The Sad Case of Senator Robert C. Byrd

I'm not one to agree with Robert Byrd much in the last several years. His New Deal approaches to development hold West Virginia back in building a private sector. Also, I do not agree with his war stand. In 2006 John Raese had a better vision for West Virginia's future than Robert Byrd. However no one can deny that Byrd loves his state and has worked extremely hard over the years for its benefit.

What the liberal left has done to Robert C. Byrd is disgraceful. From 2003 until recently he served as their point man against the Iraq War. A popular senator with respect, seniority and an untouchable seat, Byrd was perfect for their purposes. They publicized every criticism of Bush and the war while promoting him as an experienced voice of reason. The real liberal left senators, for the most part, hem hawed. John Kerry voted against the war before he voted for it, or maybe it's the other way around. Hard to tell with him and his pals. Byrd, agree or disagree, spoke his mind. In doing so he alienated a lot of people in his home state and took real risks on behalf of his party.

Liberal leftists adored Byrd right up until he secured his seat for another six years. After all in an election with no incumbents a man of John Raese's name recognition and financial support could have won it. No, they wanted that seat assuredly marked with a (D) for at least another term. Sure that meant promoting an anti-abortion, pro gun, pro school prayer octogenarian who once portrayed a Confederate general in a movie. For liberal left wingers, that could not be easy. But hey, he was anti-Bush.

But now look at the situation. Liberal leftism's official voice in the nation's capital, the Washington Post, has started publicizing some of the lapses of old age the senator occasionally shows. He went from left wing hero to an old man whose time has passed. A columnist ridiculed Senator Byrd's speech about his dog during a congressional committee hearing on pet food safety. Another on May 30th pointed out Byrd's former affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan. Somehow conservative arguments about old age and past connections with terrorism held no relevance nine months ago. Now that the liberal left is done with Byrd, let the undermining of a senator's reputation commence. Republicans have criticized Byrd for many years, for many reasons, and rightfully so. The GOP at least generally remained consistent.

Maybe liberal left wingers do not realize that a younger and more charismatic version of Joe Lieberman is all but ready to take over the seat when the opportunity presents itself. The flip flop (are we even surprised when liberal leftists do this anymore) on Byrd has ranged over into hypocrisy, well past ingratitude. They used Senator Byrd and now they are throwing him aside. A very cruel way for the liberal left to treat a man that served the Democratic Party for so long. Maybe because they no longer in any way shape or form represent the kind of Democratic Party that Senator Byrd or most other West Virginians have supported all these years.


He's not from my party and I don't always agree with him. Senator Byrd's still a West Virginian though. Although there has been a lot to criticize from the point of view of a West Virginia Republican, it's tough to watch a bunch of elitist, snobbish Washington D.C. left-wingers using an elderly man from our state for their own purposes and disposing of him so callously when he is no longer useful to them.

Quinton Andrews' Natural Rights

Quenton Andrews is a man getting a lot of unwanted attention these days. The West Virginia University starting free safety was arrested this week. News of arrests of college football players sparks a knee jerk reaction generally. Why can't these kids just respect the law? What is wrong with these thugs? Etc., etc.

This situation seems a little different though. According to all accounts, Monongalia County deputies arrested Andrews for merely refusing to show officers his identification, citing him for obstructing an officer. The officer was in the process of arresting a former football player that actually had committed the crime of underage drinking. Andrews himself did nothing criminal. He even tried to go back inside his residence.

When did it become illegal to not show your identification to police when requested? The US Supreme Court in 2004 ruled that citizens have the obligation to present ID at the request of officers at any time for any reason. It sounds too much like the KGB or the Gestapo officer demanding "Papers please!" Don't get me wrong, I am not equating our hard working and courageous law enforcement with those notorious institutions of oppression. The vast majority of police do their jobs honestly.

However this gives police too much power to harass citizens into what is now defined as criminal behavior. Sure one can argue to just give the guy the ID and save yourself some grief; if you are not doing anything wrong, why worry? That argument can easily extend to searching your car, home, mail, hard drive, or anything else. Citizens have natural rights so long as they are not harming others. Quinton Andrews did not harm anyone, nor did he obstruct an officer doing his job. He simply dared to peacefully exercise his own rights.

