After President Barack Obama inevitably drops the recently announced mandate that even church-affiliated employers provide health insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and morning after abortion pills, will we look back at this exercise as a ruse to make ObamaCare seem more palatable to voters this fall?

After all, the Messiah will be seen as having heard the public outcry including threats of civil disobedience, and graciously agreed to respect the consciences of Roman Catholics? In fact, the subject mandate applies to all religious group employers which include numerous Southern Baptist hospitals and other Protestant and Evangelical organizations, but I digress.

Yes, America’s founding by pilgrims and Puritans, not to mention the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, properly focuses this mandate to fund abortion coverage via insurance premiums on the free exercise of religion, but of course, when Democrats aka Dem-o-bats (pictured, that suck the blood out of health care) rule, our tax dollars regularly fund abortion and yet we don’t see threats of civil disobedience to withhold taxes, do we? Moreover, if theObamaCare mandate is actually put into effect in August 2013 (after the election of course) the only recourse people of conscience would have would be to refuse to pay the ObamaCare fine for refusing to comply.

There will be no option to purchase an insurance policy that excludes the contraceptive and abortion coverages because private health insurance companies will be prohibited from issuing such policies and if they did, the Supremacy Clause would require that any such contracts be declared void.

What happened to free enterprise between a willing buyer and willing seller?

But wait a minute. Let’s back up. What ever happened to my right to bargain with an insurance company for the coverage I desire at a price we mutually agree upon?

The fact is that health insurance prices are artificially high now due to numerous other government mandates due to ObamaCare as well as federal and state laws that existed before anyone ever heard of the senator from Illinois that led the fight to prohibit a law requiring abortionists to try and save the lives of babies that escape the womb during attempted abortions.

Last week’s decision by the Obama Administration to use the blank check “discretion” Democrats gave  it to regulate our lives via his health care “affordability act” aka ObamaCare, forces private insurance companies to cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing morning after pills (RU-486).

Most of the conservative news coverage has focused on how the Sebelius Edict continues an assault by the administration on the Roman Catholic Church and its possible violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise (of religion) Clause.

Of course, the requirement that any organization (All Christians and many non-Christians) fund abortion is repugnant and while DeVine Law is not certain that the employer-provided health insurance mandated coverages technically violate the usually narrow application of the Free Exercise clause (right to worship), isn’t there an even more fundamental, if that is possible, freedom involved here?

Unlike many conservatives, this gamecock variety takes a fairly expansive view of the Commerce Clause. One of the major reasons that the framers of the U.S. Constitution convened to address the Articles of Confederation was to stop the states from acting as foreign nations and to forge a national economy. To that end they empowered Congress to “regulate interstate clause”. Much of the early application of that clause ended state monopolies over certain industries (one wishes that Congress would do the same with respect to interstate health insurance sales, but I digress) and played referee to ensure fairness and prevent fraud.

Sadly, Congress and the courts began to interpret “regulate” to include product planning in the last century, which practice has morphed, under this President to include the take over of automobile companies (and without even asserting a war power that couldn’t even save President Harry Truman’s Supreme Court-rebuffed attempt to seize steel companies during the Korean War, er um “police action”) while abrogating bondholder rights under duly-passed Bankruptcy laws and giving General Motors to the United Auto Workers as a tax payer-funded welfare program.

But also unlike the Truman steel-seizure case, President Obama’s “regulation” has the imprimatur of a 2010 Democratic Party-majority of the House of Representatives and super-majority of said party in the Senate, along with scores, if not hundreds of Supreme Court precedents to bolster the liberal “living constitution” definition of the word, up to and including prohibiting farmers from growing wheat to eat at home.

Moreover, isn’t there something Third-worldish, if not outright totalitarian, when we hear of fundamental changes in the compact We the People have (or at least had) with the federal government we formed from a Cabinet secretary or even the President himself, much as it was a usurpation of our right to self government when 5+ lawyers made abortion a right.

Wasn’t Congress created as a separate power so that those they represent have a say in changes in the law that affect their lives? Obviously, and that right is also worthy of a conscience objection that trumps blank checks Democrats right into law for a royal head of state to issue edicts from on high at his whim that empty or pocketbooks along with our deeply held religious beliefs.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

President Barack Obama continued to deliver on his campaign promise to fundamentally change America last week with more ObamaCare-empowered executive fiats directed at private insurance companies and an unprecedented co-opting of the National Prayer Breakfast to declare his policies as Biblical and even Messiah-approved.

“And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Translation: Jesus and God the Father (see also Plato and Mohammed) would favor bailing out too big to fail-national and international banks while restricting the loan-making ability of smaller, local ones; discriminating against, i.e. killing, healthy babies in the womb at the expense of members of The Rock upon which Christ built his church; and loving unfairly treated neighbors by killing Keystone pipeline and millions of other jobs.

Love neighbors with policies that work

This former liberal Democrat, turned conservative Republican in the Summer of 2001, and baptized, Bible-believing Christian since the age of 13, is and always has been sympathetic to government policies informed by the values of Scripture, especially including those that speak to sick and vulnerable neighbors.

In fact, one of the major reasons I left Obama’s party 11 years ago for the GOP was the 20+ year reality-mugging that revealed how much better the poor and middle class fared under the conservative economic Reagan (continued under a Newted-Clinton and Dubya Bush) policies than they did under the liberal Democrat variety of the 70s.

Parenthetically, has it been good for the poor and other neighbors for their country to run up a national debt so large that it threatens the currency and their prosperity? Of course not, and while yes, both parties have spent too much, I cannot recall a budget cycle in my lifetime in which Democrat presidents or congressmen didn’t want to spend more than their Republican Party counterparts. Not one.

Of course, most Scripture, including the Bible verses quoted by President Obama are much too vague to serve as authority for any particular government policy, even if they were aimed at government, which they are not. Moreover, while the Bible surely does speak to individuals and the condition of their hearts as relates to loving God and the eternal destination of their souls, the admonitions to help the poor focus on actually helping the poor. The result of filled bellies mattered to Christ when he fed the 5000 without tax revenues from Rome.

Given that, what are we to conclude about the condition of Democrats’ hearts, not to mention cognitive abilities, when they continually advance policies that result in more poorer people?

Are the prospective workers on the Keystone pipeline or the Boeing plant in SC whose jobs Obama directly killed feel as loved by him as he loves himself by being unemployed and on food stamps?

Obama seems to love himself while employed. How about the 2.5 million, non-Baby Boomer retirees that would now be employed had the President and his super-majority Democratic Party passed policies that actually stimulated the economy when they totally controlled the making of U.S. laws in 2009-10? Are they happier because misery loves unemployed company while basking in the glow of envy against the 1%?

Getting a job = Dropping out of the workforce

If  a few million more Americans “drop out of the workforce” between now and Election Day, President Obama can run for re-election with a sub-8% unemployment rate to tout. Funny how a person getting a job or giving up on finding one, after months and years of trying, has the same effect on the “news” emanating for his Bureau of Labor statistics.

Why, if everyone (see equality and fairness) just stopped filling out job applications for a few months, Obama’s re-election would be assured by a record Zero (0%) U-3 rate!

What happened to the Free private sector Exercise of fashioning health insurance policies that consumers can afford? or, How much would automobile insurance cost if they had to cover car washes?

