An Exclamation Point on a Decade of Epic Failure: the ACC Raid

Last night, West Virginia University scored 70 points and routed the hapless 10-3 Clemson Tigers in the Orange Bowl. As usual, ESPN pundits predicted a blowout for the 3 point favorite Tigers. As usual, national voting heavily picked against WVU. As usual, on college football's biggest stage, West Virginia brought its best game of the year and won.

This was not just a football game. A decade ago, the Atlantic Coast Conference launched a bid to overtake the Southeastern Conference to become college football's premiere league. As we all know, they plundered the Big East, carrying off Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College. Added to Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Clemson, this should have grown into a formidable conference.

It didn't.

Virginia Tech stayed at the same level, winning about 9 games per season and dominating in conference. Meanwhile, they posted inexplicable losses against teams like James Madison in conference championship years. Clemson had rarely risen above second tier status, usually starting fast and wilting after the changing of the leaves. Georgia Tech disappeared, only to re-emerge as a vintage 1950s option team. Florida State followed Bobby Bowden into genteel decline. Miami found itself in scandal, again. And Boston College, well, most people forgot they even existed.

The ACC's new behemoth lineup produced no undefeated seasons, embarassingly low turnouts for its vaunted championship game, and a 2-13 record in BCS games.

West Virginia alone racked up three BCS bowl victories in the same span.

The Big East over the past decade performed respectably well in all bowl games, doing respectably well in the BCS. No one will mistake it for the SEC, but its performance shows resilience in the face of near destruction.

Last year the ACC once again came calling. With the near certainty of West Virginia departing somewhere, Syracuse and Pitt took the last bus out of the conference. The ACC did not deign to offer West Virginia the chance to turn them down.

That led up to the Orange Bowl. West Virginia, at one point a spurned team in a ridiculed conference, exposed completely the failure of the ACC. They wanted to knock the SEC off its pedestal, but have only seen that conference evolve into a league that makes the championship game its own little party. Clearly the ACC raid has ended in perfect failure.

Benjamin Harrison and Obama

Obama, who recently stated, in a manner of speaking, that he saw himself as the fourth best president (behind Lyndon Johnson and in front of George Washington, for whatever reason) looks more and more like a former Republican chief executive.

He would like you to think of Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. However, according to yesterday's New York Times, he resembles more a forgotten GOP one termer, Benjamin Harrison.

Harrison served from 1889 to 1893. Most people saw him as a powerful and persuasive public speaker. It must be noted that his ability to deliver an address counted for much in the days when speaking was a form of mass entertainment and teleprompters were not even a dream.

This president, who served between the two terms of Grover Cleveland, quickly gained a reputation for social ineptitude among fellow politicians. People also found him aloof and arrogant. Stephen Elkins, his Secretary of War, exclaimed that God's overcoat would not even make a vest for Harrison. Elkins received the office as a reward for strong service on Republican campaigns, including Harrison's.

The opposition calling Obama haughty and aloof comes with the territory. But on December 28, the New York Times agreed. The fact that Obama comes on the heels of one of the most well-liked Democratic presidents in history does not help him in the least.

War on Human Events

A war has opened up on the pages of the conservative publication Human Events.

If conservatism has a paper of record, this might be one of the prime candidates for the honor since it is the eldest. Human Events features some of the most prolific and well-known conservative pundits around, including Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter. Gingrich continues to write for the paper/website while campaigning. About a month ago, Coulter launched attacks on Gingrich more powerful and cutting than any campaign.

Gingrich has not responded to Coulter . . . yet. When he does, it will serve as truly high political drama because her pieces cutting into his conservative image coincided with a drop in his polling numbers.

The internet serves as a great equalizer. Gingrich and Coulter's columns are each as accessible as the other. No subtle messages in placement on a page can be made. On paper, each looks about as intelligent as the other (meaning that they are both a lot more brilliant than I am!) They take different tones, but both get their points across.

It is a new age of campaigning and writing. A lawyer turned journalist has set her sights on sinking Gingrich's campaign. We shall soon see if she succeeds.

The Liberal Problem With the Kardashians

A recent poll indicated that liberals tend to watch reality and talent shows more often, while conservatives prefer occupation oriented shows. No, I don't mean aimless protesters. I mean shows such as Gold Rush, Flipping Out, or Storage Wars where people actually create wealth through risk and hard work.

