It is ironic that the apology letter refers to so called “hate speech”. Both CAIR and Rep. Omar have been accused of “hate speech” against the state of Israel. To get an idea of their anti-Israel stances you can read this article and this article. Or this one. If you do a search on the internet there’s no shortage of articles linking CAIR to groups that promote violence against Israel. Statements made by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar last year led to an attempt to pass a resolution in the US House of Representatives condemning them. That resolution was eventually watered down into a statement of condemnation of anti-semitism in general – and even that failed.

It is Rep. Omar’s anti-Israel rhetoric that prompted a Jewish woman named Brenda Arthur to set up a booth at GOP day in February of last year protest. Her protest was peaceful. The reactions from certain Democrats in the House of Delegates were violent. I reported on it back in March. While Ms. Arthur committed no acts of violence, Democrats serving in the House of Delegates are alleged to have committed several.

To show you what an upside down clown world we live in, the West Virginia Democrat Party sent an apology letter to Rep. Omar and invited CAIR to speak. You can read it here. The letter of invitation to CAIR was signed by 38 Democrats serving in the House of Delegates, you can read that here, including local legislators Del. Jason Barrett (D-Berkeley), Del. Sammi Brown (D-Jefferson) and Del. John Doyle (D-Jefferson). Disclosure, I am running against Del. Doyle in the 67th District. I could find no statement of apology to the injured capitol employee who wound up in the hospital. No apologies for the F bombs hurled at Ms. Arthur as per her account of the incident.  Further, no apology to the Sergeant-at-Arms at the capitol, another Jewish woman, who intervened to try to keep the peace.  Subsequent events stemming from this incident eventually led to her resignation. You can read her account of that here.

We live in a world where people make accusations for the very things that they themselves are guilty of. The Democrats accused Brenda Arthur of hate speech, while she was protesting against hate speech. They then unleashed a torrent of hate speech on Ms. Arthur. Upside down world. The implications and ramifications of this incident are disturbing. I am not prepared to accuse the 38 members of the West Virginia House of Delegates that invited CAIR to come to the capitol of committing an act of anti-semitism. But what they did was an was clearly anti-Israel.

I am a strong supporter of our constitutional right to free speech. But words and actions have consequences. If you invite CAIR to visit, you are inviting an organization that would like nothing better than to see the state of Israel cease to exist. You are therefore sending a powerful anti-Israel message to the people of West Virginia.

[This article has been updated with regard to the events involving the sergeant at arms; and includes a link to an op-ed with her entire account of the incident - Editor].

Here are some facts about Mountain State Values that are available on the website of the West Virginia Secretary of State. They’ve raised over two million dollars - $2,256,929.24 to be exact – as of this writing. Almost exactly half of that money, over a million dollars, has come from out of state. A good chunk of it comes the swamp in Washington DC. Mountain State Values indeed.

Almost all of the contributions to the Super PAC come from unions. Those include the IBEW, IUPAT, UMW, AFL-CIO and the NEA (National Education Association). At their national convention in Houston last year, a resolution was put forth to the 6,000 delegates in attendance that the NEA “re-dedicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning in every public school in America” and that the “NEA will make student learning the priority of the Association”. It failed. Really. Learning is no longer the number one priority of educators.

Speaking of priorities, by far the largest contributor to the Mountain State Values Super PAC is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). They are one fifth of the entire PAC, dollar wise, with two thirds of that coming from its national Solidarity Fund. In looking through their financials one can see that they also have a “Militancy Fund”. Their words. The purpose of the Militancy Fund is to provide resources for teacher strikes. This is a “woke” organization and they are preparing for….fill in the blank.

In some parts of the country teachers unions are calling for defunding the police. United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) has called for schools to remain closed (sounds like a strike to me) until their demands are met. The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) has also called for defunding the police; read about it here (page 8). Both unions are affiliated with the AFT. The West Virginia chapter is scrambling to distance itself from the national AFT, but the cat is already out of the bag. The WV chapter still kicked in $150,000 to join with the national AFT Solidarity fund to provide money for the Mountain State Values SuperPAC. But no matter how they try, the WV chapter of the AFT can’t distance themselves from the rest of the National AFT’s left wing agenda, an agenda that leans to the left of the Democrat Party; an agenda that is extremely well funded. However, indications are that the tide of public opinion may be starting to turn against teachers unions. People are getting fed up and they are standing up to the AFT and other militant unions.

