Keyser Tea Party has a host of Candidates Speaking

Bob Adams Executive Director of the League of American Voters


Stephen Smoot President of the Potomac Highland Patriots


Mineral County Commission Candidate Dr. Richard Lechliter


Gary Howell 49th House District Candidate


State Senator Dave Sypolt


John Yoder, West Virgina Supreme Court Candidate


David McKinley, Candidate for US Congress


Mac Warner former Congressional Candidate

Keyser Tea Party Scheduled for Tomorrow

A Tale of Two Immigration Enforcement Cases

A couple of weeks ago, the Mineral Daily News Tribune reported that Keyser police arrested a Mexican illegal alien for assault. When they requested that immigration authorities come and pick him up, they declined, stating that it was not important enough for them to make the trip.

Then comes this story told in a letter to the editor written by the wife of a Cameroon native. Apparently they had enough time to come and raid the home of a man from Cameroon apparently trying to stay in the United tates the right way, but no time to pick up a Mexican illegal who committed a felony about fifteen minutes down the road.

The following letter was written to the Mineral Daily News Tribune on June 14th. Immigration policy is completely out of whack under Obama if the facts stated below are true compared to the case of the Mexican illegal alien in Keyser.

Ridgeley, W.Va. -
To the Editor:My husband’s name is Serge Christian Nyamsi Babo. He arrived in the United States to play in a basketball tournament in Chicago in 1999, at the age of 17 years.He was brought into the country by a gentleman from Cameroon, who had the intentions of selling him and four other boys to basketball coaches. He came into the United States on a Visitor’s Visa. When the man found out that it was illegal for him to sell the boys, he gave them each $20 and told them to go get lunch, then meet back at the hotel.When the boys came back to the hotel, the man was gone. He left the boys stranded, without much money and speaking no English. The slept wherever they could find shelter. Serge ended up being taken in by a family in Indianapolis, Ind. His host father was, and still is, the chaplain for the Indianapolis Colts.Serge attended English classes and taught himself English. He met up with the basketball coach from a local high school. He graduated from Arlington High School in Indianapolis.While attending high school, his guidance counselor told him that they did not have the finances to apply to have his status adjusted to that of a student from a visitor. The counselor suggested that he apply for political asylum. Being young, naïve, and speaking very little English, Serge agreed to apply for the asylum. The asylum case was denied.Serge had an attorney, also a fellow Cameroonian, who lived in the United States. Serge was unaware at the time, but this gentleman had been disbarred and his privileges revoked as an attorney. This “attorney” told Serge that he would file an appeal.The appeal to the asylum case was also denied. Serge was granted voluntary departure. His “attorney” advised Serge to go ahead as planned, and marry his girlfriend at the time. Serge did as he was advised, and carried out their plans to get married. The appeal was filed, however the marriage papers were never filed, although they had been paid for. Serge and his wife (at that time) were under the impression that the petitions had been filed.Serge’s marriage did not work out, and he and his first wife divorced.My relationship with Serge began in 2005. Shortly after we became involved with one another, he contacted the INS to get an update on his case. In listening to the automated system, Serge learned that an order of deportation had been issued to him in February of 2005. Still to this day, he has not received a copy of the deportation letter.Serge and I were married in August 2006. Shortly before that, in July 2006, our firstborn son died at birth. Since then, we have been blessed with two more children. We have two sons, ages 2 ½ years and 9 months. We have an approved I-130 with the INS. We just purchased a house in July 2009.Serge has not been hiding from the INS. He has changed his address with them each time we have moved. He does not have a criminal background. He has a Social Security number that was issued by the government in order for him to obtain a work permit. His first work permit was issued in January 2009. He applied to have it renewed, and in January 2010 he received the renewal.He has been working for almost a year for a non-profit organization that houses abused and neglected children. He is a mentor and a role model for them.His case has been dismissed. It was never denied. We have filed a Motion to Reopen, but it was denied by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Our current attorney filed an appeal to the 7th Circuit’s denial, and that too was denied. When the appeal was denied, ICE was notified to come and pick him up. Although it has been almost 11 years since Serge last saw his family in Cameroon, he does not want to go back there to stay. He wants to remain in the United States with his wife and sons. He has already been in prison for almost four weeks now. That’s four weeks of his sons' lives that he has missed. We are trying to get him released from prison, and get his case reopened so that his status can be adjusted. Serge Babo is one of the most important people in my life. He is my husband, my best friend, and the father to our children.Serge is currently being held in the York County Prison, awaiting removal back to Cameroon, Africa. He was arrested by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 12, 2010 while standing in our kitchen, washing dishes.He is a good man, not a criminal. He should not have to be treated as a prisoner. Prison is not the place for a man of his stature. He does not have a criminal background. He is a person of good moral character, a role model and mentor to children, and is active in our home church.In conversations with Serge, he repeatedly tells me of his two biggest fears: first, that his children will not know who he is when he returns home, and secondly, that he and I will lose all of our material assets which we have worked so hard to obtain.Only 2 ½ years old, Jeremiah is complimented frequently on how well-mannered and respectful he is. This is because of his father’s impact on his life.For the past three weeks, since Serge was taken in to custody, I have had to look into the eyes of this little boy, and try to answer him when he asks, “Where’s Daddy? When’s Daddy coming home?” Try explaining that to a toddler and expect him to understand what is going on. This little boy is hurting. He is heart broken. He sits and cries, and when I ask him why he’s crying, he replies, “Because I want to go get my Daddy.”He only knows that his Daddy was taken away from him by some strangers and they haven’t brought him back yet.Our baby, 9-month-old Jabari, is too little to know what’s going on. He’s not able to ask where his Daddy is, but I am certain that he notices his absence. His face lights up with smiles when he hears his voice on the phone, but slowly, he will forget who his Daddy is and won’t recognize him when they are reunited. Please help me to keep this from happening. These two young boys need their Daddy more than anything! I was rather upset and appalled and could not believe my eyes when I read the article, ON THE RECORD (from June 2, 2010) which read:"9:31 p.m. — Police received a call about a man assaulting a woman in an alley near East Piedmont Street. Arriving at the scene, officers conducted an investigation that determined an assault had occurred. Charged with domestic battery was Jose Velez, 24, who had been staying in Keyser. However, police said Velez eventually advised officers he was an illegal alien. No immigration charges were filed, as police said federal officials from the Immigration and Naturalization Service will not respond to take custody of a lone illegal. As a result of the investigation, Velez was further charged with two counts of obstructing an officer for failing to provide information about his residency, and public intoxication."The INS won't "take custody of a lone illegal"? Are you kidding me? What do you call what they have done to our family? The came into our house, and they took a man into custody that DOES NOT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUND!!I have contacted both Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller numerous times. Neither Senator is able to offer assistance. Both offices have given the response that it is legally out of their hands, and they cannot get involved.This is very disappointing. What kind of government do we have? Serge lives in West Virginia with his family. He works in West Virginia. HE PAYS TAXES IN WEST VIRGINIA...yet they still are unwilling to help in our situation.Maybe there is someone out there somewhere who can help us!