Now let's be honest about Andrews too. He was not standing up for some heroic principle when he left his house that night. Like a lot of other guys in their late teens, he shot off his mouth in a situation where prudence demanded he keep quiet. However he had the good sense to leave the scene and go to his home when the officer responded. Was it dumb? Absolutely. That still does not mean that Andrews gave up his rights.

Not Getting What We Paid For

During the darkest days of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia, a place called Srebrenica became one of the most hellish places on earth.


It was supposed to be a safe zone because the United Nations said so. They dispatched a handful of soldiers from the Netherlands with orders to fire only in self-defense. Ethnic Serbians under the orders of the notorious General Ratko Mladic swept into the region. Mladic's troops intimidated, but scrupulously avoided shooting at the Dutch. 8,000 men and boys died under the so-called protection of the powder blue flag. I cannot imagine an American soldier standing by and watching that kind of horror, orders or no orders, whether outgunned or not.


This certainly reinforces the idea stated here before that only warriors can be peacekeepers. How can you protect anyone if your gun is always on "safety?" Sure, many of the perpetuators have ended up tried for war crimes, but for rape and mass murder they get sentences that in the United States would be light for major drug felonies or attempted murder. It has led to another result, a lawsuit. Bosnian female relatives of the dead have filed suit against the United Nations and the Dutch government for their lack of action.


Although it is always fun to see the UN inconvenienced, the problem is that if they lose a lawsuit and actually pay up, American money goes towards the lion's share of the bill. One more reason why the taxpayer dollars from the Potomac Highlands and the rest of the United States ought not support that white elephant of an international organization.

Solving Our Law Enforcement Problems Starts With Development

The State Journal on May 31 gave extensive coverage to a relatively hidden problem in the Potomac Highlands. In the article, the Mineral and Hardy County sheriffs discussed extensively their respective problems with personnel and funding. Both counties have a handful of deputies and a huge number of square miles and back roads to cover. They also have serious drug problems and an increasing demand from newer residents for immediate police response even in remote areas.One solution, as discussed in the article, lies in raising taxes. This idea does not garner a lot of enthusiasm. Mineral County just shot down a law enforcement levy and currently the property taxes are higher than a lot of poor and middle income residents can stand.

The alternative option to raising taxes lies in economic development. One can only wonder how much a cabinet plant could have bolstered Mineral County's tax receipts. Grant County currently pays farmers to not sell land to those that would use it for industrial development. The State Journal did not cite Grant County, but one would assume they share the same funding problems as their neighbors. Can they afford to not encourage manufacturing?

Residents of the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia deserve quality services for the high taxes they pay and all too often do not get them. The primary role of government lies in protecting lives and property, but over time it has taken on many more roles. Raising taxes on an eroding base no longer represents a viable solution. We must stop discouraging development.

A National Primary

Is it time for a national primary day? The general election is always held the first Tuesday in November for all states, but in the primaries the states are free to choose their own date for the primary. New Hampshire's Constitution states that theirs will be the first in the nation, and they will move the date to make that happen. The question is why should New Hampshire be the first, or Iowa or South Carolina for that matter?


If your state is not one of the first 3 or 4 states to hold a primary, then the outcome of the presidential primaries are pretty much decided by the time the rest get to it. I do not believe it does justice to the rest of the country allowing a few states to determine the candidate for the national election. Using a few states as a pre-filter for the rest does not serve the interest of the nation.

Let's look at a national primary day. The first Tuesday in May would be a good choice, as it is 6 months from the General Election. All states on one day, so that all may have a say in who moves onto the General Election.

The Spirit of Man and How to Destroy It

When the liberal left wants to condemn the Iraq theatre of the War on Terror, often they say "We have no business telling other countries what to do" or "Things were much better when Saddam was in charge." Then the leftists turn around here and push for heavy taxation to make smoking less convenient or ordinances that will remove old cars from people's property.