Keeping Up With the Kardashians and that shows many spawn are exactly as described by the media. Yes, I've seen parts of it here and there. It is a show about relatively attractive people doing nothing in particular. These relatively attractive people get attention because one of them made a sex tape that was seen by millions and has dated a large number of professional athletes.

But, as we have seen, self-described liberals help to keep the show on the air. Does this mean that they approve?

Of course not. A group called Courage Campaign in California has decided, despite the fact that the Kardashians pay all of their taxes completely and in a timely manner (thus preventing any of them from being eligible to serve in the Obama Cabinet) that the Kardashians pay too little in tax money. They have launched a fight to make celebrities pay more.

Whenever states such as Maryland or New York launch such folly, they make their neighbors do backflips in appreciation. Such states have high opinions of themselves, believing that people would want to pay more for the privilege and fun of living there. They may gain in the short term, but lose in the long. Rich residents move away and few would choose to locate there.

This campaign also reflects a very liberal cultural snobbery. Conservatives who do not prefer to watch a show such as the Kardashians put on will still grudgingly respect the fact that they are creating wealth by responding to a market. Some may wish the market had better taste, but it does not and never has. The fact that they create wealth and employ people legitimately makes them valuable in the market.

But liberals think that they have too much money. They want to punish them for their success. That is a dangerous philosophy, no matter who you are referring to.

Rest In Peace Harry Boggs

He was truly a pillar of the Mineral County community and will be missed.

In Obama's World, A Compact Costs More Than a Bentley

A Bentley, one of the finest luxury cars in the world, starts at $200,000

A Chevrolet Cruz, one of the newest offerings from Gummint Motors, a compact filled with glitches and issues, costs, including all the subsidies, $250,000

Bad Sports

Remember the movie Hoosiers? It was based upon the magical season of a small Indiana high school who played their way into winning a state basketball title. Through parts of the season, the coach only had six usable players. At one point, he refused to put a player back on the floor and finished the game with four.

The Poca Dots, known throughout the country for creative naming, just ended their girls' basketball season before it began. They started the season with nine girls. After injuries and defections, they ended up with six. Since the WVSSAC mandates that teams have ten players, the Putnam County Board of Education ended their season.

Why? The six remaining players wanted to compete. The coaches still wanted to coach. They could have made magic on the banks of the Kanawha. Instead, a bunch of old folks decided, for no particular reason, that a basketball team could not consist of six determined young women.

Shame on you, government. Why did you ruin their season?

Risk Theory

Once upon a time, a nation with great land power and an ever-expanding industrial base sought to broaden its horizons. Having a massive army with which to confront, or to protect itself against regional adversaries was not good enough, even though it had historically defeated powerful nations.

Unsatisfied with dominance in its region on land, it decided to put its efforts into developing its sea power as well.

This did not go unnoticed. A wealthy island nation nearby looked with concern as the land power started to construct ships that equaled others in its class in more historically established navies.

The land power targeted the most powerful navy of its time. Its leaders came up with the "risk theory." They figured that they could never build a navy as large, or larger than their assumed enemy. However, they could become large enough that a sea battle would be too costly for the rival. They would then have to appease the demands of the land power.

I am talking about Germany's push for world power a hundred years ago, but could just as easily be talking about China today. In the 1870s and 80s, Germans did not love the British, but trusted that fair policy and a massive fleet were enough to protect their interests. By 1900, Germany wanted to be the arbiter of sea power along with Britain. Germany made its interests know, they wanted colonies and other trappings of world power.

What does China want? Regional supremacy. Their plans also seem to resemble the growing will to power expressed by Japan in the 1930s. Oil, and other resources are part of their long term plans.

China famously plays the long game and it must feel that the time is ripe to move. Japan suffers from economic problems. The United States has a clear leadership gap. Europe seems determined to dive off a cliff to save the ill-fated Euro. And China has no fear of Russia.

They face containment on land. Vietnam, India, South Korea, and Russia block traditional avenues of influence expansion. All, including the Philippines and Japan, fear, or have good reason to fear, an awakening of Chinese ambitions.

Trouble is brewing. We must not await China's plans to become mature before figuring out if they are dangerous, and sending a stern message.

Obama Declares Kind of Good Outcome In Iraq

But not victory. Whatever you do, do NOT call it victory.

Also. praise the Iraqi people and the result, but never mention the foresight of the man who caused all the wrong in the history of the world, President George W. Bush.

This had to be a tough moment for Obama. He opposed the war. He never credits Bush for any good. Yet politically, he will try and make this success his own without alienating the antiwar crowd that increasingly tires of him.

