Obama's attack on Unbias News organization makes Leno

When Describing Obama, Pelosi, etc., Socialism Is Not Just a Buzz Word

I hear it a lot. Liberals accuse us of using socialism as a label to tarnish a target, much in the same way that leftists use the word "racism." Using the "s" word is seen as destroying civility. Of course racism gets tossed at our side by a former president.

So where's the proof that the leftists are socialists? Why not ask the experts on the subject? In 1991 Bartlomiej Kaminski (PhD University of Warsaw, currently professor of government and economics at the University of Maryland) published a groundbreaking study on socialism in Poland called The Collapse of State Socialism . It explains the nature of state socialism, compares it to a free market system, then describes how it is ultimately unsustainable.

The first table in the book lists comparisons of a free market system against state socialism and the comparisons should scare you.

The left wing in America, including the Obama Administration, compare strongly to the listed characteristics of a state socialist regime. I am going to list a few of them:

"Society as an object" Obama does not engage society, he informs it what he expects of it.

"Conflict suppression" Kaminski says that democracies mediate conflict. Socialism finds ways to demonize and marginalize opposition.

"Political unity" Socialist states see unity as the primary goal of politics and achieve it by a variety of means. Democracies believe in political pluralism, the give and take between people that disagree on the issues.

Kaminski sees law in a democracy as being a constraint upon both the people and the government. Socialist states see the law as a tool to accomplish their goals for society.

Democracies at times want to convicne people to act in a certain way and use arguments to appeal to people's reason and sense of self-interest. Socialist states use coercion and bribery.

In terms of the economy, democratic and capitalist systems exclude themselves from the private sector, although they do enact policies that apply to the whole system. Socialist economics tends to be interventionist, trying to alter and control individuals and specific businesses. Democracies tend to create regulations that are understandable and specific. Socialists make the rules unstable and hard to comprehend by design. They want people and business to be constantly breaking the law because it provides the government leverage over them.

In this way, the state system envisioned by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and leftists resembles more a state socialist system than a capitalist one. The government has arbitrary power over people and corporations that it uses to pursue its own goals. History shows that such a system is unsustainable in the long run. That, and the fact that it deprives people of freedom, makes it and the people that advocate it very dangerous.

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

Reagan on Socialized Medicene

Obama's real thoughts on Socialized Health Care

Transcript, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama in his own words: He wants Single Payer Socialized Medicine

Health Care Bill Denies new Private Coverage: It's Right in the Bill

The Obama Health Care Bill will deny enrollment in new private care after it is enacted. Below is the text of that section of the bill, H.R. 3200, Section 102, (a), (1), (A). Outlined in yellow is the line denying new enrollment in private insurance. You can find this section and the full version by searching the office record at the Library of Congress.

H.R.3200
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

Congressmen ask to sign pledge they will read Health Care Bill

Let Freedom Ring has asked Congress to sign a pledge to do something they should automatically do, read the bill they are going to vote on. This should be a no brainier. All Congressional members if they are doing their job should be reading the bills.

Socialism Made No Sense to Aristotle Either

This excerpt is from Aristotle's work The Politics written about 340 B.C. It describes that a system is much more fair when everyone pursues his self-interest. Aristotle also makes the correct point that a system without private property tends to have a dampening effect on benevolence and charity.

Should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in common or not? Three cases are possible: (1) the soil may be appropriated, but the produce may be thrown for consumption into the common stock; this is the practice of some nations. Or (2), the soil may be common, and may be cultivated in common, but the produce divided among individuals for their private use; this is a form of common property which is said to exist among certain barbarians. Or the soil and the produce may be alike common. When the farmers are not the owners, the case will be different and easier to deal with; but when they till the ground for themselves the question of ownership will give a world of trouble. If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. These are only some of the disadvantages which attend the community of property; the present arrangement, if improved as it might be by good customs and laws, would be far better.

Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business. And yet by reason of goodness, and in respect of use, 'Friends,' as the proverb says, "will have all things common." Even now there are traces. For, although every man has his own property, some things he will place at the disposal of his friends, while of others he shares the use with them. Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured. No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality consists in the use which is made of property. Such legislation may have a specious appearance of benevolence; men readily listen to it, and are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody's friend, especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private property. These evils, however, are due to a very different cause---the wickedness of human nature.

The Road to Serfdom (a Potomac Highlands Conservative Book List Selection)

As World War II wound down, socialists throughout Europe looked to use the crisis to create a new economic order. Britain's Labour party combined with socialists around the continent planned to implement large scale changes in health care, employment rights, and power granted to labor unions.

Friedrich A. Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom as a warning to the democratic world that embracing socialist economics means sending one's country down a path of diminishing freedoms. His theme is that socialists may be people of goodwill, but their policies lay the foundation of totalitarianism. Nazism and fascism are not the opposite of socialism, but the next logical step. The mania for planning embraced by leftists on every level will "unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for."

When the economy is planned, it removes freedom from the hands of individuals and concentrates it into the hands of government officials. Whereas power was previously diffused among different and opposing elements in society, thus keeping a balance of interests, it now makes the government the overriding interest. Concentrated power threatens most basically the right to private property, identified by our Founding Fathers and their inspirations as the most basic guarantee of freedom.

