Capitalism Versus Statism: Don't Shoot the Vendor, Even If It's "Snooki"

Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi is apparently laughing all the way to the bank today. The "Jersey Shore" television program's most famous character has (unless this is an April Fools' Day prank) snagged a $32,000 fee to speak at Rutgers University. That is $2,000 more than a Nobel Prize winning author received to speak at Rutgers and $12,000 more than Niall Fergusson normally commands. From what I have seen, a lot of the backlash is directed at Polizzi herself. You have to really ask why. Yes, she does not come across as that bright. She also spends a lot of time just drinking, dancing, having sex, and obambulating (wandering around aimlessly.) But lets' look at it this was. She is selling a commodity, herself. Polizzi did not hold a gun to the head of Rutgers, she gave them a price and they agreed to pay it. What's wrong with getting what you can, while you can, if you are getting it honestly? It is not her fault that a state institution chose to waste a large sum of money to bring in a young woman whose life experiences are basically confined to sex, alcohol, and rock 'n roll. Polizzi is just being a good capitalist. And is she really as dumb as she appears on television. Remember that Jessica Simpson made most of her fortune by playing dumb while still young and ultra-appealing. She'll live off of that characterization for the rest of her life, very comfortably I might add. Leave Snooki alone. She's a good capitalist, she's making her money honestly, and she's an Obama hating Republican. All those things maker her O. K. in my book.

A Top Economist Explains Why Planning Commissions Are Bad

F. A. Hayek from The Road to Serfdom I am putting this up because some planning commission somewhere in Wilmington, Delaware decreed that basketball hoops near roads are some kind of nuisance, even in suburbal cul-de-sacs. They sent crews out onto quiet streets to take them down and haul them off. What a waste of taxpayer money! Planning and Power IN ORDER to achieve their ends, the planners must create power—power over men wielded by other men—of a magnitude never before known. Their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power. Democracy is an obstacle to this suppression of freedom which the centralized direction of economic activity requires. Hence arises the clash between planning- and democracy. Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be "no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors." There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work? In every real sense a badly paid unskilled workman in this country has more freedom to shape his life than many an employer in Germany or a much better paid engineer or manager in Russia. If he wants to change his job or the place where he lives, if he wants to profess certain views or spend his leisure in a particular way, he faces no absolute impediments. There are no dangers to bodily security and freedom that confine him by brute force to the task and environment to which a superior has assigned him. Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery. It has been well said that, in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.

Rand Paul Versus Barack Obama

Last night, we saw two voices on today's U. S. foreign policy. One seemed unsure, defensive, and unable to answer the basic questions. The other charted out where our foreign policy will be going in the next several years whether we like it or not. I have always favored a muscular American foreign policy, along the lines of Reagan. In short, sometimes you have to use force in targeted situations to remind the world that you can. George Schultz used to say that force should never be the last resort. If it is, don't let anyone know. Obama used force against Libya without thinking it through. What does it mean to aid Libyan rebels, but not Syrian? Did we ever establish who these people are, or whether they deserve our help. Libya only produces 3% of the world's oil. Ramped up production in Alaska over the next year could compensate for that. There just seems to be no real reason to strike. Rand Paul took issue with Obama's use of force against a country that did not directly threaten us. I don't necessarily agree that we should always confine our use of force to such situations. He also argued that Obama should have, in some fashion, consulted Congress. At the very least, it is good politics to talk to congressional leaders of both parties before making such a move. Obama spoke to no one, except ESPN. The more restricted foreign policy guidelines laid out by Paul will have to be our national norm. We simply cannot afford to play as large a role as we have played. It is time to push Europe, India, Japan, and other responsible nations forward into shouldering some more of the burdens. We have a debt crisis at home that needs solved. That in itself is a world issue. If we default, and our economy collapses, we take down the world. It is time to get our house in order. If nothing else, we must be ready for the next major world challenge. Right now, we could not face it as we did in 1941. The Republican Party itself, by selecting Rand Paul as the response, is moving back to the less aggressive days of the 1920s. In essence we are moving away from Reagan's foreign policy (which is essentially that of Truman and Kennedy) and back towards Calvin Coolidge. This is no longer an option, given our debt crisis. We need to scale back on foreign policy and future military actions.