Mountain State Values has spent $152,206.48 in “opposition advertising” against Senator Patricia Rucker in her re-election bid. So far. Opposition advertising is the polite word for it. Most people have already seen the ads. They are “hit pieces” aimed at bullying the candidate. One piece references a bill, SB 609 that never even became law. When you take the money that this SuperPac has spent and add that to the money raised by the Dougherty campaign, you’re north of a quarter million dollars. And the Democrats complain about money in politics.

Senator Rucker has been a champion for West Virginia parents. She has stood up to the power brokers in the state. As the Chair of the Senate Education Committee she has accomplished what no one thought possible. That is why you see those attack ads. They hate her and they will spend every last dime they can get a hold of to bring her down. Can the voters be bought? We’ll soon find out.

The thing is, John Doyle and the Democrat controlled legislature he served in at that time, created and enacted the laws and policies that made it possible for Rockwool to acquire the land on which they are building their plant. The Democrats then launched a public relations scam during the 2018 elections to smear their political opponents for following the laws they themselves created. The public bought it. Hook line and sinker. It took Republican Senator Patricia Rucker to take action and fix the problem.

Last time around, Doyle and other Democrats such as Delegate Sammi Brown and Jefferson County Commissioner Ralph Lorenzetti made the Rockwool issue central to their campaigns. Each pledged to “stop Rockwool”. Not only is Rockwool still here, but it is here because of what Democrat legislators did years ago. Delegate Doyle working in tandem with then State Senator Herb Snyder (current Democrat State Senator John Unger was also in the mix) created legislation that made it possible for Rockwool to acquire the land for the plant now under construction.

Democrats are big fans of municipalities – they like urban settings – they are creatures of the city. In West Virginia they work with the West Virginia Municipal League to transfer power and jurisdiction away from county governments in favor of municipal governments wherever and whenever they can. Urban areas tend to be more liberal than rural areas. If you want your rural community to become more like New York City and Chicago – vote Democrat.

Back in 2001, then Senator Snyder sponsored SB 202 a bill described as “clarifying” the ways in which a municipality can annex land into city limits. Those ways included annexation by election (with a very low bar of 5%) and annexation without election involving a petitioning process. The third method was called a “minor boundary adjustment”. This latter option was the preferred method for both Charles Town and Ranson because of the ease of use and led to the “pipe stem annexations” that eventually caused a public outrage. One pipe stem annexation by Charles Town involved a “minor boundary adjustment” that ran along Route 340 for miles as the stem of the pipe out to where the Aldi, Tractor Supply and the Sheetz are now. The public became alarmed by this and it caused quite a stir.

The building of a housing subdivision along with the retail establishments caused a significant public outcry because of their visibility. But sliding in under the radar was the annexation of the land that used to be an orchard out along Route 115. That was annexed by Ranson in 2004 – 3 years after the passage of SB 202. That is the land on which Rockwool is now building its plant. Once the land became part of the municipality of Ranson, the Jefferson County Commission lost control of the process. The zoning regulations of Ranson apply. The opposition to the Rockwool plant complained about this – you can read about it in their PDF release here – but they fail to put the blame where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of local legislators Delegate John Doyle and former Senator Herb Snyder.

The PDF release also states that pipe stem annexations were made illegal in 2008. Actually, the year was 2009. The tag team of Delegate Doyle and Senator Snyder were at it again. Doyle introduced HB 2845 and Snyder’s bill was SB 256. They were essentially the same bill and it was SB 256 that eventually became law. It was touted as the fix to the monumental blunder they committed 8 years prior. It was anything but…….

The legislation was a complete scam. While claiming to prevent pipe stem annexations, it used those pipe stem annexations as a stake in the ground; it drew a line around the land already annexed and called it an Urban Growth Boundary. The West Virginia Municipal League was very pleased with it. Urban Growth Boundaries were drawn for Charles Town, Ranson and Shepherdstown. Clearly the vision was to allow these municipalities to become urban centers – larger suburban cities. Hagerstown anyone?