Obama has left the Middle East a more dangerous place. By refusing to work with Iraq to even keep some forces in place to watch and cow Iran, the Obama Administration preferred to pull all forces out. This leaves a vacuum of power that Iran will try to fill one way or another.

Regardless of anything that Obama or Ron Paul says, Iran's mullahocracy has revolutionary ambitions for the region. As it inches closer to a doomsday bomb, American influence has gone into full retreat. We left no forces in Iran's most hated rival. We have failed to support Israel, our most reliable ally. What is it, exactly, that we plan to do besides blowing up a few facilities, supposedly in secret?

They also have had one of our most advanced pieces of military equipment in their custody for several days now. When that happened 200 years ago, men volunteered to risk their lives to blow it up. We are too impotent to do anything today?

We left Iran the initiative. Where they take it is apparently up to them.

Ann Coulter Could Decide the GOP Nomination

In the conservative world there are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers . . . and then there are battleships.

Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.

Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.

Then there are battleships.

Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.

Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.

The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005

And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.

David Cameron Makes a Stand

Prime Minister David Cameron took a stand for the United Kingdom this week. He decided that Britain would not march happily with the rest of Europe into the Fourth Reich.

Germany is willing to bankroll plans to save the Euro if member nations cede sovereign control over fiscal policy. In most people's experience, those that pay the piper call the tune. It is not a slam on Deutschland to say that their contributions would give them reason to act as though they were uber alles. It's not that they are evil or power mad, but it would be a reasonable and predictable position to take. Britain vetoed the plan as presented and will not take part in any tightening of the European Union.

Britain traditionally ranges itself against any power looking to dominate Europe. Germany, peacefully, and maybe even altruistically, is setting itself up to do just that.

The best policy would be to allow the Euro to disappear as the failed experiment that it is.

A Lowes Down Dirty Shame

Count me as one of those who does not think that the "All American Muslim" program on TLC is as grave a threat to Western Civilization as some have made it out to be. Sure it does not present the fact that Islamists have a political agenda over and above the faith of Muslims. But I'd rather not see the Westboro cult get mentioned in a show about mainline Protestants, either.

In all honestly, Lawrence of Arabia makes a stronger case for Islam than All American Muslim ever could.

Some companies, such as Lowes, pulled their ads from the show. In America, that is your right. You do not have to pay for a commodity. They made a business decision, maybe a good one, maybe not, but they made it.

Now Lowes is actually facing a lawsuit by a California state senator demanding that the company reinstate the ads and apologize to the Muslim community.

Honestly, this foolishness does not help the cause of Muslims who want to improve their image. Freedom to speak and spend when you want are rights. There is no right to not be offended by crass statements, mockery, due to the faith that you happen to carry. Certainly no right exists to force advertisers to support a television program.

Very interesting in comparison to the crusade of many in the media and elsewhere against Tim Tebow.

Frustration With the Field

Election season is almost upon us. The Republican Party offered up a large and varied field for consideration, which has been whittled down one by one.

I have to admit. Although I see considerable talent and experience in the original field, the country also saw an appalling lack of preparation. Many in the Republican field ran as if they had never witnessed a presidential election before.

We knew that debating in the fall might have something of an impact on the election. Why on earth did Rick Perry stumble into these competitions so woefully unprepared? He might have made a fairly good president, because the man is not as stupid as his detractors want to say. However, Perry needed a team to help him learn to parry rhetorically. He also needed to come up with a better way to defend his departures from conservatism in some way other than calling most of us "heartless."

I really liked Herman Cain. The man had a magnetism that filled a room. People instinctively liked him and he gave the impression that he liked you too, and had a good sense of humor to boot. Some say that sexual harassment allegations sank him. Only partly true. His decline in the polls also coincided with a sudden inability to answer any question that departed from his basic understanding of economics. Our world remains a dangerous place. It requires an American president with an already formed vision of how he wants to deal with its problems. Cain rarely gave an impression that he considered these problems very often.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney come to the table with a solid understanding of foreign and domestic issues already in place. We have come to understand that the pitfalls of both are polar opposite. We don't want "world-historical Newt." We don't want the ultimate technocrat Romney. We need a president with energy, boldness, and focus.

We also do not want another Dear Leader. The Republican nominee must emphasize teamwork in his campaign and Cabinet. He cannot portray himself as the answer to all questions and the source of all solutions. But he must prove to us that he can assemble the team that can redirect our nation down the proper path, restoring prosperity and respect around the world.

