God, violence and politics

Though it is only Tuesday, the week between Passover and Easter is proving to be one ripe with religious violence. First, there was the Islamic terrorist attack on Moscow commuters. Russians were simply trying to get to work when they were attacked by Muslim extremists with bombs packed with bits of metal to make human beings suffer.

Then, in the United States, news came of out of Michigan of the federal authorities busting up a plot by the extreme group Hutaree. According to published reports, the Hutaree group twisted the Bible to inspire a plot against police officers. Allegedly, the group planned to fake a 911 call, kill a police officer, and then bomb that police officer’s funeral to kill more police officers. All of that, of course, was to be done in God’s name.

The Islamic extremists who attacked innocent Russians are evil. Those who plot to kill police officers in the name of Christ are evil. No one who kills innocent people in the name of God does so for God. They are tools of evil. They are nuts.

However, there is something politically to note. The American left has a double standard when it comes to evil people who hide behind God. The left blogs and activists are hot about the Michigan group, quick to label them as “Christian” and blame the conservatives in the nation for it. Some liberal bloggers even blame Republicans and commentators like Glenn Beck for the Hutaree group’s demented plan.

But, when it comes to calling Islamic extremists for what they are in regards to the killing of innocent Russians, the left is almost silent. President Obama condemned the attacks, but he did not hint at the religious nature of them. Liberal bloggers and commentators run from the word “Muslim” in regards to the attacks and instead describe the terrorists as “separatists.” They further fail to note in most of their remarks that the leader of the “separatists” in Russia is a man named Doku Umarov. Umarov is a man who wants a Russian Islamic emirate and encouraged Muslims to kill innocent people in Russian cities. Umarov wants Islamic law to rule, and under that law many of the liberals in America would be put to death.

So, why does the American left pay so much attention to a handful of religious nuts in Michigan and virtually ignore the Islamic extremists who actually kill people and want to kill them? It is a combination of the liberal logic and pure politics. The liberal logic dictates that liberals embrace nonsense as long as nonsense does not conform to what has been generally accepted as reasonable. The pure politics part is that, to the properly indoctrinated liberal, the conservative movement and the Republican Party must be maligned and destroyed by any means possible. To the properly indoctrinated liberal, politics is their God. And, for that God, all must be done.

Thus, a situation is created in which those of us with common sense see both the people who claim to be Muslims who kill innocent people and the people who claim to be Christians who plot to kill police officers both as bad people, while the left is filled with commentators who ignore the former and dwell on the latter in order to serve the left’s religion: pure politics.

Read More

From the staff: Top 9 things about chemo

9. Chemotherapy, come on! Is this best we can do medically speaking?

8. Cancer! It sucks, big time! And, almost as bad as our current Congress.

7. Guts! People say, I must have a lot of them. Must be true, I seem to puke them out quite alot.

6. Apple sauce is a good comfort food, when first getting over the after effects of chemotherapy. After third week of chemo, scratch that, now I can't stand the stuff. O.K., you just have to find stuff that doesn't make you gag; after seeing it, smelling it or tasting it. Uckk!

5. Oh, I don't mind losing my hair, because there is no pain involved with that process.

4. Sorry, pale is my new color.

3. How is possible to have constipation and diarrhea all in the same day, and at the same time (setting).

2. No, I'm not hungover, but I sure feel like it!

1. O.K., I get it! If I don't take it, I will surely die!

Read More

Run for re-election, Gresham

Gresham Barrett has two days or so to do the right thing. Though Barrett has spent the past year or so running for Governor, people in the Third Congressional District need him to stay on the job.

Congressman Barrett has done a solid job for the people of the Third Congressional District in the United States Congress. But, let's face reality. Barring some unforeseen changes to the race, Barrett, however qualified, is not going to be the nominee for Governor. The race will be decided by voters on the coast and in the midlands, not in the Third Congressional District. If Barrett runs for Governor, he loses, and the people lose his voice.

If Barrett checks his gubernatorial ambitions and runs for re-election to Congress, he would win in a walk. The field to replace him is, as an old great uncle of mine stated once, a fight between piss ants to get the better piece of the watermelon rind.