In March of 2017, Charles Town revealed its ambitious plan to annex territory, some 2600 acres, within the Urban Growth Boundary citing the legislation – SB 256 – and the Envision Jefferson 2035 Comprehensive Plan. If you don’t know what the Comprehensive Plan is you can find it here. It is required in state code for any county that has a zoning ordinance to have a Comprehensive Plan and to update it every 10 years. There are 55 counties in West Virginia; the only county I am aware of that has a Comprehensive Plan other than Jefferson is Fayette County.

In May of 2017, Charles Town elected a new mayor – Scott Rogers – a Democrat. The annexation plans continued under his administration, and initially Mayor Rogers embraced the Rockwool plant and its plans to come to the city of Ranson. US Senator Joe Manchin (D – WV) was at the ceremonial ground breaking event – shovel in hand. It wasn’t long before Rogers did an abrupt about face – apparently someone tapped him on the shoulder and let him in on the plot the Democrats were hatching to use Rockwool as a wedge issue in the upcoming 2018 elections.

The Democrats quickly realized that the anti-Rockwool crowd didn’t care how Rockwool got there, or who was to “blame”, they just wanted the plant gone. And since the rule of law doesn’t mean much to them, with the added bonus that the local Republicans do care about the rule of law, they used the Rockwool plant as a weapon in the 2018 elections – and it worked. The only Republican who won was Jane Tabb – who flip flopped on the issue so many times that the Democrats thought she was one of them.

Much was made of the so-called payment in lieu of taxes agreement – the PILOT. Most people wouldn’t understand what that is or why it is. That’s a discussion for another day. But it was another subterfuge the Democrats used to subvert the facts. The vote had no bearing on Rockwool, it was about the payment (in lieu of taxes). If the county commission voted for it, the payment went to the county. If they voted against it, the payment went elsewhere, decided by the state. It would have against the interests of their constituents – the taxpayers - to vote no. For their part, the Jefferson County Board of Education approved the tax payment arrangements – and then spent a quarter of million of taxpayer dollars suing Rockwool to condemn the property. That was also a failure. An expensive on at that. You can’t make this stuff up.

While all of this was going on, Republicans actually took steps to address the root of the problem; the problem created by Snyder and Doyle. The Jefferson County Commission led by Republicans Peter Onoszko, Josh Compton and Caleb Hudson voted to sue the city of Charles Town to prevent their annexation of the 2600 acres within Urban Growth Boundary. Onoszko was the president of the County Commission at the time. For his trouble he was booted out of office – he lost to Ralph Lorenzetti. Mr. Lorenzetti recently attended a candidate forum where he stated that he roused himself out of retirement to run against Mr. Onoszko because Rockwool made him angry. His sole purpose for running was to stop Rockwool. He failed, but he’s running for reelection anyway. At the forum he claimed to have stopped Rockwool from using coal and that he reduced the stack by 80 feet. I haven’t found any evidence to substantiate those grandiose claims….

The court case to stop the Charles Town annexation is being adjudicated as I write this, but some feel that at this point, the case is moot. Senator Patricia Rucker, (R - 16th, the district that includes all of Jefferson County and is the seat formerly held by the aforementioned Herb Snyder), during the last legislative session introduced SB 209. It passed and has been signed into law. It essentially removes the annexation by “minor adjustment” option and requires the municipality to get the approval of each individual property owner in order to annex. Problem solved.

Candidate Dougherty played right along. His response to the question was along the lines of his family having been Democrats for generations. He sounded almost apologetic. The fact is that candidate Dougherty is actually to the LEFT of the Democrats. He is endorsed by the WFP – the Working Families Party – a leftist “progressive” activist political party that got its start in New York City in the late 1990s. The WFP leadership has included members of Moveon.org, a leftist activist group George Soros funded at its inception. They are the party that Bernie Sanders says most aligns with his brand of “democratic socialism”. Don’t take my word for it, you can read all about it in an article entitled, Bernie Sanders Calls the Working Families Party ‘the Closest Thing’ to Socialism.