Last week’s decision by the Obama Administration to use the blank check “discretion” Democrats gave  it to regulate our lives via his health care “affordability act” aka ObamaCare, forces private insurance companies to cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing morning after pills (RU-486).

Most of the conservative news coverage has focused on how the Sebelius Edict continues an assault by the administration on the Roman Catholic Church and its possible violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise (of religion) Clause.

Of course, the requirement that any organization (All Christians and many non-Christians) fund abortion is repugnant and while DeVine Law is not certain that the employer-provided health insurance mandated coverages technically violate the usually narrow application of the Free exercise clause (right to worship), isn’t there an even more fundamental, if that is possible, freedom involved here?

Unlike many conservatives, this gamecock variety takes a fairly expansive view of the Commerce Clause. One of the major reasons that the framers of the U.S. Constitution convened to address the Articles of Confederation was to stop the states from acting as foreign nations and to forge a national economy. To that end they empowered Congress to “regulate interstate clause”. Much of the early application of that clause ended state monopolies over certain industries (one wishes that Congress would do the same with respect to interstate health insurance sales, but I digress) and played referee to ensure fairness and prevent fraud.

Sadly, Congress and the courts began to interpret “regulate” to include product planning in the last century, which practice has morphed, under this President to include the take over of automobile companies (and without even asserting a war power that couldn’t even save President Harry Truman’s Supreme Court-rebuffed attempt to seize steel companies during the Korean War, er um “police action”) while abrogating bondholder rights under duly-passed Bankruptcy laws and giving General Motors to the United Auto Workers as a tax payer-funded welfare program.

But also unlike the Truman steel-seizure case, President Obama’s “regulation” has the imprimatur of a 2010 Democratic Party-majority of the House of Representatives and super-majority of said party in the Senate, along with scores, if not hundreds of Supreme Court precedents to bolster the liberal “living constitution” definition of the word, up to and including prohibiting farmers from growing wheat to eat at home.

Those that think its a slam-dunk that the individual mandate will be struck down as a bridge too far and that its elimination would doom ObamaCare writ large must needs disabuse themselves that any court is going to cause neighbors to be loved as we would love ourselves.

No, the fact of the matter is that reversing the debt, regulation and other “caring”, yet failed, policies will have to be done by convincing majorities of voters that, incredibly, our poor economy has been adversely affected by Obama’s economic policies.

In the name of Jesus, let us accept that Barack Obama loves his neighbors as himself and give him the opportunity to apply that love as a private citizen, as the Scriptures direct. Then, maybe Christians and non-Christians alike will have a variety of health care insurance choices that suit their needs and a job with which to earn the money to pay the premiums.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

During my teen and young adult Democratic Party activism years in the 70s and 80s, the number one scare tactic used by the party to scare widows and orphans, i.e. the poor,  was their claim that if Republicans controlled the government, they would “take away your checks”. Ronald Reagan, famously asserted his support for a safety net for the “truly needy” and despite several periods of exclusive GOP control of the executive and legislative branches over the last 30 years, the safety net remains intact.

And yet, the Democratic Party mantra against Republicans as having a lack of concern for the poor has continued unabated with the goalposts continually being moved to re-define caring as support for the latest liberal Democrat proposal, whether it be Stimulus, ObamaCare or mortgage bailout bills.

Enter Mitt Romney:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Translation: We agree with the Democratic Party. Our concern for the very poor has been satisfied by the welfare state they have constructed and if we must spend more money to expand that safety net to show we care about the poor, we will.

Mitt makes many mistakes with this statement and one of  the mistakes is in thinking that Republicans can ever satisfy the Democrats on the issue of caring for the poor. We can’t. Why? Because their concern is in buying the votes of the poor by keeping them dependent on government and creating more poor people to be dependent on them.

Republicans need to make it clear that we favor a safety net for the truly needy, but that does not mean accepting the status quo, which, by the way, no longer includes the wildly successful Gingrich-Clinton welfare reform since it was eliminated as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill.

This issue reminds me of an incident that occurred in the later days of my Democratic Party activism in the mid-90s when a charity came to my law office asking for donations. My flippant response was that I already gave. I paid my taxes.

Within seconds I felt guilt at having farmed out charity to the federal government, knowing that no government can love.

A few years later, I switched parties mainly because I saw that conservative economic policies help the poor and everyone else more than Democratic Party policies. My caring concern for the poor drove me to reject the class warfare and envy of the left and embrace the supply-side policies of Reagan that Newt/Clinton basically continued.

The conservative message to the poor is that most of you need not be poor. Our policies encourage job creators to take risks to start businesses by getting out of their way and letting them keep most of their profits, which profits are the reward for risk taking that creates wealth and jobs.

Mitt, your success over the last 40 years was made possible by such policies. Your success helped there be less poor and less very poor, and yes, for those that can’t get ahead, we have a safety net. But all that are in that net today, need not be tomorrow. You know that and you should quickly learn that you can’t mollify the Left by affirming support for the specifics of the safety net ObamaDems have constructed, nor by supporting automatic increases in the minimum wage.

We had hoped you would repudiate RomneyCare as a failure. You didn’t and yet, neither do you run on it as a great achievement. Now, you continue the “competence” theme against a supposed failed Obama due to his inexperience.

Wrong. Obama is a success from his standpoint and quite competent in his goal of fundamentally changing the America that created wealth as no other for so many for two centuries and defended Liberty for a century.

The changes that ObamaDems have wrought must be reversed and the number one reversal must be the ObamaCare nee RomneyCare.

Hence, my last ditch support for Rick Santorum.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Tea partier criticism of President George W. Bush and the early 2000s’ Republican Congress as oxymoronic “big government” conservatives have always focused on his signature No Child Left Behind education accountability reforms and the addition of coverage for Rx drugs via Medicare Part D.

Then Senator Rick Santorum voted for the bill, but has disavowed that vote during his current run for the GOP presidential nomination:

In the 2012 election, Senator Santorum was critical of that program. He stated that it was not funded properly as it simply spends whatever seniors need. He stated that his vote for that program was a mistake, but that he voted in favor of the reform because of other portions of the program, and that no other option was on the table. He claimed in a debate that the overall reform program had come in 40% under budget.

Will tea partiers now turn to Santorum as the more reliable conservative over his the former Speaker who this week embraced the Bush planin the Sunshine State:

I have always publicly favored a stronger Medicare program. I wrote a book in 2002 called “Saving Lives and Saving Money.” I publicly favored Medicare Part D for a practical reason, and that reason is simple. The U.S. government was not prepared to give people anything — insulin, for example — but they would pay for kidney dialysis. They weren’t prepared to give people Lipitor, but they’d pay for open-heart surgery. That is a terrible way to run Medicare.

I am proud of the fact — and I’ll say this in Florida — I’m proud of the fact that I publicly, openly advocated Medicare Part D. It has saved lives. It’s run on a free enterprise model. It also included health savings accounts and it include Medicare alternatives, which gave people choices.

At what point must conservatives conclude that Newt and Mitt both fail the tea partier test and turn to Rick Santorum when he is the only remaining viable candidate that now opposes one of the main transgressions of Republicans that inspired the smaller government, tea party movement in the first place?

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

The tropical climate of Tampa finally loosened the Newt’s vocal cords for singing the praises of government intervention in the economy and the biggest expansion of government after LBJ’s Great Society, before ObamaCare.

