They Are Making Sports Fun Again

Last fall it was Tim Tebow. His optimism, hard work, and gregarious Christianity made him beloved among some fans and despised by others.

Then Jeremy Lin captivated New York City by stepping in for an injury plagued New York Knicks franchise to carry it during a key run early in the season. His Harvard education, positive attitude, and strong Christian faith won him a sudden army of fans and endless band puns on his name.

Now meet Bubba Watson. He just won the most prestigious tournament in golf, at least this side of the British Open. And he reminds you more of a year round resident of Augusta, rather than a member of the PGA traveling road show. He is unassuming, plays for fun instead of profit, is unabashedly Christian, and completely irreverent.

In other words, the anti-Tiger.

Watson, like Phil Mickelson, is completely fan friendly. Unlike Mickelson, he has a strong charisma that will build a good following if he continues to win. These guys together are good for golf in that they make the game more accessible and appealing to the fans in a way that Tiger Woods never could.

Woods was once as consistent as a machine, and almost as friendly. It was hard to really root for him because he radiated so little warmth, like pulling for the drill against John Henry.

Watson and Mickelson are making golf fun again. Friendly with fans, men of good character, these are people that can bring people back to the game.

And these guys, as well as Tebow and Lin, remind us that good people sometimes do finish first.

How the Obama Administration Once Again Gets Marbury v. MadisonWrong

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117982422/DOJ-Letter-to-5th-Circuit-re-Judicial-Authority

A quick read of Attorney General Eric Holder's statement to the 5th Circuit once again shows that the nation's most influential lawyers fail to understand Marbury v. Madison (1803)

He asserts that the United States Supreme Court cannot overturn duly passed legislation unless there is a very clear violation of a specific constitutional principle. Marbury is one of the cases cited within the document.

Marbury itself, however, is based upon a constitutional interpretation more than a clear violation. Chief Justice Marshall interpreted a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases of writs of mandamus (orders to government officials to do their job.) Marshall saw no specific phrase in the Constitution that would have permitted that. He reasoned that Congress committed an overreach.

The Commerce Clause simply says this: that Congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" It was meant to keep states from erecting trade barriers against each other.

So Holder includes Marbury among his citations, even though it establishes an interpretational, not absolute, basis for judicial review and a strict construction of the original seven articles.

The attorney general's response has left the courts no room to support him, now that his statement is on the record. To preserve their judicial review authority, federal judges need to strike down the law in question. In this case, I mean the 5th Circuit (which they likely will.) By extension, this includes the Supreme Court.

Marshall's interpretation in Marbury was made in part to prevent the judicial branch from becoming subordinate to the executive. The Roberts Court may have to assert itself similarly until Obama is gone.

Is the Stop Online Piracy Act Back Under a New Name?

http://www.journalfive.org/2012/04/sopa-back-with-cispa.html

Ty Clifford of the new Journal Five blog in the above story reports on the re-emergence of the Stop Online Piracy Act, also known as SOPA. An internet campaign killed it last year. Could it, like an unwanted weed, be popping back up again this spring under a new name?

B*******t Article I Have Ever Seen: Hats Off to Samantha Brick

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html

You may or may not agree that she is stunning. She is definitely much prettier than average.

And apparently the world now hates her.

The Daily Mail (Great Britain, not Charleston) posted a story the other day written by Samantha Brick. In the story, she candidly discussed her social problems related to being considered attractive at her age.

Of course such a display of honesty has inspired thousands of angry, hateful, and indignant responses from anonymous readers.

Really, how dare a pretty woman say that she is gorgeous and that it causes her female friends to hide their husbands. She may have too high of an opinion of herself, or maybe not. In any case, people definitely have a perception that she is very attractive or she wouldn't have written the piece.

Fact is that this is one of the ballsiest op-eds I have ever read, pardon the expression. It is inevitable that this will attract hatred. Frankly, it seems that people care more about her sassy blonde mug than the fact that the British are about to impose a sophisticated digital spy program on the public.

Sure, Big Brother is on his way, Great Britain, but let's complain about the uppity cute chick.

This was not written tongue in cheek either. It's not often that you see someone personally put themselves out there to be smacked around by their reading public.

It's John Marshall's Fault!

Barack Obama has found a new enemy is his war on, well, anything that seeks to check his power.

This time, his foe is the United States Supreme Court . . . of 1803.

Several recent statements from the president seem to indicate that he does not accept that the high court has the legal authority to find laws unconstitutional. All constitutional scholars, save Obama, agree that the Court assumed this power in the decision Marbury v. Madison.

In that case, the John Marshall Court ruled unanimously that it could find federal laws unconstitutional. Some years later, it assumed that power over state lawmakers as well. This authority was traditional in English law.

This decision formed the basis for first, the equality of state and federal power, but later, the central authority's dominance. In other words, without this power to strike laws down as unconstitutional, the federal government would never have prevailed in its struggle with states over who had preeminent authority.

The Supreme Court has to strike a balancing act at times. When it's decisions are popular, it is seen as a bulwark against popular passions. Its opponents usually complain that it is undemocratic. Obama complains that it is about to strike down a duly passed law by Congress (which everybody knows was spanked by an angry electorate in the subsequent election.) In the 1950s, it invalidated duly passed laws by state legislatures that kept blacks and whites in separate schools.

Obama seems to have completely lost his moorings. His assertion that the Supreme Court cannot invalidate his law caused the 5th Circuit of the federal court to take the unusual step of asking the Justice Department if Obama was denying the power of judicial review.

It is in the president's power to cause a constitutional crisis, by simply ignoring the ruling of the Court. Andrew Jackson did so in the 1830s when he seized Cherokee land. Abraham Lincoln ignored a judicial order out of fear that Maryland might rebel against the Union.

No other president has done so. Franklin Roosevelt came close, but incurred public wrath as a result.

These are the death rattles of a rapidly discombobulating presidency.

It's Just Good Capitalism

Huffington Post bloggers lost their multi-million dollar lawsuit last week against AOL Inc.

AOL paid out hundreds of millions to Post founder Arianna Huffington. She declined to share any proceeds with her writers, who contributed for free. AOL Inc. also offered no money.

Huffington and AOL Inc. played this like good capitalists. Huffington created and shaped a market for left wing news and analysis. She brought in writers whose content helped to build her blog into one of the most prominent and respected outlets in the media world. The Post was a model for other online entities looking at ways to monetize news. TownHall.com runs in a similar fashion on the right.

The Huffington Post gave those writers exposure to a broad market, but never promised compensation. Its business model allowed for the founders to make scads of money using writers willing to put out a few hundred words for the experience and exposure alone. This is why traditional print is dying out!

All of this was very clear. So why the outrage among writers?

They are liberals and leftists and do not understand the business model. This lawsuit comes from hurt feelings more than anything else. Huffington sold them a left wing bill of goods. Her Post was to be a bastion of anti-free market intellectuals who would rail against corporate greed. They believed the hype and the hypocrite.

Huffington had no legal reason to share anything, however, she exposed herself and her former publication to charges of at least moral double-dealing. She fought the free market system, then profited immensely off of that fight. Her writers had no right to expect compensation, though. This blemish goes on her Machiavellianism and their naivete.

Conservatives can wake up with a clean conscience because they are honest in this sense. There is an understanding that a business exists to make a profit that will reward its investors and owners, as well as anyone else directly employed. A conservative writer, if he felt like he deserved to be paid for his work, would go out and find someone willing to pay. He or she would not gnash their teeth when they did not get a handout.