The WFP didn’t endorse Sanders this time around – they endorsed Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. In a NY Times article from last year, WFP director Maurice Mitchell said, “We need a mass movement to make her plans a reality, and we’re going to be a part of that work….You don’t defeat the moderate wing of Democrats through thought pieces or pithy tweets, you defeat their politics through organizing.” So perish the thought that Pete Dougherty is a moderate. He is far left.

According to an article in The Atlantic, “In 2013, the WFP was active in just four states—New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Oregon. Since then, it has opened chapters in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island, with New Mexico expected to join this year.” They recruit people who feel abandoned by their local Democrats. That Atlantic article was published in January of 2016, since then they’ve set up shop in West Virginia.

Observing the locations where the WFP has operations there is an uncanny but unmistakable anecdotal correlation to the unrest that we see around the nation. The New York City metropolitan area is comprised of large portions of Connecticut and New Jersey. The WFP is a huge supporter of NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and is given much credit for his political success. I was born in NYC and I can tell you that Mayor de Blasio has taken a wrecking ball to that city. People are fleeing New York, New York. Then there is Oregon where Portland is under siege by rioters. The same is true for Kenosha Wisconsin, Chicago Illinois….it seems that where the WFP goes, chaos seems to follow. Could be just a coincidence…….just sayin’.

There are only six of the 17 West Virginia State Senate races where the WFP has endorsed - and Pete Dougherty is one of them. They must really like him. However, Dougherty is not the only local candidate endorsed by the WFP. Delegate John Doyle, the incumbent in the 67th Delegate District (disclosure – I’m his opponent) and Sammi Brown, the incumbent in the 65th Delegate District are both endorsed by the WFP. Personally, I view Delegate Brown as our version of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, aka AOC, the Congresswoman from New York City. The WFP is also credited with much of AOC’s success.

So when Pete Dougherty tries to paint the picture that he is a moderate – know that he is not. He aligns with the more radical elements that are the furthest left in the Democrat Party. If you want Jefferson County to be more like New York City – or Portland Oregon – vote for him. Or John Doyle. Or Sammi Brown. I went to high school in New York City. I still have friends and family living there. I wouldn’t live there now if you gave me a penthouse on Park Avenue. I don’t want Jefferson County to become like New York City. I hope that you don’t either.

A post on the ACLU-WV Facebook page last February stated the following: “The right to criticize public officials lies at the heart of the First Amendment. We notified nine elected officials and one police department today that they are violating their constituents’ rights by denying them access to their official social media accounts. The Supreme Court views social media as a modern public square. Government officials cannot deny access to a public square just because they disagree with someone.”

Their legal director Loree Stark was quoted as saying, “It’s unacceptable for public officials to deny their constituents access because of a differing viewpoint”.

That reminds me of the landmark Supreme Court Case back in the 1977: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. The National Socialist Party of America – aka the Nazi Party – applied for a permit to march in the village of Skokie, a suburb of Chicago with a significant Jewish population, many of whom were holocaust survivors. The ACLU intervened on behalf of the Nazis and the matter went all the way to Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of the Nazis but the march never did actually take place in Skokie. Instead it took place in Chicago. I remember it well because I was living in Chicago at the time. I also remember being of two minds on the matter. I believe in our First Amendment and I also have relatives that live in Israel.

The ACLU refers to the “public square” and the First Amendment right to criticize public officials. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but there are lines that need to be drawn. As has been famously observed, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre – unless, of course, there really is a fire. So what are the rules of engagement with regard to the modern public square? Facebook as a public square is only part of the story. Facebook also collects money from users that buy advertising to promote themselves or what they sell.

However, beyond the financial aspect of the relationship, there is also an important question of the rights of the “owner” of the page. Does the owner of the page have a right to set the parameters of the discourse to be conducted on the page? One can argue that there are millions of other pages or other social media that can be used as platforms to express one’s opinion. One can post an opinion of a public official on their own page – or tweet that opinion to their heart’s content.

Equally important is the question: Does a public official, by law, have to submit to verbal abuse by a constituent? Do they have to endure insults or threats? Do they have to allow someone to post on their page something that isn’t true? Where to draw the lines?