Good men are running for the Third Congressional District seat. Rex Rice and Jeff Duncan are current SC House members seeking the post. The list of others makes one think that his dentist might file next. Frankly put, the field is filled with sincere candidates who are politically weak. The winner will have no major traction and will likely face a tough race two years from now.

Barrett, on the other hand, is an experienced conservative hand in Washington. Like him or not as a gubernatorial candidate, Barrett has a proven record as a conservative Congressman. Gresham Barrett is a proven leader for conservatism in the US House.

That is why VUI encourages Gresham Barrett to give up the Governor's race and instead run for re-election. The people of the Third Congressional District need a conservative leader like Barrett representing them in Congress. Barrett will not be Governor. That assessment is sad, but true. But, Barrett can continue to serve by running for re-election to his seat in Congress and by doing so spare the people of the Third Congressional District of two years of a weak member of Congress.

Chances are VUI's advice will be ignored. Barrett will run for Governor and lose. The people of the Third Congressional District will end up with their dentist or some state representative that they have never heard as their Congressman. The only thing worse would be having Bob Inglis as our Congressman.

Read More

The GOP Lt. Governor's race

As stated before the striking thing about the GOP race for Lt. Governor is the lack of heavyweight contenders. Typically, there is as at least one legislative or otherwise political heavyweight in the field for the office. In 1986, the Republican nominee was Congressman Tommy Hartnett. In 1990, the Republican nominee was former U.S. Attorney Henry McMaster. Hartnett lost to long time state senator Nick Theodore. Lt. Governor Theodore defeated McMaster in 1990.

In 1994, Bob Peeler, Chairman of the State Board of Education, defeated former Congressional candidate Henry Jordan and longtime Republican House member Howell Clyburn for the GOP nomination. Peeler then went on to defeat former Congresswoman Liz Patterson in the general election. Four years later, Lt. Governor Peeler would defeat former Lt. Governor Theodore.

In 2002, state senator Andre Bauer defeated state senator David Thomas for the GOP nomination, and won the Lt. Governor’s office by defeating state senator Phil Leventis. The 2002 election was the last year of known political heavyweights getting into the Lt. Governor’s race.

The 2006 election ended nearly 100 years of political heavyweights challenging for the Lt. Governor’s office. Lt. Governor Bauer defeated two restaurant owners on his way to re-election. The first was Mike Campbell, a political novice whose greatest asset was being the son of former Governor Carroll Campbell. The second was the Democratic nominee, Robert Barber. The election was known more for Lt. Governor Bauer surviving an airplane crash and Barber losing his lowcountry restaurant to fire than any great political debate.

Perhaps the 2006 election set up the situation in 2010. In the GOP field, there is Florence County Councilman Ken Ard, retired Army Lt. Colonel Bill Connor and longtime former Judge Larry Richter. All three men have accomplished lives, but they do not have the historic resumes candidates for Lt. Governor have had for the past century or so.

However, those three are the GOP field. As such, here is how VUI sees the field as of late March. Ard has the advantage, for now. Ard has worked the grassroots hard that are necessary to win a down ballot race. Connor, good man that he is, seems not to have gained any traction.

That leaves Larry Richter. Richter has an impressive resume, some personal money to pump in, and some personal baggage. However, the race seems to be now between Ard’s personal touch in grassroots campaigning against Richter’s money and lowcountry connections. Connor seems to be relegated to the role of spoiler.

That said, the Lt. Governor’s race is fluid. With voter and political activist interest so low and the candidates all relatively unknown, the field could shift. There is a lot of hard work left to be done for the campaign that claims the nomination in June. But, when forced to call it, VUI says it is between Ard and Richter, and it is going to be one helluva race.

Read More

Getting back to blogging

The past week or so has been one of those that have been time demanding for the VUI staff. One of the disadvantages of not being paid to blog for a living is having to earn a living doing something else. Add to that VUI's second in command dealing with chemotherapy and well, there have been a few days without posting.

But, that is about to change. Things are going to pick up again to the previous pace this week. Thanks for reading and we hope to inform and entertain on a daily basis again starting Sunday.

Read More

Carroll Campbell's dead and I don't feel so good myself

There was yet another debate for Governor of South Carolina on Tuesday night. The debate was held on the campus of Winthrop University. Absent Republican Gresham Barrett, the six other candidates for Governor in both major parties were present.