The Huffington Post will not suffer for this. They have built a strong reputation as a reliable news outlet. Their credentials as good leftists, however, are gone forever.

Judge Rules That States Cannot Ban Guns During Periods of Emergency

http://myfox8.com/2012/04/02/judge-nc-cant-ban-guns-during-emergencies/

In yet another ruling that emphasizes that the Constitution still exists during a time of emergency, a federal court struck down city actions against gun owners during a winter storm in 2010.

During that period the city of King, North Carolina announced, as was allowed by state law, that carrying a gun outside of one's home was illegal. Two residents sued in federal court and won. The court did stop short of ruling the law unconstitutional, however.

Emergencies, as we saw in New Orleans, are when individuals are most vulnerable. The state cannot protect everyone, especially when services and infrastructure break down. People need to be safe everywhere, not just within their walls. If outlaws know that police are unable to respond and that people cannot carry guns, they will be more brazen in their violence.

The federal court should have struck down the statute completely. Our Constitution does not have any general provision for states of emergency, only invasion or rebellion. There is a reason for that

A Rebuttal to Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard . . .

I read the Weekly Standard very regularly. I enjoy and, usually, agree with its well-thought out long form articles. They go deeper than your average news piece and provoke thought.

Last Thursday, writer Fred Barnes published a piece entitled "Car Wars," which mainly featured responses from General Motors against the "Conservative media community." All the while, it insisted that General Motors was run by good conservatives, that the government never interfered, and that the Volt was the most awesome piece of engineering since the Space Shuttle.

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/car-wars_634434.html


In March, I wrote a story for TownHall.com in which I described some of the safety concerns with the Volt, not just the battery fires, but also the design itself. Fire fighters need specialized training to deactivate the battery before cutting into the vehicle. Although the gist of the story made it to The Blaze, the Washington Free Beacon, and elsewhere, it was not cited directly by Barnes.

However, I am part of the conservative media community that the piece disparaged, and I feel compelled to respond. I am sure that Fred Barnes, who I do admire as a writer and a thinker, does not read the Potomac Highlands Conservative, though.

Maybe someone would like to pass this along.

Barnes makes mistakes because he transmits the General Motors line on a number of subjects. First of all, he states that GM faced three choices: immediate bailout, crippling bankruptcy, or complete collapse. Private capital was simply not available to rescue the ailing company as a whole.

I buy that, if these are the only alternatives, then this is true. But this limited set of choices represents a failure of imagination. Ask a loyal GM customer where his or her loyalty lies. They will usually answer "Chevrolet," "Cadillac," "Pontiac," etc. Almost never GM. Customers on an intellectual level know that they are purchasing a GM, but they love their Chevy truck.

In the book Crisis of the Corporation and many other works, experts have demonstrated how General Motors in the 1970s and 80s undermined the identity of its brands and damaged its own marketshare. It saw itself as the king producer of cars and saw little reason to respond to consumer demand shifts.

Even worse, it turned to producing essentially the same set of several cars, Chevrolet vehicles getting the cheapest features, Cadillac the most expensive. I could even see that as a child when they did it in the 1980s. I told my parents that they should buy a Chevrolet and stick a Cadillac emblem on the front hood and no one would know the difference.

General Motors' very size has made it a stumbling elephant. A free market solution rarely mentioned would have been division. The most popular brands could hive off. Chevrolet and Pontiac could form one company, Buick and Cadillac another, maybe GMC Trucks a third. Sorry Oldsmobile. You wouldn't even get to survive in a what if, scenario. No loan could have saved GM, but a smaller private sector package could have helped a streamlined, stand alone Chevrolet.

Imagine the competitive dynamism that would have pushed the market worldwide. Imagine freeing Chevy and Pontiac from the shackles of GM to produce innovative and cutting edge cars.

General Motors has been too big for a long time. And it still is, thanks to the government.

That brings us to the Volt.

Maybe Fred Barnes is right. Maybe the federal government did not interfere a bit in the operation of General Motors. He also suggests that the federal safety inspectors ran the tests wrong on the Volt and that started the fire.

Even if all that is true, it leaves us with the bald faced fact that the government owned a large part of a car company. It has no incentive to enforce safety standards on a vehicle that it wants people to purchase. Government should be the referee in the private sector, an impartial enforcer of the rules. What if the opposing coach ended up being the referee? The perception of misconduct and unfairness is enough. And the government did enforce the same rules differently between General Motors and Toyota.

But the perception alone is enough to not allow government ownership of private enterprise. It is the most basic of conflicts of interest.

General Motors also complained because the "conservative media community" criticized and condemned their association with the government.

Sorry GM. It is a new day. Conservatives are increasingly skeptical of combining government and private power. And the media must do its due diligence no matter who the target is. As far as I am concerned, I don't care if my story killed the Chevy Volt. It hopefully reached the eyes of some fireman who had not yet heard about the dangerous design of that vehicle.

Conservative media outlets did right by their readers here. They did not merely accept that whatever was good for this business was good for everybody. They did their jobs. And if that upsets GM, then too bad.

Obamacare, Romneycare, Commerce Clause, Takings Clause

According to analysts and sources, it looks as if Obamacare's individual mandate will certainly fall. Tough questions from Justice Kennedy and even Sotomayor makes it clear that moderates and liberals have severe concerns with the government's case argued mainly by Donald Virrilli.

Virrilli claimed, in essence, that those without health insurance should be covered under the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to set regulations. Their non-action depresses the market and makes them part of it.

Astounded justices savaged that claim, rightfully fearing that it could apply to many different situations.

The main debate seems to be whether or not the loss of the mandate means that the Court should invalidate the entire act. Conservative justices posed the thought that Congress would never have passed the rest of the act without the mandate. It is not the Court's job to read the mind of the legislative. Much as it pains me to say this, from a strict Constitutional standpoint, they probably should not invalidate the whole act. That would infringe upon the legislative prerogative.

I won't cry too many tears if they do, but I fear judicial creeping into the legislative arena as much as I fear overuse of the Commerce Clause.

The Court should spend some time looking at the Commerce Clause. Since the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, it has been very liberally interpreted. According to Vanderbilt University law professor James W. Ely in The Guardian of Every Other Right, the commerce clause was meant to help Congress maintain free trade among the states, not restrict it. While some cases, such as National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) have nibbled away at it, no Court has taken the opportunity to establish a perimeter fence around the clause.

Currently, the clause is used to justify a wide scope of federal action. Should the Court decide to restrict it to its interpretation prior to the 1960s, meaning that Congress cannot regulate everything that moves, this could bring huge changes to American law.

It will impact the Environmental Protection Agency's legal basis for action in many cases. The EPA relies heavily on legislation that uses the Commerce Clause as part of its foundation. Restricting its legal scope of action can head off many of the anti-industry interpretations that it has lately made.

The war on drugs would change. While intoxicants that require production might continue to fall under federal jurisdiction, those that simply spring from the ground would no longer be a federal matter unless they crossed state lines. States that wish to legalize medical marijuana, for instance, could do so without federal harassment as long as the product was wholly contained and sold within the state. California already interprets the law in this fashion, but sellers still are regularly harassed by the feds.

In fact, a state could completely legalize marijuana and the federal government would be powerless within state jurisdiction.