The conspicuous over representation of Republicans on the ACLU-WV list is telling. Here’s a personal anecdote. Delegate Sammi Brown (D-Jefferson) addressed the GOP in a post on her Facebook page. As a member of the GOP (I also serve on the Executive Committee), I responded to the post. I can assure you that it was respectful. It was also deleted. Like most reasonable people, my impulse was not to report her to the ACLU-WV. Just sayin’.

Another issue that compounds this problem is that the social media companies – Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Google - have been censoring certain political speech. Twitter has gone so far as to shadow ban and “fact check” the president of the United States. So much for the president’s First Amendment right to express himself on the great “modern public square” – social media. A prominent professor has opined that the tech giants of the internet have interfered in our elections. You can view his testimony before congress here. Where is the ACLU on this important issue? Why aren’t they stepping up to stop the censorship on Facebook, Twitter and Google and Google’s subsidiary Youtube?

The truth is that the ACLU and its local iteration the ACLU-WV have become a battering ram for extremists to enter the so-called public square and make it a toxic place to be. And it used to be that they represented extremists from all walks of life. To be clear, extremists of any stripe tend to be toxic to civil discourse but the ACLU in recent years is almost exclusively a militant arm of the left.

So what happens when the public square becomes a dangerous place for reasonable people to gather for spirited debate? Look around and see what is happening in the public squares of major cities around the country.

The evening was supposed to be a model of civil debate - civil discourse if you will. The two participants were chosen because of their divergent political perspectives. Donna Brazile: a commentator on the Fox television network and former chair of the Democratic National Committee. Mercedes Schlapp: a former member of the Trump administration. By the way, her husband Matt is the chair of the American Conservative Union. I’ve written about this event previously in an article entitled: Is Civil Discourse Still Possible? So I won’t rehash it here.

Last November we were living in a different time – a different era. Back then society was still fairly cohesive, though it was certainly fraying at the edges. But as the title of my article suggests, the wheels were starting to come off. The establishment of the Stubblefield Institute was supposed be an agent of change – to help to stem the tide of incivility that was gripping us. Or at least a start.

Since then, events have steam rolled that effort. Ironically, it was Donna Brazile herself who got behind the wheel of a steam roller and hit the gas pedal. In early March Brazile was interviewed by her Fox News colleagues. During the discussion she is quoted as telling Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel to “go to hell”. Ronna McDaniel wasn’t even a participant in the interview.

So there we have it. Donna Brazile, answers the question: “Is civil discourse still possible?” Apparently the answer is “hell no!” Brazile set the tone for this election year back in March. I’m going to try to avoid going to hell myself. It’s not a place for believers.

Today I brought my 18 year old Honda Accord in for repairs. There’s this noise in the front end…

As I was talking with the shop owner about the work to be done I noticed a man pull into the lot, park his car and walk over to the shop’s waiting room. His car caught my attention because the back of it was covered with bumper stickers. One of them said: Teach Peace. Amen brother. He had the look of an aging hippie - with long silver hair arranged in a ponytail. He was wearing a mask.

After handing the keys to my Honda over to the shop owner, I passed through the waiting room and noticed the masked man sitting all alone reading a newspaper. As he was still wearing the mask, I stopped to chat with him. I took a bold step and decided to wade into controversy. I took a deep breath.

I told him that doctors have told me that wearing a mask was appropriate in a hospital setting but that wearing it all the time might actually cause health problems and undermine one’s immune system. What I had heard was that you keep breathing back in the same air you exhale, and you create an echo chamber effect - for germs and bacteria. And viruses. It also can ramp up the CO2 in your body – a waste product that your body by way of aerobic respiration is trying to expel. There was a story I read about a person who was driving alone in a car wearing a mask who passed out and crashed into a tree. Maybe it was a pole. The wearing of the mask was alluded to as a possible cause for the driver having lost consciousness.

The man in the waiting room lowered his mask so that he could answer. I thought he was going to cuss me out. Instead, he confided to me that he had heard the same thing. He then said that he was the sole care giver for a 95 year old woman and that he didn’t want to do anything that would create any danger for her. It was then that I noticed that he was also wearing gloves.

