SCHotline

By Louis Neiger
I recently read a book by David Barton called Setting the record straight: American History in Black & White published 2004. It is a well-documented book of endnotes and references from personal writings and government documents.

Most history books either skim over or they do not include history of Black Americans and their rich American heritage. This book would be a great reference book for your library.  I had never heard of Oliver Cromwell or Prince Whipple both black Americans, who served with General Washington.  Their faces can be seen in the painting in the boat crossing the Delaware, Christmas Eve before the attack on Trenton, New Jersey.  They also served other generals during the revolutionary war.  Neither had I ever read about Peter Salem a black legendary Minuteman hero of 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill, Saratoga and Stony Point who fought right along with other Americans.

We usually do not read, in the average history book, of Muslims attacking villages in Africa and putting these people in chains and selling men, woman and children into bondage to Dutch traders who introduced slavery to the expanding world and the Americas.  We will read, in the average history book, about the Dutch traders coming up the James River in Virginia the year 1619 and starting the slave trade. What we probably have not heard about is that at this same time in history a ship arrived in the Puritan Christian Colony of Massachusetts with slaves.  The officers of the ship were arrested and imprisoned and the kidnapped slaves returned to Africa at the colony’s expense.

After the ratification of the Constitution 1789 Congress expanded its fight against slavery and passed the Northwest Ordnance. It established territories that would become states and forbade any federal territories to practice slavery.  Six states eventually came in as free states.

In 1808 ‘Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington DC: Gales and Seaton, p. 1266, 9th Congress, 2nd session,” An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States,” March 2, 1807 which abolished the slave trade was enacted into law.  Free Blacks during this time in the north and south were extended full rights of a citizen and regularly voted both in the North and the South.

One great American Frederick Douglas was born into slavery in Maryland in 1818.  His mother was black and his father an unknown white.   His life was an example to us all that even under the worst of circumstances we can better ourselves.  Frederick Douglas learned to read and write prior to escaping slavery and going north 1838.  He than joined an anti slavery organization and eventually went out on his own and received presidential appointments and was an adviser to many presidents including Lincoln and after the civil war Grant, Hayes and Garfield.  The Democratic president Glover Cleveland had him removed from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him when he was elected after Cleveland. Frederick Douglas spoke and wrote against slavery and was one of the main pioneers to push for civil rights for all.

Douglas wrote and debated in his later years one of the main questions of today, why was the African American community only given a three-fifths representation in the Constitution. Many today state the Constitution was a slavery bill.  Frederick Douglas came to a conclusion and dared people to debate after reading the founding fathers documents and the US Constitution that the clause in the Constitution was and is actually an ANTI slavery document.    In short the slavery representatives wanted to have representation for their property, one full vote for every 30,000 slaves but not allow their property (slaves) to vote for the representatives or have any rights.  The anti slavery representatives saw that if the slavery states had a full vote for the slaves, it would allow almost half of the south’s population that was in slavery NO REAL representation in Washington and to allow expansion of slavery.

With most of the founding fathers dead in 1820 the Democratic Party, which became the majority party in Congress; recalled the law of 1789 prohibiting slavery in federal territories. The Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed the earlier policy and allowed slavery in almost half of the federal territories.

Some of the early presidents John Quincy Adams who served as ambassador to Russia as a young adult in his teens and his father John Adams the 2nd president of the United States both had fought against slavery. John Quincy Adams fought until his death prior to the civil war and in congress stating:   “The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument of the peculiar institutions (slaveholder) is to deny the self evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.  He (slaveholder) denies that all men are created equal.  He (slaveholder) denies that they (slaves) have inalienable rights”. John Quincy Adams as president and as a representative in the US Congress until his death submitted bills against slavery.

The Democrats in Congress passed a proslavery 1850 Fugitive State Law, that required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay heavy fines.  This in many cases allowed slave-hunters to kidnap even Free Blacks in the North and carry them back South just by accusing a black of being a slave even though he was free.

An anti slavery Representative Charles Sumner started the Republican Party and they first ran a Republican Presidential candidate 1856 by running John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan.  Fremont lost.