Brittney (Rinard) Babo
Ridgeley

The Obama Embracing Former Republican Governor of Florida Inspecting His State's Attractions

I'm not going to heavily criticize Florida Governor Charlie Crist for an unguarded moment like this. There's far too much to criticize about him that has real substance. His embrace of Obamunism led to his virtually being read out of the Republican Party. He will probably lose to Republican nominee Rubio this fall.

That all being said, this is a photographic moment that the man probably would rather not be spread.

MSNBC Bashes Obama's Oil Well Blowout Speech

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html

The above link takes you to Real Clear Politics. They carry a transcript of some of the remarks made by MSNBC's ultra left wing political team after Obama's oil well blowout speech last night. Their tone is shocking compared to the gushing they did in 2008, ignoring the conservative accusations that an inexperienced Obama may be in over his head.

Of course they do it in a somewhat disturbing fashion. I do not like the idea of executive command as a model. Leadership, guidance, organization, innovation, these would help. Command is too dictatorial a word for me. Unless the situation involves war, I do not want a president thinking in terms of command.

This situation would try any president. Catastrophes either make or break those who aspire to be called leaders because there is so little margin for error. From the early day that Obama's Administration refused help from the Netherlands to his party with Paul McCartney, the president and his staff seem to have no clue that this is something beyond a political problem. It's actually the opposite of the Bush/Katrina problem. Bush was working behind the scenes to prevent economic disaster and deferring, as he should have, to the state governor. He and his people ignored the political issues created by the perceived lack of engagement. Obama's people have reacted as if this was entirely a political issue, hoping it would blow over, then reacting belatedly by putting on some silly tough guy act.

In any case, it's clear that temporarily at least he has lost the Left.

Addendum to Today's Call For Banding Together

Just took a quick peek over at West Virginia Red, something I do about once a week. Sometimes they have articles of interest when they are not continually and relentlessly attacking Chairman Doug McKinney, Executive Director Troy Berman, or any number of other state executive committee members. Today they did something that went a little too far.

Young Republicans Chairman Mike Howerton occasionally indulges in a little small time professional wrestling. It's an activity that lies somewhere between sports and performance art most certainly. To be good at it requires some acting that is more than a little over the top.

Wrestling's not my thing, personally, at least not since I was a teenager. However, I can see how doing it would be a fun way to earn a little extra cash. Don't tell that to a few of the folks over at West Virginia Red. The responses not only bashed Howerton, but also eventually became somewhat offensive with anti gay remarks. (For the record, Mike is about to get married, he is not gay.)

You know, if you have issues with how he was chosen for his position, or how he performs his job that's one thing. Insults should be beneath us.

Also for the record and by way of example, I remember Republican Sonny Bono being elected to the House of Representatives after singing and starring on a variety show. Christopher Guest, formerly of Saturday Night Live, was a member of the British House of Lords until reform laws disqualified him. Comedy sketch shows are about on the same respect level as professional wrestling, but that did not seem to hurt either of them. I guess the folks who don't like Mike were mortified to see "The Rock" sitting in front of former President George H. W. Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Oh the humanity.

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

Another thing that is a little more amusing is the attacks they have made on this blog. Basically their beef is that we don't bash Doug McKinney or other people involved with the WVGOP. Maybe they are not aware that not every conservative blog is eager to throw Republicans overboard at least twice a week or more. Over here we do local, regional, and state news along with commentary on current events and pieces on conservative thought, values, and ideals. Maybe that's not as interesting as some of what goes on over there, but our reason to exist is not to insult, tear down, or otherwise carry on against other conservatives and Republicans. There is a serious factional fight taking place in this party. Regardless of what happens this summer, we have to come together afterwards and fight the leftists instead of each other.

Not everyone who writes or responds to West Virginia Red creates vicious attacks, but there are enough to cause hard feelings that won't just vaporize in August. We will all need to work together for West Virginia to do their part, returning Ms. Capito and electing David McKinley and Spike Maynard, plus gaining as many legislative seats and other elected positions as possible.

I don't understand why some folks over there want to make that necessary August reconciliation (again, regardless of what happens!) as difficult as possible.

Time to Band Together

The primary season has just about wound down across the nation. In some states we saw surprises while in others we got pretty much what we expected. In this neck of the woods, Shelley Moore Capito will likely be returned to Congress. David McKinley was selected from a strong field of candidates to represent the party this November. Sure there was some family squabbling there that we don't always see here in West Virginia, but McKinley will do very well this summer and fall.