Is Joe Biden Eccentric Or Crazy?

Is Joe Biden eccentric, or is he a lunatic? Don't ask me. Ask reporter Scott Powers, who was put in a closet during a fundraiser under guard. The links below were posted on the Republican National Committee Facebook page, but as you can see, they link some liberal and neutral sites as sources. This is much stranger stuff than not being able to spell "potato." Biden’s Staff Put A Pool Reporter In A Storage Room “To Keep Him From Talking To The Many High-Profile Guests” During A Fundraiser For Senator Ben Nelson. “Scott Powers, a writer for the Orlando Sentinel, was serving as the pool reporter for a fundraiser in Florida, where Biden was appearing to raise money on behalf of Sen. Bill Nelson on Wednesday. But to keep him from talking to the many high-profile guests at the event, a member of Biden's staff stuffed Powers in a storage closet and stood guard outside the door until she deemed it ‘safe’ for Powers to emerge.” (Jack Mirkinson, “Biden Team Apologizes To Reporter Scott Powers For Keeping Him In Closet During Fundraiser,” The Huffington Post, 3/28/11) “‘The Protocol Is They Didn't Want Me To Talk To Anybody,’ Powers Told ‘Good Morning America’ Reporter Matt Gutman In An Interview On Monday.” (Lucy Madison, “Biden Team Apologizes To Reporter For Making Him Wait In A Closet,” CBS News, 3/28/11) Biden’s Staff Apologized For The Choice Of Hold Room. “‘Scott - You have our sincere apologies for the lack of a better hold room today,’ wrote Vice President Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander last Wednesday to Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11) “‘Lack Of A Better Hold Room’ Is An Interesting Way Of Putting It.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11) Powers Was Kept In The Closet For Over An Hour Waiting For Biden And Senator Nelson To Speak. “Any time he stuck his head out he'd been shooed back inside. He said he was held for more than an hour in the closet, was allowed out for 35 minutes of remarks by Biden and Nelson, after which it was back into the closet until the VP left.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11) “Forcing Reporters Into Closets Is Generally Not The Tradition Of Politicians In The US.” (Jake Tapper, “Biden Team Apologizes To Report For Sticking Him In Closet,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, 3/27/11)Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/biden_off_the_rails#ixzz1HuVLYjV4

Rule of Law and Obamacare

Rule of law is the necessary basis of any free society. It holds that the law must be above all individuals in the society, even the leadership, that it must be clear, and that it must be enforced equally for all.

Just because a country has enforced laws does not mean that it enjoys rule of law. Sometimes the law gets too complex for the average citizen to obey. When that happens, then the citizen does not enjoy protection of rule of law because he or she unwittingly may violate it while acting reasonably. The federal tax code and many local zoning ordinances violate the concept of rule of law. These laws (and many others) are not clear and reasonable, so they should be simplified.

Selective enforcement of laws also violates the rule of law. If it is a good law, then there is no need to exempt anyone from its enforcement. Massive exemptions to the enforcement of a particular law demonstrate that the law is a bad one and should be repealed. Even more importantly, it also violates the concept of rule of law in a most basic and sinister way. When those in power can exempt their friends and supporters from following a burdensome law while forcing its obedience upon others, government has embraced a certain level of tyranny. Theodore Roosevelt did this with the Sherman Anti-Trust act over a hundred years ago. Obama is doing it now with myriad waivers from Obamacare granted to unions, friendly businesses, and even entire states that he might swing to his camp in 2012.

This is a gross violation of the most sacred foundation of our free society and recognition that his beloved health care law is garbage. Repeal both Obamacare and Obama by 2012.

A Crisis of Confidence

The United States and key players in the world community have a crisis of confidence. Not in America itself, but in Barack Obama.

The past two weeks have shown us just how much the sitting president is in over his head. He has been seen most conspicuously playing golf, predicting the NCAA Men's Tournament, and going to Rio de Janiero to dance and see the sights. Meanwhile Japan is still reeling from natural and nuclear disaster, Egypt is still in an uproar, and we have just launched air strikes against Libya in coordination with our NATO allies. Well, semi-coordinatiion because we are arguing publicly with Britain over whether or not Moammar Ghaddafi is a legitimate target for removal. And his own party is screaming because Congress received not so much as a courtesy call about the attacks.