Planning reduces and eventually eliminates from the system the element of competition. Competition ensures that the strongest and most efficient survive. Competition encourages advances in technology and methods, creating savings that benefit society. Competition is the only method that does not require coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. It merely needs a referee to call fouls.

Socialist planning my begin in the legislature in communities, states, and countries that fall for the sales pitch of leftism. However, by its very nature, democratically elected assemblies cannot plan. Elected officials reflect their constituencies. Therefore the next step lies in the creation of planning boards that have no accountability to the people. They gain more and more power over time and never answer to voters. This lack of accountability means that they may defy the people's interest with impunity.

In a free market capitalist system, the government has very little direct interest or stake in the economy and can therefore act impartially. When planning and intervention take over, the government becomes an actor with overwhelming coercive power. Since the government must defend its interest, all in the name of society, it attacks free market institutions. This subverts one of our most cherished rights, rule of law, in favor of arbitrary government action.

Here is the problem. Plans always fail. You cannot succeed with a planned economy. Either you must revert to free markets, or face the possibility of disaster. When that disaster comes, according to Hayek, the people demand a strongman to lead them out of the mess.

To me, Obama's policies have not been coherent enough to successfully advance socialism. What we have seen is the reintroduction of mercantilism. This was the British economic system of intervention, preferences, and prejudices that led freedom loving Americans to rebel. This sort of response would also bring forth the strong man Hayek described.

Either way, the gain of government power directly causes a loss of individual freedom. How far this goes is up to the American voter. A Republican Congress is necessary to roll back the bizarre and half witted measures advanced by the Obama Administration.

Mineral County Planning Commission hears requirements for Zoning

Wednesday night the Mineral County Planning Commission was visited by Michael Dougherty of the WVU Extension Office. Mike spoke for 21 minutes to the commission on what was required for implementing zoning in Mineral County.

His speech is complete with all the parts below.

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

Illegal to be Overweight Part Two

If you saw the previous article about Japan passing laws to outlaw obesity, you know what I am talking about. That country established national waistline standards that will cause towns and cities to be punished if their citizens are too overweight.

The big question here is, how would the state find out if people in a given city are too fat or not? My guess is that the government has too much access to health care numbers on individuals. They can leverage that information against towns and cities who will then bring compulsive power down upon individuals. All this effort for a problem that is none of the state's business.

It can't happen here, right? Too late! Governor Joe Manchin expends state resources to gather information about what kind of exercise each child in school does every day. That's right. Children must report their physical activities on a calendar every day or they receive a D in their physical education class. Are you an aspiring valedictorian that believes in freedom and keeping government out of your life? Too bad. Uncle Joe says you have to tell.

Expect more of this kind of interference if the government ever gains control of health care. That will give them access to all your information. Governments cannot be trusted with the economy because they make economic decisions for political reasons. That is why the Soviet Union fell apart and why China has abandoned real Communism (although they maintain their dictatorship.) It is why Britain has almost no dentists and why people there have taken to extracting their own teeth.

Socialized health care will not only result in poor decisions by politicians, it will also allow the government to craft policies to encourage you to be healthier whether you like it or not. Someday compare pictures of those who led our Revolution and crafted our Constitution with those who founded fascist and communist states. The American founders are certainly a mixed bag. For every trim George Washington you have two or three pear shaped Franklins or John Adamses. You also have a few morbidly obese men such as General Henry Knox. Look at the Nazis. Outside of morphine addict Hermann Goering, you have a group that was obsessed with physical fitness. Look at Stalin's inner circle. Krushchev was a little pudgy, but most of those men stayed pretty fit as well.

The difference is the freedom to choose. Our society is based upon that ideal but it is difficult to maintain it. The enemy is the nanny state and they don't take all our freedoms at once. They use what Stalin called "salami tactics." If you slice away a bit at a time, no one notices. Uncle Joe Manchin takes a little freedom by forcing kids to give up their privacy "because it is for their own good." Socialized health care by comparison is giving away the farm. We put this crucial part of our system into government hands and we have told the world that we are no longer free.

Free Markets Work!

Recently, Del Nancy Guthrie (D-Kanawha) has made a few comments regarding her views on free market policies. She is under the misconception that free market policies do not work. She is wrong; the free market is working nationally, but their benefits come to a screeching halt at the West Virginia border.

She says that wages are down, we are losing the manufacturing industry, we in violation of the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and that we need more government intervention in order to fix this “crisis”. She is wrong on all four counts.

In fact, according to the National Bureau for Labor and Statistics, “More Than 8.1 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Months Of Job Growth On Record”.
They went on to say, “110,000 jobs created in September. September 2007 is the 49th consecutive month of job growth, setting a new record for the longest uninterrupted expansion of the U.S. labor market” and thanks to an $8.3 billion reduction in the trade deficit, our exports and Gross Domestic Product have grown 14.8 percent and 3.8 percent respectively.