Across the country, Republicans are preparing for November, but there are two schools of thought on what should happen. The first school says that moderate Republicans squandered their opportunity to make a real impact last time they had power. They played politics as usual, handing out more and more pork while mouthing the principles that got them elected. Voter anger tossed them out for two straight elections. Some say that these men and women ought to be purged and replaced with more ideologically pure Republicans.

Others, such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, insist that we are all in it together and that we all have an interest in defeating the Left wing that holds the angry nation in its grip. There is some truth to this too. The political paradigm has shifted. Voters want debt reduction more than money sent back to the district. They fear socialism more than they want an old theatre refurbished (or whatever. Pick your pork example here!) And Republican voters want no compromise with the Left. They can see that this is a different Democratic Party than in the past. Horse trading won't work right now. But Governor Barbour has a point. We need all Republicans and all conservatives and libertarians period to overthrow Pelosiocracy.

Third parties and factions will doom us this year. Personal antagonism will as well. This year is bigger than all that. Republicans, independents, libertarians, and conservative Democrats need to vote for the Republican candidates whoever they are. They need to support the Republican Party organizations. Some of you are dissatisfied with how the RNC has conducted itself lately. So am I. I'm pretty disappointed some days. Declaring victory well before the election is never a good stretegy. However there is a lot of reason for optimism.

The party is evolving slowly, but surely. Texas's GOP defied their governor and passed a resolution calling for an Arizona style immigration law. State legislators across the nation are coming up with ways to defy unconstitutional federal measures. State attorneys general are filing lawsuits against the expansion of federal power. Most Republicans do "get it." It's time to unify and march on all fronts against an enemy desperate to hold on to power.

Leftism will transform this country stage by stage if it is not stopped quickly. We must avoid the fate that history imposed upon other nations over the centuries. That means setting all else aside and standing up for our rights and our nation. There is a reason that we call ourselves Republicans. This year and in 2012, it is about saving the Republic.

Little Orphan Annie Exits Stage Left and Obama To Return to Campaigning For Himself

The comic strip "Annie" is now ending its run after almost ninety years. Her adventures as an impoverished orphan helped by a benevolent businessman have made the movies and Broadway, but the print run, at least for now, is over.

Annie was a different type of cartoon in that it reflected the viewpoint of the rock ribbed Republican conservatives. She fought New Dealers, bureaucrats, clueless do gooders and social workers. The strip's message was clear. Government can and will screw up whatever it tries to do. Individual initiative and the private sector are better at solving America's problems.

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

Obama will be appearing tomorrow night to address the nation on the oil spill. His gaffes on the subject actually predate the spill, when he joined the chorus of Bush bashers after Hurricane Katrina. He implied that his administration would reflect confidence instead of impotence. Of course the opposite has been true on all too many issues. Most recently he mused that he was looking for someone's a__ to kick. This was supposed to, perhaps, reduce the perception of Obama as detached intellectual professor and make him sound more proletarian. It came off as naturally as Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank, like a nerd finally trying to look tough and failing.

Obama today inspires more guffaws than confidence. Is the oil well blow out his fault? Probably not. However his refusal to accept offers of help from foreign and domestic sources, his regular partying with celebrities during the course of the disaster, his stilted public appearances, refusal to speak even to the friendly mainstream media all contribute to a breakdown of leadership. Add to that his unwillingness to spend Memorial Day at Arlington to honor the troops, the snubs of important allies, an offer of $400 million to the terrorist group Hamas, and to top it all off the rushing of Vice President Biden to the World Cup when neither Biden nor Obama could be bothered to attend the Polish president's funeral. What did Obama do that day? Did he pay respects at the Polish Embassy at least? No, he played golf.

This is just the last six months. This man is completely out of touch with the people and his responsibilities across the board. It's not just the oil well blowout that has Americans and people around the world worried. His entire presidency is a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Thank You For Your Vote Jay Rockefeller

We have said it before that it is rare that we are able to thank one or more of our Democratic brethren for doing the right thing. This time we thank Senator Rockefeller.

Rockefeller this week voted for the resolution introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) Alaska. It would have prevented the EPA from enacting crippling regulations that will raise all of our energy costs significantly. Rockefeller and the five other Democrats sided with Republicans to try and prevent the EPA from brazenly extending its authority beyond all reasonable bounds. They also defended the constitutional power of Congress to be the sole source of legislation as is stated in Article 1 Section 1. These EPA regulations are meant to impose measures that Congress refused to pass.

This is the list of Democrats who bucked party line. Notice that Robert C. Byrd is not one of them. He could have led a successful charge to defend the powers of Congress, but failed to step up to the occasion.

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Speech of Howard Roark (played by Gary Cooper) in The Fountainhead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

A nice Friday afternoon inspirational piece. Transcription below.


Howard Roark'sCourtroom Speech
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted dardness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden terrritory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world. “That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage. “Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won. “No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men. “His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego. “The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. “And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. “Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind. “But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred. “We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival. “Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary. “The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men. “The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive. “The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary. “The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism. “Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self. “No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue. “The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism. “Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement. “Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive. “Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone. “Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self. “Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. “This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life. “The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil. “The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men. “Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence. “In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner. “No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men. “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator. “A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander. “Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter. “But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym. “From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism. “The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective. “The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results. “The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off! “Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience. “It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. “Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country. “I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. “Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. “I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it. “I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it. “I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. “I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action. “I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature. “It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world. “I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need. “I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others. “It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. “I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world. “I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others. “I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place. “My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
Return to Favorite Life Lessons

Keyser Tea Party Scheduled for June 19th

Puritans and Socialists

No one hates the Puritans more than self-described liberals and leftists. They claim to hate the value that Puritans placed on enforced social conformity in thought, appearance, and action. A group of elders sat at the top of society deciding what was best and then enforcing their judgments on everyone. Some got humiliated in the stocks. Some received beatings or imprisonment. Some were mercifully banished. Others were killed. Those receiving punishment could not conform or adhere to the restrictive ideals that Puritanism placed on society in the name of God.