Than came the famous Dred Scott decision in 1857, where the Democratic Controlled Supreme Court declared that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.  Three years later the Republicans ran their 2nd presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, who won as the first Republican President.

Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower was against racial segregation and determined to eliminate racial discrimination in all areas under his authority. . One of his 1st orders, an executive order, halted segregation in the District of Columbia and federal agencies.  He was the 1st president to appoint a black American Frederic Morrow to an executive on the White House staff.  In 1957 Eisenhower proposed a bold civil rights bill to increase black voting rights and protections that was blocked by democratic senator James Eastman, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1959 again Eisenhower presented a second civil rights bill to Congress and was met again with unyielding opposition in the Democratic House.  It eventually passed the house but the democrats in the Senate killed the bill.
John F. Kennedy was less willing to utilize executive orders to promote civil rights for over a year.   Kennedy, 1962 Issued Executive Order #11063 banning racial discrimination in housing. The violent discord in Birmingham in 1963 where Democratic Governor George Wallace prevented blacks from entering school, did force Kennedy to send a major civil rights bill to Congress.  A current democratic Senator from Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd, back than was one of the senators that gave a stiff opposition to the bill.  Kennedy was killed and famous Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King along with many other Americans organized people and pushed through the Civil rights Act of 1964 followed by the Voting rights act of 1965.
The little known fact is that out of the 315 Democrats in congress only 198 voted for these bills, alone would not of passed, but with 83% of the Republicans voting overwhelmingly for these bills sending them to President Lyndon Johnson’s desk where he signed them into law. ‘Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D C: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), Vol. 20, pp, 606, 696, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, vote on the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, February 10, 1964’.

Another great Constitutional Amendment occurred in 1964 abolishing the poll tax. Ninety one percent of the Republicans supported this Amendment.  Of the sixteen senators that wanted to keep the poll tax alive, fifteen of the senators where democrats that voted to keep the poll tax alive. ‘Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D C: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1962), Vol. 18,pp. 630, 654, 87th Congress, 2nd session, Senate and House votes on approving the Constitutional Amendment banning the poll tax, March 27 and August 27th 1962.’  If the Republicans did not support these bills they would of NEVER passed at that time.

Our Current Secretary of State of the United States, Doctor Condoleezza Rice could of quit as a child in Birmingham, Alabama when her best girlfriend was killed in a church fire during the turbulent 1960s. Here is a woman that has succeeded in education and government politics going into countries including Muslim countries that see women only as property and handles herself at the highest standard representing America.  I do not see her as an African American but a great American.

In this short time that I have been on this earth, I have been blessed in the 1960s to attend integrated schools, go to war in Vietnam and have many friends over the years of all races.  We did not see ourselves as black, white or yellow but human beings created by God, with inalienable rights given us by our creator blessed to be born as Americans.  As our Declaration of Independence states all men are created equal.

On September 11, 2001 when we were attacked by extremist Muslims we all came together as over 3,000 of our fellow American’s lives were snuffed out in a senseless attack on our country.  We cried together as we watched on TV and listened to the radio.  We determined together as Americans to work and to rebuild and to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of our fellow citizens.

Former slave and consultant to several presidents, Frederick Douglas taught us all that you can succeed even in the face of daunting circumstances. This is what America is about.  Let us not look out for handouts from government, but look to give ahand to help some one succeed.  It should be our hearts to help people not depend on government to do it. That is what makes America great!
Till next time…..

###

Lou Neiger has been a regular contributor to The Dutch Fork Chronicle since 2005 and published in several papers as a guest columnist in South Carolina.  Lou has worked in the Insurance Planning field since 1981 and earned his CLU designation from the American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa.   He and his family live in Newberry

by Dr. Frederick Meekins

Throughout his time in the public limelight, Republican Mike Huckabee has made obesity awareness one of his pet issues having lost over 100 pounds himself.  However, as is typical of most fanatics having come to a realization or a cause a little later in the game than most, it is not enough for them to keep what they have learned to themselves but now they are out to impose their new way of life to such an extent that they are willing to appeal to the mechanisms of the state in order to enforce their vision of reality.