No one should fear repeal of the Civil Rights Acts. That being said, it would be wise to revisit the issue and update them, using a foundation that does not require the Commerce Clause as support.

****************************************************************
Now what about the future of Romney's plan in Massachusetts? If the justices limit themselves to the Commerce Clause, it is safe because it is a state action. But it is very possible that they could also apply the Fifth Amendment's takings clause as well. No life, liberty, or property can be forfeited or taken for public use without just compensation. While one can argue that the insurance one gets is the "just compensation," the justices could find that this is a deprivation of liberty.

And that kills Romneycare.

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

That leads me to a point of speculation. Donald Virrilli, by all accounts, is a pretty smart guy. This Supreme Court case was not his first go-round.

So why the mind-numbingly bad argument? Why did Justice Kagan actually have to step in to help him to answer some of the tougher questions?

I'll just flat out speculate that Virrilli did not come up with the argument himself. It was a bad case that he did not present well at some points. An argument that runs so counter to American tradition, yet also looks so bumbling, probably came from Barack Obama himself.

If it did, and I was Virrilli, I would resign and let the public know.

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

Commerce Clause May Get Severely Restricted

Don Surber's blog about the commerce clause and possible Obamacare ruling speculates that we may not just see the chucking of the mandate, or even the entire legal package. The expanded interpretation of the commerce clause, allowed solely for the Civil Rights Act, will be limited by the majority opinion.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/53434

A byproduct? You can bet that advocacy groups will paint this as the first step in the return of Jim Crow, as if that was even possible.

Some speculate that the striking down of Obamacare will help the president's re-election because it will diminish zeal among his opponents. As if rising debt and gas prices are not stimulation enough.

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Instead of Judge Lynch

I won't say whether or not George Zimmermann did right or wrong when he shot Trayvon Martin. I cannot speculate because I was not there. The justice system has to act.

I can judge guilty the media and the politicians who swarmed this story and presented it in such a way as to convict Mr. Zimmermann before the grand jury could even hear evidence. Not only did they convict him individually, they demonstrated serious racism by mistakenly identifying him as white.

Every step of the way, the media thought that they had a racism home run. A guy with a German last name chases down and shoots a black kid.

Oops, he's Hispanic. Nevermind. We'll just use the never before heard "white Hispanic."

They also tend to smooth over the various issues that Martin has had over the years.

The fact is that none of this really matters too much. Prosecutors must make cases and juries must decide guilty or not guilty. They are required to follow a constitutional model of responsibility that dates back to the Middle Ages.

Sometimes they get it right, other times they make mistakes. At the very least, they have time to soberly review the evidence and the case over time. That makes our trial by jury system much more palatable and accurate than Judge Lynch.

Because, you see, Judge Lynch is always thirsty for blood. He used to roam the backwoods and run with vigilantes. Now he inhabits the newsrooms and minds of those not disposed to follow the law.

Judge Lynch and Spike Lee, for example, wanted to Tweet out Zimmermann's address so that his blood could be spilt before he walked into a courtroom.

Judge Lynch hears his cases based strictly on emotion and public perception, not facts and evidence. It is merely enough for the mob to shout "hang 'em high" and, if allowed, he will vent their fury for them.

If a prosecutor can prove Zimmermann guilty, then he will pay a debt to society. If not, then he will walk a free man, though not unpunished. Because whether in prison or free, he will have to walk in fear the rest of his life. Emotions have been stirred too much for the situation to be otherwise.

So will be the sentence of Judge Lynch.

Obamacare May Be Gutted

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/is-obamacare-going-down.php

The above link is one of many that I could have provided. Obamacare is before the United States Supreme Court and time may indicate that it was dead before it even arrived.

The government's case actually relies upon a vast extension of the Commerce Clause. It states that those who do not have health insurance depress the market for health insurance, so that the government must protect the market by forcing purchases.

This would be like the government telling us that we had to buy a new General Motors vehicle because the company was in financial trouble. It is ludicrously socialist, and also places the arguments for it well beyond the scope of what Romney did in Massachusetts.

Most worried about Justice Kennedy's vote, but most of his questions thus far seem to reflect a growing concern about the federal government's power over Americans. A few of his questions sound more like Mark Steyn or Mark Levine than Justice Kennedy. Chief Justice Roberts' queries made his stance difficult to discern, but he usually remains in the conservative camp.

In other words, it is likely that the individual mandate will go down. How much of the law will remain intact is a different story. Hopefully, Congress can get together and create a much more coherent and freedom based law in the aftermath of this possible stinging defeat for Obama.

Mainstream America...Politico Thinks You Are Stupid

Politico is a magazine that almost no one has heard of, at least outside of Washington DC. They think that we are stupid.

Editor-in-Chief of Politico, John Harris, ranted on C-SPAN about voters and how they respond to polls. The Washington Examiner noted that he actually assigned a reporter to investigate whether or not voters are stupid based upon poll results and numbers.

Typical liberal or typical Washington. If the polls do not agree with you, they must be stupid. What other explanation is there?

First of all, does Harris know anything about polling? I used to work at a phone polling center. Polls typically last between 10 and 30 minutes. They are draining on the questioner and the person answering. Usually the questions get jumbled up, asking the respondent to answer about peanut butter, then presidential candidates. The questioner must battle to keep the respondent on the line with no promise of reward.

This is how we gauge opinions in the United States.

Also, what intelligent political analysts understand is that people follow their self-interest. Obama voters were not stupid, nor were they all Commies. They had their own complex set of interests. For some, it boiled down to the self-interest of simply voting for the first black president.

Most voters are pretty smart, but have very specialized knowledge and experiences.

Harris is a condescending ass.

Disturbing Video From Florida Atlantic University: A Former Professor's Reaction

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/white-fuin-mother-fuers-would-die-fl-student-flips-out-in-class-threatens-to-kill-prof/

Above is a link to The Blaze that contains a video of a young female black student, for lack of a better term, flipping out.

The poor instructor, more likely a graduate assistant than a full professor by the look of him, seemed to have no idea of how to deal with the student. She seemed to be set off by a discussion of Darwinism., which caused her to threaten the life of the instructor, various people in class, and ten thousand white people.

The student verbally attacked blacks as well as whites and actually did appear to smack an individual in the head. Eventually one student confronted her and physically removed her from the room.

I taught college for ten years. Thankfully, I never had to deal with anything like that. If I did, I had an advantage in that I am taller and physically stronger, which would enable me to be more assertive.

First, I would have tried to address her verbally. Once a person starts to lose their mind like this woman, you can't reason with her. The instructor should have asserted authority and directed her to leave the classroom after the first offensive diatribe directed at anyone. An instructor, professor, etc is the king in his classroom. He or she must maintain order and enforce respect for himself and other students. Or at least appear to, even when the situation is crazy.

This one stood there looking morose, seeming to try to wish it to go away. That is no way to defuse crazy.

Also, at this point keep a close eye on her hands. If they are going into a large pocket, bag, or backpack, grab hold of the person immediately. No one will blame you for restraining a person in this situation, after what happened at Pitt and Virginia Tech.

You also cannot rule out drugs as a reason for the outburst. Keep in mind that PCP and other drugs reduce awareness of pain and heighten energy levels.

If the crazy person is not armed and is continuing to act crazy, instruct other students to move away from him or her for their own safety. Try to keep the altercation verbal until the police arrive.

But if she starts to get physical, if you have the strength or training, it is incumbent upon you to restrain the student. You are the representative of the school, so it is your job. You don't like it? Tough.