Take away the guiding principle of the Puritans' interpretation of the Holy Bible and what you are left with is a Utopian ideal that in practice comes very close to what the leftists seek to impose. Puritans ruled several areas for brief amounts of time. They controlled much of New England from its founding until the 1680s when control was wrenched away by James II. For a brief period in the 1650s they ruled Maryland after an armed coup. Between the 1640s and early 1660s Puritans held Great Britain itself in the grip of a revolutionary government dominated by the dictatorial Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. Britain enjoyed their Puritan dictatorship so much that on Cromwell's death they invited to the throne the son of the king they executed.

Puritans demand a conformity of thought to their ideals. The Left believes that Tea Parties and the Republicans are "seditious," in other words guilty of criminal speech against the government. Puritans want to impose a conformity of habit. The Left is out in front of the movement to tax certain kinds of fat, use government controls to reduce sodium content, and tax smoking out of affordability. Puritans established compulsory education to ensure that children learned their ideals of Christianity and learned a healthy hatred of "damned" sects such as Anglicans and Catholics. The Left has voiced its desire repeatedly to use the school system to promote its peculiar and fringe ideals on economics, society, and culture while attacking respect for the flag, the Founding Fathers, and the free enterprise system.

The difference between the Puritans of New England and the Left is that Puritans always had control and had to preach conformity and authoritarianism. The Left just obtained control and is finding it difficult to go from preaching non conformity and questioning authority to a state where no one is to question and criticize Dear Leader. It has left many on that side of the political spectrum confused and disoriented. Some have just outright rejected him themselves, despite the threat of banishment from the Democratic cash trough.

When thinking about the Puritan dictatorship of Britain, one sees historical hope. The criminal rule of King Charles I followed by the revolutionary brutality of Cromwell convinced Britain as a whole to reject the notion of a powerful central authority. They dismantled their army in peacetime and stuck to the idea that government must be small and unable to impose its will upon the people. Maybe Obama/Cromwell has been a wakeup call to our country that we must fundamentally change our thinking as Britain did. Government must return to being an "obedient servant" instead of a parental provider figure. We must cut our taxes and drastically cut back on what we expect the government to do. That could include privatizing the contruction of roads and bridges, eliminating several Cabinet level departments, and other ideas. The time is soon coming when we must scale back or collapse. Puritan rule caused this positive movment in the 1600s. Will leftist extremism in power do the same now?

Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Says Death Panels? Why Not?

What is the value of life? Doctors do not always know when a patient has three months or three years. A person pays into a system all of their life and when they need it most, this "compassionate" Democrat would say "Nein! Your social utility is over! Die you parasite." Of course this idiot is running in Florida.

Sarah Palin was dead on about death panels.



Maurice Ferré: Cut medical costs for those about to die

Senate candidate Maurice Ferré said it is wrong to spend thousands of dollars to prolong the lives of the dying for a short time.
BY GEORGE BENNETT
Palm Beach Post
WEST PALM BEACH -- Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Maurice Ferré says the United States spends an ``absurd'' amount on end-of-life care and should gradually move to a universal health system in which the government controls costs by setting prices for medical procedures and capping expenditures based on age and medical condition.
Speaking to The Palm Beach Post editorial board Wednesday, Ferré said he would have voted for the healthcare overhaul passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama as ``a step in the right direction.'' He said the ``Medicare-for-everyone'' system he favors should be phased in over about 25 years.
Ferré, 75, is a former Miami mayor running a low-budget Democratic primary campaign against U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami and Palm Beach billionaire Jeff Greene.
Answering a question about the long-term solvency of Social Security, Ferré said that raising the retirement age should be considered.
He then went into a discussion of Medicare costs, saying a large amount of money typically is spent in the final three months of a person's life.
``I've already written in my will that I don't want you to go spending half a million dollars to keep me alive for three more months all tubed up with all kinds of liquids going in and out of my body and my mind slowly slipping away. It's a torture chamber,'' Ferré said.
``Now you say, well, that's a `death panel.' Well, you know what, when you get to be 85 or 90 years old, you're going to die. And I'm sorry, you call it, Sarah Palin, what you want, but the fact is that it is absurd for us to be spending the types of money we're spending to extend life three months.''
Asked what he would do as a senator to control such costs, Ferré said: ``I would absolutely say that this is the cap on how much is available for you to spend at age 90, 87, with a heart condition of this sort, with diabetes of this sort, two legs missing and, you know, this is how much is available for you to spend. And you spend it any way you want.''
He added: ``My logic tells me that it is illogical to spend half a million dollars to extend a diabetic person who has two legs cut off, that we spend half a million dollars to tube up that person and extend their lives six months.''

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/10/1672403/ferre-cut-medical-costs-for-those.html?mitest=A_default#ixzz0qTdkEZSW

A Warning Label on the U.S. Constitution

This is an interesting story, A Warning Label on the U.S. Constitution

America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

Ramblings of an American Legacy

My family has been there from the beginning and I am extremely proud of my Nation and my heritage. 234 years my 4th Great Grandfather John Moore took up arms against a government that did not represent the people. The Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” He fought for 5 years under the command of General George Washington to form a nation with powers derived from the people. He was at Yorktown when the British surrendered. That was when Independence truly came and he saw it in person.