As part of an initiative to combat childhood obesity, as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee implemented directives where each public school student in that state would have their weight cataloged by operatives of the educational system.  From this assessment, a document similar to a report card would be generated and sent out at about the same time as the more traditional scholastic evaluation.

Those  with their perceptions mired in what to them seemed more carefree times might respond, “What’s the big deal?”  Perhaps they should stop and reflect for a moment.

As in the case of grades and such, once the state tabulates an individual’s weight,, it will become part of their permanent file and be used to track them for the rest of their lives.  And don’t go around thinking the number will simply remain just another harmless statistic tossed into a file folder with no additional reference made to it.

In a FoxNews.com story posted 6/13/04 titled “Students To Be Graded On Weight”, the health coordinator is quoted as saying, “We’re going to know how many are overweight, how many are underweight, how many are normal weight.”  It’s bad enough for the government to have such information in its possession, but it gets even worse when it serves as the basis for the implementation of concrete policies.

According to an article titled “Arkansas’ Battle Against Childhood Obesity Enters Its Second Year” posted on the website of the University Of Arkansas For Medical Sciences, at schools with a disproportionate number of obese students, “The incentives offered to students in some areas have changed from pizza or ice cream to yogurt parties or other more healthy food choices.”

Now what kid in their right mind is going to bust their hump for yogurt and carrot sticks?  If that is all they have to look forward to, they might as well drag their feet and remain mired in mediocrity.

However, if readers still think this will be the only impact, they are still not waking up to the complete picture.  For often with these kinds of government programs, using a carrot (an appropriate snack choice under the regimen of the food fascists) and stick approach, once the carrot has been dangled for a while, the stick is eventually brought out to whack those with a more independent streak.  The director of the Arkansas Center For Health Improvement said, “We need schools, parents, and communities across the state to get onboard and become active in this effort that will make a profound difference in our children’s lives.”

These health officials might have say in how schools respond and even communities if once sees such social conglomerations as essentially under government control rather than as the organic dynamic relationships that develop uncoerced from the interaction of free people, but what if parents decide not to cooperate?  One need only look at the last three words of the director’s statement to get a glimpse of where things are headed.

Unless he is referring to his own offspring when he says “our children’s lives” that statement is very revealing as to what this higher mid-level functionary is thinking.  The state, ladies and gentlemen, according to this worldview, holds ultimate title to your progeny and you are merely a hired hand granted the privilege of overseeing them for a few years — the number continuing to decrease as proponents of universal preschool and the like continue to make headway — but who must ultimately raise them in accord with the will of the lord of the manor.

To those thinking they are so sophisticated in their moderation, don’t go dismissing with the flick of a wrist and the crinkling of a nose what I have to say.  In this day and age, especially in certain Republican circles, you can pretty much get what you want by dressing it up in the name of national security or the war on terrorism.

That is exactly what Mike Huckabee has done.  In comments before the Southern Governor’s association regarding what he perceives as an obesity epidemic, Huckabee said, “You’ve got a serious situation with a generation of kids coming up so unhealthy they won’t be able to pass the military physical.  We keep talking about the war on terror — who’s going to fight it if we don’t have enough people who are healthy enough to show up and pick up a backpack.”

Thus, it has finally been revealed why many government officials are feigning concern about the expanding waistlines of many Americans.  They might initially start off claiming their efforts are for the purpose of increasing the expectancy and quality of life, but ultimately it is about nothing more than getting you healthy enough to die or toil for the glory of the Fatherland (or maybe rather “Homeland” as the aspiring totalitarians among us prefer to call it nowadays so much so that even Smallville producers are so frightened that they won’t speak the word preferring to call the agency “the Department of Domestic Security”).

Huckabee’s comments also reveal the kind of double standard being propagated by the ruling elites.  According to Huckabee, the primary reason Americans must be compelled towards physical fitness is so that we might be able to fulfill our obligation of national service.  However, it is quite obvious he exempts his own family from these expectations.