It seems contradictory, this idea of where they stand on "telling people what to do." They do not mind Iraq's former government running amuck. When an individual longs for the simple joy of a cigarrette, or wants to tinker on an old car for ten years as a hobby, they scream "There oughtta be a law!"

Look closer and you see the connection in the idea of collectivism. Collectivism is the principle of order at any price. The price often asked is individuality paid towards the bill titled "Collective Societal Good." Leftists do not mind the idea of a Saddam Hussein run government because it maintained a collective that promised order to the vast majority of the people. Never mind those paltry few that suffered horrifically. They like it so much they want to impose collectivism on those of us in the United States.

Collectivism comes not at the barrel of a gun, but as on little kitten paws. It oozes into our societal thinking here and there. Collectivism does not overawe us with power at the beginning, but begs for our sacrifice and calls us greedy should we decide we want to keep what we earned. Collectivism asks us why we cannot sacrifice some of our freedom if it results in a common good defined by some authority. The Declaration of Independence articulates that the pursuit of happiness is one of our most sacred individual natural rights. It means we seek our own happiness through living our life in a state of liberty. Collectivists gain power by convincing us that happiness is a sin and that the accomplishments we worked so hard to attain were at someone else's expense even though all acted according to their own free will (an idea which collectivists try to undermine.) Mediocrity becomes a virtue and achievement something to ridicule and destroy if possible.

It is no accident that the liberal left supports ideas such as the Mineral County Courthouse being rid of junk food altogether rather than simply offering more healthy choices. When we cede the right to even determine what should be put into our digestion when and how often, what right do we have to speak freely or select our government?

Darfur, Civil Rights, and the Atlanta Braves

Recently Jesse Jackson harassed yet another mark, the Atlanta Braves. Apparently the baseball franchise happened to field a team with no blacks on it. Confronted with this horror, Jackson hauled out the old tired racial rhetoric.


Few really pay attention to Jackson anymore. Black sportscasters on ESPN slammed Jackson's position as ludicrous, asking the logical question of why the Braves would not seek to put the most competitive team possible on the field. On Pardon the Interruption, the point was raised that black children's interest in baseball has waned considerably over the years. Historically black colleges cannot even fill their rosters with black players. Jackson understands attention more than logic.


The civil rights movement for blacks has entered an era where it has nearly grown obsolete. The generation now exiting high school and entering college is less racially conscious than any in our history. Generally speaking they simply ignore color, meaning that the dream once articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. has nearly come into being.




Success means peril for any influential person of any race that gained influence by using racism and it has produced some ugly developments. Bill Cosby gets blasted for suggesting that young people get an education that can lead them into productive ways of living. Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele have suffered from racial attacks and stereotypes launched from people in the NAACP among others because they dare to support President Bush and the Republican Party. Some Baltimoreans actually threw Oreo cookies at Steele, yet condemned Trent Lott for a kind word about Strom Thurmond. I wonder what they would think of Frederick Douglas's statement that "The Republican Party is the ship. All else is the sea."




The way for groups such as the NAACP to remain relevant is to first follow Bill Cosby's ideas. Encourage education, especially in the inner city. Hold up people like Rice as models instead of demons. Rice grew up in Alabama in the 50s and 60s and that speaks for itself. Second, the NAACP and others ought to pressure Congress and others to address slavery where it exists now, not where it has not existed for over a century and a half. Black Christians continue to suffer in places like Darfur. The Moslems controlling the north of the country of Sudan enslave and massacre them routinely and America has not involved itself directly. Black leaders in America can work with President Bush to find a way for our nation to help.




That is how the NAACP, a movement with a storied and successful tradition, can stay relevant in an increasingly color blind America. Confederate flags and the Atlanta Braves are picayune compared to the potential that can be tapped through encouragement of education. They are also very minor relative to real suffering and terror experienced in Darfur and elsewhere.

A Tale of Two Hampshires

When I glanced at the Hampshire Review today, two stories stood out. The first story alerted the region that yet another politician had violated public trust. The sum of $100,000 evaporated from county coffers. Funny business with public funds is nothing new unfortunately.