After the war he moved west to the Appalachians and started a Farm called Pretty Hole in 1782. While he was tending his new farm the Founding Fathers took the best of the British heritage made it uniquely American and wrote our Constitution. Our Constitution promised a limited government where the individual could keep the benefits of their labor. In 1804 my ancestor discovered coal on his land and sold it to Blacksmiths in Winchester, VA some 70 miles away hauling it over the Northwestern Turnpike by wagon. He worked to make a better life for himself and his family, because his new government didn’t interfere.

The Nation was in Civil War a battle over states rights that in many ways was never truly settled and is now coming to the forefront. We fought amongst ourselves in bloody battles, but even then we never lost sight of our founding principles of a government by the people. Consider that the American Civil War is unique in the fact it is the only civil war fought were both sides were democratic republics! My Great Great Grandfather Jefferson Howell joined the Union Army in 1861 to help save the nation.

In the 1930’s a mad man came to power in Germany. A good speaker he sold people a socialist bill of goods and grabbed power. He put together the Axis and attacked the free world. By 1940 Great Britain stood alone, but we began to supply the mother country with arms to save the last Democracy in Europe. On a December Sunday we were openly attacked. The unique thing about our Republic is that it is truly a government of the people. Few of the dictators or socialist of the world understand that. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto did, after the Pearl Harbor attack he said, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." It woke us up. My grandfather Glenn Howell joined the Navy in 1943 and helped save the world.

Today we are the worlds only Super Power and I stand at the end of a long line of American Patriots. My family has been there from the beginning. We have formed, shaped and saved the nation. We have helped liberate others from the chains of totalitarianism around the world. While there are many external threats to our nation, none is greater than our government’s deviation from the vision of our Founding Fathers. Today it falls on me and my generation to protect the Founder’s vision, not by force of arms, but from within the vary system they created, shaped and saved. I’m on the ballot November 2nd, 2010 to add my name to an American Legacy of Patriots pushing for limited government and personal responsibly. My God Bless America!

Potomac Highlands Conservative: Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Conference Speech October 1984