Normally, a person’s weight is the last thing I criticize as at about the age of 9 or 10 on a visit to the doctor’s office for an unrelated matter I was handed a diet plan with a rear-end of a hippopotamus splashed across it and even in Christian schools the vilest of taunts were often reserved for the overweight students.  However, a man with a son the size of one of the Huckabee offspring (and the other two children don’t look like they have skipped many meals either) ought to be among the last to insinuate you are an unfit parent if your progeny happens to be bigger than Nicole Richie.

On the Drudge Report around 12/19/07 was featured a portrait of the Huckabee household.  Standing behind his parents was a young man, it would not be an exaggeration to say, who was nearly as wide as his two parents put together.

Now, in this land of the free and the home of the brave, if the Huckabee spawn wants to be that big, that is his prerogative and most of the time, most of us should keep our mouths shut about it.  However, I am not the presidential contender assailing the patriotism of those whose waistlines exceed the guidelines established by those implementing the New World Order.

But you see, it is not an obligation of those in the governing class such as the Huckabees to be ready at a moments notice to answer the call of the nation.  Rather, that responsibility falls to you, ladies and gentleman, to hand over the lives of your children to sacrifice in wars the elites never intend to send their own children off into.

The Huckabee son is allowed to expand until his heart’s content or it bursts.  Never will he have to face the embarrassment of being weighed in front of his classmates or his parents receive in the mail threatening letters on how this information was forwarded to government authorities   Never will he face the embarrassment of having to be weighed in front of his classmates or his parents receive an intimidating letter in the mail from government authorities.

During the Christmas season, the media about had a coronary attempting to determine whether the intersecting boards of a bookshelf where a subliminal attempt to interject the cross into the campaign.  Too bad they have not been as concerned about a plan that could potentially curtail basic liberties and bring yet another level of surveillance into the lives of the American people if applied at a national level.

ND Wilson Romney 12-14
By Nathan DiBagno

Staff Writer

POWDERSVILLE ¾ Powdersville Councilman and former Sons of the Confederate Veterans National Cmdr. Ron Wilson said he was unhappy with comments Mitt Romney made about the Confederate flag, calling the Republican presidential candidate a “typical Yankee from Massachusetts.”

“I’m a big believer in Southern history, and I was appalled the last few days when one of the presidential candidates decided to make an attack against the Confederate flag,” Wilson said. “Mitt Romney made some of the most bizarre statements anyone has ever made concerning the Confederate flag. He’s a typical Yankee from Massachusetts who comes down here and wants us to vote for him, and then he wants to trash us when he’s asked about our heritage.”

Wilson then called on Palmetto State voters to not support the former Massachusetts governor during January’s primary elections.

“I sincerely hope that South Carolinians, when we get a chance to vote in the primaries in January, we’ll let him know what we think about his comments.”

During a CNN/Youtube debate, Romney said the Confederate flag was not one that he would recognize or hold up in his room.

“The people of our country have decided not to fly that flag. I think that’s the right thing,” Romney said. He also called the flag “divisive,” and said he didn’t believe it should be shown.  

The Sons of the Confederate Veterans has publicly criticized both Romney and Fred Thompson, another Republican presidential hopeful who said that Americans shouldn’t publicly display the flag at state capitols.

“I know that everybody who hangs the flag up in their room like that is not racist. I also know that for a great many Americans it’s a symbol of racism,” Thompson said. “He’s free to do whatever he wants to in his home. As far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag, symbolic of something, at a state capitol.”

Although Wilson said he doesn’t like the statement Thompson made either, he doesn’t believe any candidate has been as offensive as Romney.

“He made the most outrageous comments of any candidate so far,” he said. “Mitt Romney ought to apologize to this state.”

Wilson said he instead supports U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, citing the Texas Republican’s opposition to the IRS, the income tax and the war in Iraq as some of the main reasons.

Wilson said that while Paul believes the United States should support the troops, he believes they should bring them back instead of wasting millions of dollars overseas.

“I believe I should vote for who I believe is the best candidate,” Wilson said. “The result is in the hands of the Lord.”

###

From: ndibagno@theeasleyprogress.com [mailto:ndibagno@theeasleyprogress.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 09:31
To: wilsonr@atlanticbullionandcoin.com
Subject: powdersville post article

Posted in today’s Globe and Mail (2007-11-27)

________________________

‘It’s called reality’

DAVID H. WILKINS

November 27, 2007

U.S. Ambassador to Canada — “Paranoia anyone?” Lawrence Martin asks regarding U.S. and Canada security measures (Paranoia Anyone? Seeking An End To The Security Excess - Nov. 22).

Mr. Martin cites as “paranoia” our diligent security at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa - measures designed to protect both the U.S. and Canadian employees who work inside and outside of the building.

Certainly Mr. Martin recalls the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies of the East African cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. Those attacks (linked to al-Qaeda and before the administration of George W. Bush) killed hundreds and injured thousands of other innocent people. Perhaps Mr. Martin will recall the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia?

Does this summer’s terror arrest that thwarted a major bombing of JFK International Airport in New York remind Mr. Martin this is an enemy who does not rest? Sept. 11 was just six years ago; 3,000 innocent civilians (including 24 Canadians) murdered in cold blood.

Paranoia? No. It’s called reality. And developing and implementing security measures to thwart the enemy who promises to strike again and often is called common sense.

by Senator Danny Verdin

The rapid growth of the renewable energy industry demonstrates that Americans care greatly about their natural resources and that the future of rural America and agriculture correlates closely with our nation’s energy policy. Congress must act to maintain that growth and support a tremendous opportunity for rural communities and businesses.

Most of us readily accept that increasing our nation’s energy independence depends on our ability to rapidly develop and produce alternative forms of energy, such as biofuels. The growth and production of this new energy will primarily occur in our nation’s rural areas.

Supporters of renewable energy and the independence it brings also recognize that success relies on two critical factors: the availability of sufficient debt capital to meet the growing demands of the renewable energy industry, and local ownership of production facilities as a means of ensuring economic stability for the nearby agricultural operations and rural communities.

Congress has an opportunity to address both issues in the current Farm Bill. The Farm Credit System has served for 91 years as a farmer-owned, reliable source of financial services and products to agriculture and rural America. An amendment proposed to the Farm Bill in the Senate would enable more rural businesses engaged in alternative energy production to gain access to the Farm Credit System.

The capital requirements of the renewable fuels industry vastly exceed the capacity of any one sector of the financial services industry. Most local banks don’t have sufficient capital to make adequate loans on their own. “Ethanol Producer” magazine noted in its September issue, banks tend to “perceive the risk to be too great” and, in any event, suffer from a lack of underwriting expertise in this area. Banks consequently often team up with Farm Credit, the nation’s largest agricultural lender and a pioneer in financing the alternative fuels industry dating back to the early 1990s.

Few lenders outside Farm Credit have the expertise, capacity, and willingness to fund biofuels investments. “Ethanol Producer” also noted that, “For the most part, ‘Main Street’ lenders have yet to develop an understanding of the underwriting necessary for financing…biodiesel plants, anaerobic digester projects, wood pellets plants and other sources of renewable energy.”

Congress created Farm Credit in 1916 as a means of ensuring that farmers would always have a lender on whom they could rely regardless of the ravages of weather and price fluctuations, and the farmer-owned cooperative lender has focused on rural and agricultural financial needs.  However, antiquated eligibility criteria currently inhibit Farm Credit’s ability to provide more funding to the renewable fuels industry. Congress must act to modernize the eligibility criteria to include new technologies that process agricultural products. These technologies are key to our energy independence and the national security it brings.

If you’re a farmer who wants to invest in a biofuel plant, you can borrow from Farm Credit.  But if you aren’t a farmer, you can’t – even though your biofuel plant sits in a rural area and processes tons of material from the surrounding farms. Even though the alternative fuels industry got its start among the farmer-owned cooperatives served by Farm Credit, outdated eligibility requirements make it difficult if not impossible for Farm Credit to make capital available to these projects.

These and other alternative fuels also have the potential to rally local economies and put money and people to work. Rural towns that are involved in ownership of renewable fuels facilities can build a sustainable economic base on which to maintain their rural culture and quality of life. If farmers are able to join with other investors to develop alternative fuels, they can finally shed their dependence on the rollercoaster prices and their reliance on subsidies associated with commodity crops. Finally, proper financing of a successful alternative fuels sector will eliminate the financing of foreign oil production and the dangers it entails.

One example in South Carolina is a new biodiesel plant constructed and ready to begin operation in Estill. Located in Hampton County, on the I-95 corridor, this biofuel processing plant offers an opportunity for a depressed rural area in our state to benefit from innovative solutions to a national problem using the very same resources they have cultivated for generations.

Our federal legislators must support market-based opportunities for struggling sectors of our rural populations to grow prosperous again while simultaneously helping solve a national economic and security problem.

Renewable fuels could reduce the US trade deficit by billions. The parallel reduction on our dependence on foreign fuel sources strengthens our national security. It makes eminently good sense to allow more local businesses to benefit from Farm Credit’s ability to help them build a new economy for our state and our nation.

###

by Andrew Citizen

Barack Obama should be running for President of Oprah’s Book Club, not President of the United States of America. Senator Obama stated this week that wants to do away with America’s nuclear arsenal. Such a concept is an idea that is contrived out of one of three ways, either by smoking too much of a peace pipe, believing too much in the accuracy of MoveOn.org, or the fiction in Oprah’s latest book of the month.

Obama’s failure to understand national security is more than worrisome. We live in a brave new world, where telling terrorists and countries like Iran that we no longer have a nuclear defense system, is like a bank telling robbers, we no longer have armored guards or a security system. In a post 9/11 world, we need more security, not less.

Barack Obama consistently has shown he should be running for Class President not US President. He chooses to offer radical promises, no – nukes, free health care, more social programs. Well, Senator Obama, here’s a pop quiz for you: how are you protect America and defend against future attacks without a nuclear arsenal? While we have you in the classroom, here’s an extra credit question, how are you going to pay for all of your social programs, without raising taxes?

Senator Obama, it’s time for you to hit the books and do you’re homework, because you obviously have a far way to go.

###

by Andrew Citizen

Have you ever had someone you love and respect publicly do something, shall we say, less than smart? You know that sinking feeling you get in your gut when you find yourself saying, “Not again!”? Well, it happened to me Thursday. Dr. James Dobson, one of the most influential child psychologists of the last 50 years and founder of Focus on the Family, came out with guns blazing in a diatribe against Sen. Fred Thompson.

Here is what all the fuss is about:

“Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail? He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!”

Let’s take those points one by one, shall we?

Thompson isn’t opposed to a Constitutional amendment defending real/traditional marriage. He has used his bully pulpit since 1994 to defend marriage—and while we’re at it, the unborn as well. Please show me a vote from his years in the Senate in which Thompson stood against any pro-family legislation. He has been stalwart in defending “family values”—so much so that last March, Dobson declared that he “appreciates Sen. Thompson’s solid, pro-family voting record and his position that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.”

Thompson is a federalist who believes that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. He wants to see an amendment that would keep the judiciary from legislating anything the people would never vote for at the ballet box. To him, the type of marriage protection amendment we should have is the question—not whether we should have one or not. Thompson deserves praise for standing firm in this cultural context, not a cheap shot.

McCain-Feingold has been a thorn in the hindquarters of conservatives like me for some time. Thompson supported it, and he was wrong to do so. But what is disturbing in this context is that Thompson has admitted that McCain- Feingold hasn’t worked, and that it has had unintended consequences—such as limiting speech, particularly on ads before an election. Is Dobson even aware of Thompson’s change on this issue? Apparently not.

“Cheap shot” is not the term that normally comes to mind when I think of Jim Dobson. Usually, it’s terms like “defender of the family,” “go-to guru for advice on how to raise my four (!) girls,” and “leader of those looking for direction in a land becoming a cultural wilderness.” That’s the Dr. Dobson I normally think of. That is why his cheap shot on Thompson must be addressed.

I, like so many of you, know that this is the most important election of our lives. Threats from global Islamofascism, weakness at home in political leadership, unsecured borders, runaway spending, looming economic crises and a judiciary set on legislating from the bench—these are critical issues that call for strong leadership. We need leaders who have at their core the principles that made America’s founding and flourishing possible.

I have personally attended every Thompson event in South Carolina since June. He has spoken forcefully as a proven social and fiscal conservative; those standing ovations didn’t come from the MoveOn.org crowd. No other candidate with an approval margin over 3 percent has been as consistent on our issues as he has. Thompson also brings the ability to put the left on its heels in ‘08—never underestimate the power of the media in this cultural context. It may not be fair, but Thompson’s exposure over the last 15 years in movies and TV shows helps put blue states in play in ways no other candidate can without compromising conservative principles. In his fine response to Dr. Dobson’s email, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer noted that “as we approach November of next year, I believe every faith-based voter … has to ponder what a Hillary Clinton presidency will do to our cause … I cannot bring myself to trash candidates who may represent our only chance to stop a Hillary disaster.”

Primaries are about proving oneself—not just for candidates, but also those who lead movements. They present opportunities to question and determine who we will nominate as a candidate for the highest office in the world. Once the process has played out, we unite behind that candidate and hopefully, get four years to positively impact the present and future of this great nation. Those in leadership who have a say in that process need to guard that trust well—not behave like those they say are part of the problem.

Andrew Citizen is a conservative activist who resides in Clover with his wife and four daughters. He has been featured in Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family’s Citizen Magazine.

###

by Martin Sims

Here we are once again considering the terrorist nation of Iran. A nation that controls Palestine through Hamas, Lebanon and Syria though Hezbollah, and Iraq through the Mahdi army, untold numbers of insurgency and militant organizations and even Al Qaeda. Iran is closing in quickly on the ability to mass produce nuclear weapons while our politicians are arguing over whether or not they are even a threat to the region, and our own nation.

Israel, as I have said before, does not have the luxury of debating this issue until the day it is confirmed that the Iranian nuclear program has in fact produced it’s first reliable weapon. Israel has nuclear weapons but will they use them? It is a strongly held belief that only the United States can deliver a conventional strike devastating enough to impact the Iranian nuclear program, however, if the United States does not do that and soon, Israel will be forced consider the nuclear option as it’s only reliable means of ensuring it’s continued existence.

When considering the possible destruction of your entire population by nuclear assault, the nuclear option does not seem so terrible in light of the consequence of waiting too long, or conducting an inadequate conventional strike. European nations, Russia and China have prevented measures that could have reigned in Iran many times before. Creating a situation whereby the one entity that could have made a difference (United Nations), is instead provoking the inevitable destruction of either Israel or Iran or possibly even the destruction of both nations.

Iran has created a reality on the ground throughout the Middle East that provides the ultimate fallback. Iran’s arming, training and positioning of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Mahdi Army, and literally hundreds of other militant assets means that at a moments notice Iran could create complete chaos throughout the entire region. Imagine all of these groups being coordinated by Iran’s military machine causing the cessation of trade throughout the region, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in countries throughout the Middle East, and the successful overthrow of governments unable to respond quickly enough to such an unconventional enemy.

If the United States is unable or unwilling to confront Iran militarily within the next 12 months, world war three is almost a certainty. Because if Iran is able to get all their pieces in place before they are directly attacked, this chess game is over and no country in the world will be safe from the terrorist army they have been building up arming and training for over 30 years. China, Russia, Venezuela and many other countries have already chosen their allies in this struggle by supporting, supplying and defending Iran in it’s quest for nuclear weapons and undying support of terrorism in all it’s horrific forms and manifestations.

–

Posted By Martin Sims to An American Political Journal <http://americanpoliticaljournal.blogspot.com/2007/08/all-roads-lead-to-tehr

an.html> at 8/23/2007 01:25:00 PM

By BUTCH BOWERS AND KEVIN HALL - Guest columnists

For years, the editorial board of The State newspaper has heaped insult and contempt upon those who dare to differ with their opinion as to the most effective way to deliver a quality education to all of South Carolina’s children. Not satisfied simply to disagree with reform-minded parents and groups like South Carolinians for Responsible Government, The State’s editors have demonized school choice proponents, at one point calling them a “cancer” and accusing them of violating state law by running radio ads in favor of school choice legislation in the weeks prior to an election without disclosing the expense.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered the First Amendment rights of Americans to express their views on pending legislation in the weeks prior to an election. The court upheld the free speech rights of everyday citizens and corporate citizens alike in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court concluded that suppression of issue ads and other political speech in the days leading up to an election amounts to an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights. According to the court’s ruling, newspapers and their editorial boards do not have a monopoly on free speech in the days before an election. While this decision obviously undermines the position taken time and again by this newspaper’s editorial board, it is nonetheless good news for America.