His response warmed my heart. I’m glad I took a chance and started talking. Here’s a man who values the life of a 95 year old woman in failing health. Not everyone on the “progressive” side of things lives by values like that. It reminded me of an article I had written several years ago, about an op-ed piece by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, published in the Atlantic entitled, Why I Hope to Die at 75. The subtitle was: “An argument that society and families - and you - will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly”. In other words: old people please get on with it and die. And to paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge – “and decrease the surplus population”.

In the article, Dr. Emanuel (pardon the expression) drops the mask and reveals what the progressive movement is all about. He makes the case, that no one should receive health care after the age of 75. I kid you not. What he doesn’t say in the article, but I think is implied, is that what he really means is that anyone on Medicare should be cut off at age 75. What that would mean is that only those who can afford it would have access to healthcare once they pass the age of 75. The 1% will always have access to healthcare.

Ezekiel Emanuel served as a presidential advisor in the Obama administration. He is one of the architects of Obamacare. I didn’t ask the masked man what he thought about Obamacare. You can make your own guess – and if your guess is as good as mine, I’m sure you can see the ironies that abound. Oh, and by the way, Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of Rahm Emanuel who served as President Obama’s Chief of Staff and then went on to serve as the mayor of Chicago. That’s a whole other discussion.

Ezekiel Emanuel has also weighed in on the corona virus emergency. In January, he felt that it was much ado about nothing. Quoted by CNBC he said, “Everyone in America should take a very big breath, slow down, and stop panicking and being hysterical.” Later in that CNBC article is this paragraph attributed to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, a Director of the Center for Disease Control:

The Wuhan virus, which causes flu-like symptoms, is not spreading through human-to-human contact in America, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (part of the CDC), said Monday. (Incidentally, Dr. Messonier is the sister of Rod Rosenstein – who while serving as Deputy Attorney General appointed special prosecutor Robert Mueller).

A couple months later, Dr. Emanuel flip flops. Completely. He does a 180. On March 27th he is predicting 100 million cases in four weeks. In early April he is out there claiming that everyone should be in lock down for up to 18 months until a vaccine is developed – parroting Bill Gates. By April 24th, his prediction of 100 million cases had come up 99 million short. So he goes from saying that Covid19 is a nothing burger to predicting that there will 100 million cases. Then comes up 99% short. It’s unnerving to think that he is a former Presidential advisor – who thinks we should all die at the age of 75.

Dr. Ezekiel is by no means the only flip flopper. Current Presidential advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of President Trump’s corona virus task force, is also a card-carrying member of the flip flop club. Regarding masks. First he says we shouldn’t wear them. Then he says we should wear them. Here’s the Mayo Clinic’s take on masks. I guess presidential advisors are really just politicians after all.

We live in a world where everything is driven by politics and political agendas. You cannot depend on anyone’s advice – especially when it’s coming from political operatives like Drs. Fauci and Emanuel. It’s one thing when you get conflicting opinions from different so-called “experts”. It’s another when you get conflicting opinions from the same “expert” as in the cases of Fauci and Emanuel. That is why everyone must be free to make their own decisions and leave the government out of it. In fact, keep the government out of it. Our constitutional government is all about that - restraining the power of government – ensuring that people can make their own decisions.

So getting back to the masked man at the car repair shop. His reply gave me goose bumps. I understand where he is coming from. His loving concern for that 95 year old woman is about being a feeling and caring human being. It’s that kind of love that binds us together. That 95 year old woman’s life matters. It’s about valuing human life. All of us. Thank God there’s someone like that masked man that I can still relate to.

Whether it be legacy media, such as newspapers, terrestrial radio and broadcast television, or online platforms that post videos and/or audio podcasts and commentary of all sorts, the battle has intensified. Each of these media are slowly but surely being weaponized. This process is insidious – because the rules and social mores that previously were understood and acknowledged by most participants have changed. Agree to disagree is on very thin ice out in the public square. This weaponizing of all things has spilled over into government. It’s not that government hasn’t always possessed the weapons, it’s that the rules that have governed their use has changed. The restraints on governmental power have been loosening over time.