Obama does not have the ability to lead a church bingo game, much less the country in a world of crisis. So why doesn't he hand things off to Hillary Clinton? She may have wrong headed ideas about a lot of things, but she is more capable and experienced than the basketball prognosticator in chief. Obama would never be able to handle any form of Clinton accomplishment because she remains the number one threat to his renomination.

Hillary Clinton herself posed the question. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3 AM with the world in crisis. I wish Obama would stay in Rio, or on the golf course, or wherever he'd rather be this week than working his main job, and let Clinton answer the phone. She and Bill are not my top choices to respond in a crisis, but they are better than anyone else the Democrats have right now.

Who ever thought that this guy was a great intellect was sold a bill of goods. Sorry America. You've been had.

The Constitutionality of the Attack on Libya

Obama's belated decision to launch attacks on the Libyan regime of Moammar Ghaddafi has sparked some debate on the home front over the constitutionality of his action.

Hate to say anything that defends Obama, but I would argue that the president does have a constitutional and legal authority to deploy the armed forces into a conflict despite the lack of a declaration of war. First of all, Congress does have the option to cut off funding for U. S. military actions at any time. Because of that, the legislative branch does have power and leverage over a protracted, but undeclared war.

Secondly, there is the precedent set by the Founding Fathers themselves. I will skip over John Adams' deployment of the navy in an undeclared war against France and Thomas Jefferson's attacks on Tripoli which were also undeclared. Neither one of these men had anything to do with the creation of the Constitution. James Madison, as president, in 1816 deployed the United States Navy against Tripoli and the other Barbary Pirate states. Since he was the man who more than anyone else drafted the Constitution and its first ten amendments, it is reasonable to assume that he did not intend for a president's decision making power over war to be limited to formal declarations.

Of course Barack Obama himself argued that military strikes ordered unilaterally by the president were unconstitutional during the Bush Administration. Liberal and left wing Democrats have tried to remind him of that stance lately. It was incorrect, but it is interesting to watch Obama once again enrage his own base. They can't be happy that Guantanamo Bay is once again in the same mode as under President Bush.

That all being said, I still am of the opinion that we should have recruited a country such as India to play a role here. That way this action could not be perceived as neo-colonialism. With active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea rattling its sabre, we cannot afford to get seriously invovled in Libya. Let Europe, if no one else is available, take the lead and the griping that comes with it.

Obama's Letter to Congress On Libya Action

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2011

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated

2

in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition

of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

Obama, Japan, Libya

I'm surprised that Kanye West has not accused Obama of hating the Japanese.

Obama's days since Japan was hit by a devastating tsunami have been filled with activity. These include being filmed while filling out his NCAA brackets for ESPN camera crews. For most of the past few years, I've found myself too busy this time of year to fill mine out. Oh to have the spare time of a president.

Obama also has a strange reaction to natural disasters and death. During the Icelandic volcano and the funeral of the president of Poland, Obama could be found on the links, working on his golf game. He has been filmed recently, again, playing golf. One pundit counted up sixty-one times that the president has played golf since he became president.

When he took office, and these quotes come from the leftist blog "Red, Green, and Blue," Obama promised a new era of responsibility and accused Bush of ineptitude over his response to Katrina. Bush's main mistake lay in choosing to do what he could as president to stem the crisis, i.e. making sure that oil supplies around the world remained stable as the Gulf wells went offline. He did not "appear" to care enough. Obama ignored the Gulf oil spill until his poll numbers started dropping. He also did not learn from the harsh public reaction to his yawn over the tragic death of the Polish president that foreign crises matter too. The president's response to Libya has also raised eyebrows. Obama does not haveto tour the rubble himself, but at the very least he could go without golf for a little while and do some work. Of course he has his next vacation to plan for, so....

Dwight D. Eisenhower also golfed a lot, but his World War II experience assured many Americans that he was on task. Warren Harding loved to golf as well. His inexperience and lazy attitude towards the office of president got him into trouble. I wonder which of the preceding presidents makes us think more of the current administration?