It was a typical affair. The answers could be predicted by each candidate easily before hand, with the exception of Democrat Robert Ford. That guy speaks is mind. The rest are "handled."

Not that there is especially anything wrong with a candidate being "handled." It just shows there is no true "great" politician on the stage for Governor.

That is a product of this political time in South Carolina. As filing for office is at the halfway point, enthusiasm for campaigning, supporting a candidate and for running for office are at a low. Candidates in both parties are having a hard time raising money and getting grassroots support. Of course there are exceptions like the tea party folks, but their power dissipates when it comes to actual campaigns.

Some blame the economy on the lack of money and enthusiasm. The economy certainly has its role. However, over the past eight years in South Carolina, especially in the Republican party, politics has been hijacked.

From the local to the statewide level, a group of well funded, unethical loudmouths have taken over the conversation. Checks from outside South Carolina flow in to fund special interest groups created just to viscerally attack any candidate who does not support their pet issue exactly as they are told to. Bloggers are paid to attack personally and pettily any candidate or commentator who fails to walk lock step with the money. Others sue people involved in politics for their stands and otherwise harass them. Even when people leave politics, they are kicked on the way out the door, usually in a sophomoric fashioned.

Take the retirement of Annette Young, for example. Rep. Young was the first Republican Majority Leader since Reconstruction. How did South Carolina's supposedly leading "conservative" blogger treat the retirement? By taking a cheap shot at Young about her love of scotch whiskey.

Now, Folks and the people around him probably thought their post was brilliant. But, what it truly is is an example of how our political discourse has slipped. Both parties seem to have slipped into an idiocracy instead of a democracy. In that idiocracy, a cute comment, true or not, is more respected than a well thought idea. Party and coalition building is second to making sure the purity tests set by big donors are passed. The smart and experienced are ridiculed for thinking. The ignorant and inexperienced are praised for embracing the guru's ideas.

That said, is there any doubt why South Carolina is in the trouble it is in? Is their any doubt why talented and decent people decline to donate to campaigns, work on campaigns, or run for office? Indeed, South Carolina is a far cry from where it was in January of 1995, when Carroll Campbell left office. Fifteen years later, Governor Campbell is dead, I don't feel so good myself and some billionaire from New York and his puppets have joined the far left liberals in making politics in South Carolina seem slimy.

Read More

The President got what he wanted, but does America want it?

The President of the United States and the Democratic leadership in the United States House got what they wanted late Sunday night. By a vote of 219-212, the so called health care reform bill, championed by the President and virtually written by big lobbyists was passed.

The bill was unprecedented. The President of the United States cancelled foreign trips and even went to the Capitol on Saturday to push the bill. President Obama staked his credibility on the passage of the bill. The President got the passage, but at what cost?

The bill, despite the sunshine and light statement of the President after its passage, does not give his core supporters what they want. The bill also flies in the face of the right’s interpretation of the constitution. Frankly, over the next few days and weeks, the members of Congress who voted for the bill will finally find out what was in the bill that they voted for. Lawyers stand ready to litigate on behalf of states and individuals.

Perhaps never before in American history has a bill that so effected so many Americans been passed in a strictly partisan fashion without consideration of future litigation and the like. The President wanted it above all else, and he got it.

But, just what did the President get? The President got a bill that seems to be written by health care insurance lobbyists. Even Presidential supporters like Professor Cornel West talk of how the President “cut a deal” with big insurance. With the side deals to members of Congress and goodies for the insurance companies, without addressing the real costs factors of health care, the President got a bill that the American people did not want and frankly will not do what the President contends it will.

Assuming that the President is an honorable man and actually believes in the bill that was passed, it appears that President Obama is incredibly weak. That weakness was symbolic on Saturday, when President Obama was treated as if he was just some Congressional leader at the press appearance on Capitol Hill. The President even spoke from a lectern that donned the seal of Congress, not his own seal.

Indeed, with the way the President cancelled his trip, and played the part of the salesman on Capitol Hill, it seems that on the issue of health care that the Democratic leaders of the legislative branch, and the lobbyists who line their pockets, rule the day. Now, it rests with the judicial branch to defend the American people from this seemingly unconstitutional violation of the American people’s lives.

Read More