We can see it on the federal level. For example, we have a president being impeached. And the charge? Obstruction of congress. That’s a charge for which there is no legal precedent. It doesn’t exist. Growing up, I was taught that the three branches of government were supposed to obstruct each other. That was called “checks and balances”. No matter what you might think of the president, or those who voted for him, if we cannot respect our differences and accept lawful results, we cannot have a civil society. But in today’s weaponized world, one side will “criminalize” what used to simply be disagreements over policy. We simply cannot agree to disagree anymore.

We are not immune to this phenomenon on the local level. Last spring we experienced the weaponization of our local school board – the Jefferson County Board of Education. In this case the Board, entrusted by the public to ensure that our children get a quality education, put at risk hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of taxpayer dollars to fight a political battle against Rockwool. Fortunately, Rockwool wound up acting in good faith, even though the School Board had not.

Bear in mind that Jefferson County taxpayers over the years have voted in favor of the excess levee to provide extraordinary funding for our local schools. To paraphrase what I said in the previous paragraph: No matter what side of this political issue you might be on, if we cannot respect our differences and accept lawful results, we cannot have a civil society. The local Board of Education’s reckless use of taxpayer funds as a political weapon is unconscionable. Their participation had nothing to do with their mandate to educate the children of our county and was a clear misuse of authority; an abuse of the public trust.

More recently the Mayor of Harpers Ferry weaponized his office and the municipality he purports to represent. State Senator Patricia Rucker scheduled a press conference to announce legislation that might affect the municipality of Harpers Ferry. She applied to the municipality for a permit to hold the press conference at the Harpers Ferry Train station. He would not agree to the permit unless Senator Rucker disclosed the content of the announcement that she was going to make at the press conference. Given the fact that Senator Rucker is an elected official – this attempt to censor has a political element to it. This goes against our principles of free speech in the town square.

Publishers have a right to edit the content of their publications. Public officials do not have the right to edit our speech. The town square is that sacrosanct space where ideas are exchanged and differences of opinion are respected. In a world where everything is being weaponized we need to de-escalate before it’s too late.

Since I’m interested in having a civil discourse on issues I asked a friend, a self-described “progressive”, what she thought of the above statement. Her initial reaction was to dismiss it out of hand because of the person saying it. This is a standard response from those who refuse to engage on the issues. Pardon the expression, but when they don’t like the message, they shoot the messenger.

However, since she is a self-described member of the “resistance” I asked her what that means to her. Her response was telling. She told me that it adds an “aura” to the movement. Some mystique and romance. Kind of like the resistance as described in the movie Casablanca or Star Wars (I’m more of a Casablanca fan myself). “So it’s a branding exercise?” I asked. “Well, I suppose you could put it that way, although I wouldn’t”.

But I would. Branding is an essential part of marketing and marketing is an essential part of what capitalism is all about. So perhaps when Donna Brazile proclaims that Democrats are capitalists she is being sincere. Although this might make some heads explode.

But let’s have some more fun with this. “Progressivism” comes from the word “progress”. At Thesaurus.com two of the synonyms listed for “progress” are “movement” and “motion”. At freedictionary.com, one of the definitions of the word “resistance” is: “a force that tends to oppose or retard motion”. Since the “resistance” movement is made up of “progressives”, I guess what we have here is a case of irresistible force meets immovable object. I can feel more heads exploding.

The free dictionary has two other secondary definitions for the word “resistance”. In biology it is the “Lack of normal response to a biologically active compound such as a hormone” and in psychology it is: “A process in which the ego opposes the conscious recall of anxiety-producing experiences.” Welcome to the “resistance movement”.

Getting back to Attorney General Barr and his speech. I encourage you to read it or listen to it on line. I don’t agree with everything he says in it. In particular, I disagree with some of his views regarding executive authority. Teddy Roosevelt, the first “progressive” to occupy the White House, kicked into a higher gear what has come to be known as the “imperial presidency”. But that’s a discussion for another day.

However, regarding “the resistance”, AG Barr’s quote is right on. The resistance movement is a rejection of the rule of law and a rejection of the election process. Because, those who are not prepared to accept the results, are not sincere participants in the process and are therefore not part of the solution. Then we all might be on perilous parallel paths that could make civil discourse seem like a quaint notion of days gone by.