And as far as the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and the rights of government to regulate International Commerce, it does that already through the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Administration. Their roles are to improve economic conditions, promote growth and trade with foreign states. The government further regulates trade by imposing customs, import/export taxes. The federal government also sets quotas. It states the amount of trade that is permissible with other countries.The only crisis here is that we are not seeing this growth within the boarders of the Mountain State .

The changes needed for West Virginia to become a thriving and prosperous state, begin with our legislature. Our businesses need a free-market environment in order to thrive; unfortunately, I do not think that a legislature where Delegate Guthrie’s point of view prevails will enact the prescribed reform.

The reason that we are losing the manufacturing base in our state is because of the poor business climate - just ask the owners of Weirton Steel and Fenton Glass. When you add the costs of regressive taxes and the worst legal climate of the 50 states, businesses simply smother and close their doors resulting more lost jobs.How are businesses expected to have capital to invest to improve their facilities, add more jobs, and raise wages if they are taxed so heavily on profit, on their inventory, and on the machinery and equipment which are necessities in order to make their product?

More taxes are not needed, instead we need a repeal of the Business and Occupational Tax, a repeal in the Business and Franchise Tax, and a repeal in taxes on inventory, machinery, and equipment.

In addition to our atrocious tax policies, our legal climate leaves much to be desired for in regards to attracting any form of business.

How do you expect a business to come to WV and invest when they know the vulnerabilities that await them the first day they open the door? Businesses simply do not trust our judicial system to be fair and balanced.

Our pro-plaintiff judicial system drives up the cost of liability and workers’ compensation insurance. Both high priced liabilities reduce our wages, and they threaten the survival of our employers.

We do not need more government “protectionism” advocated by Delegate Guthrie. We need to abolish Joint and Several liability to replace it with straight liability. The only people that should be forced to pay for damages done are those that are directly responsible for the actions that harm the victim.

We also need to eliminate lawsuits that can be filed without proof of injury. Anyone can enter into a place of business and file a lawsuit of injury without any proof that an actual injury occurred. This has turned our legal system into a lottery.

We have to stop taking baby steps to improve our business climate, and rather take leaps and bounds to attract business, create jobs, and allow current companies to grow creating even more jobs.

The government managed economy advocated by Del Guthrie and her colleagues in the ruling party has failed us for the past seventy-four years. We will never feel the effects of free markets in West Virginia until our government ceases to over regulate and over tax our people. The only alternative to the free markets is government control, which failed in Eastern Europe, and has failed West Virginia .

We are not Appalachian Serfs that need controlled

SERF (sûrf) A member of the lowest feudal class, attached to the land owned by a lord and required to perform labor in return for certain legal or customary rights. A person in bondage or servitude.

My family came to the area on a land grant in 1782 for services in the Continental Army. Since my roots are about 225 years old I believe I'm about as local as it gets. Appalachia has a unique and rich culture. Part of that culture is a right of self determination over ones property and life. It is the most dear principle of liberty, and one my ancestor helped secure by fighting against King George III some 200 years ago. I believe now that liberty again needs defending. This time not by force of arms, but by the voice of the people.

I read something this past weekend in one of the local publications in which the author couldn't understand why "Zoning" was a dirty word in our area. Simple, Zoning flies in the face of freedom itself. It stops self determination and it damages the economy by restricting it. Zoning is a Socialist concept that destroys the a free market in land, and removes its value without compensation to the owner. Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman said it best, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

These believers in Zoning, tend to be affluent and from the suburbs of a major city or at least lived there for a time. They falsely believe they are gaining some security by giving up some freedom. Ben Franklin saw right through this argument when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." These same people talk about how great living in Prince George's, Loudon, or Fairfax Counties was. My question is; If it was so great then why did you leave? The answer is they wanted to gain back that liberty they gave up. Despite all their rules and regulations that take away some of the liberty, they have much higher taxes, higher crime rates, etc and are less secure than we are here. Bad thing is many don't even realize that is why they left. Old Ben had it right, he knew the danger of this type of thinking.

In the article I read, it revealed that in Loudon County, Mobile Homes are not considered homes. That you can't put a mobile home on anything less than 5 acres. Wow! I have friends that are very proud to own their own home and some of those are mobile homes. This is wrong in so many ways. The only purpose of a zoning ordinance like that is to give power to the affluent in the community over the common man. It makes it harder for struggling families, low income wage earners, some middle class, or persons on a fixed income to own their own home. That is the thought process of the Socialist. The socialist pretends that a mobile home is not a home. That way when they deny your ability to own a home you can afford through zoning, they see it as not really taking away your right to own a home in their mind. It is a way for them to justify taking away the liberty of others.

Zoning tries to regulate bulk of the population into nothing more than Serfs of the rich land owners. In essence a Zoning Board will become the Feudal Lords, and the Taxpayers become the Serfs. (You don't really think the guy living in a trailer park, and working at the chicken plant will ever be appointed to the zoning board, do you?) We are not Appalachian Serfs that need controlled. We are free men and women that enjoy self determination over lives and property. If you try take away our liberty, then "Serfs Up Dude!"