Of course in such a situation, it would be nice to have an All American offensive tackle in the class.

The point is that as the instructor, you have to take charge of the situation and try to protect the other students from harm as much as humanly possible. Being a spectator is not an option.

Our Liberal to the North and Our Conservative to the South

In Panhandlia, we see and hear more about what goes on in Virginia and Maryland than our own state capital. On Tuesday, the Washington Examiner ran an interesting story about a tale of two governors.

The Center for Public Integrity assessed each state for their potential risk in terms of public corruption. Virginia graded at F, Maryland at D-, and West Virginia at D+.

It should be noted that West Virginia received praise for making improvements over the past two years, presumably an endorsement of changes occurring under Governor Tomblin.

The reactions from our neighbors could not be more different.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's office noted that the state administration would review the study, which emphasized the ease at which laws and rules might be avoided or broken, not actual corruption. "If there are areas in which Virginia can improve, the governor wants to know what they are."

Quite reasonable.

Now Maryland's response. Governor Martin O'Malley's office attacked the report, disagreeing with "findings and flawed methodology."

Nice work. Thank you for proving that conservatives care more about good government than liberals.

New Jersey under Governor Chris Christie was cited as the highest graded state.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

Tis time to part.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Afghan leader (and I use that term loosely) Hamid Karzai called American soldiers "demons." He accused them of at least 500 atrocities.

Obama says nothing in defense of the men and women that he leads as commander-in-chief.

Those uniforms keep Karzai in his elegant home and funny hats. Does he seriously think that Afghan military forces can be trusted?

Many of us have relatives who are in Afghanistan, who have been there, or who will be going. We are not amused at all by this characterization.

Perhaps this is public posturing to appease the Afghan crazies. Even so, it is unacceptable.

Obama needs to act in the same manner as President Eisenhower. When our closest allies enraged him during the Suez Canal Crisis, he threatened to withdraw all support. If Karzai cannot remember which side his bread is buttered on, then the United States must remind him that he needs us far more than we need him.

Karzai insults our troops by calling them demons. But they are all that keep him from having to see the Devil face to face.

New Texting Laws Follow Common Sense For Most Part

Hands Free info posted a piece on West Virginia's new anti-texting laws. An excerpt is below:

http://handsfreeinfo.com/west-virginia-cell-phone-laws-legislation

The law takes effect July 1 with fines of $100 (first offense), then $200, then $300. Three points assessed against driver’s license on third and subsequent violations. Operation with hands-free devices would be allowed.

West Virginia becomes the 36th state to ban text messaging while driving.

The act makes text messaging and handheld cell phone use while driving primary offenses. While text messaging will be subject to primary enforcement as of July 1 — when the law takes effect — the cell phone enforcement will be limited to secondary status for another year. That means police will need another reason to stop and cite motorists using handheld cell phones until July 1, 2013.

Rick Santorum's Refusal to Focus

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum remains steadfastly dedicated to his agenda which appears increasingly socially conservative.

Most recently, he promised to nominate an attorney general that would help him to eradicate internet pornography.

Therein lies the divide in the conservative movement. Rights based conservatives have near meltdowns at the notion of government interference in the lives of individuals, even if that means accepting practices that they themselves disagree with. Santorum gives weight to the left wing notion that Republicans are closet theocrats looking to crush liberty.

Nevermind the mindnumbing list of agencies and bureaus created by Obama to reach ever more deeply into our educational, healthcare, and other major choices.

Santorum's moral agenda is, frankly, the wrong emphasis for today's Republican Party. We are at our best when defending religious freedom against Big Government. So why turn around and threaten Big Government action against what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Is culture rotten? Maybe. But it is a free society, so who cares. People make choices. We do not have to love them, but we should respect them so long as they do no direct harm to others.

Romney, to his credit, understands that this election is about the economy. Not birth control. Not porn. The economy, period.

And that is why he is winning.

Don't Give Us a Leader. Just Give Us Competence

It is time to stop looking for a “leader.” America does not need leadership from any movement or any party, at least not leadership as we conceive it in the 21^st century.

When you consider what the average American tends to expect from a president, or blame on him when things go wrong, an outsider might be forgiven if he assumed that the word “president” politically equated to “czar.” American ideas on what a president does and should not do have been driven relentlessly by the crises of the last century combined with the notion that if only we found the smartest man, we could plan well enough to avoid problems.

History proves that this just is not so.

Ancient sources of religion and wisdom argue against putting too much trust into a single earth made man alone. In I Samuel 8, God tells the Israelite judge Samuel that the people demand a king as the other nations have. They reject the idea of a limited government whose sovereign is God. God warned Samuel that the expansion of political authority would result in the seizing of property and enslavement of the people. Arbitrary power in the hands of leaders cannot end well.

Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching Chapter 17 wrote the following

The best rules are those whom the people hardly know exist

Next come rulers whom the people love and praise

After that come rulers whom the people fear

And the worst are those whom the people despise

The ruler who does not trust his people will not be trusted by his people

The best ruler stays in the background and his voice is rarely heard

When he accomplishes his task and things go well

The people declare: It was we who did it by ourselves.

Marcus Tullius Cicero watched the final days of the slow dissolving of what was once a free Roman Republic relative to his time and place. Rule of law gave way to a government led by ambitious and grasping men, such as Julius Caesar. The dictators of the late Roman Republic saw law as an obstacle to their plans, some of which were based on good intentions. However, the undermining of the basic law of the land ushered in the era of the Empire and all of its evils.

The people loved Caesar, but could never have imagined that his smashing of the law would lead to the depravity of Nero or the insanity of Caligula. Late in Cicero’s life, just before his own unnatural death, he railed against “the effrontery of Gaius Caesar, who, to gain that sovereign power which by a depraved imagination he had conceived in his fancy, trod underfoot all laws of gods and men.” He went on to write that “But the trouble about this matter is that it is in the greatest souls and in the most brilliant geniuses that we usually find ambitions for civil and military authority, for power, and for glory, springing; and therefore we must be the more heedful not to go wrong in that direction.”

While the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argues that man’s evil can only be contained by a strong government, many other notables fear more the evil of men when they ascend to controlling a powerful government. This is why we limit power and put blocks in the way of our elected officials. America does not need a czar, a king, an Il Duce, or any other authoritarian leader, either by name, or in power alone. We work best when under the type of executive described by Lao Tzu, the type that we never notice and who engineers his policies to enable the people to act for themselves.

And Creepiest Guy of the Year Award Goes to . . . Vladimir Putin

Everyone's known that guy. The one who always has something a little bit too weird to say around much younger women. Who thinks that they are a divine gift to all women, but are not exactly all that they think they are.

So what happens when that guy is the most powerful politician in his country?

To the lay observer, the entire Vladimir Putin ad campaign for president seemed to be based on two premises. Either he inspires young and attractive people to have sex with each other, or to have sex with him. Or at least tear their clothes off in honor of him.

This is no exaggeration. I am not making this up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfqGSN-le0g

I think this is only legal in Lincoln County.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG2XV2n9efc&feature=related

It actually gets more tasteless than the above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2_7AfFCH-g

Yup, this is it.

Maybe this is normal in Russia, and probably most of Europe for that matter, but to Americans this is really creepy. Basically a sixty year old bald guy is trying to perv on 19 year olds. And also control them through soft tyranny.