Next came the story covering Hampshire High School's graduation. It accompanied a photo of 2007 graduates just as they reached up to move their tassels, symbolically marking their ascension to the next level in their lives, whatever that may be.

These young men and women represent a large part of their county's future, but how much has the past affected them? Has the county educational system's corrupt misdeeds and outrages that colored their school years angered the graduates? Or did they learn that corruption is the way it has always been done and that no one can change it? Will they make their lives in the county? Will they give up on it and hope that another place has government for the people, not for dishonest politicians and paid for by the people?

Certainly Hampshire County has people and politicians that are mad as hell and do not want to take it anymore. They thirst for clean government and honest development. Are there enough of these good, honest people to overcome the corrupt and apathetic segments? These new graduates could make the difference one way or the other.

Will enough of them have the faith in themselves and their community to stand up and demand better from all of their government officials? If they do, a prosperous future for that community is certain.

The Liberal Media Strikes (or at Least Tried to Strike) Again

For over a century the Charleston Gazette has stood at the fringes of respectable politics. This paper generally represents a left wing position somewhere to the wrong side of Vladimir Lenin and rarely sees a Republican it likes. Not for nothing did Governor Moore call it "The Morning Sick Call."


If the charges levied against it by the Department of Justice are correct, then this venerable bastion of loony lefties has found new lows. On May 7th, 2004 the Gazette purchased Charleston's afternoon Republican newspaper the Daily Mail. This in itself was not unique as morning papers had taken over afternoon publications around the country to help keep them afloat.



The Department of Justice, unfortunately for the Gazette, does not consider halting solicitations for new Daily Mail subscribers, allowing half of the reporters and staff to leave without replacing them, stopping all promotions and discounts, and cutting the newsroom budget to be helping the afternoon paper. A nineteen page report alleges that the Gazette tried to strangle the Daily Mail right out of existence. It only ceased these policies when the Justice Department launched its investigation.


Either the Charleston Gazette tried to suffocate one of the last printed conservative voices in West Virginia, or it sought to create a monopolistic stranglehold over the metropolitan region around Charleston. The second possibility must particularly delight the Gazette's enemies due to the enormous number of corporate greed sermons its editors launched over the years.

The internet means that even in the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia, we can read news about state government from those directly at the sources. When the Gazette choked off resources to the Daily Mail it reduced the conservative paper's ability to cover events. Those seeking daily news about state government had to turn to the paper with one of the most shrilly liberal biases in the nation. Already the 2004 purchase has been voided. Hopefully the courts will force the Gazette to pay damages to ensure a balance of coverage out of Charleston.

Ecomomic Growth is a Republican vs. Democrat issue

I have to disagree with Dave Peyton in his article in the Daily Mail, where he states “This is no longer a Democratic versus Republican issue, nor is it a topic that should divide liberals and conservatives.” Most of the Economic Problems in the state can be traced directly to legislation introduced by Democrats in the state house. Also legislation that would begin to fix the problem introduced by Republicans gets stopped. It goes right down party lines.

The WV Democrats constantly put the welfare of their party and special interest ahead of the welfare of the state. The result is a ranking of 50 out of 50 for West Virginia in many categories. The Republicans are gaining ground in voter registration because the people are begining to see that the Republicans believe if what is good for the state is good for the party. That is what will save West Virginia’s economy in the future, but how fast depends on how fast the citizens of the state demand the changes necessary.

Russell Sobel of WVU wrote the blue print for turning around West Virginia’s Economy in a book called, “Unleashing Capitalism.” The citizens of the state are growing increasing skeptical of Charleston’s ability to fix the problems, and books like Mr. Sobel’s are only going to fuel that skepticism.

I believe that Dave Peyton’s article stating it is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue is just and attempt to deflect the issue from the states Democratic Party. The fact of the matter is the Democratic Party has been in control of the state legislature for nearly 80 years. Right now the Democratic Party could ask the state legislature to pass every recommendation in Russell Sobel’s book, and ask the governor sign it fixing the states economy without any help from the states Republican Party. We could go from 50th best state to do business in to 1st place, if the Democrats would pass the bills needed. They have not, and it is doubtful they will. Only the Republican Party is pushing for the needed changes, so it is a Democrat vs. Republican issue and the Democrats in the WV are obstructing WV’s future economic growth.

