Ron Paul As Winston Churchill

As most of you know, I am leaning towards Sarah Palin or Rick Perry at this point. I think that they combine visibility, conservative ideals, and electability.

That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.

In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.

Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.

This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.

Potomac Highlands Conservative: The Difference Between "Liberalism" and "Socialism" As Explained by Sir Winston Churchill

This speech came from the period in which Churchill was a member of Britain's Liberal Party. It was given over a century ago, but plainly marks the boundary between what we used to call liberalism and the kind of extreme leftism that no one wants or needs.

I want tonight to speak about three cross-currents, and let me first say a word about Socialism. There are a great many Socialists whose opinions and whose views I have the greatest respect for - [hear, hear] - men some of whom I know well, and whose friendship I have the honour to enjoy. A good many of those gentlemen who have these delightful, rosy views of a great and brilliant future to the world are so remote from hard facts of daily life and of ordinary politics that I am not very sure that they will bring any useful or effective influence to bear upon the immediate course of events.

I am dealing rather with those of violent and extreme views who call themselves Socialists in the next few observations I shall venture with your indulgence to address to you.To the revolutionary Socialist I do not appeal as the Liberal candidate for Dundee. I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. [Cheers.]There is a great gulf fixed. It is not only a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. There are many steps we have to take which our Socialist opponents or friends, whichever they like to call themselves, will have to take with us; but there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward.Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.]

These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don't think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play - a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play - in relation to men and States. [Cheers.]Ah, gentlemen, I don't want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists - a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common - is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.]

Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way - "You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite." [Cheers.]Although I have tried my very best to understand these propositions, I have never been able to imagine the mechanical heart in the Socialist world which is to replace the ordinary human heart that palpitates in our breasts. What motive is to induce the men, not for a day, or an hour, or a year, but for all their lives, to make a supreme sacrifice of their individuality? What motive is to induce the Scotsmen who spread all over the world and make their way by various paths to eminence and power in every land and climate to make the great and supreme sacrifice of their individuality? I have heard of loyalty to a Sovereign. We have heard of love of country. Ah, but it is to be a great cosmopolitan, republic. We have heard of love of family and wives and children. These are the mere weaknesses of the bad era in which we live. We have heard of faith in a world beyond this when all its transitory pleasures and perils shall have passed away, a hope that carries serene consolation to the heart of men. Ah, but they deny its existence. [Laughter.]

And what then are we to make this sacrifice for? It is for the sake of society.And what is society? I will tell you what society is. Translated into concrete terms, Socialistic "society" is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent election, and whose officials in consequence would look on humanity through innumerable grills and pigeon-holes and across innumerable counters, and say to them, "Tickets, please." [Laughter.] Truly this grey old world has never seen so grim a joke. [Applause.] Now, ladies and gentlemen, no man can be either a collectivist or an individualist. He must be both; everybody must be both a collectivist and an individualist. For certain of our affairs we must have our arrangements in common. Others we must have sacredly individual and to ourselves. [Cheers.]We have many good things in common. You have the police, the army, the navy, and officials - why, a President of the Board of Trade you have in common. [Applause.] But we don't eat in common; we eat individually. [Laughter.] And we don't ask the ladies to marry us in common. [Laughter.]And you will find the truth lies in these matters, as it always lies in difficult matters, midway between extreme formulae. It is in the nice adjustment of the respective ideas of collectivism and individualism that the problem of the world and the solution of that problem lie in the years to come. [Applause.] But I have no hesitation in saying that I am on the side of those who think that a greater collective element should be introduced into the State and municipalities. I should like to see the State undertaking new functions, particularly stepping forward into those spheres of activity which are governed by an element of monopoly. [Applause.] Your tramways and so on; your great public works, which are of a monopolistic and privileged character there I see a wide field for State enterprise to embark upon. But when we are told to exalt and admire a philosophy which destroys individualism and seeks to replace it by collectivism, I say that is a monstrous and imbecile conception which can find no real foothold in the brains and hearts - and the hearts are as trustworthy as the brains - in the hearts of sensible people. [Loud cheers.]