Newt Gingrich is big man with big ideas who helped balance four budgets with capital gains tax cuts, and once again proved at Monday night’s GOP presidential debate that those achievements are not mutually exclusive from support for Government Sponsored Enterprises, i.e. GSEs like Freddie Mac nor Medicare Rx Drug bills.

Finally, some honesty and a contrast with Rick Santorum, who now expresses regret for his support of President George W. Bush’s signature legislation adding drug benefits to Medicare.

This breathe of fresh air from Newt Gingrich was especially welcome after his appearance the day before on Meet the Press, where he still provided no specific allegations of wrongdoing by Romney at Bain:

MR. GREGORY: You’ve raised questions about Romney’s business background, particularly his time at Bain. As he was conceding last night in South Carolina this is one of the shots that he fired across the bow. Listen. (Videotape, last night)

FMR. GOV. ROMNEY: Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them turned against us tomorrow. And let me be clear, if Republican leaders want to join this president in demonizing success and disparaging conservative values, then they’re not going to be fit to be our nominee. (End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: The question, Mr. Speaker, after all of these questions about Bain, is there anything beyond the questions? Where’s the beef, as was once said in politics when it comes to his management of Bain?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Well, I think, first of all, you don’t get any beef because you don’t get any answers. The fact is he is trying to cleverly hide behind an argument that no high school debater would ever let stand. The questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate, is not an attack on business. That’s silly. That would be like saying that my critique ofRomneycare as resembling Obamacare means that I’m against any kind of government involvement. That would be silly. The governor’s trying really hard to avoid answering anything whether it’s on his–the Romneycare, for example, where the news reports are that they cleansed every single computer, we have no real record of how they developed it, and we have no real understanding of the overlap between his advisers and Obama’s advisers, although President Obama says they are the same people. So I think the governor keeps trying to make these kind of ad hominem arguments that even in high school debate he would lose if he can’t do better than that.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, by all means bait and switch from Bain to RomneyCare, where one could make specific allegations detrimental to Mitt’s conservative bona fides. Of course, the problem there is that you supported ObamaCare-like individual mandates before Romney and Medicare RX coverage expansions.

We do agree that the “lobbying” allegations against Newt are misplaced. Lobbying is free speech anyway, and we shouldn’t look back now with 20/20 hindsight and blame all who favored federal government mortgage market help as responsible for the Great Recession.

What is instructive concerning Newt’s millions from Freddie Mac for history-based consulting, is his silence from 2003-2008 on the subject.  Now that was historic!

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Mike DeVine Law Gamecock is humbled.

That so many voters that have earned my respect for so many years have chosen to support Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney convinces me that Mitt is not so much better than Newt, that a vote for the former Speaker is not acceptable. Newt is a worthy fighter… and the crow and humble pie ordered here, here and here… needed more sugar and salt, respectively, thank you very much.

I still plan to vote for Mitt on Super Tuesday, but I don’t dismiss the primary voters of my native home state lightly. If Newt can give up the vague Bain Capital attacks and show mature discipline over the next months, he can win my enthusiastic support for the nomination and, of course, in the general election.

Romney ought to have to prove himself worthy to bear the mantle of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan as much as Gingrich ought.

May the best man win, I will be open to the idea that we need a street fighter just now, and …much more later…

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

I well remember the good old days, way back in 2011, when Mitt Romney was lauded for being the great debater among those boys (and Michelle Bachmann) of Summer. Thus is the ephemeral nature of debate moments and home runs; much as was the hope for a tea partier conservative GOP presidential nominee.

Winter and the new year are ushered in by Ruthian shots against Lefty pitchers named Juan and King from the bat of the former Speaker of the House. What conservatives don’t thrill to the sound of the crack of Newt’s bat pummeling false charges of racism and reminders of ancient marital disputes best left behind closed doors?

But ball games are decided by which team scores the most runs, not by which player hit balls the farthest. The Babe hit them a mile. Hank Aaron hit them just far enough and hit more. The Babe was undone by what he did between home runs.

Thus the voters of South Carolina face a similar choice between a heavyweight named Gingrich saddled with baggage, both marital and non-marital, that could distract voters from their Obama-emptied pockets or a steady Aaron-like experienced executive named Romney.

Last week we endorsed the latter; and a less-publicized debate-moment homer from last night illustrates, we think, the wisdom of our choice:

MR. KING: OK. A subset of the jobs conversation among the candidates in this state over the past week, Mr. Speaker, has been from you and from the now-departed Governor Perry pretty sharp criticism of Governor Romney’s tenure as the CEO of Bain Capital. I want you to be specific: What do you think he did wrongthat –

MR. GINGRICH: No –

MR. KING: — makes you question his ability as a president to create jobs?

MR. GINGRICH: I think there are specific cases — Georgetown Steel would be a case here, a company in Gaffney, South Carolina — but specific cases where Bain Capital’s model — which was to take over a company and dramatically leverage it, leave it with a great deal of debt — made it less likely to survive. I think the governor ought to explain — because it started because he cited his experience as a key part of his preparation for being president. And so I think the underlying model of that kind of investment, which is very different from venture capital, ought to be explained and those cases ought to be looked at.

Ok, Newt is asked to explain, specifically, what Romney did wrong at Bain, and after several run-on sentences about “models”, the Babe Ruth of debates fouls out while admitting that things “ought to be looked at”. But aren’t those that level charges against another supposed to have already looked at them? Of course.

Plants close all the time for all sorts of reasons, 99.9999999% of which have not been owned by Bain Capital. The plant named Bain made profits (Newt, conservatives consider profits as good) after Mitt Romney took it over and the former CEO was able to wax specific about the thousands of jobs saved or created thanks to Bain.

While we are “looking at cases” involving Mitt Romney’s executive experience, let us also gaze upon the saving of the post-911 Salt Lake City Olympics and the balancing of Massachusetts’ budget.

Yes, the dredging up of attacks from a scorned ex-wife can be despicable, but this former Democrat turned-conservative, due in large part to the class envy and economic ignorance-fueled disdain for entrepreneurs and the false allocation of blame for jobs losses of my former party, finds much more disdainful, Newt’s merit-less attacks against a good businessman  about things that need to be “looked into”.

Newt’s debate home runs tell us that the former Speaker is one of the most articulate expositors of conservative principles alive today, but what does his attack on Bain tell us about him? What does the fact that he is held in contempt by so many of his former colleagues in the House? Why all the silence or worse from his “home” state of Georgia when straining to hear encouraging words? When is Newt scheduled to make another unprincipled U-turn onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to espouse policies that would kill more jobs that did bad Freddie Mac loans?

America is suffering. Yes, the unemployment rate as measured by the preferred MSM metric is now under 9% and if enough people quit looking for work, it could get to zero. The unemployment rate on Mars is also Zero.

Capital is on the sidelines for many reasons, most all of which begin and end with the presence of Barack Obama in the Oval Office. The policies he voted for as Senator with new Democratic  majorities from 2007-08 helped precipitate the Great Recession. The policies he signed into law passed by the super-majorities of his party in 2010-11 made the economy worse. His refusal to cut spending and reduce regulations at the behest of the tea partier-produced Republican majority in the 2011-12 House have kept the so-called “recovery” tepid.

The denial of the re-election of President Obama would kick-start a real recovery. History shows that the Election of 2012 should be the GOP’s to lose.