The Democratic Congress Strikes Again Against the Little Guy

Count another victory for the Democratic Party over the interests of the small businessman.

To get the needed funding approved so our troops could continue to defend freedom, President Bush was strong armed into approving a minimum wage hike from $5.15 to $7.25. Fewer than 1.7 million workers make minimum wage, although the Democrats claim as many as 5.6 million of the nation’s 130 million workers could see their salaries rise. They cannot say for certain because a percentage of those workers will likely find themselves out of a job.

Very few working families rely on minimum wage jobs alone to support their families. The very small number that do qualify for welfare. Many of the rest work such jobs as part of a combination package of part time employment. About fifteen years ago I was supporting a family on two minimum wage jobs and one that paid a few dollars over that. Other minimum wage workers are spouses or significant others of high wage earners who work for a little extra income or to pass the time.

Before anyone starts talking corporate greed, they must understand that the majority of major corporations already pay over minimum wage. Most businesses that pay minimum wage operate on a small scale. Local bookstores, restaurants, and other small city downtown establishments pay minimum wage. One can hardly accuse these businesses with their razor thin profit margins of “corporate greed.”

How does a small business like this cope with the hike? It lays off workers while the owner him or herself works more hours. Since the cost of labor represents such an important factor in a business’s profitability, the extra pay obligation may be the determining issue in whether or not a small business fails. Certainly it presents a higher obstacle to an entrepreneur just getting started. Some owners already pay employees “under the table” and raising the minimum wage only encourages more skirting of the law. Others will pass the costs onto the consumer. Beware parents with children in day care settings, your bill is about to go up.

For the most part, the market has determined that low level service employees of companies such as McDonalds will make almost what the projected minimum wage hike will be. That means the Democrats did not overly antagonize their big business donors. As usual the small businessman bears the brunt of liberal victories over “corporate greed.” They should be sure and send a letter of appreciation to their Democratic representatives in Congress.

Table Games and the Republican Party

Officially state Republicans tend to oppose the expansion of gambling, especially when it comes to table games. Some Democrats endorse their legalization as another way to bring much needed revenue to the state to fund its various programs. The issue is more complex than simple red versus blue politics.


Republicans behind the scenes face splits on this issue because conservatism does not just exist in one form. Social conservatism, or the "Bill Bennett" form, concentrates on issues of morality. Gambling, gay marriage, and other issues must be resisted because they break down the moral fibre of the community and families. Another form of conservatism emphasizes individual freedom and it comes primarily from the British Whig traditions of the 1700s, some of which influenced the Founding Fathers. The "Bill Buckley" form of conservatism emphasizes issues such as gun rights, but also is permissive in social issues. Economic conservatism, as it is often called, argues that people have natural rights to make choices in their lives and that government ought to stay out as much as possible. Libertarians follow these ideas in a much more broad manner. Some debates, such as abortion, link the two. An economic conservative can argue that each person no matter how young has the right to life, while social conservatives argue against murdering a baby.


While the official line that conservatism means no table games remains clear, many Republicans have a difficult time reconciling that with their beliefs of individual freedom and choice. Relying on gambling as an industry brings up issues beyond morality and the destruction that some choices bring to individuals and families (though many believe they have the right to make "bad" choices in a free society.) The state continues to construct a house of cards by leaning more and more heavily on revenue sources that it tries to officially discourage. Gambling and cigarrette based revenues fund an increasing amount of the state budget and some of those monies go into discouraging the behaviors that create the revenue!


If it bothers a conservative to oppose table games because of their beliefs on individual choice, they may take comfort in opposing them because it is bad policy.

All Veterans Ought to be Able to Order a Beer

If you really want to get people's hackles raised at you, do the following. Walk into a roomful of people and suggest that the drinking age as it stands at 21 is too high.


People will blast you, condemn you, and ask how many lives the higher drinking age probably saves. A real inconsistency exists here, though. A young man or woman can sign up for the military at 18, go into battle, kill or risk being killed, get captured by the enemy and be potentially tortured, even win the Congressional Medal of Honor. If he returns alive before the age of 21, this young person can still not legally go into a bar and order a beer.