[Sir Alistair Graisser] Mr. President, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The bomb attack on the Grand Hotel early this morning was first and foremost an inhuman, undiscriminating attempt to massacre innocent unsuspecting men and women staying in Brighton for our Conservative Conference. Our first thoughts must at once be for those who died and for those who are now in hospital recovering from their injuries. But the bomb attack clearly signified more than this. It was an attempt not only to disrupt and terminate our Conference; It was an attempt to cripple Her Majesty's democratically-elected Government. That is the scale of the outrage in which we have all shared, and the fact that we are gathered here now—shocked, but composed and determined—is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.
I should like to express our deep gratitude to the police, firemen, ambulancemen, nurses and doctors, to all the emergency services, and to the staff of the hotel; to our ministerial staff and the Conservative Party staff who stood with us and shared the danger.
As Prime Minister and as Leader of the Party, I thank them all and send our heartfelt sympathy to all those who have suffered.[fo 1]
And now it must be business as usual. We must go on to discuss the things we have talked about during this Conference; one or two matters of foreign affairs; and after that, two subjects I have selected for special consideration—unemployment and the miners' strike.
This Conservative Conference—superbly chaired, and of course, our [ Dame P. Hunter] Chairman came on this morning with very little sleep and carried on marvellously,—and with excellent contributions from our members, has been an outstanding example of orderly assembly and free speech. We have debated the great national and international issues, as well as those which affect the daily lives of our people. We have seen at the rostrum miner and pensioner, nurse and manager, clergyman and student. In Government, we have been fulfilling the promises contained in our election manifesto, which was put to the people in a national ballot.
This Government, Mr. President, is reasserting Parliament's ultimate responsibility for controlling the total burden of taxation on our citizens, whether levied by central or local government, and in the coming session of Parliament we shall introduce legislation which will abolish the GLC and the Metropolitan County Councils.
In the quest for sound local government, we rely on the help of Conservative councillors. Their task should never be underestimated and their virtues should not go unsung. They work hard and conscientiously in the true spirit of service and I pay special tribute to the splendid efforts of Conservative councils up and down the country in getting better value for money through greater[fo 2] efficiency and putting out work to competitive tender. This is privatization at the local level and we need more of it.
At national level, since the General Election just over a year ago, the Government has denationalized five major enterprises, making a total of thirteen since 1979. Yesterday, you gave Norman Tebbit a standing ovation; today, our thoughts are with him and his family.
Again and again, denationalization has brought greater motivation to managers and workforce, higher profits and rising investment, and what is more, many in industry now have a share in the firm for which they work. We Conservatives want every owner to be an earner and every earner to be an owner.
Soon, we shall have the biggest ever act of denationalization with British Telecom and British Airways will follow; and we have not finished yet. There will be more to come in this Parliament.
And just as we have stood by our pledge on denationalization, it is our pride that despite the recession, we have kept faith with 9 million pensioners and moreover, by keeping inflation down, we have protected the value of their savings. As Norman Fowler told the Conference on Wednesday, this Government has not only put more into pensions, but has increased resources for the National Health Service. Our record for last year, to be published shortly, will show that the Health Service today is providing more care, more services and more help for the patient than at any stage in its history. That is Conservative care in practice. And I think it is further proof of the statement I made in Brighton in this very hall two years ago—perhaps some of you remember it—that the National Health Service is safe with us.[fo 3]
Now Mr. President and Friends, this performance in the social services could never have been achieved without an efficient and competitive industry to create the wealth we need. Efficiency is not the enemy, but the ally, of compassion.
In our discussions here, we have spoken of the need for enterprise, profits and the wider distribution of property among all the people. In the Conservative Party, we have no truck with outmoded Marxist doctrine about class warfare. For us, it is not who you are, who your family is or where you come from that matters. It is what you are and what you can do for our country that counts. That is our vision. It is a vision worth defending and we shall defend it. Indeed, this Government will never put the defence of our country at risk.
No-one in their senses wants nuclear weapons for their own sake, but equally, no responsible prime minister could take the colossal gamble of giving up our nuclear defences while our greatest potential enemy kept their's.
Policies which would throw out all American nuclear bases—bases which, mind you, have been here since the time of Mr. Attlee, Mr. Truman and Winston Churchill—would wreck NATO and leave us totally isolated from our friends in the United States, and friends they are. No nation in history has ever shouldered a greater burden nor shouldered it more willingly nor more generously than the United States. This Party is pro-American.
And we must constantly remind people what the defence policy of the Opposition Party would mean. Their idea that by giving up our nuclear deterrent, we could somehow escape the result[fo 4] of a nuclear war elsewhere is nonsense, and it is a delusion to assume that conventional weapons are sufficient defence against nuclear attack. And do not let anyone slip into the habit of thinking that conventional war in Europe is some kind of comfortable option. With a huge array of modern weapons held by the Soviet Union, including chemical weapons in large quantities, it would be a cruel and terrible conflict. The truth is that possession of the nuclear deterrent has prevented not only nuclear war but also conventional war and to us, peace is precious beyond price. We are the true peace party. And the nuclear deterrent has not only kept the peace, but it will continue to preserve our independence. Winston Churchill's warning is just as true now as when he made it many many years ago. He said this: "Once you take the position of not being able in any circumstances to defend your rights against aggression, there is no end to the demands that will be made nor to the humiliations that must be accepted." He knew, and we must heed his warning.
And yet, Labour's defence policy remains no Polaris, no Cruise missiles in Britain, no United States nuclear bases in Britain, no Trident, no independent nuclear deterrent.
There is, I think, just one answer the nation will give. No defence—no Labour Government.
Mr. President, in foreign affairs, this year has seen two major diplomatic successes. We have reached a detailed and binding agreement with China on the future of Hong Kong. It is an agreement designed to preserve Hong Kong's flourishing economy and unique way of life and we believe that it meets the needs and wishes of the people of Hong Kong themselves.[fo 5]
A few weeks ago, the unofficial members of the Executive Council of Hong Kong came to see me. We kept in touch with them the whole time and they frequently made journeys to No. 10 Downing Street as the negotiations with China proceeded. We were just about to initial the agreement and we consulted them, of course, about its content. Their spokesman said this: he said that while the agreement did not contain everything he would have liked, he and his colleagues could nevertheless recommend it to the people of Hong Kong in good conscience—in good conscience. That means a lot to us. If that is what the leaders of Hong Kong's own community believe, then we have truly fulfilled the heavy responsibility we feel for their long-term future.
That agreement required imagination, skill, hard work and perseverance. In other words, it required Geoffrey Howe.
And in Europe too, through firmness and determination, we have achieved a long-term settlement of Britain's budget contributions, a fair deal for Britain and for Europe too. And if we had listened to the advice of other party leaders, Britain would not have done half as well. But patient diplomacy and occasionally, I confess, a little impatient diplomacy, that did the trick.
Also, we have at last begun to curb surplus food production in the Community. Now, we know that for some farmers this has meant a painful adjustment and we are very much aware of their difficulties. Their work and their success are a great strength to our country. Michael Jopling and his colleagues will continue to fight to achieve a fair deal for them.
