How Much Do You Support States' Rights?

It's easy to stand by a principle when you agree with it whole heartedly. States' rights is an issue that conservatives tend to like. We want a balanced system between the state and federal authorities to prevent tyranny. We especially like the laws passed in some states that say firearms manufactured and sold entirely in one state are not subject to federal gun laws. That's great.

But what about something more controversial? Would you oppose federal action against California's Proposition 19?

California voters will decide whether or not to almost fully decriminalize marijuana this November. It does go a little too far in that it prevents employers from disciplining employees suspected of being high and it also does not outlaw smoking by passengers in a car despite the risk of contact highs. This is farther than simply putting pot on par with alcohol which is what most legalization groups want. It will probably also kill the proposal, rendering this point moot. Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to act anyway regardless of state voters' choices.

Regardless of some of the objectionable parts, this is an issue for the voters of the sovereign State of California. This is not a federal issue. It is a test of our states' rights principles. Would those conservatives who disagree with drug legalization stand by the right of California to act in this manner without federal interference?

Personally I do not oppose putting marijuana almost on par with alcohol, except I'd go further and bar it from public spaces due to the nature of pot smoke. I do think that employers have a right to not have high, or drunk for that matter, employees. But those of you who are against legalization, would you support California or Attorney General Holder?

Federal intervention in state affairs has generally produced damaging results. Every time we make an exception and excuse federal meddling, we undermine the states; rights cause. Any detriment caused by California being able to make its own pot policy would be more than equalled by the benefits of the federal government respecting state voters and legislatures across the board.

Obama Has Lost His D@&^ed Mind, Much Like Andrew Johnson

You can understand why he did it. A month or so ago, Barack Obama made a trip to Georgia to support Democratic candidates. The Peach State's ticket topper, former governor and Democratic candidate for governor again, Roy Barnes, high tailed it for the southern part of the state. he did not want to be seen with Barack Obama.

When Joe Manchin wanted presidential punch, he opted for Bill Clinton rather than Obama.

It's clear that an agitated Obama in recent days has simply lost his mind. Like Joe Biden, you don;t know what crazy thing he is going to say. Unlike Biden, whose shenanigans are cheeky and fun, Obama's are tragic.

Obama told Latinos on Univision that they needed to "go out and punish their enemies."

He told Republicans, after being told himself by the Democratic candidate for governor of that state that he could do something anatomically impossible with his endorsement, that they "had to sit in the back of the bus."

Say what? Were he American, he would understand the Rosa Parks, second class citizen connotations in that remark. But we can't cut him slack. He is the president and should know better. The only conclusion that one can reach is that the strain of the presidency and his failures have left him mentally unbalanced.

The best comparison in U. S. History is Andrew Johnson. Johnson sported a strong inferiority complex and a severe drinking problem and allowed both to sink his presidency. He compared his political opponents to Judas Iscariot, compared himself to Christ on the Cross and generally made himself obnoxious. His attempts to build a Democratic majority in 1866 resulted in higher than expected GOP gains as he was ignored and ridiculed on stops across the nation. Republicans took Congress and put the president into a box where he could do only limited damage. They went too far in trying to remove him from office and created enough sympathy for him that he eventually made his way back to Congress.

Both Obama and Johnson showed two years into their term definite signs of a breakdown. Let's hope that we can avoid too much damage to our nation and its image between now and his loss in the primaries in 2012. Johnson was not renominated, neither will Obama.

Who Is "Public Policy Polling?"

Not every pollster can be believed.

In nearly every poll of the West Virginia race for United States Senator in the past few weeks, John Raese enjoys anywhere from a five to nine point lead.

The only holdout is Public Policy Polling who has Manchin ahead by six points in its most recent evaluation.

Say what? Who is Public Policy Polling?

PPP is an outfit out of North Carolina that Real Clear Politics always denotes with a (D) when publishing its numbers. And D don't mean "Dallas."

PPP has a track record in this election of bucking the numbers of polls that show light to moderate leads for Republicans by indicating ties or Democratic leads. Their effect is to bring down the average reported Republican poll leads every week. If you want any further proof of their bias, they show that John McCain has a moderate 13 point lead over his opponent, while the non partisan Rocky Mountain Poll has McCain up by 34 points.

More proof needed of their bias? Oftentimes their polls are funded by the radical left wing Daily Kos website. No motivation for bias there, right?

Unfortunately for those behind these bizarre results, these polls will have the opposite effect. An energized Republican base will grow even more motivated to bring out the voters if the polls look close. If you only care about the John Raese race, you will be more likely to come out and vote if the numbers look closer. Of course Raese voters will tend to vote Republican on the rest of the ticket, so trying to make the Raese/Manchin contest look closer than it actually is should only help the West Virginia Republican Get Out the Vote efforts.

David McKinley Picks Up Another Endorsement

National Seniors Group Endorses McKinley



"Fighter for the Elderly;” “No Finer Friend in Congress”Alexandria, Va. – The 60 Plus Association, a national non-partisan senior citizens group, has endorsed David McKinley in the race for West Virginia’s First Congressional District.The organization promotes death tax repeal, saving Social Security, affordable prescription drugs, lowering energy costs and other issues featuring a less government, less taxes approach as well as a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution.“David McKinley is a fighter for the elderly,” said 60 Plus spokesman Pat Boone, noting McKinley’s “views on seniors’ issues” earned him the backing of the 18-year-old organization.“David McKinley can always be counted on to protect Social Security and Medicare,” Boone said. “David McKinley will be a tax cutter, protecting the pocket books of senior citizens. 60 Plus calls on nearly 5.5 million seniors nationally for support, so I believe I can speak on behalf of seniors when I say that they can count on David McKinley. Clearly, seniors will have no finer friend in Congress than David McKinley.”Boone explained that 60 Plus monitors congressional votes bestowing awards on lawmakers of both parties who vote “pro-senior.”On broadcast interviews this week McKinley has called for protecting the Social Security trust fund with a firewall so that its holdings are dedicated exclusively for retiree benefits. He also opposes higher taxes, raising the eligibility age and cutting benefits under the program.Getting most of the nation’s 15 million unemployed back to work, McKinley says, could help pump close to $50 billion into the retirement system helping to shore up its solvency.Throughout his campaign, McKinley pays calls on senior citizen centers to hear their concerns. In debates this week with his opponent, McKinley touted dozens of endorsements of his candidacy from business groups, labor organizations and a diverse collection of advocacy, professional and trade associations.###