One could suggest that those with military IDs be allowed to drink, but not those under 21 outside the military. This sounds like a good compromise, but still does not offer real justice. A citizen between 18 and 21 can vote for president, get a loan and practically have credit cards shoved down his or her throat. Advocates for allowing these decisions on the part of these citizens claim that the ability to make judgments does exist. Bankers and the Democratic Party benefit most from this allowance. We all benefit from the sacrifices made by those that make the serious decision to defend their country.


Either these young men and women are citizens or they are not. Make 21 or 18 the legal age for all military, credit, and voting decisions. End the hypocrisy one way or the other.

Paris Hilton…. Yeah I’m going to talk about her too

There is a saying, “Let the punishment fit the crime,” and many are stating that Paris is being dealt with more harshly than others committing the same offense. I don’t believe she is being dealt with more harshly, but I do believe justice is being served. From all the different news sources it is my understanding that typically a fine or home confinement are the usual punishment, but I don’t think they will work for Paris.

Again the news is not real precise, but the maximum fine appears to be anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000. Let’s face it to a multimillionaire like Paris Hilton even if the fine was $10,000 it would be like fining the average American $1.00. If we fined people in the US $1.00 for traffic offenses, then the interstates would quickly become Autobahns. The maximum fine to Paris Hilton is not a punishment.

Home confinement is not really a punishment when you live in a mansion. When you’re a celebrity the party comes to you. The news is reporting that a party was planned for Friday night had Paris not been returned to jail. Not being allowed to leave your mansion for 30 to 45 days when you have the money to bring all you need in is not really a punishment.

Maybe the saying should be let the punishment fit the person. The judge never went outside the law. He stayed within the guidelines given to him and gave probably the only punishment that would actually be a punishment to a millionaire. I give kudos to the judge for making sure justice was served.

Nick Joe Rahall and Alan Mollohan: Environmental Crusaders

Nick Joe Rahall, West Virginia's representative from the Third Congressional District, recently introduced legislation in Congress to severely undermine the future of wind power in the United States. Basically he, like Mollohan who represents the First District, has developed a tender concern for the birds and bats that happen to find their way into the turbines and get themselves killed. The legislation will impose rigorous standards on turbines to presumably prevent animal deaths.

According to opensecrets.org, Congressman Rahall receives a tremendous amount of financial support from mining interests. In West Virginia that of course translates to coal. In the past few elections he has received support from the United Mine Workers and the Norfolk and Southern Railroad which relies on coal to generate a great deal of income. As for Mollohan, mining interests ranked tenth among his contributing industries. On the surface there is nothing wrong with these contributions. As for the coal industry, it not only "keeps the lights on" but tax receipts from it help the state pay to keep its lights from being turned off.

Doesn't it seem strange that Rahall and Mollohan feel such compassion for the little birds when you think about who gives them their support? Think about the miniscule amount of wildlife affected by wind farms. Now consider how many animals are killed when hollows are filled in by mountaintop removal waste. For that matter would the building unions and construction outfits that support both congressmen agree to never build tall structures again? After all more birds are killed by running into buildings. I doubt that they would ever oppose the outright hunting of birds.

The point here is NOT to oppose coal mining, hunting, construction, or any other worthwhile human endeavor that might kill a bird. We have to face the fact that human activities will sometimes kill animals directly or indirectly. Civilization will grind to a halt if we do not accept that our needs create some "collateral damage" in the natural world. These men's opposition may come less from their compassion for wildlife and more from some other source. Does someone fear that wind farms on the Allegheny Front might someday compete with coal? Do they just want to shore themselves up among their environutty constituents?

In any event the result of this proposed legislation will be to kill the prospect for a few good paying jobs, a decrease in the reliance on foreign energy, and increased local tax income to support our schools and other needs.

