Most of these people are Obama supporters and 80% of their contributions go to Democrats.

Warren Buffett is one, a master of deception when Obama uses him as one who "wants to pay more taxes," the “30% his secretary pays vs. 17%” he says he pays. Sure! He plays the tax code like he plays his ukelele. He purchased Berkshire Hathaway, an old textile company, as it folded along with most of the once-vibrant New England textile businesses under excessive union demands. Then he used their tax loss carry forwards to start building his insurance companies without tax liabilities. For more on Buffett's hypocrisy see other "Buffett" posts herein.

Dishonesty and deception. As Obama demands more taxes to satisfy his and congress' voracious appetite for revenue, note that in the sham bankruptcy of General Motors, Obama granted major ownership to the UAW along with $50 Billion of tax exemptions! UAW's GM is unlikely to ever pay taxes as Obama rails about corporations not paying enough. And, how about GE? Pretty? No!

Perhaps the most ludicrous idea out of the debt ceiling talks was Obama's comparison of himself with Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a “great communicator” with people of all social levels. Obama lectures, talks down to us, and points his finger condescendingly as he tells us what we must do for him. Reagan loved America, the “shining city on the hill.” Obama? Well, as Reagan would say, his descriptors are aforementioned. Monuments are built to Reagan in Eastern Europe and England where Reagan is loved. Who thinks Obama is loved in Britain where he returned the bust of Churchill? Are these things important? Yes! Especially to counter the hype and false information from his acolytes.
Arguably, the most productive action of the debt ceiling negotiations was that of the new conservative representatives who did their constitutional duty, on behalf of the people, by holding an imperial president to accountability for his profligacy, as written by Donald Rivkin and Lee Casey (WSJ. Aug 2nd). For their service they were called “terrorists” by people who won't even call a terrorists such..
In the age of Obama, it has become all but impossible to have an honest conservative/liberal debate.
Our beloved nation is in perilous of times, not unlike 1862. The election of 2012 can be the most critical since the one of 1860. The only reason Obama is even slightly restrained in pushing his most radical agenda is his need to avoid hurting his reelection chances. While his sycophantic media didn't report it as such, the reason he pushed for a debt ceiling agreement through the election was to give him unfettered campaign opportunities without having the demand of governing, which he will do little of in the next 15 months.

If Obama is reelected, traditional America, as we have known and loved her, will be no more. Her heart and soul will be gone. Some  here will rejoice, but don't be surprised when much of the world will not.

Joe Mann


Tuesday, August 14, 2012


If anyone believes the upcoming debates will be fair, read this article for some facts about the tired old Progressives and lightweights who will moderate. It's pathetic, but expected, from the debate council of the same ilk. Do these fools not realize that if Obama reaches his ultimate goal, all of them will be subordinate to government and most won't have their jobs? Think Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan press. NO, this is not extreme thinking, it is logical, analytical thinking.

Friday, August 3, 2012


FROM: Joe Mann, James City County

On August 1, an essay in The Daily Press, a Tribune Company Newspaper, offered the idea that irrespective of  who wins the November election, America will continue to be the exceptional nation she has long been -- so long as we maintain our founding principles. This concept has long been the reality of America. No more. The author ignores who President Obama really is and what his goals are. It continues to baffle me that so many people ignore reality and are likely to support Obama irrespective of his performance and his goals.

In the past, I would have endorsed Charles T. Joyner's op-ed, 1 August, “The World Won't End If Your Guy Doesn't Win.” He concludes, “as long as we uphold our founding principles and celebrate our “exceptionalism” we will remain the richest and strongest nation of Earth.” Historically, we could rely on this premise. Not now! Barack Obama is not a traditional American president.

He's proven his intentions to transform America. He doesn't endorse American “exceptionalism.” He's polarized Americans deliberately, to build voter blocs – for power. Many of his radical appointees are steeped in collectivism – Marxism. He and his AG have ignored the constitution, including the separation of powers, and abrogated laws at will. His every move suggests his views are statist.

Obama leads a new low of economic expansion that appears permanent with reduced GDP growth and job creation. No president creates jobs. Rather, he/she leads in establishing policies that encourage private capital formation and economic expansion. Obama's policies are antithetical to growth. His attack on coal and oil epitomizes destructive policy.

Oil and coal underpin the economy. To attack these is not unlike destroying the foundation of one's house and expecting the structure to stand. This is but one of many policies that destroy the American way. After 4 years, such destructive policies must be deliberate. There's more!

With re-election of Obama, traditional America will be no more. Romney will not be ideal, but he will be pro-American.

Joe Mann
James City County/Williamsburg

Thursday, August 2, 2012


On dishonest inept "journalists, "Chick Fil A , Women's Rights and  Free speech
                                                   by Dr. John Taylor, PhD

Dr. Taylor has it right. There is much more to write about on this issue and I will do so with the impetus given here.  
I would not expect our "crack," progressive media to have the intellectual depth to understand the nuance and irony of what is taking place before us today. From the media's limited perspective, the Chick- Fil-A
battle is about same-sex marriage. It's not. It is about Sovereign citizens deciding that their 1st Amendment rights to free speech will not be infringed upon. From the media's rather shallow understanding, the Catholic Church's denunciation of the Obama administration's health care contraceptive mandate is about women's rights. It's not. It is about Sovereign citizens deciding that their 1st Amendment rights to religious freedom will not be infringed upon. I don't really care if Ms. Couric wants to know what Sarah Palin has recently read. I want to know what Ms. Couric has read, and not read, or if she even reads. I am more than a little fed up with "journalists," and for that matter bloggers, who write more than they read. It shows. Fortunately, one of my father's maxims was, "Never take advice from someone who knows less about the subject than you do." If we all did that, there would be a lot of former journalists suddenly signing up for disability benefits.