Imagine any American political figure running a campaign like this. These ads are more ridiculous than Saturday Night Live parodies. They also reflect Putin's utter contempt for his electorate.

After watching this, give me good old fashioned American mud slinging every time. At least they come within shouting distance of an issue every once in a while.

I'd even prefer a campaign like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

From Top of the World to An Ignoble Fate

In the Year of Our Lord 1801, fate claimed Benedict Arnold. He lived his life for fame, wealth, and respect, chasing those shadows of dreams across the war tossed United States. Despite victories and loyalty to the American cause, the cranky Arnold always saw others getting his accolades, such as Horatio Gates after Saratoga. Pushed by mounting expenses, his vivacious wife, and general surliness, Arnold switched sides.

In Europe, the term is Quisling. In America, Benedict Arnold has become a byword for ignominious treason. Among Republicans, Arlen Specter shines as the brightest example of outright duplicity. Between 2004, when George W. Bush absorbed a lot of criticism from conservative circles for faithfully backing him, until 2008, we are led to believe that Specter became disenchanted with the party that he joined so many years before (after election to the Senate.)

Arlen Specter saw what he thought was a clear indication of where the American voter would go for a very long time. He joined the GOP when it was fortuitous in the 1980s and rode a wave of Reagan conservatism, even though he did not quite meet the standard. When the tide seemed to start to shift in 2006 and 2008, Specter sensed that staying with the Republican Party might cost him the seat he held over two decades.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held out the honey pot for him and Specter dove right in. He abandoned the Republicans, whose cause he only barely supported anyway, with the promise of instant seniority and a chairmanship. Specter believed that the Democrats would strive to their utmost to keep him in place.

Alas, the seniority never happened. Reid allowed it to be publicly stripped from him like stripes off of a demoted soldier. When Specter counted on the support of Democratic heavyweights, such as Obama, they were nowhere to be found. Specter endured the humiliation of a primary defeat and saw his old Republican rival Pat Toomey ascend to the place he once held.

And now Specter has a book. He lays out the case for his career and exposes Democratic Party duplicity. It is certainly amazing that the Democrats humiliated Specter as they did. Certainly this won't encourage many other turncoats from the GOP.

Arnold died in 1801 a broken man. He never gained the fortune that he felt that he deserved. The British used his information and services for the extent of the Revolution, then tossed him aside. Arnold begged for a commission to fight the French in the 1790s, but none came. He earned the worst fate possible for a man of his ambition and vanity. Arnold ended up neglected, then forgotten.

As will Arlen Specter.

Energy the Driving Force Behind Areas With Recovering Housing Markets

HousingPredictor.com released its 25 most promising urban markets for house purchases and sales. These energetic markets relied upon just that.

(A list of the markets: http://www.housingpredictor.com/2012/best-markets.html )

Three of the listed markets, #3 Charleston, #8 Huntington, and #9 Wheeling, are in close proximity to centers of West Virginia's fast expanding natural gas industry. Other listed cities, such as Oklahoma City, Minot, North Dakota, Lake Charles, Louisiana lay near centers of oil drilling and production.

Interestingly enough Morgantown, West Virginia, known for low unemployment due to its major university and pharmaceutical company did not make the list.

Energy production promises to be the major force behind America's return to prosperity if it is allowed to happen. Major natural gas deposits trapped deep beneath shale layers in the earth's crust in Appalachia and Texas rival some of the larger oil pools in the Middle East. Large reserves of oil in the Midwest added to the gas make the United States potentially the largest producer of energy in the world in the 21st century. If Americans threw open the energy throttle, the lower costs would benefit U. S. manufacturing while also driving OPEC into distress.

These housing market indicators show how much positive impact even a limited increase in production can create.

The only thing standing between us and our prosperous future is overblown fears of the drilling process and Obamaite Leftists who genuinely fear American predominance in anything.

Mitt Romney Will Be a Fairly Strong Candidate If . . .

I had my doubts about Romney. He was far from my first choice. I felt that the Republican Party needed to nominate a strong candidate who could sell a powerful dose of economic conservatism to the middle ground in American politics.

We don't have that guy this time. Those guys either dropped out or never ran.

Newt Gingrich flubbed when he attacked a Republican for being a capitalist.

Rick Santorum forgot what the election is about.

Ron Paul looks good 90% of the time. The other 10% keeps me from wanting him to be president.

And that leaves Mitt Romney.

Our remaining four represent the different strains of thought in the party. Newt appeals to the dreamer in us all. At his best, he is appeallingly Churchillian. He is the gamble that the Republican voters are obviously not inclined to make. Ron Paul hearkens back to the heydays of the Taft family, William Howard and Senator Robert. Old school Republicanism that appeals to the youngest conservatives. Rick Santorum electrifies the shrinking base of die hard social conservatives.

And Romney appeals to few, but he is eminently acceptable.

So why will he be a strong candidate?

Mitt Romney reminds me of Shelley Moore Capito in some ways, although Representative Capito is a much better communicator with a much better rapport and understanding of average people. The trait that they share in common is pragmatism. They listen to their constituents and do what they can to satisfy their concerns. Voters direct them, not the other way around. Some deride that as not sufficiently ideologically pure, but it is certainly a grounded approach that fits a democratic society with so many viewpoints.

Capito and Romney are the anti-Obama model. They thrive on their connection with the average non-political voter. Neither sell themselves as they only answer to the question and you get the feeling that they are willing to give any reasonable constituent a fair listen.

Outside of Ann Coulter, few of the hardcore conservative pundits like Romney. Do Republicans and Democrats honestly think that is a problem for Romney? Much as I like Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk, it helps Romney in the general election to not have their 100% support. Independents and moderate Democrats who have come to mistrust and dislike Obama will be more likely to support a candidate who is not the favorite son of the Right.

Some Democrats speculate that Santorum's support in the South will hurt Romney in the general election. Are people that insane to think that Santorum supporters will miss a chance to vote against Obama in November?

Should Romney win the nomination, an increasingly academic phrase, the election is his to lose. Moderation, attacks on the President made in good humor instead of anger, and an understandable plan to return to prosperity and reduce debt will give Mitt Romney a solid victory.

Just don't get sidetracked, understand that some humorous statements about wealth translate poorly to print, and stay focused. Don't sell yourself as the answer, emphasize teamwork with other experienced people including the other former candidates. That contrasts you with The Won. Most of all, exude optimism in yourself and, most of all, Americans.

Only Romney could beat Romney once he wins the nomination.

The Power of Social Media in Politics: Eye on Keyser

Politics and social media were made for each other, if only politicians could figure out how to use it.

Mitt Romney may be one of the worst examples, at least until recently. His Facebook page had almost zero level of interaction. Imagine sitting in a room with a dozen people, periodically shouting at them, and then putting in earplugs and going to sleep.

Other elected officials seem to have a better grasp. Delegate Gary Howell (R-Mineral) produces a live feed on Facebook of every action in the West Virginia House of Delegates. He updates constituents on votes taken, including his own vote and a brief explanation of it. Most importantly, Howell interacts with constituents. Even octogenarian Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett from the western panhandle of Maryland maintains a Facebook page that responds to questions and comments.

In Keyser, concerned residents formed a group on Facebook called "Eye on Keyser." The purpose of the group seemed to be to discuss issues in city government. Participants swelled quickly, from hundreds to now over 1,500. It's not for the faint of heart. Discussion gets about as rough and tumble as can be imagined, with accusations and amateur background checks tossed about.