One County's Frustration Could Be Another County's Opportunity

According to the Cumberland Times News the new shopping center once projected for a summer 2008 opening has hit more snags. Without going into specifics, the article indicated that the deal may be in trouble. At some point Target, Home Depot, and others must have determined that this region could support their business. The question is, has that changed or have other factors become obstacles?


The project was intended to resemble Morgantown's University Town Center which is an innovative way to develop rugged Appalachian terrain. A ridgetop supports the main anchor chains while terraces along the road to the top contain smaller stores and restaraunts. The businesses located there enjoy tremendous patronage, especially the restaraunt chains.



Whatever the problem is, Mineral County ought to aggressively investigate and determine if it can provide a less problematic option. If the anchor stores decided that this region cannot support them, fine. But if the problem lies in local government red tape, by all means go for the steal. Some argue that Mineral, Allegany, and Garrett Counties ought to cooperate to bring in business. However business located in Maryland does nothing to help Mineral County's tax base, meaning they continue to get more money for schools, police protection, and other services. If possible, our local leaders should at least investigate sweeping this development onto the correct side of the Potomac River.

The war on terror

63 years ago today on the beaches of Normandy Americans, Brits, Free French, & Canadians with support of others began the liberation of Europe. We fought fascism. We fought the Axis powers. We fought an enemy that wore uniforms and could be identified, and we carried it through to the end. In 2007 we are in a war on terrorism. Our enemy doesn't follow any rules, the don't wear uniforms and they are not easily identified.

Nobody in their right mind wants to be in a war. I want our troops to come home from Iraq as soon as possible, but we must win first. If we quit in Iraq, then we lose. General Omar Bradley stated "In war there is no prize for the runner-up." Quiting is not an option. "In War: Resolution" said Winston Churchill and our resolve is being tested now.

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir remarked, "There can only be peace when they will start to love their children more than they hate us. " She knew well the terrorist that we fight today. How do you win against and enemy like that? An enemy that doesn't put the same value on human life that we do.

There are no easy answers to ending this war on terror. Abraham Lincoln was right, "The only good part of a war is its ending. " I know this; mistakes have been made both militarily and politically, but this is a war we must win in Iraq or in the future we fight in downtown America.

Whose Constitution?

One of the most dangerous trends in American law over the past several years lies in the blurring of the lines between citizen and non citizen. Maybe it is a failure of education that people for whatever reason assume that "Constitutional Rights" extend to anyone that happens to enter the jurisdiction of the United States.

Nationally the debate rages over detainees at Guantanamo Bay. People who ought to know better complain because those held there have been denied counsel, trial, and other legal remedies available to US citizens. Liberal judges (who are quickly overruled) support this nonsense to make a political statement against the president rather than ruling on the law. Closer to home, West Virginia law enforcement agencies have started distributing Miranda warnings in Spanish. No officer wants to work hard to get illegals off the street just so a liberal judge can wave a legal magic wand and give them Constitutional rights.

The Constitution's preamble has repeatedly been cited as part and parcel of the law of that document. This legal principle lay at the heart of every action taken by Abraham Lincoln to restore the Union. "We the people of the United States" opens the document. "The people" and "persons" used later on denotes United States citizens. Somewhere along the way, a segment of American thinkers has determined that our Constitution applies to those that sneak across our borders illegally. Even worse, they argue that enemies of our country that the military rounds up and detains have rights to our legal system. Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with this foolishness when his FBI efficiently rounded up German agents at the commencement of World War II.


We cannot allow non citizens to take advantage of our benevolence. If you are not an American citizen, you do not receive the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Those politicians that support extending legal protections, social services, and (I am not kidding here) voting rights to illegal non citizens ought to be held to account.

The Price of Government Intervention

In the past few months we have seen gas prices jump to their highest levels since Hurricane Katrina hit. Consumers scramble to find ways to pay the price while others scramble to lay blame. Plenty of explanation exists for this most recent spike.


First is the problem of blends. Different environmental regulations for different parts of the country mean that gasoline refineries must produce a vast array of gasoline formulas, then must figure out the supply and demand for each version sent out over the country. Personally I wonder why they do not simply go with the most environmentally friendly formula for the whole nation.