Why would we take a chance and nominate a man with proven character flaws that got him fired as Speaker and that could alienate voters we need to garner 270 electoral votes? Just because he hits occasional tape measure debate homers? I think not.

A vote for Rick Santorum in my former native state of South Carolina tomorrow, given his improved campaign skills and integrity, including his refusal to defame venture capitalism, would be a principled vote for a man that would most likely defeat Obama.

A vote for Mitt Romney would end the back-and-forth between Republican friends and allow the campaign against the Democrats to begin now. We have had enough vetting of our own dirty laundry.

Let’s return Newt to full-time Chattering Class status where we can enjoy his home runs in safe mode.

It is Mitt that can win the pennant.

Braves pitchers and catchers report on February 19…just saying.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

South Carolinians have seen too many shuttered textile plants never visited by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital to fall for Newt-Perry slurs that blame the buyers of companies already failing due to the internal policies of the sellers or external policies of governments.

Vultures eat the dead. Bain, under Romney, saved jobs worth saving in the private sector (unlike the now government motors taxpayer -funded welfare “jobs” saved by President Barack Obama at a loss) by salvaging the identifiable living and the profits earned saved and created jobs, sight unseen:

The problem with the entire discussion is that jobs are being used as the only measure of the “good” done by Romney. Profits are also good as they allow companies to grow and as they return capital to investors who can then fund the creation or growth of other companies. Indeed, despite our being surrounded by Keynesian-thinking politicians who believe that nothing is as important as consumers having spending money, the indirect benefits to society of profits to investors are arguably at least as large as the indirect benefits of employment.

We have to assume that conservative movement leaders like the former Speaker of the House and a twice re-elected governor of the Lone (jobs-producing in the 21st Century so far) Star State are familiar with the the economic fundamentals that define free market capitalism and that constitutes the foundation of modern day American conservatism. Hence this2000 conservative epiphany-defined gamecock’s disdain for Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry when they launched their respective efforts in my native home state by hurling the “vulture capitalist” epithet at the successful former CEO of Bain Capital and related companies, savior of the post-911 Salt Lake City olympics, and balancer of Bay State budgets.

Mitt Romney turned Bains around three times. His job was to make a profit. He did. Profits are good. This is fundamental to conservative principles. Disparaging the buyers of troubled companies as “vultures” is anathema to conservative values and principles and must not be rewarded with the historically dispositive prize that is the SC Republican Primary.

Conservatives want Reagan (or Coolidge). We find none.

We thought Perry was the closest facsimili thereof, and while he seemed the most reliable conservative in the field before his desperation-driven avian mis-sighting, but his debate-gaffe driven microscopic caucus and primary showings prompted a second look a decidedly non-reliable Gingrich. Then he devolves into vulture anti-capitalism after being forced to defend accepting hush money from Freddie Mac. What would you expect from a guy so concerned with Air Force One plane seat accommodations. And for those that cried Huntsman when we eenie-meenie-minie-moed between Romney and Santorum, Jon dropped out today.

Evangelicals, and any conservative concerned about life, marriage, Iran, and manufacturing jobs are naturally drawn to the Roman Catholic son of a coal miner and father of enough future conservatives to swing future Iowa caucii or man a basketball team with players to spare on the bench. Good job Daddy Santorum!

We forgave Rick Santorum his support of Arlen Specter when we learned of the loyalty angle, are impressed with his arguments for tripling the child tax credit and manufacturing tax incentives, and will always respect his denunciation of the Newt/Perry vulturism when he was arguably poised to benefit the most from disingenuous, anathem-to-conservative appeals to supposed class envy-starved South Carolinians. Then we sought counsel from our fellow Southern Baptist, Richard Land:

Will evangelicals support Mr. Romney if he is the nominee? Yes, and by substantial percentages. Never underestimate the unique ability of President Obama to unify social conservatives, of every faith tradition, around his eventual opponent.

Will Mr. Romney’s Mormonism be a negative factor for evangelicals? It will for some, but remember that in Iowa the 60% of voters who identified themselves as evangelicals gave 42% of their votes to a Mormon (Mr. Romney) or a Catholic (Messrs. Santorum and Gingrich), while giving only 38% of their vote to fellow Protestants (Messrs. Perry and Paul and Mrs. Bachmann). So much for narrow denominational prejudices.

One should note also that several prominent evangelicals, such as former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, are enthusiastically supporting Mr. Romney.

Even Pastor Robert Jeffress, who may be Mr. Romney’s most vocal evangelical critic and last fall referred to Mormonism as a “cult,” has stated: “If it comes down to Romney versus Obama I’m voting for Romney.” I’ve heard the same sentiment from hundreds of evangelical pastors over the past two months.

This USC Gamecock knew as much even before he made his roost atop Stone Mountain of Georgia, supported Mitt early on in 2007 before Fred Thompson teased us, and after Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Newt imploded.

Santorum would make us proud as President. So would Mitt. They both exude American Exceptionalism and would either’s election as president would inspire the re-entry of billions if not trillions of currently sidelined dollars into the economy.

I recently made my executive experience-driven choice in Mitt Romney. But what is most important about this stage of the GOP nomination contest is that conservatives not reward vulture slurs against economic liberty.

I am confident that home of the winner of the last two College World Series will not let me down.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer

“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”

That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.

No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?

Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”

Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”

One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.

Character building a priority

By contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It.”

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.

This was Gamecock’s first column in the Main Stream Media after 5 years as Legal editor for The (Decatur) Champion, the DeKalb County(Ga) legal organ weekly newspaper and three years as a conservative blogger.

Link to Observer Column: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16468980.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

I also think that Florida has now edged S.C. as the most important Republican Party contest.

My question to current Perry supporters is who they think is the second best choice.

The depths of Great Depression II and the historic 2010 tea partier conservative-driven Republican Party mid-term landslide encouraged dreams of a Reagan-like 2012 GOP nominee to retire President Barack Obama to a resumption of his autobiographical writing career.

The crashing sounds of Bachmann’s looseness with the facts, Cain’s knowledge gaps and Perry’s non-creative vulture mis-sighting-destruction awoke this South Carolina gamecock from Utopian REM eye-battings to the reality of imperfect choices absent Gippers and Silent Cals.

We so wanted one of the most historically reliable conservatives to be the 2012 standard bearer for our Party of Lincoln. But we learn anew that voters can’t rehabilitate those with character lapses or lacking the campaign skills required in the second decade of the 21st Century. We can’t blame voters in Iowa, New Hampshire nor the Palmetto State for weighing electability based on actual campaign performance, much less 11th hour anti-capitalist attacks against companies that make offers to buy other companies that are accepted by those other companies.

We are proud of our fellow social conservative from the Keystone State for vigorously defending the heart of conservatism, i.e. the free market capitalism of Mitt Romney, even if he is the lone remaining obstacle to a Rick Santorum as GOP presidential nominee. We would be proud to support him or Jon Huntsman in the Fall. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich lost us with their leftist attacks on BainCapital.

But when we factor in all of the issues and electability, George Will’s minimization of the urgency of the latter notwithstanding, we must now endorse the former governor of the Bay State and believe that the primary voters of our native Palmetto State will once again choose the GOP nominee when a plurality of them vote for Mitt Romney in 11 days.

