Question 7: Money vs. money

Regardless of supporters’ pleas that money that’s currently fleeing to West Virginia will, as if by magic, return to Maryland if we only allow more gambling and another casino, the question about Question 7 remains: who do we believe? Their question about what Maryland loses can be flipped on its head and asked: who gets the real benefit?

Of course, those who oppose Question 7 call it:

…a massive rip off for Maryland families because it shifts hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts to multi-millionaire casino operators while sticking working families with a $260 million tax increase and shortchanging Maryland teachers and students.

The questions really come down to those of trust and responsiveness.

Back in 2008, when the law was first passed by Maryland voters, a number of parameters were set. The two most key were setting the locations for the five proposed casinos and the cut each entity would get. Many said then the proportion which was slated to go to casino operators was too low, and that theory may have been borne out when few takers were found for the various slot barn licenses. The state figured all five facilities would be online by now; instead just three (Perryville, Ocean Downs, and Arundel Mills) are in operation.

This referendum allows the state to change the proportions for return to licensees to suit particular situations as well as correct what some obviously perceived as an oversight, with a proposed facility near Virginia and Washington, D.C. But it’s not like the casino in Charles Town wasn’t there when the original bill was passed.

It points out the weakness I warned about when the Constitutional amendment was considered in 2008: there’s very little flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. Had the General Assembly done its job like it was supposed to, Maryland may well already have table games and whatever number of locations the market could bear. Instead, we’ve learned the hard way that there isn’t much of a market for slot machines in rural areas (Perryville and Ocean Downs are lagging) and we’ve given other states a huge head start on table games. All these could have been addressed by the General Assembly but they punted.

Indeed, supporters of Question 7 may make it seem like we’re leaving millions of dollars on the table – a very dubious proposition when you consider the total costs of gambling. Virginia seems to do just fine without casinos. But voting no also rebuffs a General Assembly which hasn’t done its job. The opponents make a good point when it’s stated that, while the money raised by gambling goes into the educational pot, the money is taken away at the other end and sucked into that black hole known as the General Fund.

The 2014 ballot should have a provision which removes the section of the Maryland Constitution specific to slot machines and instead authorize casinos in the general sense that horse racing tracks and the Maryland Lottery are already allowed. Then any needed changes can be made during a regular or special General Assembly session rather than waiting until November of an even-numbered year (while other states progress merrily onto table games and sports betting.)

Frankly, the only people who seem to be profiting off this particular battle are the political consultants, advertising agencies, and media outlets who put out and broadcast the dozens of spots we see during the week on both sides. If we vote yes, MGM stands to gain millions; if not, Penn National maintains its market share. Personally I’d rather the state concentrate on good manufacturing jobs which actually create things than entertainment jobs which depend on the regressive tax gambling truly is.

In Maryland, the gambling genie is already out of the bottle. Honestly I have no issue with the ability to wager, which doesn’t cost me more than the few dollars I occasionally spend on Powerball or MegaMillions tickets. But if they were going to adopt casino gambling it should have been done right. Let’s step back, take two years to write the proper legislation, and remove voters from the equation in 2014.

Marriage group adds endorsement

I suppose, this being “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” that today is a good day to bring up the topic of Question 6.

One group advocating the defeat of Question 6, Protect Marriage Maryland, made their second candidate endorsement the other day:

Protect Marriage Maryland is happy to announce the we are endorsing Ken Timmerman’s campaign for Congress in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.  All 43 Candidates for federal office were sent a questionnaire asking their positions on issues related to defending marriage, and Mr. Timmerman received the highest score, and his answers showed that he has a great grasp of the issues and will legislate in the Congress in such a way as to preserve marriage between one man and one woman.  We encourage everyone to support Mr. Timmerman’s campaign, which will also serve to support the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing the people of Washington, DC to vote on the definition of marriage for themselves, and reinstating the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy in our military, which will preserve religious liberty of our servicemen and women.

Protect Marriage Maryland also endorsed Tony O’Donnell in the Primary, who is running in Maryland’s 5th Congressional District. (Emphasis in original.)