Secondly, refining in the United States is almost an endangered species. Our domestic capacity has not expanded in decades due to the expensive and time consuming permit process combined with legions of environmental groups waiting to sue. Meanwhile current facilities continue to age and occasionally blow up. Increasingly we rely on foreign countries such as Mexico and Venezuela to help provide the fuel we need. The most recent price rises reflect fears that unless a short term reduction in consumption takes place, shortages will occur in some parts of the country. Yes oil companies profit from this and it is hard to work up much sympathy for them, but it is a market tool to ensure a continued supply everywhere.







Right now the supply of crude does not pose a problem. Actually oil prices have dropped recently due to increases in supply primarily from Saudi Arabia. That nation's authorities just foiled a major plot to destroy its oil facilities. We need stable domestic sources of oil and no reason exists to not tap reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In his infinite wisdom, President Carter created this sprawling reserve to prevent oil companies from drilling there, citing the potential danger to polar bear and reindeer habitats. Of course the presence of cities, interstate highways, coal mines, etc. have absolutely driven away the population of black bear and white tail deer from our region. We simply need more domestic supply in case of international turmoil.







Some want to blame the long term energy consumption of the United States, citing familiar statistics that say we use more than any other nation. This represents a typical example of America bashing with no suggested alternative. Environmentalists fail to point out that the US produces more goods and services more efficiently than any other nation. We use more because we produce more, but America also wastes less. The inefficient authoritarian Chinese economy among others wastes more energy due to their much lower productivity level.







As has been pointed out here before, that capability comes from the genius of competitive capitalism. In that philosophy lies the key to solving energy price problems. Governor Manchin called upon the president to declare a state of emergency, a move that would create panic and huge price hikes. He also asked Bush to create a national energy strategy, a policy that the president has attempted repeatedly and received no support. If the governor and others actually want an energy policy they must meet with President Bush, leave politics at the door, and work out a solution. For our economic stability and national security we need to free American industry to produce more in America for Americans.

Warming Up to a Historical Perspective on the Climate

Ever tasted Scottish wine? You probably have not, but in the Middle Ages it was considered good enough that the French complained of the competition. The idea of Scottish wine may surprise those that know it is too cold to grow grapes in Scotland. From about the 1000s until the late 1300s temperatures rose to levels substantially (climactically speaking) higher than today. This allowed grapes to grow in Scotland and Viking colonizers to build cities and raise sheep in Greenland.

At this point you may be shocked. Rising global temperatures did not lead to the destruction of all mankind like Al Gore told us they would? During this period urban civilizations expanded across the planet. From central Mexico to the Great Plains to Europe trade and commerce fueled the expansion of cities and nations. The Mayan pyramids, the great burial mounds in the Ohio Valley, and the Gothic cathedrals all appeared in this era. It is called the Medieval Warm Period and it ended in the late 1300s.

The Medieval Warm Period’s warmth was replaced by the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age. The Viking colonists abandoned Greenland to expanding ice sheets, agriculture declined in northern Europe, and the great trade routes connecting eastern North America to the Aztecs and West Coast broke down. Decline in agricultural productivity coincided with the rise of imperial powers such as the English, Spanish, and Five Nations of the Iroquois League seeking to conquer new regions. Only in the 1700s did temperatures gradually climb again over the long term.

Surely this is all the fault of George W. Bush and Halliburton. Although some want to pin everything from climate change to the fall of the Roman Empire on President Bush, he does not control everything. In fact no one can say with any certainty what controls the climate, or even what the climate is doing right now. Some say it is warming, others say it is just fluctuating. NASA revealed recently that the Martian ice caps are melting and that Mars has gotten warmer. Again you could blame President Bush for that, but NASA believes that the sun’s energy output has increased lately.

Thirty years ago Newsweek and scientists warned us that the climate was cooling to dangerous levels and that industrialism was ushering in an ice age. Now these same people want us to believe that civilization is creating a hot spell that will end mankind. There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce pollution and trying to conserve resources. Industrial and capitalist nations have accomplished more towards those ends than any other system in the world. Using scare tactics and lies to frighten the public for a quasi-Marxist and anti-industrial political agenda is despicable.