Time to Change the Conversation About Nuclear Power

As I write, yet another nuclear power station in Japan has started having potentially deadly problems. Over 180,000 have evacuated the northern part of the country, fearing nuclear meltdowns. Nature has reminded us yet again that we cannot just build anything that we want, anywhere that we want.

California currently has two nuclear power stations in dangerous areas. One is just south of Los Angeles, the other about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Both are on the coastline. We have just seen that nuclear power stations on the coastline and in earthquake zones might be a bad idea. You would have thought that someone would have considered this when these stations were built.

Over the long term, we need to evaluate where these plants are located. Do they operate in potentially dangerous areas (like the California coast?) If so, we must consider removing them in the long term. No one prepares for earthquakes and tsunamis like Japan and they have come very close to serious disaster.

A full nuclear meltdown would have disastrous effects for hundreds of miles. We must be prepared for the worst.

American Professor Kidnapped in Mexico

Dr. Veronica Perez Rodriguez, an anthropology professor at Northern Arizona University has been added to the growing list of Americans victimized by violent crime in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Ciudad Juarez has seen the death of thirty-nine Americans in the past year. Dr. Rodriguez was kidnapped by armed gunmen while visiting her mother. Americans are under threat around the globe as criminal cartels act with increasing boldness.

It's time that we start changing our approach to non governmental threats. Pirates in the Indian Ocean are captured and put on trial. We can spend a lot of money to put them on trial and keep them in prison when we could expend much less to simply blast them into perdition. We do it to ideologically driven terrorists, why not pirates?

The Mexican border area has gotten a lot more dangerous over the last few years. Drug cartels control Ciudad Juarez and large sections of the borderland near the border. That violence is targeting Americans on both sides of the border. With Mexico's system approaching collapse, our border control must reflect the changing scenario. Rule of law in Mexico has degenerated into rule of violence and corruption.

Mexico's problems are also ours. Dr. Rodriguez was a daughter and an academic, not a drug runner. The fact that she was targeted and taken is an outrage. It is past time to send in the Central Intelligence Agency and the Special Forces to break down and break up these criminal organizations. Americans on either side of the border should not have to live or travel in the atmosphere of fear spawned by these drug cartels anymore.

Don't Restrict Access to Cold Medicine

It's the common knee jerk reaction. Society sees something it doesn't like, they scream "there oughtta be a law." Sure enough, some strange bill gets proposed the next legislative session. You hope that the legislators have enough common sense to kill the bill and go on.

Doesn't look like it will happen this time.

A bill passed the House and is now racing through the State Senate to restrict access to certain cold medicines. Why? Because many contain an ingredient that is essential to the manufacture of methamphetamines.

You have to be joking. A few people misuse cold medicine, so all of us now have to get a prescription for a very simple and basic remedy that also happens to be fairly inexpensive. Ridiculous!

In fact, it's easy to tell who the meth makers are. They are the ones buying ten boxes of the stuff. The rest of us need just one at a time, usually. Why not encourage managers to discreetly pass a tip to the police every time someone buys out the stock of cold medicine? Some won't but a lot of them will. Or law enforcement could just randomly review store tapes. They probably recognize the local meth manufacturer already.

Both legitimate and illegal users of these medicines will simply cross state lines to get what they need. What does the Legislature expect? That a drug manufacturer will say "darn, I was going to get into selling meth, but cold medicine is now a prescription. Guess I'd better get an education and a job now." Of course not! This measure will make life inconvenient for the law abiding and do next to nothing to stop the criminals. The Charleston Daily Mail 's Don Surber asked if it would have been prudent to ban refined sugar in the heyday of the moonshiners during Prohibition.

You cannot stop crime by restricting liberty.

Who Are the Koch Brothers?

The Koch brothers and their organization, the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, have made headlines in the past few weeks. The New Yorker identifies them as fighting a war against Obama while Democratic bloggers have insinuated that they are the powers behind the Tea Party and many Republican officeholders. They imply a less than savory connection between business, money, and politics.

The Koch brothers are successful businessmen on a large scale, investing in consumer products, energy, food, and other fields. With their money, they have established a non party foundation to, as they put it, advance the science of liberty.

There is nothing wrong with big business and nothing wrong with big money, so long as we have a competitive capitalist system. Big Business actually benefits and gets richer as a result of big government and its intervention into the economic system because taxes and regulations stifle competition. The Koch Foundation preaches not just economic conservatism, but a near-libertarianism that usually does not favor the dominant producers in the market. They also favor natural rights based law, which has been used in the past to elevate individual property owmers' rights over the ambitions of big business. In other words, the Koch brothers believe in a level economic field where no one gets government support or intervention. It's clear that the Koch brothers, in an Ayn Rand world, would rather be the Rearden Steel than the Twentieth Century Motors (whose fictional business model has been loosely copied by General Motors and General Electric.)

Democratic bloggers have proved that the Koch brothers have a connection with Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. So what? Wisconsin wants to cut the size of its government to benefit the taxpayers. Unions are standing in their way. Why wouldn't the Koch's support this initiative? And oh, by the way, attention paid to Wisconsin has covered the fact that several states are copying this measure themselves.

The Koch Foundation itself is about education. It wants to teach the basics of a free market economy in a republican style government (not the Republican Party, but our balanced system of republican government.) They support free market and natural rights ideals and create a large group of people who can put those beliefs into practice. Support of these ideals will offset the overwhelming bias towards statism and leftism seen on many college campuses.

Left wing establishmentarians have put their crosshairs on the Koch Foundation and are trying to sully its name. It's pretty hard for people who want higher taxes and less freedom to tarnish the image of a group of people who fight for nothing less than rights and liberty.

Earl Ray Tomblin Might Call a Special Session

Earl Ray Tomblin is making a popular proposal that has run aground against the tax and spend mentality of the State Legislature.

He is proposing a modest 1% slicing off of the food tax. Manchin had overseen cuts from 6% to its current level of 3%. Tomblin wants to take one more step towards its elimination altogether.

However the Legislature has refused to act on even this modest idea. Republicans have constantly backed full elimination of the tax immediately because it hits the working poor hardest. Three cents off of the dollar is not much for most folks making $40,000 or more a year, but a lot of people are taking their spare change to Coinstar at the end of their pay period. Three cents off of every dollar spent on food is meaningful to them.

Tomblin is not as ambitious as Republicans in that he only wants to shave one penny per dollar off. However, it is a start towards the GOP goals. If Tomblin does not get his tax reductions, he has indicated that he will use a special session to pressure the Legislature further.

This, of course, is why we need a Republican Legislature committed to tax cuts and jobs development.

John Boehner, Let Him Lie In the Rotunda

Republicans and Democrats both support it, so why isn't Speaker of the House John Boehner on board with allowing America's last World War I veteran to lie in the U. S. Capitol Rotunda?

I can understand his point in one way. You don't want to open the floodgates for every serviceman to have his or her day of respect at the Rotunda. However, this is different.

This would not be a memorial for one man, or a reward for outliving all his peers. This is a memorialization of that entire generation. These men were plucked out of their farms and hollows and sent to a place that they could not even have imagined, another continent at war. They brought back an entirely new perspective to their country while fighting for it. World War I veterans deserve their final day in the sun. We don't talk enough about them, or what they did for the U. S. and the world at large.

Make it a tradition that the last surviving veteran of each of our major wars and military actions lies in the Rotunda. This will continue the memory of what they did in a respectful fashion.

Call to Action! Keep the Legislature From Making It Easier to Take More of Your Money!

The West Virginia Legislature is considering a bill to make it a simple majority vote to raise taxes or float bonds. Right now, they need a supermajority. Eliminating this vital taxpayer protection will most certainly mean that we will be paying more taxes very soon. Why else would they seek to change the law?


If you think you are taxed enough already, contact your delegates and senators as soon as possible regardless of party. Let them know where you stand. Call your Republicans as well. They need to be able to reference to their Democratic brethren how angry the people are at this attempt to raise our taxes even higher than they are now.

Call them or e mail them today!!!!!

Bobby Huggins For Big East Coach of the Year

Losing talent, overcoming adversity, building chemistry and winning. That is the measure of great coaching performances. West Virginia University's Bobby Huggins has done all of these and has set his team up for another 20 win season, another year with a winning record in conference play, and an NCAA berth.