Dead White Men

For the past couple of decades now, many in the world of academic history have shunned the study of what left wing professors call "dead white men." Instead they try to seek historical truths by looking at the lives of the masses. Peasants count more than kings, servants more than presidents.

In some fields, they are called "structuralists." They study patterns of large segments of people. "Intentionalists" adhere to the more traditional studies of history, emphasizing the effects of leaders and innovators. They believe that the actions of some men and women resonate more than others. George Washington had more impact than a Continental Army private in their eyes.

Predictably, left wingers embrace structuralism and blast the idea that "dead white men" had any importance at all (of course Elizabeth I of Britain and Catherine the Great of Russia are among these figures.)

My question to left wingers is this: if leaders had no effect on the past, if history was shaped entirely by commoners, then why get so bent out of shape over George W. Bush or treat Obama like some kind of messiah? After all if George Washington or Winston Churchill were not worthy of study because masses make history, why was Bush such a demon?

And just think of how much better off we'd have been if the country were founded by "wise Latina women" who according to Obama's choice for Supreme Court, have naturally better decision making skills than any white men.

Junk Science

In doing research recently, I came across a series of letters written to West Virginia Governor William Glasscock. They came from Major Leonard Darwin, famous scientist and son of evolution pioneer Charles. These letters invited Governor Glasscock to send a representative from West Virginia to the First International Eugenics Conference.

This conference sought to study the science behind racial degradation and propose legislative solutions to the problem that many of them believed threatened mankind. Was this a group of nutcases? No. The list of vice presidents of the society included Winston Churchill (soon to be head of the Royal Navy), Gifford Pinchot (chief conservation advisor for President Theodore Roosevelt), and many other esteemed names from both sides of the Atlantic.

What kind of legislative solutions could come of such a meeting? Eventually eugenics resulted in programs that sterilized the mentally challenged and even the chronically poor. The idea was that their inferior genes retarded the growth of mankind. Such ideals are not compatible with a democratic society because they undermine the concept that every one is free and equal under the law.

Of course we know that eugenics is junk science, a flawed field studied by well-meaning and intelligent people who observed natural phenomena and came to a horribly wrong conclusion. National Socialist Germany followed these ideas to their logical end.

In our time, junk science again rears its ugly head. This time the issue is what used to be called global warming. Now, after a bitterly cold winter, it has transformed to "climate change." Well-meaning, and some not so well-meaning, people have concluded that any shift in the earth's climate is A) artificial, and B) disastrous. Never mind that drastic shifts have occurred since the fall of Rome making the earth both much warmer and much colder than today. Surprisingly A) man survived and B) George W. Bush did not cause any of it.

Junk science threatens to destroy our prosperity and take away economic freedoms. If the United States follows the British model, electricity and other costs are expected to eventually skyrocket over 55%, leading to the loss of more manufacturing. Luckily, Senator Byrd stood up recently against legislation based upon unproven science that would destroy West Virginia's coal industry. How much damage will anti-capitalist left wingers do to individuals, business, and our country if junk science, just as in the days of eugenics, is allowed to prevail?

Individualized Democratic Tax Cut For the Liberal Wealthy and England Shut Down By A Snowstorm

In 2002 Tom Daschle declared war on President Bush's plan to make permanent his groundbreaking tax cut plan. We now know that those cuts laid the foundation for seven years of prosperity.

Daschle fought hard against tax cuts. Like most Democrats, he screamed about "tax cuts for the wealthy." His primary goal was preventing the repeal of the estate tax from becoming permanent. Tom Daschle while in the Senate wanted to make sure that the government got its hands on fifty percent of every estate upon someone's death.

We also now know that Daschle did not exercise such diligence when paying his own taxes. Call it the Individualized Democratic Tax Cut For the Liberal Wealthy. It is very simple. Wealthy liberals choose when and if they pay their taxes. Easy as pie! Now three powerful Democrats nominated to high office by Obama have been revealed to have owed tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Daschle owes over $128,000.

$128,000 is about three times what the average American earns in three years. One year of that salary makes an American well off. Daschle owes that much in taxes.