However, Eye on Keyser was able to move beyond a debate society and truly start to benefit the community. It organized a crime watch patrol in some key neighborhoods. The most active members have certainly rattled the town establishment, just based on quotes in the paper alone.

One way that they could be more effective is by crowdsourcing. Some members have obtained documents and records that they believe could contain inconsistencies. They should scan them online or provide a link to the sources. That way, they take advantage of the energy and expertise of 1,500 people, some of whom might have skills that could be useful.

Social media allows for debate, but also collaboration on a scale almost unimaginable. This is a positive development for democracy and civil society, even though the process might not always be pretty or harmonious.

Charleston Gambling: the Wrong War At the Wrong Place At the Wrong Time

Disagreeing with my conservative brethren publicly does not fill me with happy thoughts, especially when it comes to a major party position, but sometimes it must be done.

I cannot fathom why the state Republican Party has selected this time and place to mount a major assault on table gaming at the Mardi Gras casino in Kanawha County.

A much more eloquent pundit than I, Don Surber, has emphasized repeatedly that this election in the Year of Our Lord 2012 must be about the economy. We must target jobs. We must target inflation. We must target the Democratic Party as a whole with its unwillingness to address either one of these issues with a real plan that does not collapse the economy in 2027.

In the Mountain State, we must focus on creating a plan for more aggressive taxation reduction and deregulation. The business and residents that we can steal from "tax and regulate until it dies" Maryland alone can pay for the costs. The state Republican Party needs to articulate a tangible and concrete vision on the economy, then hammer it home.

Republicans also must establish alliances with young independents. Give these people credit, they came out of a school system built to teach milquetoast socialism with a hardened belief in liberty. They support Ron Paul and are suspicious of government regulation of personal choices. They fear Obama, but do not trust the Grand Old Party, either. Most of them are socially conservative on some important issues, such as abortion, but libertarian on strict personal choice matters.

We need these people on our side, not on the sidelines.

That makes the fight against table games at the Mardi Gras casino somewhat baffling. Perhaps it did not live up to inflated expectations that it helped to set. Taking on its privilege to do business on these points may be the correct action.

The problem is that this should not have been undertaken by the state Republican Party. State party leaders need to concentrate on an economic plan that creates job growth. Average voters will wonder why the party promises job growth while trying to shut off a business. Young libertarian-minded individuals will wonder why the party talks about liberty, but goes on a crusade over gambling.

If the party succeeds in Kanawha County, this might rattle voters in Jefferson County and other areas that have casino gambling. We need these critical areas if we have any shot at winning statewide races this fall.

The West Virginia Conservative Foundation, which has apparently not uttered a peep since last November, should take the lead role in these kinds of actions. It can advance whatever for of conservative agenda it wishes while the West Virginia Republican Party remains free to focus on the task at hand, winning in 2012.

The Sad and Sudden Passing of a Monumental Figure

http://biggovernment.com/

We'll miss Andrew Brietbart. His co-workers can tell his story better than we can.

Rest in peace.

Time to Scale Back Attacks on Romney

The wall is up. The writing is coming. Barring a significant reversal on Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president.

I have to admit, I still think Rick Perry would make a good president. He's back at the Governor's Mansion in Austin.

Bobby Jindal never ran.

Newt Gingrich annoyed too many people.

Etc. etc. etc.

Mitt Romney has run a steady, unspectacular campaign. He doesn't present himself as the one answer to all of life's problems. If he can go a week without accidentally reminding people how much richer he is than we are, people may even grow to like a man who obviously loves his family and has shown long term bouts of competence.

Is Mitt Romney an unprincipled flip-flopper, or is he a guy whose views evolve and who is ultra-responsive to what his voters seem to want? Either way, polls show that most folks hate Obamacare. The vast majority of his voters hate Obamacare. His past record of adhering to what his specific constituents want indicates that he will shoot down Obamacare regardless of what he did in Massachusetts.

America, especially conservative America, has evolved as well. Ron Paul's greatest contribution lies in helping to push the GOP and conservatism into a more rights based philosophy. What seemed conservative to some fifteen years ago is now seen as big government.

You don't need to love Mitt Romney. It's better if you don't. That means that, if elected, he knows that he is on a short leash and has no opportunity to develop hubris.

We are conservatives. We don't need to love our nominee. We are not looking for "the One." We just need to elect someone who will roll back this insidious march to socialism. And if Mitt Romney is our nominee, so be it. I'll fight for him zealously.

But everyone needs to stop peeing in his Corn Flakes, because he will likely win the nomination.

Wyoming Preparing For John Galt Scenario

The national debt is close to $15 trillion. Most of the civilized world, including China, has heavily mortgaged the future to pay for the present.

Wyoming's House of Representatives has taken up a bill to fund a committee to create contingency plans in case of national collapse. “I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis stated.

Representatives backing the proposal have requested $16,000 to fund the operations of a committee that would explore continuity plans should the federal government collapse. These would include a Wyoming issued state currency and laws to enable the function of commerce.

It would not be a bad idea for West Virginia to start looking at continuity plans, too. In a doomsday scenario, the Mountain State would be worse off than Wyoming, due to its proximity to major metropolitan areas and the likelihood of having to absorb panicked refugees.

Read more: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-advances-doomsday-bill/article_af6e1b2b-0ca4-553f-85e9-92c0f58c00bd.html#ixzz1nc1MhBjF

Hydrofracturing and the Environmental Protection Agency

Don't get too excited because you never know what might happen.

A week ago, Lisa Jackson, Obama's field marshal in the War on Coal, delivered a stunning message that should make every jaw drop in the continuing struggle over Marcellus Shale drilling and hydrofracturing.

“I think that fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean. I do."

Now you do have to read between the lines; "perfectly capable" leaves Jackson a lot of wiggle room if the Left rears its ugly head and pressures her fearless leader. It does, however, throw a bone towards Pennsylvania, who now relies heavily on revenues from shale gas.

However, it is an encouraging sign that the EPA will not attack gas in the same fashion as coal or oil. At least until they get taken to the woodshed by environmentalists.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/even_lisa_on_board_jXydpSpjiw9SZSx4ZwOARJ#ixzz1nbxm52Xq

Ditching Afghanistan

Last week American officials accidentally burned Korans. Afghan soldiers intentionally killed American soldiers. Barack Obama apologized profusely. The Afghan government is silent.

In 1956, U.S. allies went off the reservation. Britain, France, and Israel, all three heavily dependent upon American support and defense, initiated a war against Egypt over the Suez Canal. They all backed off after a private, but fiery threat from then-President Dwight Eisenhower to cut them out of the alliance system.

A president with more sand would call Karzai and demand an apology and restitution for the families of military men sent to protect Karzai's government. The alternative would be an immediate and total withdrawal coupled by a 100% shutting off of support. Then create a cordon sanitaire around the nation. If Karzai falls and Iran wants to go play, provide support to groups that could tie Iran down there. Perhaps also carve out a territorial portion of the nation for those who supported us and for others who want to live in some era beyond the 11th century. Within this westernized enclave, work on complete education of women and the abolition of pedophilia. Maybe this area can serve as a model for the rest of the country to join when it sees the benefits of living Western.

But otherwise, abandon the place to its hellish fate, if that is what it wants.

The Devil and Rick Santorum

Several years ago, Rick Santorum opined about the influence of Satan on society to students of a Christian school.