Do I think Rick Santorum could defeat Barack Obama? I do. The smug President of Food Stamp Nation that voted for all the policies that led to this recession and who focused on stimulus pay-offs to state government union dues paying workers, oil drilling moratoriums, Keystone Pipeline job delays and fundamentally changing America via ObamaCare, would have a hard time garnering more electoral votes than even a warm bucket of non-Ron Paul-flavored spit.

But Mitt Romney is the better choice between those left standing on the issues, campaign skills and electability.

President Obama must be removed from office. His removal alone will spark a major economic recovery by bringing investor capital off of the sidelines where fear of what Obama could do next, and the certainty of what he won’t do, now rules.

Obamacare must be repealed and it won’t be if Obama is re-elected. The beltway George Wills counsel that we have “survived” equally bad presidencies and that no “apocalypse” will result from an Obama “stymied” by a GOP-majority House and Senate.

Mere survival and stymieing? Avoiding apocalypse? Is that the standard for a GOP “win”, even if that were the only goal? We can’t reverse any of the decades-long big government creep that Will bemoans with mere stymieing.

Mitt Romney will unleash the American economy, defend the nation from evil enemies and be a social conservative advocate. Yes, I believe his pro-life epiphany was sincere.

Mitt Romney believes in America. His goals are not George Will minimalism “informed” by a fantasy of a Congress-led 19th Century America. Since Washington, America is best governed, first and foremost, when we choose at least one man with courage that can make a majority. Mitt can be that man.

In the wake of Romney’s Granite State win, we hear:

And this President wakes up every morning, looks out across America and is proud to announce, “It could be worse.”

It could be worse? Is that what it means to be an American? It could be worse?

Of course not.

What defines us as Americans is our unwavering conviction that we know it must be better.

That conviction guides our campaign.  It has rallied millions of Americans in every corner of this country to our cause.

Over the last six months, I’ve listened to anxious voices in town meetings and visited with students and soldiers.  In break rooms and living rooms, I’ve heard stories of families getting by on less, of carefully planned retirements now replaced by jobs at minimum wage.  But even now, amidst the worst economy since the Great Depression, I’ve rarely heard a refrain of hopelessness.

Americans know that our future is brighter and better than these troubled times.  We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America.  We still believe in that shining city on a hill.

We know that the future of this country is better than 8 or 9% unemployment.

It is better than $15 trillion in debt.

It is better than the misguided policies and broken promises of the last three years – and the failed leadership of one man.

The President has run out of ideas.  Now, he’s running out of excuses.  And tonight, we are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation.  This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision.  I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique — We are One Nation, Under God.

Mitt Romney has the Reagan vision and will make us proud as the next President of the United States.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

After the historic tea partier-inspired conservative Republican landslide that was the Election of 2010, we had every reason to believe that Reaganites-a-plenty would be vying for the opportunity to retire the disaster that is President Barack Obama.

Surely there are scores, if not hundreds, of articulate, experienced and reliable conservatives on fiscal, social and national security issues who posses the skill sets to campaign and govern effectively? Maybe they exist, but we haven’t seen them in Des Moines, Dubuque or Davenport of late.

Yet, we are told that if Iowa social conservatives turn to reliable pro-lifer Rick Santorum in larger numbers than for Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry that they will be “shooting us in the foot again” by “ensuring [that] Mitt Romney wins the nomination”.

We largely share what we think is the underlying fear of the esteemed (by us as well) leader of Redstate.com, i.e. that a Mitt Romney nomination would be another McCain-like lost opportunity for bold conservative leadership. Hence our own preference for Rick Perry as the most reliable conservative and several others before we would “settle” for Romney. But while we understand that this is the nomination bout and that there are stark differences between conservatives, those differences pale in comparison to those between any of our non-Paul contenders and the Leftist disaster that has occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the past three years, but I digress.

Iowa not a bellwether

Why the seeming priority of pre-maturely assessing blame for a Romney nomination victory to a small group of unique social conservatives making choices between a crowded field of flawed non-Reagans in a state that rarely has even a minor effect on subsequent contests? As Michael Barone so succinctly stated, “as goes Iowa…so goes…Iowa” and not the nation.

Have those that would cast stones at Iowa social conservatives been rock solid for an obvious best non-Romney-facilitating choice from jump street? Hardly. Moreover, the argument being made about the supposed “danger” of an Iowa caucus vote for the Keystone State loser to Bob Casey, itself, factors in viability. So shouldn’t Iowa social conservatives be afforded the same privilege in finding the more reliable tea partiers wanting based on poor debate performances and other campaigning deficiencies? Obviously.

Who knew social conservatives preferred pro-lifers?

Yes, one can construct a long list of conservative grievances against Rick Santorum. Is his list so much longer than those against the other non-Pauls that a vote for him is akin to assaults on extremities with a deadly weapon? We think not.

Coalescing around one tea partier would be a viable tactic if the main strategic concern is that Mitt Romney not be the nominee, but merely bemoaning the fact that particular Iowa results will not supposedly be a net negative in advancing that concern and blaming “social conservatives” for finally settling for a pro-life candidate in a crowded field, and staking out  a position to blame that group for a possible result down the road is quite unfair to social conservatives in particular, and Iowans generally.

If Perry doesn’t defeat Romney, its Perry’s fault

If Mitt Romney wins the GOP presidential nomination, it will overwhelmingly be the “fault” of his opponents for not running better campaigns.

Moreover, social conservatives in Iowa are not the same as those in Dixie. Iowa caucuses are “closed” in name only, given that one may register Republican at the caucus, rather than having to have been so registered for weeks or months earlier as in truly closed primaries or caucuses. Voters are not so easily defined and pigeonholed and most social conservatives are three-legged stool Reaganiteconservatives more so than any other hyphenated conservative or at least within the margin of error in such comparisons.

How would one not be deemed to have “shot us all in the foot” thus ensuring that Mitt Romney wins the nomination given such a crowded field of poor tea partier campaigners? One would think that not voting for Romney would be the sine qua non for escaping blame? But no, one must engage in the supposed exact science of assessing viability going forward based upon a lack of organization and money outside Iowa?

Would an anti-Romney vote for the three-headed Perry/Newt/Bachmann entry really be for a campaign juggernaut flush with money and volunteers in the non-Iowa Lower 47? Of course not. There is no such non-Romney machine out there.

This social con doesn’t get the seeming need to define the race as anti-Romney in the first place and then to assess blame for a Romney nomination against social conservatives that don’t vote for Romney.

Moreover, if one seeks to assess blame, shouldn’t one specifically define exactly where to aim to miss our feet? I think so.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

1) Hold the last, first-in-the-nation caucuses, in Iowa; and the last, first-in-the-nation primary, in New Hampshire, respectively

2) Show photo IDs to vote

3) Nominate a tea partier conservative as the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States

4) Elect the Republican Party nominee to be the 45th President of the United States

5) Overturn ObamaCare in the Supreme Court of the United States

6) Build a large, new oil refinery in the United States for the first time since 1976

7) Build Boeing planes in South Carolina

Build the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas

9) Award Nobel Peace Prizes to those that actually achieve (Gamecock nominates the Armed Forces of the United States of America)

10) Make an actual person 2012′s Time Magazine Person of the Year

Cockstradamus, still on semi-permanent sabbatical in The Azores, predicts that the following will occur in 2012 A.D.:

1) The Fighting Gamecocks of the University of South Carolina (USC Founded 1801) will defeat the Nebraska Cornhuskers and thus set a single season school football record with 11 wins and will finish in the Associated Press Top Ten for the first time in their history.