************************************************************************

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." Winston Churchill said this during World War II, a testament to the grit and determination of Royal Air Force fighter pilots downing German bombers as they tried to annihilate German cities. During the Blitz, Britons continued to work and live as normally as possible. Everyone strove to overcome relentless attack from a bitter enemy.

The Germans should just have sent snow.

A snowstorm brought London and much of the rest of England to a halt this week. Was it two feet? Three feet? No. Four inches. Four inches of snow did what the Luftwaffe could not. Everyone stayed home from work and the country was paralyzed.

Pretty laughable for a major city this side of Atlanta to get shut down by four inches of snow. It might even have political fallout in a country that has wedded itself so much to laws addressing the myth of man made climate change.

Joe Manchin and King George III

When the American colonies separated from Britain 232 years ago, we had a lot of grievances against our king. One of the biggest lay in the fact that the king's government and Parliament insisted on taxing the American colonies despite the fact that America had no direct representative in Parliament. Even worse, they attacked the power of the colonial assemblies that we did elect. They assured us that the king and Parliament would represent our important interests and that we needed no direct voice. America believed otherwise.

I had the opportunity to speak with a member of the Taylor County Board of Education on Tuesday night and what he said astounded me. First, the influence of the Board of Education has declined to almost nothing. In this member's reckoning, the elected Board of Educations in West Virginia make 5% of the decisions. Federal guidelines and state mandates eroded some of that authority, but much of it also has been shifted to state appointed bureaucrats. Second, this school board member explained that Governor Manchin proposed to eliminate the school boards altogether.

This was shocking, not just because of the potential to eliminate elected officials, but also due to the fact that these moves are not widely known. Even in the address Governor Manchin mentioned the issue in a fairly off hand way, according to this board member. The West Virginia Constitution fails to guarantee the existence of these institutions. Of course their powers and duties are not strongly defined either. Bureaucrats appointed by the governor run our schools more than the people we vote for.

This represents yet another shifty power grab. Boards of Education are not always popular and do not always do a great job. However they are still the voice of the people when it comes to how our tax money is spent in our school system. It is time to constitutionally guarantee their existence and grant them more authority. This will balance off the power of superintendents and appointed bureaucrats. Sure this will be less efficient, but the people will have a stronger say. The people in turn must remain educated about their school system and make sure to vote in effective and qualified individuals. If the people choose poorly then so be it. That is democracy. Like Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other ones. We should never turn over our school system to bureaucrats as long as our property taxes support these schools.

No taxation without representation!

Even the poor people are fat

In an interview years ago a malnourished East African said to a reporter, "I want to go to America where even the poor people are fat." Think about what that statement says about our country. Most of recorded history the poor have starved, and still today that is the case in most of the world, but not in America. It is not because of social programs, the reason is Capitalism.

A farmer does not go into the fields at sunrise, and return to his home at night fall because he wants to grow food. He does that because he wants to generate income to support his family, and better his lot in life. The farmer knows the harder he works, the more food he generates, the higher quality his product, the more people will buy it, and the more his lot will improve. It is the self interest in bettering ones lot in life that created an abundance of high quality cheap food, that unlike much of history allows the poor here to get fat.

Capitalism has succeeded to the point that obesity is a problem primarily among the poor. This twist of irony flies in the face of thousands of years of human history, where the rich were obese ones. We are not so removed from our past that the term "fat cats" is still used to denote the rich. While early social programs primary function was to make sure the poor were fed, now West Virginia is offering Weight Watchers as a social program to reduce obesity among the poor.

Socialist try to pretend that Capitalism hurts the poor, but as you read above the poor benefit most from Capitalism. In 1968 the University of Michigan began a study among 50,000 individual families. Of the 20% at the bottom in 1975, 70% of those had climbed out of the bottom by 1991, and 25% of those made it to the top 20% in income. Capitalism gave the people the opportunity to improve their lot in life. The results will never be equal, because people vary in skill, eduction, work ethic, and a host of other factors. Winston Churchill said it best, " The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "