Mark Sanford Lost his Primary Bid … to Trump

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Most of us know about the defeat of incumbent Republican Congressman Mark Sanford to South Carolina State rep. Katie Arrington. Many are pointing to president Trump’s influence in the race. Trump tweeted his support of Arrington over Sanford on election day, which may have been what put Arrington over the top.

Sanford is considered to be one of those dreaded Never-Trumpers. If true, that’s a rather idiotic stance to take. It’s as idiotic a stance as being an Ever-Trumper, or Trump apologist. No man is perfect, nor is he completely flawed.

Damning a politician for who he is rather than his policy positions is just stupid. You don’t have to like the man to like his policies. But you can disagree without being disagreeable.

The feud between Sanford and Trump dates back a couple of years, when Sanford exclaimed after a meeting with then candidate Trump that he wasn’t particularly impressed with Trump’s knowledge of the Constitution. Sanford mocked him slightly, which was unnecessary.

Sanford also criticized Trump’s use of the word “s***-hole” to describe some third world countries. Again, this was an unnecessary criticism, particularly because they are s-hole countries. read more

Phony Confederate Outrage

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The Confederate flag has now been taken down from the capital grounds in Columbia, South Carolina. Heck, for good measure they even took down the flagpole. That will show that dumb old flag.

And how everyone cheered the symbolism – because that’s what we do these days. It doesn’t matter that the flag did not kill those nine poor souls in Charleston, how long the flag has been flying or who put it up there in the first place and why. Americans celebrate the symbolism and congratulate each other for our newly discovered progressive enlightenment. Hooray for us!!

That famous American Piers Morgan (not an American) weighed in saying that “Doing the right thing is to be applauded, however long it takes.”

Regarding why the flag flew for so long Piers added: “And we all, surely, thought the same thing: why is this flag still a protected species when all it does is remind people of America’s darkest, most evil past and motivate racists like Roof.”

Yes Piers – that’s what we’ve all been thinking for the past 54 years, as people strolled by the flag, walked by a monument or drove on a street or highway bearing the name of a prominent Confederate. Yes – we’ve all been suffering in silence. Even democrats and leftists (I guess that’s redundant) – because they’re known for their quiet demeanor. read more

To Fly the Flag or Not

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Everyone who isn’t talking about the finish at the U.S. Open, it seems is talking or writing about the controversy that appears once again to pit left against right. I’m talking about South Carolina continuing to fly the Confederate flag.

When I was attending the University of South Carolina in the capital Columbia, I ventured downtown frequently and can honestly say I never noticed the Confederate flag there, although it must have been.

When I was a kid, I distinctly recall owning a Confederate flag. I don’t remember where I got it, who gave it to me, or what happened to it, but I know I had one. As it turns out, it didn’t cause me to hate blacks, become a white supremacist or shoot up at church, but I digress.

Politicians, some pundits and presidential candidates who think they can attempt to ride the fence by dancing around the topic are saying the decision to fly the CSA flag is up to South Carolinians. In other words, they either haven’t the knowledge to speak of it, which is sad, or the courage to say, which is more sad, or both. read more

Go South Young Man…150 Feet

It may only have been a tiny error by surveyors 277 years ago, but it could have stirred up major problems.

Part of the small community of Lake Wylie, South Carolina could today find themselves reclassified as being in neighboring North Carolina.

Modern surveyors – using state of the art GPS – have redrawn the state border to within a few inches of where it had originally meant to be in 1735 – some 150ft further south of where it is today.

But the change could be a monumental upheaval for the hundred or so residents who would find themselves residents of North Carolina – where fuel prices are 30 cents more expensive and fireworks are illegal.

Victor Boulware, owner of a small convenience store, the Lake Wylie Minimarket, says a change would destroy his business, stopping the flow of traffic from the more expensive north who flock to his shop for the cheaper fuel.

He said: ‘If I end up across the line, it is going to shut this business down.’

For the owners of 93 properties who suddenly find themselves in another state, it is also a bureaucratic nightmare.

The state line determines so much in their lives – what schools they go to, what area code their phone number starts with and even who provides them gas and electricity.

Small utility cooperatives in South Carolina are banned from extending services across the state line. Most of the properties in question are near Charlotte, N.C.

“I’m having a hard time being funny about this when mysterious forces bigger than you are shoving you around,” said Frederick Berlinger, who suddenly has been told that he goes to bed at night in Spartanburg County, S.C. after 15 years in what he thought was Polk County, N.C.

The seeds of the current problem were sown when the King of England sent surveyors to draw a boundary between the two Carolinas.

His instructions in 1735 were explicit: Start 30 miles south of the mouth of the Cape Fear River and have surveyors head northwest until they reached 35 degrees latitude.

Then the border would head west across the country to the Pacific Ocean. But the surveyors didn’t follow the instructions exactly, and future instructions led to the state line’s twists and turns around Charlotte and in the mountains.

The surveyors used poles and measured chains, determining what direction to head from the sun and stars, doing math in their heads, and putting hatchet blows on trees to mark the boundary. Over time, those trees disappeared, but the state line still needed to show up on maps.

The survey, which is about to draw to an end, was designed to put almost all questions about where the line is drawn to rest.

North and South Carolina wanted to solve their problems with a little Southern cooperation, so they created the Joint Boundary Commission nearly two decades ago.

The commission meets in Rock Hill, S.C.

Members are expected to work on proposals that they hope will be passed in each state to solve problems that arise from any changes – including an amnesty for any back taxes owed to the other state and allow utilities to cross state lines to serve customers without disruption.

Once both Carolinas take action to make the transition easier for the 93 property owners, the commission will submit the new state line to the Legislature in South Carolina and the North Carolina Council of State for approval.

Not approving the border could open either state up to a number of lawsuits.

The survey work is not finished. The team is preparing to draw the rest of the state line all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. Fewer problems are expected because the area is more rural.

Attribution: Daily Mail

Election Analysis by a Brit

The following is a post election anaylsis by british reporter Toby Harden of the UK Daily Mail. Sometimes it’s fun to see if their prospective is any different from our own. I think he is fairly spot on. Pip Pip, Cheerio!

He titles the article:

THE FIGHT IS ON! NEWT GINGRICH VICTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA MEANS NO MORE MR. INEVITABLE FOR MITT ROMNEY

Turnaround: Mr. Gingrich’s victory came after an amazing fight back over the past week.

What a turnaround! A week ago, it looked like Mitt Romney was going to head into the Florida primary with three victories under his belt. Then it turned out that Rick Santorum won Iowa after all and South Carolina voters backed Newt Gingrich, delivering a message to Romney and the media: ‘Not so fast!’

So, for the first time in Republican history there’s been a three-way split decision between Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Next up, in 10 days’ time, is Florida, where Romney holds a solid double-digit lead and has the money and organisation that should ensure he wins a large state with nine separate television markets.

Of course, Romney’s emphatic 16-point win in New Hampshire and consequent double-digit poll lead here in South Carolina should have delivered him victory tonight so no one in Romneyworld will be taking anything for granted in the Sunshine State.

What did it for Gingrich here? Two very strong debate performances were key. His best moment was his exchange with Juan Williams of Fox in Monday’s Myrtle Beach debate in which he gave full-throated voice to the conservative philosophy of self-help and free enterprise as well as casting aside political correctness and racial tiptoeing.

Then, the much-ballyhooed ABC News interview with his second wife Marianne backfired spectacularly. CNN gave Gingrich a gift by asking him about the ‘open marriage’ allegation right at the start of Thursday’s debate in Charleston. Savaging the ‘liberal media’ is almost invariably a winner in Republican primaries and Gingrich took full advantage.

More generally, however, South Carolina voters decided they did not want a coronation or to send an unvetted nominee into battle against President Barack Obama, with a billion dollars in campaign funds behind him, in November.

He remains the favourite for the GOP nomination but it is now clear that Romney is no shoo-in. And nor should he be. Obama’s long and bitter primary contest with Hillary Clinton in 2008 ultimately meant that he was battle-tested for the general election. Whoever emerges as the Republican nominee in 2012 needs to be the same.

Romney, uncharacteristically, was vague and halting in the two debates this week and need to turn in a strong performance in Tampa on Monday. In his ‘concession’ speech (I never heard him concede to or congratulate Gingrich) he was fiercely combative, indicating that he will go for Gingrich’s throat in Florida.

Previewing a key line of attack, Romney compared Gingrich to Obama: ‘Our party can’t be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never run a state.’
Gingrich still has a mountain to climb. By every measure, he is significantly behind in Florida and one lesson of this race so far is that momentum from one victory matters very little. But tonight has burst the bubble of inevitability in which Romney had been enveloped.

Romney’s opponents have long suspected he has a glass jaw. Now we will see whether he can take a punch, get up off the floor and keep fighting.

George W. Bush recovered from a drubbing in
New Hampshire in 2000 at the hands of John McCain. Barack Obama overcame a stunning defeat at the hands of Clinton in the same state in 2008. Romney now has the chance to prove he is made of similar stuff.
Gingrich, the early December front runner, has already sunk once in the polls under sustained negative attack from Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Perry. He’ll need to brace himself for a Romney onslaught in Florida with every detail of his ethics violations, marital infidelities, House leadership stumbles and activities on behalf of Freddie Mac laid bare for all to see.

Newt is NOT a Conservative

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Pop Quiz: Who said this?

“The Progressive Movement has profoundly changed America for the better.”

If you said it was the great conservative, Newt Gingrich, you’d be correct. I’m kidding about the whole great conservative thing.

Yet today, that dope, Rick Perry drops out of the race and follows Sarah Palin by endorsing Newt. Has the world turn completely upside down? Heck, even Rush Limbaugh calls Newt a conservative.

This is yet another example of why I repeat, Newt Gingrich is NOT a conservative. Newt Gingrich is a big government Progressive. He has stated, on several occasions, his favorite Presidents were progressives.
I have personally heard him give positive statements regarding them all. He didn’t describe them as progressives, but has called them out by name. Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson & FDR. The only one he left out was LBJ. What true conservative, with any reverence and understanding of the Constitution, could possibly think this; much less say it out loud. In my opinion, these 4 are not only, not good, but are the 4 worst presidents in history!

Then why would he do this? Why would he speak favorably of these gentlemen? That’s an easy question to answer. He knows, as do many of us, the general public has been taught next to nothing of our history. He throws these historical quips and quotes out during the debates. He sounds like the great historian & is never challenged due to the dearth of historical knowledge of the other candidates or the moderators.

On that note I would like to present one of the great men Newt has recently quoted & appears to have great respect for; President Andrew Jackson.

Many believe the Father of Progressivism was Theodore Roosevelt. In fact it was Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson came to prominence as the Founding Fathers died out and I believe the republic that they envisioned also died with Jackson. He could not have done what he did if they had been around.

Jackson believed in Manifest Destiny, which is kind of the perversion of Divine Providence. Divine Providence occurs when you live your life in a good and moral way, try your best and pull yourself up by the bootstraps, God will open doors for you. You know, “Good things happen to good people”.

Manifest Destiny is more of the, “Get out of my way. I’m on a mission from God”. It’s my way or the highway. Like all progressives, he knew better than the people.

Founding Fathers = Divine Providence, Progressives = Manifest Destiny. It’s no surprise Jackson was also the father of the democrat party.

He declared war on the Bank of the United States (B.U.S.). I’m no fan of any national bank but unlike the Federal Reserve of today, the B.U.S. did not wield nearly the power of today’s central bank.

Although he declared it, he wasn’t championing the working class or Ron Paul supporters. He claimed to be fighting for the “little man”. Sound familiar? In fact he just wanted to shut the bank down because he couldn’t control it. Jackson simply wanted to replace it with another bank completely controlled by him and his party. Progressives must control all things for the betterment of society. They arrest control by pretending to be the champions of the “Little Guy”.

Most Americans think the Civil War was fought solely about slavery. In fact Andrew Jackson started the ball rolling when he signed the Tariff of 1832 that taxed imported and exported goods. The North grew successfully
under this tariff. The tax was rough on the southerners. As Andrew Jackson continued to tax goods, southerners found it hard to sell their products to the English and suffered badly.. South Carolina firmly refused to pay the taxes and threatened to withdraw from the Union if the tariff was enforced. It was eventually rewritten, but the damage between the North & South had been done.

Like the progressives that would follow, he was also a flaming racist. He believed neither Indians nor blacks should own any property in the U.S. He particularly hated Indians.

We have all heard of the “Trail of Tears”. That was Andrew Jackson’s doing. He declared war on the Eastern Indian Tribes, signing the Indian Removal Act. There would be no tribes east of the Mississippi. Many Indians were massacred. Those he didn’t have killed, were driven west along; you guessed it,
“The Trail of Tears”. Many of the Indians died on the trail (roughly 25%), freezing to death.

His excuse for the atrocity was, “Well, we needed the land, so we took it”. Manifest Destiny.

Andrew Jackson was a BAD dude & Newt goes out of his way to speak highly of him.

This is the advertised “True Conservative”?

Don’t be fooled!

Rick Santorum, A Real Conservative

[Editorial Comment: The following was not a prepared speech. It was completely extemporaneous. There was no script, no teleprompter, no blackberry and no one speaking into his ear telling him what to say. You tell me who the REAL conservative is.]

Lexington, S.C.

From: The Weekly Standard:

In the back room at the Flight Deck restaurant Tuesday afternoon, a voter posed an interesting question to Rick Santorum. What is Santorum’s own view of the Constitution,
the voter wanted to know, given that Ron Paul frequently casts himself as the only candidate who wants to adhere to the Constitution? In response, Santorum fished out of his pocket his miniature copy of the Constitution and held it tightly in his hand.

“I have a very good grasp of the Constitution,” Santorum joked. Then the former senator from Pennsylvania got serious, describing his own philosophy on the Constitution and contrasting it with Paul’s.

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France.

“You see, during the ti
me of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution.

The French had 21,
I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does.

But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.