Youth In Misery

Press Release: “Youth Misery Index” Exposes Worsening Economic Hardship for Young Americans

Permanent link

HERNDON, VA – Young America’s Foundation has released the Youth Misery Index (YMI), which has reached a record high (90.6) and has grown more than 25 percent in four years—17 percent since the Obama administration took office.

To calculate the index, Young America’s Foundation adds together youth unemployment, average graduating student debt (in thousands), and national debt per capita (in thousands). At no point in recent history has life been harder for America’s young people.

The Youth Misery Index represents a three-pronged attack on young Americans’ financial security—educational debt from their past, unemployment in the present, and a future plagued by the burden of massive government debt.

Youth unemployment is at 17.4 percent—one of the highest levels since World War II. Average graduating student debt has reached a record-breaking $26,300. National debt per capita is $46,900—the highest ever. Add it up, and the Youth Misery Index comes out to 90.6 (17.4 + 26.3 + 46.9 = 90.6). What does this number mean? Like Jimmy Carter’s Misery Index, the YMI uncovers some real threats to our nation’s prosperity.

As explained at YouthMiseryIndex.com, all three indicators of the Youth Misery Index have gone up, at least in part, thanks to government intervention and out-of-control spending. Few things are more earth-shattering to a young person than being stuck with no job and tens of thousands in college debt. As the Youth Misery Index rises, look for the Obama administration’s youth support to continue to plummet (as reported by the New York Times).

Young America’s Foundation’s Ron Meyer, who developed the Youth Misery Index with support from Nathan Harden, a Novak Fellow with the Phillips Foundation, said, “As a recent college graduate myself, I’ve seen the harsh realities of the Youth Misery Index. Young people can and must be the catalyst to shock the establishment by advocating for the halt of big government. If we do nothing, we can kiss the American Dream goodbye."

For more information on the index or to request an interview, please call Ron Meyer at (800) USA-1776.

###

The Fourth Reich

Europe has been given ten days to come up with a plan to save itself.

Any plan that will save the tattered Eurozone will require massive infusions of capital from one of the few fiscally responsible nations left in the Western world, Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has named the price of German action. She wants member nations to cede sovereignty over financial affairs to a central commission. On the surface, this could be the only possible way to save the unified currency.

However, it would possibly bring horrific consequences. Germany will not hand out money and then step back. as the United States would. The price of Germany's help would be German control, at least indirectly. This is not meant to muster Nazi overtones. Merkel is more like Otto von Bismarck. She wants to protect Germany by stabilizing Europe with a German vision, not overturn civilization.

But each incarnation of a German Reich usually ends with violence. Each one, from the Holy Roman Empire to Hitler, drew upon a sense of a German mission to secure civilization through exercising order in Europe. European nations do not want German domination in any form and will fight if pushed.

The plans on the table call, whether they know it or not, for a Fourth Reich. Every Reich, no matter how well-intentioned, ends in war. European bureaucrats need to remember that.

Pattern of Tyranny: Hugo Chavez, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Bill Clinton

What do each of those individuals have in common? Each of them over the past several years has been associated with term limits abolition for presidents.

Hugo Chavez already has the coveted "president for life" job. Argentinian President Fernandez de Kirchner this week seemed to float a trial balloon in her country about amending their "outdated" constitution. Bill Clinton suggested that the term limit amendment be lifted in this country recently.

The executive branch has an advantage over the legislative in this key area. At the most, every eight years, the executive gets swept clean of its political officers. Even presidents from the same party tend to want to have their own people, avoiding the messes caused when John Adams and Harry Truman held over officials. Turnover in office reduces the amount of corruption that can settle in.

Congress operates without term limits. Invariably, human nature takes over when a person in power gets comfortable. They cut corners, ignore rules here and there, and probably are as surprised as anyone else if they end up scandalized.

President Washington feared more than most the concept of "president for life." He saw it as upsetting the balance established between the branches of government, leading to the establishment of what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority." The president has the most to gain by somehow purchasing or otherwise appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority. And the majority rarely see infringements upon their rights.

Presidential term limits are necessary for the continuance of good government. Congress should consider them as well.

New York Governor Faces Daunting Threat By His Own Party

The Governor of New York has tossed down a challenge at any and all. He will not raise taxes and he will support Marcellus Shale drilling. Cuomo publicly lashed out, ridiculing those who felt that

Andrew Cuomo, son of Democratic Party legend Mario, faces powerful attacks from public employees' unions, factions of his own Democratic Party, and a left wing "workers' party" the supports everything but work.