2) An SEC team will “win” the “mythical” BCS “national championship”, the offenses of Oklahoma State Cowboys and the Stanford Cardinal, notwithstanding.

3) Super Bowl XLVI winner: Saints and an alien for Planet Purdue named Brees

4) Final Four: Ohio State, Kentucky, Indiana and Murray State

5) USC will return to the College World Series seeking their third consecutive NCAA baseball national championship.

6) The Atlanta Braves will defeat the Los Angeles Angels at Anaheim by way of Burbank and Malibu in the 2012 MLB World Series.

7) The winner of the Florida primary will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

The GOP will retain control of the United States House of Representatives after the Election of 2010.

9) Democrats will lose control of the United States Senate after the Election of 2012.

10) President Barack Hussein Obama will not be re-elected in the Election of 2012.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

So what is the difference between the South Carolina law as opposed to the laws of Georgia (also upheld by their state’s highest court), that DOJ approved and Indiana (also upheld by the nation’s highest court) that DOJ declined to contest?

It is not the language of the respective laws, all of which avoid any semblance of a Jim Crow-style poll tax by, not only providing for the issuance of free photo ID voter registration cards, but also by authorizing a proactive educational campaign as well as allowing for non-photo ID voters to cast provisional ballots on Election Day that can be authenticated later with photo IDs obtained after Election Day.

Despite the above, no less than former President Bill Clinton has characterized photo ID laws as a “return to Jim Crow”, but I digress.  I defer:

The court’s liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana’s law “is unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn’t an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state’s interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

So, could it be that South Carolina’s sin was the passage of their law too soon after the failure of President Barack Obama’s economic policies became apparent and too soon before his re-election bid?

Holder’s assistant deputy AG in the Civil Rights Division claims in his pre-clearance denial letter that the new law “abridges” the right to vote of an alleged 81,938 “minority citizens who are already registered to vote [in S.C.] and who lack DMV-issued identification”, thus rendering them “effectively disenfranchised”; and that the state has not yet finalized the proposed procedures to implement the issuance of free photo IDs and an education campaign necessary to “mitigate” the new law’s “discriminatory effects”.

S.C., not DOJ, purposefully identified non-photo ID holders for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of free state-issued such voter ID cards to them.

The irony in this claim is that South Carolina, unlike Indiana and Georgia, mandated that the state identify all those registered voters without photo IDs solely for the purpose of making sure that they were issued photo IDs!

The claim of such effects is based upon a disparity of 1.6% between whites and non-whites who lack photo IDs. Disparities of this kind do not and should not legally establish illegal discrimination, which should ordinarily require proof of intent, but even judged by the standards of the “pro-institutional racism” crowd, 1.6% is microscopically and insignificantly puny.

S.C. law treats all citizens equally. Is that what upsets liberal Democrats?

But let us return to the fundamental, underlying allegation, i.e. that to require that voters present photographic proof of their identification as a valid registered voter somehow “abridges the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group” under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  How so, especially when one can obtain the required photo-ID for free from the state?

Does there exist a constitutional right to vote without showing a photo ID? Of course not. But there does exist the right of the DOJ under Section 5 of the 1965 law to harass, er ah, I mean, “pre-clear” voting law changes in mostly Southern states. Those states have the burden of proof under the Act to show that proposed changes have neither the “purpose or effect of denying or abridging” the right to vote.

Shouldn’t the fact that citizens of all races, colors and language minority groups, i.e. ALL voters, must submit photo-Ids to vote meet that burden? Obviously.

Real Jim Crow vs. Democratic Party-versions of same

We should remind those that think South Carolina circa 2011 A.D. equals the antebellum or pre-1965 A.D. Jim Crow South, that neither involuntary servitude nor one-drop rule, race-based voting laws applied to ALL citizens or voters. The progress obtained after the War between the States, Brown v. Board and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts was that no person could be a slave of another and that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

It seems that too many liberals and Democrats refuse to be content with equal rights. Holder’s own DOJ has expressed the sentiment that the intent of civil and voting rights laws are only to protect non-white victims from white perpetrators, which sentiment was vividly on display when charges were dropped last year against billy club-wielding, voter suppressing-New Black Panther Party members in Philadelphia.

Not being content with equal protection of the laws, having to run for re-election during Great Depression II despite the passage of the liberal Democrat legislationwish list that was supposed to fix the economy two years ago, and not being able to defend liberal legislation wish lists but desiring to retain and wield power anyway; the Bill Clintons, Eric Holders, and Barack Obamas (and, sadly, even civil rights hero John Lewis) of the world end up contorting themselves into positions that essentially insult the intelligence of Blacks and other minorities as too stupid to obtain a free, state-issued photo ID.

The contortions continue when they deny the fraud-prevention intent of new photo Id laws by insisting that we “know” that voter fraud is not a problem in the United States. Really? This from the same crowd that still thinks the presidency was stolen from Al Gore in Florida 2000 and that a conspiracy between President George W. Bush and Diebold rigged voting machines in Ohio in 2004 to deny John Kerry the office?

Will 90%-plus of African-American voters continue to say “Thanks, may I have another” after having their intelligence insulted once again by the Democratic party?

Now, we are confident that the Democratic Party of Joseph Kennedy and Richard Daley can still get photo IDs for enough dead to re-elect Rahm Emanuel, but can anyone deny that photo Ids serve the purpose of accurate identifications? Of course not. But then again, the Attorney General that makes fast and furious claims of racism against he and Obama when confronted with his Fast and Furious incompetence or worse, let us know last week that he favors “universal and automatic” voter registration!

So much for identification due diligence from the Obama Administration unless you are a minor child or octogenarian seeking to Fly Delta?

The real denial of equal protection is the application of the Voting Rights Act as a racist tool against Southern States, which Justice Clarence Thomas deems unconsitutional. This action, coupled with NLRB’s coercive and unjustified actions against Boeing that cost South Carolina 20,000 jobs for the past three years; Obama’s gangster/Chicago-style government threatening Bank CEOs with pitchforks; court order-violating oil drilling moratoriums; EPA executive overreach; and vows by the nation’s Chief Executive to “go around” Congress while not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act reveals a Candidate as President willing to do anything to gain a second term.

Would he really refrain from Motor Voter-style, universal Democratic, citizen or non-citizen suffrage to garner at least 270 Electoral College votes? If you think so, I have a bridge to sell you so you can get to future Brooklyn Nets games.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. – John 1:14

Third Century Christian theologian Origen deemed the celebrations of birthdays the work of sinners, not saints; and so opposed the celebration of the birth of Jesus as if he were a pharaoh or king.

Seventeen hundred winter solstices later, we wonder if he would more vociferously bemoan the attention given the passing of the most celebrated atheist of the 21st Century. (Especially given Scriptural references to the Son of Man as “King of kings”, but we understand that Christ’s realm is “not of this earth” and that we are not qualified to cross theological swords with the distinguished Alexandrian scholar.)

Christopher Hitchens, the author of God is not Great: How Religion poisons Everything, died ten days before Christmas and it has been curious to see how his passing has been received by our divided culture, especially given his excommunication from The Left over his support for the war in Iraq.