You would have thought that he brought about Armageddon itself based upon the responses.

I'd rather that the presidential primary not devolve into a discussion of the Adversary, so I am loathe to contribute to it in any small way. However, it must be observed that once again we see the disconnect between the Coasts and Middle America.

The Coasts only think of Satan during exorcism movies.

Not everyone in Middle America talks about Satan on a daily basis. Some do, most don't. Most don't even really like bringing up the Prince of Lies. However, it is not an uncommon part of conversation in most areas. Mention of the devil doesn't bring shouts of derision or a belief that the speaker is a nut job. It elicits a civil response, a discussion, or a shrug. It's not weird or bizarre to hear someone talk about Satan as an evil force in society in most parts of the country.

So once again, much of the media lives in its own worldview. They don't understand that when they ridicule Santorum for his Christian faith, they also belittle a large segment of American society.

But they really don't care about that, do they.

Obama's Re-election Strategy: Pander to Negative Stereotypes of Democratic Base Groups

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/obamas-bleak-view-of-african-americans/

This Emily Miller op-ed from the Washington Times pretty much confirms what elitist left-liberals think of their base. And it reflects a highly offensive worldview. Blacks go to jail, Hispanics are illegal immigrants, all gays are worried about AIDS. The only thing that is missing is programs on dental hygiene and front porch decorating tips for people in Appalachia.

Conversely, they imply that whites have no problems with incarceration, that straight people need not worry about AIDS, etc.

Sure, this was not intentionally offensive. It reflects the failed imagination of the worldview of the privileged leftist. They cannot imagine why their potential white constituents would be interested in programs for people getting out of jail. Leftists assign people into categories and treat them as objects and means, not as ends. This approach comes from their collective worldview combined with basic laziness.

When Republicans do this, it comes off as clumsy and gets the ridicule that it deserves. I am sure that Obama apologists will see this as simply a smart strategy.

Whatever. As an American, I am offended by their approach.

Are Gun Control Advocates Racist and Sexist?

Racist. Sexist. Ugly words. Objectively they mean that an individual has made a conscious choice to dislike and create disadvantages for groups based upon race and gender. Their foul connotation means that they should be used as narrowly as possible. When used broadly, they either raise anger against an individual or group that did not deserve it, or they lose their meaning.

Leftists use "racist" and "sexist" all the time. They do not wield these terms against those who are actively prejudiced, but mostly against people who disagree with them. A Republican fighting Obama's expanded government is "racist." Catholics who resist a legal mandate to pay for abortion pills get called "sexist." Republicans have no anti-minority agenda and the religion that celebrates Mary more than any other certainly does not hate women. In the leftist world, disagreement means hatred. But what about the real world?

Forbes ranks Detroit as the most dangerous city in America. In 2010, the city, which is almost 83% black, suffered 1,111 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Michigan public radio host, Jack Lessenberry, called for constitutional change to eliminate the Second Amendment to halt the "mass murder."

Detroit in its best recent year, 2010, admitted that priority 911 calls had an average 24 minute response time. How long is that for an elderly woman who hears someone breaking into her apartment? How long is that for a scared young woman who just mustered the courage to leave an abusive, psychopathic partner? It is certainly long enough to get beaten, raped, or killed.

So you have a city which remains one of the most violent in America, where police much of the time take more than a half an hour to get to priority calls. The left wing elite believe that the answer to this problem is gun control. Less gun, less problems, they try to say.

The vast majority of Detroit's 82.7% black populace abides by the law and wants to live in peace. Gun control laws would make it harder for them to protect their homes and families against criminal predators. Using the left wing language standards, this means that, if black law abiding citizens would be more vulnerable, then gun control laws must be racist.

Chicago has a 58% non-white population. Its civic leaders have vainly tried to push aside constitutional guarantees on gun ownership and purchasing while it claims a violent crime rate three times higher than New York City. City leaders need to ask themselves who is hurt most by these restrictions. That would be law abiding citizens living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Not criminals who get weapons regardless of the law. Not the left wing elite living in gated communities.

Consider the recent case of the young woman in rural Oklahoma, terrorized by a man seeking her dead husband's medicines. She shot and killed her would-be killer. What would have protected her better? Liberal feel good rhetoric? Sheriff's deputies and state police who were who knows how far away? Or a loaded shotgun? You would think that the image of a young single mother protecting herself and her child with deadly force against a crazy, predatory male would warm the cockles of feminist hearts. But they remain eerily non-supportive of women learning to use guns for self-defense.

Since women are usually more vulnerable, it makes sense that they should be able to obtain guns very readily with no waiting period. Gun control advocates must be aware that men are generally larger and stronger than women and that guns balance the equation. So, according to liberal logic, they must want more women to be attacked, raped, and killed. This means, again according to the left wing language guidelines, that gun control advocates are not only sexist, but exhibit very severe misogyny.

In the real world, Republicans actually oppose Obama on policy issues, not because he is black. Otherwise we would call Herman Cain, Allen West, etc. etc. racists. In the real world, gun control advocates do not hate blacks or women. They simply have a bizarre outlook on humanity that suggests that guns make people inherently more violent, thousands of years of human history not withstanding.

Gun control advocates may not have racist and sexist worldviews. They have either not followed their logic through to predictable conclusions. Or they just do not care. That doesn't make them hatemongers, only foolish.

George Washington's Birthday

This used to be the most important patriotic holiday of the year, easily outstripping Independence Day.

Let's take a few minutes to reflect on George Washington and all he meant to our country and freedom loving peoples everywhere.

And West Virginia University students . . . skip class next year on Washington's Birthday and say that it is a day of special concern.

Conservative Dad of the Year!

Putting a stop to bloated sense of entitlement . . .

http://www.litefm.com/pages/news-story.html?feed=421220&article=9738000

The New Republican Party: Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion

In the election of 1884, a badly ethically challenged Republican candidate, James G. Blaine, stumbled towards an election day date with disaster. A Democrat had not won the White House since 1856.

This election featured nominees that resembled nothing more than Newt Gingrich split in half (Republican congressional leader with ethics issues and a "world historical" complex--Democrat with family baggage.) The only issue separating them was whether or not the United States ought to have a protective tariff. A Blaine supporter, in New York of all places, fired off a fatefully dumb rhetorical shot. He claimed that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." The well-meaning fellow apparently forgot that liquor drinkers, Catholics, and Confederate supporters (not just a few in New York City) also voted.

In 2012, the Republican Party has turned full circle.

Rum. Republicans tended to support the temperance movement in the 1800s. This movement served as the model for several different successful progressive pushes in the early part of the past century. Progressivism tends to push for a better and healthier society at the expense of individual rights and liberties. In 2012, one probably sees more outspoken advocates of marijuana legalization in the conservative camp than elsewhere. Republicans also tend to be more consistently libertarian, which is leading towards agonizing debates inside the party and conservatism as well about issues such as gay marriage.

Romanism. This was one of many terms tossed about for years as a derogatory term for the Catholic Church. Opponents had a strange fear that the Pope intended to use Catholicism to usurp civil authority in the United States. Today, the Church and the GOP find themselves on the same side of many debates, including abortion and religious liberty.