The Democratic Party in many parts of the nation faces a serious identity crisis. In places such as New York, the old liberal establishment finds itself at odds with the New Left. Most of the time, liberalism succumbs quietly to the shrill and mindless "mike check" mentality. In doing so, they wave good-bye to meaningful dialogue and the jobs that could be saved through tax and regulation relief. Governor Cuomo will have none of the Left. He seems to stand ready to strike back.

Thankfully, West Virginia Democrats, at least the majority anyway, have successfully resisted the burrowing of the left. They do not support business reforms as stridently as the state needs, but they have not kowtowed to Obamunism either. Democrats in the Mountain State are not swimming to shore, but they do continue to tread water, unwilling to put the weights desired of the left on the state's ankles.

Democrats need to take their party back.

Mitt Romney Needs to Abandon the Thomas E. Dewey Strategy

What do you think of when you think of Mitt Romney? Certainly he is intelligent, accomplished, organized, and, in a way, looks like a president. Conservative ideology aside, we would have no reason to think that Romney could not be sound in office.

But is Romney inspiring? Does Romney exude what George H. W. Bush derided as "that vision thing?"

There lies the problem.

Romney's rope-a-dope style in the primary season may win him the nomination as the not-Romneys battle it out. Compared to most of the pack, he looks far better informed and ready to govern. Compared to Newt Gingrich, he definitely looks more predictable and, some say, safe. Unfortunately for Romney, that could have been said about Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill in 1938.

Should Romney win the nomination, and that is a strong possibility, he must cease the pleasant little boat trip of a campaign that he has captained so far. His latest debate spawned criticisms of his "going through the motions" and resorting to platitudes. This will not do against a campaign in 2012 that promises to be one of the most vicious in American history.

Thomas Dewey took the field against Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey altered his strategy after accusations of going too aggressively against Franklin Roosevelt. That was a mistake in that FDR was a sick old hero, whereas Truman was somewhat unpopular.

Whatever accolades Truman deserves for identifying Soviet evil early on, he must be remembered as a bare-knuckled liar of a campaigner. FDR's successor got everything that he wanted out of the initially hesitant to spend GOP Congress in 1947. The Marshall Plan, National Security Act of 1947, aid to Greece and Turkey, all this and more came at the behest of Truman. Few presidents have gotten more out of their own party. But Truman, seeing Dewey as a likeable opponent, campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress."

Dewey responded by ignoring Truman and playing prevent defense, which in football usually translates to preventing the win. Truman had very low popularity with all voters and even faced major splits in his own party. The liberal Louisville Courier-Journal summed up Dewey's campaign in the following fashion:

No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

If you didn't already know....Truman won in 1948.

To be fair, Romney has been much more specific than Dewey was. However, he needs to show spark. Romney, if he wins nomination, needs that moment where Americans see that he can intelligently rise to the occasion. Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 microphone moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE) is an example.

It is still a long way to the end, and Gingrich is showing staying power and intellectual command. But if Romney should win, he needs to ignore the Dewey gameplan and go on the attack.

Happy Thanksgiving

We are thankful for God, family, country, and all of the men and women who risk all every day to protect us.

Gingrich Looking Past Primaries?

Newt Gingrich, in last night's debates, seemed to start positioning himself against not only his fellow Republicans, but also the incumbent president. The former Speaker of the House strongly advocated for a "humane" immigration policy that eases the enforcement of laws on long term illegals. His rationale lay in preventing family break-ups.

Gingrich runs the risk of losing the conservative support built over the past several weeks, following the trend of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain when each fumbled in the right wing red zone. It lends credence to the idea that Gingrich actually lies more in the center than even Mitt Romney and opens the door further to criticism of his other non-conservative moves in the past.

It also opens the door for Gingrich to expand his support into different groups, especially if he wins the nomination. The Hispanic community is no monolithic creature. It divides along national and generational lines. Gingrich's move tactically targets Hispanics whose social conservatism could bring them into the GOP camp, or at least convince them to elect some Republicans. The family first mantra will attract Roman Catholic and other religious voters who have been pushing this line in many issues for decades.

The Republican Party itself has no consensus on all immigration policy ideas. Gingrich's gamble will cost him support now, but would definitely broaden his appeal if nominated.