We have also won agreement on the need to keep the Community's spending under proper control. The Community can now enter on a new[fo 6] chapter and use its energies and influence to play a greater part in world affairs, as an example of what democracies can accomplish, as a very powerful trading group and as a strong force for freedom.
Now, Mr. President, we had one of the most interesting debates of this Conference on unemployment, which we all agree is the scourge of our times.
To have over 3 million people unemployed in this country is bad enough, even though we share this tragic problem with other nations, but to suggest, as some of our opponents have, that we do not care about it is as deeply wounding as it is utterly false. Do they really think that we do not understand what it means for the family man who cannot find a job, to have to sit at home with a sense of failure and despair? Or that we do not understand how hopeless the world must seem to a young person who has not yet succeeded in getting his first job? Of course, we know, of course we see, and of course, we care. However could they say that we welcome unemployment as a political weapon? What better news could there be for any Government than the news that unemployment is falling and the day cannot come too soon for me.
Others, while not questioning our sincerity, argue that our policies will not achieve our objectives. They look back forty years to the post-war period, when we were paused to launch a brave new world; a time when we all thought we had the cure for unemployment. In that confident dawn it seemed that having won the war, we knew how to win the peace. Keynes had provided the diagnosis. It was all set out in the 1944 White Paper on Employment. I bought it then; I have it still. My name is on the top of it. Margaret H. Roberts. One of my staff took one look at it and said: "Good Heavens! I did not know it was as old as that!"[fo 7]
Now, we all read that White Paper very carefully, but the truth was that politicians took some parts of the formula in it and conveniently ignored the rest. I re-read it frequently. Those politicians overlooked the warning in that Paper that government action must not weaken personal enterprise or exonerate the citizen from the duty of fending for himself. They disregarded the advice that wages must be related to productivity and above all, they neglected the warning that without a rising standard of industrial efficiency, you cannot achieve a high level of employment combined with a rising standard of living.
And having ignored so much of that and having ignored other parts of the formula for so much of the time, the result was that we ended up with high inflation and high unemployment.
This Government is heeding the warnings. It has acted on the the basic truths that were set out all those years ago in that famous White Paper. If I had come out with all this today, some people would call it "Thatcherite" but, in fact, it was vintage Maynard Keynes. He had a horror of inflation, a fear of too much State control, and a belief in the market.
We are heeding those warnings. We are taking the policy as a whole and not only in selected parts. We have already brought inflation down below 5%;. Output has been rising steadily since 1981 and investment is up substantially. But if things are improving, why—you will ask—does unemployment not fall?
And that was the question one could feel throughout that debate, even though people know there is always a time lag between getting the other things right and having a fall in unemployment. Why does unemployment not fall?[fo 8]
May I try to answer that question?
Well, first, more jobs are being created. As Tom King pointed out, over the last year more than a quarter of a million extra jobs have been created, but the population of working age is also rising very fast as the baby boom of the 1960s becomes the school-leavers of the 1980s; so although the number of jobs are rising, the population of working age is also rising, and among the population of working age a larger proportion of married women are seeking work, and so you will see why we need more jobs just to stop unemployment rising and even more jobs to get it falling.
Now, on top of that, new technology has caused redundancy in many factories, though it has also created whole new industries providing products and jobs that only a few years ago were undreamed of.
So it has two effects: the first one redundancies, the second and slightly later, new jobs as new products become possible. This has happened in history before.
A few days ago I visited York, where I saw the first railway engine, Stevenson's "Rocket". I thought of the jobs, the prospects and the hope that the new steam engines and the railways then brought to many people. Communities queued up to be on a railway line, to have their own station. Those communities welcomed change and it brought them more jobs.
I confess I am very glad we have got the railways, but if we were trying to build those same railways today, I wonder if we would ever get planning permission—it sometimes takes so long. And that is one thing that can sometimes delay the coming into existence of jobs.
That was one example from history, but let us go through during my lifetime as we have this same phenomenon, redundancies from new technology more jobs from new technology.[fo 9]
In the 1940s, when I took a science degree, the new emerging industries were plastics, man-made fibres and television. Later it will be satellites, computers and telecommunications, and now it is biotechnology and information technology; and today our universities and science parks are identifying the needs of tomorrow. So there are new industries and new jobs in the pipeline.
I remember an industrialist telling me, when I first went into business—and I have always remembered it—"Our job is to discover what the customer will buy and to produce it." And in Wrexham the other day, at a Youth Training Centre, I was delighted to see a poster saying "It is the customer that makes pay days possible." So those young people are not only learning new technology; they were learning the facts of business life and how we create new jobs. Because it is the spirit of enterprise that provides jobs. It is being prepared to venture and build a business and the role of Government in helping them to do that? It is in cutting taxes; it is in cutting inflation; it is keeping costs down; it is cutting through regulations and removing obstacles to the growth of small businesses. For that is where many of the new jobs will come from—small businesses. And it is providing better education and training.
The Youth Training Scheme, now in its second year, was set up to give young people the necessary skills for the new technologies and the necessary approach to industry. A majority of the first year's graduates are getting jobs. A much bigger proportion of those leaving the Youth Training Scheme are getting jobs than of those which left the Youth Opportunities Scheme, and so they should, because it is a much better training scheme and it will improve again this year. I was very interested in it. David Young started it and[fo 10] I offered to take a trainee for our office at No. 10 Downing Street. We would love to have one. Now, he or she might not have made it to be Prime Minister in one year, but the work at No. 10, because we have a staff, obviously, to run the office, of about a hundred, is varied and interesting and we really wanted to take on a trainee, and we also said we would take some trainees into the other parts of the Civil Service. So we were not willing [sic]; we were really welcoming this person or people and looking forward to it.
At first, the union said yes, then they said no, and the result is that young people have been denied training places.
The same problem arose at Jaguar. First the union said yes, then they said no. So 130 unemployed teenagers have been denied training, and that means young people were denied jobs.
Mr. President, we cannot create jobs without the willing cooperation not only of employers but of trade unions and all of the workforce who work in industry and commerce as well.
Yesterday, in the debate, we were urged to spend more money on capital investment. It looks a very attractive idea, but to spend more in one area means spending less in another or it means putting up taxes. Now, in Government, we are constantly faced with these difficult choices. If we want more for investment, I have to ask my colleagues in Cabinet: "What are you going to give up or you or you? Or you or you?" Or should I perhaps ask them: "Whose pay claim are you going to cut, the doctors, the police, the nurses?" I do not find many takers, because we have honoured the reviews of pay for doctors, nurses and the police and others in full. And you would not have cheered me if we had not done so and quite right too, but I am bringing this to you because although people can say the way to solve[fo 11] unemployment is to give a higher capital allocation, I have to say what are we going to give up or I have to turn to Nigel Lawson and ask him which taxes would he put up. Income tax? The personal income tax is already too high. Value Added Tax? Well, I should get a pretty frosty reception from Nigel and I should get a pretty frosty reception from you. But I would be loth to ask him anyway.
But you see, governments have to make these difficult choices, because as you know, whether your own households or whether your own businesses, there is a certain amount of income and you are soon in trouble if you do not live within it.