First of all, Huggins had to reconfigure his team to adjust to the losses of three starters. Smith, Ebanks, and Butler all contributed defense, points, and leadership in clutch situations last year. Most teams reload with capable freshmen. Huggins had the worst luck with his recruiting class. Some did not qualify, some never made it to practice. One is left on the team, but is out for the season due to injury.

Then he dealt with player infractions and a player defection as Dan Jennings quit in the middle of a game. However, Huggins teams don't quit. They circle the wagons and rebound (in more ways than one.)

West Virginia was not picked to finish well in conference this year and that was before the entire freshman class plus a key reserve was lost. Huggins has had his team forge for themselves a very good year despite all obstacles. He has earned Big East Coach of the Year.

House Republicans Look to End $13 Million Annual Support For U. N. Climate Group

Among the $60 billion in budget cuts proposed by House Republicans is $13 million of your taxpayer dollars that continue to fund the scandalized Intergovernmental Climate Group.

U. N. officials take issue with the $13 million figure, stating that only $4 million goes to the IGCG, while the rest goes to U. N. scientific monitoring groups.

It does not matter where the money ends up. Americans should not be spending millions on bad science. Furthermore, United States government agencies already monitor weather and the climate and have for decades. Why pay the U. N. to do the job (more poorly) as well?

American support for the United Nations stands at 31%. Even Democratic voters can only muster a 45% approval rating of the job that the U. N. does according to a 2010 Gallup Poll. It might be time for the United States to start demanding a larger say in the inner workings of the international bureaucracy, since we do pay for a great deal of its operations. As far as I am concerned, we ought to exit the U. N. and seize the headquarters through eminent domain. It does nothing for us or anyone else and is a snakepit of corruption. Libya was placed on the Human Rights Commission a few years back by these people. Libya!

Defunding fake climate research is a start. It is also a shot across the U. N.'s bow. They need to reckon with the fact that the GOP are the new budgetary sheriffs in town. And their loving defender, Obama, may be out the door in a couple of years.

First Annual Orwell Award for Scariest Big Government Legislation Proposal This Session

I have decided to create an Orwell Award for scariest Big Government proposal to hit the West Virginia State Legislature this session.



The award goes to Monongalia County Delegate Barbara Fleischauer for her anti-bullying bill. This bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee, would subject children to school punishment if they have been found to have been bullied anywhere at anytime. This could be at the park over the summer, or anywhere else for that matter, even Myrtle Beach or Timbuktu. It could involve any communication in any form whatsoever. Republican Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County was quoted in West Virginia Metro News as opposing the bill in the strongest possible terms.



Delegate Fleischauer insists that the bill is necessary because in recent years that parents don't seem willing to stop bullies.



I hate to break it to the House Judiciary Committee, but bullying was widespread in decades and centuries prior to Nancy Grace and Jane Valez Mitchell. Also, there have always been parents who refuse to believe that their little angel could be capable of bullying. You teach children strategies to deal with its reality, because it can never really be eradicated. Those strategies include, unfortunately, standing up and fighting for yourself.



Look at what Fleischauer's bill will do. A bully could use the power of the state against his or her target by threatening to turn someone in for bullying themselves. If it is off of school property and out of teacher and administrator earshot, how can proof of real guilt be established. Also in social networking, a statement taken out of context can be misinterpreted. This becomes Orwellian because an arm of the government has to operate as a Thought Police enforcing its will anywhere and everywhere with complete arbitrariness.



Children often have spats with each other that come and go like summer squalls. Anything said or done during these arguments could be construed as a bullying statement or action Boys especially will be good friends, get into fights and beat on each other, then be friends the next day. Do we really want the power of the state brought into these situations to perpetuate a conflict that would otherwise quickly pass?



The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and social legislation.



Combine this with the bill to call for state investigations every time a kid misses more than five days of school and you really have a frightening overall invasion of parental authority and prerogative. People need to pay attention to the very tyrannical legislation making its way through the State Legislature this session.

Check out War On Rural Maryland blog

http://www.waronruralmaryland.com/

This blog, created by Maryland legislators, describes Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's radical policies that win the approval of elite leftists, but harm folks that own farms and live in the country.