(This article was originally published November 26, 2014 in the Spirit - and I am thankful that things have changed in West Virginia for the better over the last 5 years. I am thankful for that. Happy Thanksgiving to all! - Elliot)

Thanksgiving is upon us. Today my wife and I went out to pick up our locally raised turkey. Giving thanks for our blessings is a great reason to celebrate a holiday. My wife and I are fortunate in that we will be sharing that experience with friends and family. We hope that you will too and wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving.

The first Thanksgiving is generally believed to have been celebrated in 1621, making it the oldest American holiday. Only a year earlier the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth Rock. Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until 1863, however, in December of 1777, there was a day of Thanksgiving observed by all of the colonies commemorating the surrender of British General Burgoyne at Saratoga. Also, on October 3, 1789, a Proclamation was issued by George Washington setting aside November 26th of that year as “A Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer.” Entitled “General Thanksgiving,” Washington’s Proclamation stated that Congress requested that he recommend to the American people a day “to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”

The Proclamation emerged from what was the first session of Congress, where the first version of the Bill of Rights was introduced, September 25,, 1789. When finally ratified in 1791, it codified the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights - that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Contrast this to the comments of Dan Ratner at the recent conference in Chicago of the National Association of Business Economists, where he said, “There is no such thing as truth. There is only the most recent updated version of it.” Writing on the Mises Institute website, economist Christopher Westley says that Ratner was “one of President Obama’s tech gurus for the 2012 election cycle and expert in the hip field of Big Data mining”. According to Ratner’s website, after the election was over he co-founded Public Good Software, a company that aims to “re-imagine online philanthropy” - In other words, fundraising. Apparently, the company uses data mining to develop algorithms that identify news stories that can be effective in motivating people to act.

One could argue that Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, published in 1776 did the same thing. It is often cited as a prime motivator in getting the colonists to rebel against the British. However, what used to be “self-evident” truths are now “updated versions of it”. Take for example the term “the general welfare” referred to in the Constitution. Over the years, its meaning has been stretched far beyond its original intent, instead becoming a justification for all sorts of government intervention and a rationale for the dismantling of the Bill of Rights. To some extent, “general welfare” has mutated into what is now called “public good” – like Mr. Ratner’s software company.

The definition of “public good” is nuanced differently by different sources, but the consensus is that “it is a product that one individual can consume without reducing its availability to another individual and from which no one is excluded”. That would mean that a “public good” is one where there is an unlimited supply – or at least enough supply to satisfy the needs of every consumer. In other words, it is a conundrum.

The truth is, there are very few “public goods” that cannot be better provided for by the private sector. Attempts to force “public good” status on things that aren’t can have dire unintended consequences. When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, food and the land used for farming were considered public goods and they originally embarked on a system of communal farming. Output was stored centrally to be distributed “as needed”. Within a couple short years there was a shortage of food. Wrote Governor William Bradford, “the settlers now began to consider corn more precious than silver”.

Bradford recognized that the collectivist culture of the colony was the root cause of the problem. According to Wikipedia, “The Pilgrims held an actual thanksgiving celebration in 1623, after a switch from communal farming to privatized farming, a fast, and a refreshing 14-day rain resulted in a larger harvest.” Wrote Governor Bradford, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” In 1624, the harvest was so plentiful that the colonists began exporting corn. The Pilgrims abandoned socialism and the rest, as they say, is history.

Speaking of socialism, last August TheStreet.com published an intriguing list that ranked the least and most socialist states in America. Wrote Kurumi Fukushima, “In order to measure the degree to which different states reflect socialist principles, we determined state expenditures and state GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as the best indicators because socialist states tax and spend a higher percentage of their GDP”. Ranked least socialist was Texas with an “expenditures as a proportion of GDP” of 6.99%. Ranked most socialist was West Virginia coming in at a whopping 34.1%. In other words, state spending in West Virginia is proportionally nearly five times greater than Texas, and of course, Texas ranks at or near the top of most economic categories, while West Virginia ranks at or near the bottom.

If the last election is any indication, something revolutionary is taking place in West Virginia – Common Sense might be taking hold. Perhaps in a few short years what happened at Plymouth could happen here. As Victor Hugo said, “Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come”. He also said, “A day will come when there are no battlefields, but markets opening to commerce and minds opening to ideas”. That would be something to be truly thankful for.