For instance, last night on Hugh Hewitt’s talk radio show, the self-described catholic evangelical conservative re-broadcast a three-hour interview he conducted with Hitchens soon after the release of his Hitch-22 memoir in 2010. Why would such a strong Christian develop such an attachment to the author of such venomous diatribes against Mother Teresa and celebrate his passing just two days before Christmas Day?

Yes, we conservatives were thrilled to have him join us in compassion for the Kurds and other victims of Saddam Hussein and in opposing the radical Islamist threat generally; and we appreciated his contempt for the corrupt acts of Bill Clinton. But let us weigh the glory of a liberal partially mugged by conservative-converting reality with this polemic on Mother Teresa and the Roman Catholic Church:

This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan.

As to the latter, we are reminded of Aunt Esther’s “I’ll take money from the Devil to do God’s work” after discovering that Nephew Fred Sanford’s contributions to the church were gambling winnings.

But what are we to make of Hitchen’s vitriol against a woman that chose to live and serve with the poorest of the poor of her own free will. There’s more:

One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality.

Clearly Hitchens’ conservative epiphany is incomplete if he thinks there is a “cure” for poverty and that the ONLY cure was made manifest only after man first utilized rubber trees to form Trojans. Surely the British-turned American scholar had read Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, but I digress.

I think the key to Hitchens’ contempt for God, religion and Mother Teresa and so much of the chattering class’s indulgence of him lies in his above-expressed resentment of the “elevation of…the cult of a mediocre human personality.”

The Apostle Paul warned us:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;… – 2 Timothy 4:3

The Hitch made our ears itch and we loved to scratch them, especially when the scratching was a shared contempt for liberals and their blindness to mass murder.

But aren’t we all partially blind, and can’t said blindness be, ironically, traced to the opening of our eyes:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. - Genesis 3:5

Ah yes, to be as knowing gods! Feels right doesn’t it. Feels so good to scratch the itch we share, that we ignore the contempt for God and his servants.

Yes, Eve bit the apple. God knew she would do so before he created a world in which he could grow sons and daughters that could choose to live with him forever. God knew that he would have to become flesh (See Christmas), dwell among us and give his only begotten son to make this miracle come true from those that believeth on him.

God knew we would fall and that the only way to pick us up would require that he do what to us would be the equivalent of us becoming a dog to save the souls of dogs.

I’m not a Roman Catholic and so don’t pretend to speak for them on beatification or purgatory. I am a Christian, though, and so share what matters most with my fellow Christians, including the flawed Mother Teresa, and can safely say that someone who on their life’s journey finally sees the light and departs from the political left over the persecution of the Kurds, had no business regressing to hate on Mother Teresa.

In his Divine Comedy, Dante describes his Purgatorio, as life’s journey in surrendering our life to God and letting him help us overcome deadly sins like pride, greed and envy. In this regard, Christians and atheists share the journey of life and the overcoming of, or succumbing to, such sins.

Christopher Hitchens was a life in progress. I don’t pretend to read hearts and souls; and while the utterances of his lips bespeak unbelief, he also reminds of God’s admonition in Revelation 3:16 to the ambivalent that, “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Clearly then, Christopher was too cold to be spued out from God’s mouth and so I pray that Dante’s vision extends to the after-life, for Hitchens’ sake. Meanwhile, I am reminded to “Go ye” and bear witness to Scripture that admonishes us to rely not on any such purgatorial wishes, and to make more Christmases merrier by turning people hot for Christ before they leave this earth.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Unemployment and the Economy

If enough Americans give up on finding a job, the regularly reported unemployment rate (U-3) could fall to Zero percent. As it happens, the current U-3 rate of 8.6% would stand at over 11% if the labor force were as large as it was in 2007. The more comprehensive U-6 rate measuring all those that are unemployed and those only able to find part-time work is now at Depression Era levels over 17%, which rate doesn’t count self-employed individuals nor those that have dropped out. Over one in five American men are no longer in the labor force.

Jobs Plans, Occupiers and Class Warfare

Three years after President Barack Obama and super-majorities of his fellow Democrats in Congress enacted their Stimulus-Dodd-Frank-ObamaCare-GM takeover/UAW Bailout-Solyndra, anti-Keystone Pipeline and anti-Boeing jobs in right-to-work states, Gulf Oil and ANWR oil-drilling moratorium agenda; Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stands at an anemic 1.8%.

The response? Democrats and their Community Organizer-in-Chief embrace the American “Occupy Wall Street” iteration (We address the foreign Arab Spring element further below)  of Time Magazine’s 2011 “Protester” Person of the Year, and class warfare, that echo President Obama’s threat to release the “pitchforks” against CEOs two year in ago. Meanwhile too many Republicans bemoan their occupation of a mere one-half of one-third of the government and refuse to refute the alleged “moral” case for taxing millionaires, as more and more Americans earn less “unequal” and lower incomes.

Admittedly, it would take much courage to risk subjection to leftist media spin during a government shutdown for the GOP to insist upon a halt to compromises dominated by job-killing factions a/k/a the Democratic Party in lieu of a return to the greatest job creating plan on earth, i.e. The free enterprise empowered by the Constitution of the United States.

Arab Springs never go out like a lamb

Leading from behind produced a draw in Libya and neither the U.S., Israel nor the civilized world are better off with the Muslim Brotherhood of terrorist progenitors ruling Egypt instead of Hosni Mubarak. Iraq, the only democracy in the Middle East thanks to massive U.S. and freedom-loving Iraqi sacrifices after 911, after three years of elections with no radical sectarian factions gaining traction, is sacrificed to Obama’s appeasement of Iran project.

But don’t forget, Usama bin Laden is dead. Feel safer? After all, the Commander-in-Chief didn’t offend Members-Only-Jacket-ijad by destroying our fallen drone on Persian soil.

Crime, Punishment and Selective Rules of Law

On the heels of 2010′s Justice Department (DOJ) refusal to prosecute billy club-wielding New Black Panthers, comes Attorney General Eric Holder’s embrace ofBill Clinton‘s moral equivalence evaluation of Voter ID laws with a return to Jim Crow, the whistle-blowing of Alabama’s former Democratic Rep. Arturs Davis notwithstanding. DOJ Obama appointees make clear their interpretation that the Civil and Voting Rights Acts only protect non-white victims.

As 2012 nears, no Obama/Biden-hosted Beer Summit resolutions are scheduled. But, the FBI reports that crime is down and the Fast and Furious assault on the right to bear arms in self defense has come to a halt. President Obama and Atlanta’s King & Spaulding law firm refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act due to “diversity” concerns. Meanwhile, K&S continue their pro bono defense of illegal enemy terrorist combatants in U.S. courts. Feel safer?

Weak Tea?

Tea partying conservatives made the mid-term elections of 2010 the biggest GOP landslide since 1948, yet none of their 2011 nominees for 2012 are named Newt or Romney. The hope of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan and Perry’s Texas jobs miracle have given way to higher Ron Paul floors in Iowa. Yes, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have been nudged to the right by the conservative base, but could either be relied upon to resist their instincts to “reach across the aisle” for Beltway media approval after they prevent Obama’s re-election? Stay tuned for for our 2012 Year in Review exactly 366 days from today.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Examiner readers and writers all!