Rebellion. In 1884, this term looked backwards at the Civil War with all of its bloodshed. Today, rebellion looks forward, anticipating what kind of civil disobedience may be necessary if the reigning party is allowed to continue its clamp down on freedom. Parents cannot pack their own children's lunch without reference to the government. Catholic organizations may be forced to violate centuries of belief. Liberals need to understand that Catholics and other Christians can look back to a variety of martyrs for inspiration if they wish to peacefully and effectively rebel. These go from Jesus Christ himself through Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The Tea Party is just the beginning.

Conservatives ought to be proud to be the movement of run, Romanism, and rebellion. Each means a strident defense of rights and the Constitution.

University of Oxford Study: Libyans Wary of Democracy

They hated Gaddafi, but learned no lessons from him. After suffering for decades under the rule of a tyrant strongman, an Oxford survey of over 2,000 Libyans points towards likely restoration of authoritarian rule.

Libya has never experienced democracy for any real length of time in its history. For much of the past 2,000 years, the region was merely a piece of a larger empire under the Romans, Ottomans, Arabs, and Italians. United States and British forces liberated Libya in 1943, but it remained a United Nations mandate until 1951.

Moammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969, touting his Third Universal ideology. This proposed a synthesis between Islam, tribal practices, and socialism that relied heavily upon oil revenues for financing. Gaddafi actively promoted his ideology as an answer to African woes and aspired to continental leadership. However, propaganda about "mass" government cloaked typical strongman rule.

The area has a history of trouble with the United States. Libya's capital, Tripoli, once constituted a semi-autonomous city-state nominally under Ottoman Turkish rule. Pirates under its flag exacted tribute from the United States as part of a large scale protection racket. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both sent naval squadrons to successfully chastise Tripoli. Later, President Ronald Reagan used air power to get similar results when Gaddafi backed terrorists blew up a Berlin nightclub. George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq chastened Gaddafi who agreed to abandon weapons of mass destruction programs started in the 1980s. He remained ever abusive of his power over the people of Libya.

Libya experienced tyranny and international humiliation at the hands of their strongman. They used violence to rid themselves of him, and 16% still say that they would use violence again to achieve political ends. Only 29% of Libyans desire to live under a democratic government, according to the survey. A little over one-third would prefer a strongman over any other formulation.

The country, over two-thirds of it, agree that the people need some say in their government. This survey is not necessarily pessimistic. Libyans understand democracy as the European majority rule form, which does not protect the rights of minorities or establish strong checks and balances.

Oxford's numbers do indicate that Libya would be open to some modified form of the American republic style system. They mistrust (with good reason) the possibility of tyranny of the majority. After all, Gaddafi's dictatorship claimed to rest upon mass approval. A republic along Madisonian lines would satisfy Libya's desire for strong and coherent leadership while giving a say to the people. That country's population, still armed and obviously ready to fight for its rights, serves as the ultimate check on the power of any future Libyan president.

Will Libya take this path? Probably not. The United States has almost no track record after World War II of suggesting its own system to any nation emerging from tyranny, although it makes more sense than simple majority rule in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. People who have felt the persecution of government have every reason to fear that a system of one tyrant can evolve into one of hundreds of thousands of tyrants.

Notes From CPAC

Some impressions from the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend . . .

I always questioned why people would want a one term congressman to be catapulted into the vice presidential slot, until I heard Allen West speak for myself. West has the hardshell Baptist preacher style down pat. He rocks the house with his moves from soft spoken to fiery delivery.

Rick Santorum started off nervously, but picked up pace and delivered quite a good speech. He needed to. It was the most important of his life.

CPAC Chairman Al Cardenas sounds a lot like Dos Equis's "Most Interesting Man in the World."

I heard several people speak whom I thought would make finer presidents than the people running currently.

That includes European Member of Parliament from the United Kingdom, Daniel Hannan, who spoke with passionate intensity about his love and admiration for America. You never hear that genuine affection from our own president.

Rick Santorum accused CPAC of rigging the straw poll vote, which produced a slight Romney win.

Murphy's has incredibly good Irish food and a decent selection of beer. It alone is a great reason to keep CPAC at the Marriott Wardman Park

Occupy DC......HAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Meanwhile . . . Over in Syria . . .

Overmatched and overwhelmed.

The Barack Obama foreign policy team from the top down has found itself outplayed on Syria. Susan Rice, our woman at the UN, allowed a vote to go forward to the Security Council against the ancien regime in Damascus. Was anyone surprised that China and Russia slapped it down?

This is amateur hour diplomacy. Nothing this important should go forward with our blessing until we have secured at least abstentions from countries in disagreement. How do we secure abstentions? Hard nosed behind the scenes diplomacy. Obama has hard nosed, crooked Chicago style politics down pat. However, he cannot translate that to the international stage. Putin is an even older hand at such games than Obama.

Regarding the emerging instability across the Middle East, Team Obama has not outlined a consistent vision of how to handle these outbreaks. Sure he won popularity points by intervening against Ghadaffi. But this raises the question of why Libya and not Syria? I am not arguing for intervention in Syria, but it would be nice if the American people and the international community knew where we stand from one day to the next.

Love or hate Bush, you knew exactly where he stood. You knew who the evildoers were. You knew what would get them into trouble with him. And you knew what we would do. Obama has no consistency. In foreign affairs, inconsistency is the sign of foolish minds.

If I Were Mitt Romney . . .

Because of CPAC, the eyes of American conservatism fall on Washington D. C. over the next few days. Here, Mitt Romney has the chance to state his case.

I have not had much enthusiasm for Romney, but he does bring strengths into the general election. Santorum's recent surge may be enough to jolt Romney into giving a strong and powerful address at CPAC tomorrow. What would I say, were I Romney?

Romney has a record as Massachusetts governor that does not match well to mainline American free market conservative ideals. No matter how often Ann Coulter tries to put lipstick on this pig, she cannot make it attractive.

That being said, Romney needs to admit that Massachusetts is a pig of a state for a conservative to govern.

As Reagan struggled to implement conservative ideals as governor of California, Romney faced powerful limits to what he could accomplish in his own state. Let's face it, most Massachusetts conservatives would be liberal in the heartland. He faced a totally different culture. All he has to do is repeatedly say that he did the best he could to hold the line against big government. The best defense of Romneycare is that such a plan was inevitable in the Commonwealth and that he did the best he could to keep it as limited as possible.

As far as Bain is concerned, attacks on his business make him that much more attractive to free market conservatism. He made tough choices and saved jobs that otherwise would have disappeared.

Romney must explain himself to conservatives. He needs their enthusiasm, as well as their support. We really want to enthusiastically support someone this summer and fall. Will some candidate step forward and give us a reason?

The "Billion Dollar Candidate"'s Party Slams Romney For "Buying an Election"

Democrats, at least for a while, seemed awfully proud that Obama will most certainly break the billion dollar mark in campaign financing. You might not hear it so much now, but it is a number that makes them pretty happy. It's nice to have crony capitalists as BFFs.

Well now they seem happy to attack Mitt Romney's victory in Florida as "bought" because he paid for attack ads.

So what are you all using that money for, Democrats? Not attack ads? Or attack websites? I'm sure they will feed the poor with it, then drive the poor to the polls.

Democrats love to invoke money against Republicans, even though their candidates are often personally richer and better funded by donations. Voters are not buying that anymore. Invective against Romney spending money on campaign ads mean nothing to most people. It's what all politicians do. Democrats may try to paint Romney as a candidate of the wealthy, but when their own guy's wife jet sets around the world on our dime with her best friends, then plunks down more for underwear than a large amount of people would for a house, that idea will be a tough sell.