No constitutional right is more fundamental to the preservation of our American way of life than the right to free speech. Absent the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights — especially with respect to political speech — the rest of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties might as well have been written in disappearing ink.

As Chief Justice Roberts said in issuing the court’s opinion: “(d)iscussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

We respect the right of The State’s editorial board to vent its spleen against those ideas and individuals it opposes. In fact, as much as we find it distasteful that the editorial board of the largest newspaper in South Carolina would refer to a group of concerned parents and citizens as a “cancer,” we nonetheless defend its right to say it. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

As the school choice debate continues in South Carolina, we hope The State will study the Wisconsin Right to Life decision and will afford school choice proponents the respect owed any citizen who chooses to express a dissenting view. Surely, The State has every right to criticize school choice proponents as the debate rages on in what is truly a marketplace of ideas. We hope, however, that The State will refrain from engaging in accusatory and inflammatory rhetoric that, as Wisconsin Right to Life should demonstrate to any reasonable observer, is simply unsupported by the Constitution. We also hope that The State will not forget that it is the First Amendment that protects its right of expression — as well as the right of every citizen who dares to disagree.

Mr. Bowers and Mr. Hall are Columbia attorneys. They represent South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

###

by Alex Saitta of www.pickenspolitics.com 

August 4, 2007 

I lived in New York City when Rudy Giuliani was the mayor from 1993 to 2001. Rudy is an extremely capable leader. When he puts his mind to something, it gets accomplished.  

He is fiscally conservative. He was successful in cutting business and personal income tax rates in New York City and reducing welfare significantly. He also is very law and order. He took the mob out of the Fulton Street fish market and the garbage hauling industry, and reduced crime by more than half in the worst areas of the city and cleaned up Time Square, which was polluted with sex shops, and drug users. His social views are liberal. He took actions to protect illegal immigrants from the INS, he supports gay-rights, is pro-abortion and sued gun manufacturers. 

My fear is, Giuliani gets elected President, and we have a Democrat Congress. I think Rudy will see the path of least resistance as pushing through the Democrat Congress his socially liberal ideas.  

If the Republicans take back the Congress, I think Rudy will push his fiscally conservative ideas, knowing he’ll have the votes in Congress to rein in spending and reform government. For conservatives, Rudy would be a good President, if we had the 1994 Republican Congress. 

Having said all that, the Democrats are afraid of Rudy, because they know he is the one candidate Republican candidate who will get votes all along the political spectrum. In NYC, which is 4 to 1 Democrats, Rudy won two elections as a Republican. 

Both parties know if you win 3 of the following 4 states, you win the Presidency: Those states are California, Texas, New York and Florida. A southerner teamed up with Rudy, takes Texas, New York, and Florida and the Republicans win the White House. 

Dems know that, and that is why they don’t want Rudy as a nominee for President or even as the Vice President. They will be gunning to destroy him over the next year. You’ll see liberals pounding on Giuliani for his socially liberal ideas, just trying to discredit him with the Republican voters. It will be a fight that could destroy Rudy as a nominee and VP material.  

If I was the Republican national chairman, I would have advised Giuliani to stay out of the primary and avoided this upcoming fight and the exposure of all his negatives on social issues and in his marriages. Once the Presidential nominee was picked, I would have pushed to make Rudy the Vice President, and then had him work the northeastern states and Florida. Guiliani will deliver New York, the rest of the northeast and Florida, which are rich in electoral votes. If the Presidential nominee can deliver Texas and the south. The Republicans win going away.  

Republicans have the best strategy to win, and I think that is it, but Giuliani is so strong headed, he wants to be at the top of the ticket, so he wasn’t going to go along with that. 

###