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Returning to Atlanta in 2009 ravaged by the bursting of the housing bubble after a 2+year stint in Charlotte, N.C. as corporate counsel for a real estate investment firm that went bust, a friend of my best friend arranged for me to lease a portion of a her friend’s house as an office and residence. That housemate, landlord and friend became my female Jacksonian hero and is my entry in Examiner.com’s America Inspired competition.

No, Suzy Kilgo wasn’t struck by a British soldier as a teen, nor did she twice rescue her country from dissolution by first leading a ragtag army to defeat the greatest military force on earth at the Battle of New Orleans or  prevent her home state from secession while President. But Suzy sure has rescued people and at-risk animals, despite the required  sacrifices of time and money, in ways that this beneficiary of her charity deems heroic and inspirational.

Things started out well for this writer when I arrived, but within a year our economic fortunes took a sharp turn for the worse as Great Depression II picked up steam. A native of DeKalb County and a fixture in the Stone Mountain community, Suzy was not immune.

Like so many in the naughts of the 21st century, she became immersed in the real estate industry both as an employee of major firms and as a self employed agent from time to time. Suzy developed a reputation for relentless hard work and developed special skills that enabled employers to essentially have their firms run by her. But, during the past year as the housing industry reached depths unknown since even Jackson’s days of the early 19th century, Suzy’s hours of work were greatly reduced, thus threatening her ability to keep her underwater home.

Throughout these years, Suzy continued to lead her homeowners association and rescue those worse off than herself with shelter and food, whether they were other victims of the economy or abused and/or abandoned dogs and cats, due to her passion to alleviate the suffering of all of God’s creatures. She maintained a Christ-like love and tolerance for people and helped the disabled with fellowship and assistance, all while overcoming much adversity in her own life.

Suzy is my hero and example of how to live in troubled times. Suzy is a true Georgia Peach that inspired this South Carolinian and will now inspire America via this contest. And it warms my heart that no matter the outcome of the competition and no matter the economic suffering Suzy has endured and continues to endure, that this story has a happy ending.

Suzy was married a few weeks ago to a wonderful man. May God bless Suzy and her new mate with a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[I encourage readers to register with Examiner.com and vote for Suzy Kilgo in the America Inspired competition.]

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

The bill, which also extends unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut for 60 days, would have authorized construction on the oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf unless the President explicitly rejected the project before March 1, 2011.

Instead, not only may the Obama Administration play both sides of the debate while raking in campaign funds from unions and environmentalists, but the Republican Party will more easily be depicted as Scrooges raising taxes on the poor and middle class and killing 20,000 jobs.

All because of a sudden ideological aversion to temporary tax measures that do nothing to provide incentives for job creators? How can this be when this same Speaker has had no trouble in kicking many such tax cut cans down the road over the past year. Other cans kicked down the road by the GOP House for fear of government shutdown ad campaigns have been refusing to remove ObamaCareimplementation funds from continuing resolutions; corporate welfare for food inflation-causing ethanol subsidies; and draconian debt ceiling “super-committee” defense sequestration cuts.

Before today’s action President Obama owned the killing of 20K good paying jobs at the behest of radical EPA regulators. Now, the mass-murderer of millions of jobs via non-stimuli, Dodd-Frank, Gulf Oil Moratoriums and ObamaCare bills gets a reprieve, courtesy of an early Christmas present from the most powerful Republican in America.

Is Boehner tired of being Speaker of the House of Representatives? Does he pine for the days of minority status and the resulting free time for more Marlborosand tee times?

How else to explain the rejection of the first gift from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats in over three years?

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Moreover, the current President of the United States has even deemed the police as criminals when they questioned a man trying to jimmy his way into a Harvard professor’s house. Only a “Beer Summit” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue got Barack Obama’s mind right about such crime-identification stupidity.

Into this milieu comes the just released FBI’s Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report which finds Metro Atlanta crime rates generally down in the first six months of 2011 as compared to the first half of 2010.

Atlantans are reminded of similar reports of crime down in 2009 from 2008, with much of the drop in crime thought to be due in large part to self-deporting illegal immigrants in the wake of the Great Recession and a new Georgia law making it harder for illegals to obtain employment.

Surely it is good that crime is down, relatively speaking, and it is most assuredly heartwarming to have drops occur as poverty has increased, especially given decades of assurances that crime is a result economic deprivation. It seems the “experts” have missed some “data” on morality unencumbered by Marxist economic theory?

But who has time to celebrate less crime two years ago or this year, when:

• Atlanta Public School teachers conspire to essentially steal federal taxpayer No Child Left Behind money as they leave students behind in the wake of a test score teaching scandal?;
• Georgia Tech students are the victims of a violent crime wave in the heart of the City too Busy to Hate and when the City of College Park is number one in metro crime?; and
• Atlanta is home to DeKalb County prosecutors that wouldn’t even seek the death penalty against a Sheriff that murdered his successor after losing his bid for re-election and Fulton County juries that wouldn’t exact the ultimate punishment against a mass-murdering perpetrator in their own county courthouse?

The problem is that crime remains high and too many people simply won’t do what is necessary to take criminals off the streets and deter crime generally.

For instance, will Georgians now favor a proposed concealed carry law that would allow students to arm and protect themselves as do college students in Utah? Heard of any Beehive State crime waves at BYU? I didn’t think so.

Gun-free zones invite crime. Georgia Tech is a gun-free zone. So was Virginia Tech. It still is.

Praise God for the drop in crime but when the race lobby has invaded Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department who view the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts as only applying to non-whites and who have so much disdain for the right to self defense that they conspire with foreign criminals to wage a “Fast and Furious” fraud campaign against the Second Amendment, we know that there is no time to celebrate statistics.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Did I miss another BP oil spill or did President Barack Obama declare his latest moratorium outlawing productive work based upon studies affirming fetal soil pain during impacted red clay abortions?

Yesterday, Congress called Obama’s veto-bluff by requiring him to make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline project within 60 days, rather than after the 2012 election.

Liberal business regulation policies carried out by Obama and the Democrats over the past three years have slaughtered millions of jobs in private. But that’s just a statistic cloaked by deniability and the low volume of Atlases shrugging.

The lethal injections administered to those domestic pursuits of happiness did not require Senate ratifications administered at dawn before press corps witnesses. But now that a foreign agent dares to compensate Americans outside of Food Stamp offices, any assassinations will, of necessity, have to be carried out before town criers.

We presume the presidential calculus behind the Congressional mandate for life or death in less than 60 days will weigh the value of votes that can be bought with Sierra Club donations versus votes lost from those that love humans more than snail darters.

Of course, we are talking about a Commander-in-Chief that studied the killing of Osama bin Laden for nine months after locating him. Professorial prudence demands patience before action, unless Harvard professors cry racism against police that dare to protect the property rights of black men.

It is criminal that 20K good paying jobs and the enhancement of U.S. national energy security has been delayed so that the federal government could justify borrowing money from China to pay government bureaucrats at EPA.

How about we lay off the EPA for 3 years while we study the danger of allowing them to continue to ravage the U.S. economy?

Obama must be fired next year, but the laws he has used to re-invent the wheel on behalf of taxpayer-funded jobs as political prizes have been in place for decades.

Obama is a Democrat. There are millions waiting to take his place and that are in place in Washington, D.C. They must go or the next 3-year study will be the decline and fall of the last best hope of man on Earth.

Mike DeVine

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.