But what I want to say to you is that we do consider these difficult choices in the public expenditure annual round and we are just coming up to it, and we have managed to allocate a very considerable sum to capital investment. Indeed, we have found the money for the best investment projects on offer and believe you me, it has been because of very good management in each and every department. It has been cutting out waste so we could make room for these things and be certain that we could say to you that we were getting value for money.
Let me just give you a few examples of some of the investment projects for which we have found money, by careful budgetting.
There is the M25 road for example. It is being completed. British Railways have been given the green light to go ahead with electrification, if they can make it pay. We have started or built forty-nine new hospitals since 1979. Capital investment in the nationalized industries as a whole is going up. Of course, we look at those things like new power stations and in a year after drought we look at things like more investment in the water supply industry. So we are going ahead with major capital investment.[fo 12]
So what is the conclusion that we are coming to? It is the spirit of enterprise that creates new jobs and it is Government's task to create the right framework, the right financial framework, in which that can flourish and to cut the obstacles which sometimes handicap the birth of enterprise, and also to manage our own resources carefully and well.
That is more or less what that Employment Policy White Paper in 1944 said, so let me just return to it, page 1. It is getting a bit old.
"Employment cannot be created by Act of Parliament or by Government action alone. The success of the policy outlined in this Paper will ultimately depend on the understanding and support of the community as a whole and especially on the efforts of employers and workers in industry."
It was true then, it is true now, and those are the policies that we are following and shall continue to follow, because those are the policies that we believe will ultimately create the genuine jobs for the future. In the meantime, it is our job to try to mitigate the painful effects of change and that we do, as you know, by generous redundancy payments and also by a Community Enterprise Scheme, which not only finds jobs for the long-term unemployed, but finds them in a way which brings great benefits to the communities. And then, of course, where there are redundancy schemes in steel and now in coal, the industries themselves set up enterprise agencies both to give help to those who are made redundant and to provide new training. All of this is a highly constructive policy both for the creation of jobs and a policy to cushion the effects of change.[fo 13]
May I turn now to the coal industry?
For a little over seven months we have been living through an agonising strike. Let me make it absolutely clear the miners' strike was not of this Government's seeking nor of its making.
We have heard in debates at this Conference some of the aspects that have made this dispute so repugnant to so many people. We were reminded by a colliery manager that the NUM always used to accept that a pit should close when the losses were too great to keep it open, and that the miners set great store by investment in new pits and new seams, and under this Government that new investment is happening in abundance. You can almost repeat the figures with me. £2 million in capital investment in the mines for every day this Government has been in power, so no shortage of capital investment.
We heard moving accounts from two working miners about just what they have to face as they try to make their way to work. The sheer bravery of those men and thousands like them who kept the mining industry alive is beyond praise. "Scabs" their former workmates call them. Scabs? They are lions! What a tragedy it is when striking miners attack their workmates. Not only are they members of the same union, but the working miner is saving both their futures, because it is the working miners, whether in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, North Wales or Scotland, it is the working miners who have kept faith with those who buy our coal and without that custom thousands of jobs in the mining industry would be already lost.
And then we heard—unforgettably—from the incomparable Mrs. Irene McGibbon—who told us what it is like to be the wife of a working miner during this strike. She told us of the threats and[fo 14] intimidation suffered by herself and her family and even her 11-year-old son, but what she endured only stiffened her resolve. To face the picket line day after day must take a very special kind of courage, but it takes as much—perhaps even more—to the housewife who has to stay at home alone. Men and women like that are what we are proud to call "the best of British" and our police who upheld the law with an independence and a restraint perhaps only to be found in this country are the admiration of the world.
To be sure, the miners had a good deal and to try to prevent a strike the National Coal Board gave to the miners the best ever pay offer, the highest ever investment and for the first time the promise that no miner would lose his job against his will. We did this despite the fact that the bill for losses in the coal industry last year was bigger than the annual bill for all the doctors and dentists in all the National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom.
Let me repeat it: the losses—the annual losses—in the coal industry are enormous. £1.3 billion last year. You have to find that money as tax-payers. It is equal to the sum we pay in salaries to all the doctors and dentists in the National Health Service.
Mr. President, this is a dispute about the right to go to work of those who have been denied the right to go to vote, and we must never forget that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists, including many striking miners, deeply regret what has been done in the name of trade unionism. When this strike is over—and one day it will be over—we must do everything we can to encourage moderate and responsible trade unionism so that it can once again take its respected and valuable place in our industrial life.[fo 15]
Meanwhile, we are faced with the present Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers. They know that what they are demanding has never been granted either to miners or to workers in any other industry. Why then demand it? Why ask for what they know cannot be conceded? There can only be one explanation. They did not want a settlement; they wanted a strike. Otherwise, they would have ballotted on the Coal Board's offer. Indeed, one-third of the miners did have a ballot and voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer.
Mr. President, what we have seen in this country is the emergence of an organized revolutionary minority who are prepared to exploit industrial disputes, but whose real aim is the breakdown of law and order and the destruction of democratic parliamentary government. We have seen the same sort of thugs and bullies at Grunwick, more recently against Eddie Shah in Stockport, and now organized into flying squads around the country. If their tactics were to be allowed to succeed, if they are not brought under the control of the law, we shall see them again at every industrial dispute organized by militant union leaders anywhere in the country.
One of the speakers earlier in this Conference realized this fact, realized that what they are saying is: "Give us what we want or we are prepared to go on with violence," and he referred to Danegeld. May I add to what that speaker said.
"We never pay anyone Danegeld, no matter how trifling the cost, for the end of that gain is oppression and shame, and the nation that plays it is lost." Yes, Rudyard Kipling. Who could put it better?
Democratic change there has always been in this, the home of democracy. But the sanction for change is the ballot box.[fo 16]
It seems that there are some who are out to destroy any properly elected government. They are out to bring down the framework of law. That is what we have seen in this strike, and what is the law they seek to defy?
It is the Common Law created by fearless judges and passed down across the centuries. It is legislation scrutinized and enacted by the parliament of a free people. It is legislation passed through a House of Commons, a Commons elected once every five years by secret ballot by one citizen, one vote. This is the way our law was fashioned and that is why British justice is renowned across the world.
"No government owns the law. It is the law of the land, heritage of the people. No man is above the law and no man is below it. Nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favour." So said Theodore Roosevelt.
Mr. President, the battle to uphold the rule of law calls for the resolve and commitment of the British people. Our institutions of justice, the courts and the police require the unswerving support of every law-abiding citizen and I believe they will receive it.
The nation faces what is probably the most testing crisis of our time, the battle between the extremists and the rest. We are fighting, as we have always fought, for the weak as well as for the strong. We are fighting for great and good causes. We are fighting to defend them against the power and might of those who rise up to challenge them. This Government will not weaken. This nation will meet that challenge. Democracy will prevail.

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.]