It’s worth mentioning that candidates for Congress are besieged with questionnaires from dozens of different advocacy groups, so PMM may have only received a handful of responses from those who were favorable to their stance on the issue. So being first out of 43 may have only been first of about six or eight. While it may not add a whole lot to Timmerman’s voter base – because PMM is essentially a single-issue advocacy group – it also gives the group a more prominent backer. They will need a lot of help because pro-gay groups are certain to spend thousands of dollars promoting their flawed idea that gay marriage is a harmless civil rights issue.

There was also another part of the PMM release worth mentioning, since it tied back to the most recent Wicomico Society of Patriots meeting I covered.

We would like to personally thank everyone who helped us orchestrate a very successful 5-event tour of Maryland and Virginia with the Sons of Liberty radio hosts from Minnesota! Each event was successful beyond our expectations. They brought the message of Faith and Family values as well as the importance of honoring the sacrifice of our veterans to hundreds of voters across the state. Those in attendance also learned about the various ballot issues that we’ll be voting on November 6th. Thanks as well to all who came out to explain the issues and answer questions voters may have had. I believe everyone who attended was inspired by Bradlee Dean and Jake McMillan’s presentation, and we hope you will spread the word to others who may want to see them when they come back to this area.

(snip)

Although Bradlee and Jake will not be coming back before November’s elections, please let us know if you know others who would like to see them, as they have plans to be in the area next spring.

The duo certainly put together an interesting presentation but their true intention is to spread their message in person in schools. It’s one thing to coordinate with schools in a more or less receptive area of the country – their group You Can Run But You Can’t Hide International has done school presentations in 24 states, mostly surrounding their Minnesota base – but good luck getting into public schools in states where their input would be more helpful. Those in the Montgomery County heart of Timmerman’s district would benefit most from a point of view which invokes the Founding Fathers and doesn’t subscribe to the political correctness of the typical educational curriculum today. As the pair states:

Out of 337 schools (they’ve appeared at) nationwide, only 67 students raised their hands when asked if they knew about the U.S. Constitution.

Seems like that’s pretty important information to me; it’s only the very foundation of our republic. But the idea of the Constitution being one of  “negative liberties” seems to be in vogue these days, so rather than learning about the true intent of our founding document kids are told they have “rights” defined by those who are selling the idea of ever-expanding government. They need a contrary view.

Odds and ends number 60

More dollops of blogworthy goodness, neatly bundled up in short, paragraph-or-three packages. I put them together and you raptly absorb them. It seems to be a good formula.

If you believe it’s time to ditch Dutch, you may want to know your contributions are paying for this. Here’s 30 seconds from State Senator and GOP hopeful Nancy Jacobs:

Now this is a good message, but oh! the cheesy video effects. It sort of reminds me of the Eric Wargotz “Political Insidersaurus” commercial, which had a message muddled by production. Sometimes people try too hard to be funny, but that shot of Dutch peeking around the Capitol dome might have the same effect clowns do on certain people who find them creepy.

A longer form of communication comes from a filmmaker who somehow got in touch with me to promote his upcoming documentary. It may not be “2016: Obama’s America” but Agustin Blazquez is an expert on communism, having left Castro’s Cuba as a young man nearly 50 years ago.

This movie came out October 4.

Perhaps it’s hard to read, but the gist of the film is that it exposes “Obama and his supporting network of organizations that helped him win the Presidency…and the connections with George Soros and the Communist Party U.S.A.”

I’m not going to speak to the merits of the film because I haven’t seen it. But this is a good opportunity to relate something I’ve encountered in my personal experience – the ones who seem to be most concerned about America’s slide leftward are those who have experienced Communist oppression firsthand, risking life and limb in many cases to escape to America. And they have no desire to go back.

One more video in that vein is the most recent web ad from First District Libertarian candidate Muir Boda.

One may debate whether we have a purpose for being in Afghanistan and Iraq, although in both cases we are in the slow process of withdrawing. But Boda goes farther and talks about rescinding foreign aid entirely, and that changes the terms of the debate dramatically. We can also include the idea of withdrawing from the United Nations in there.

It’s unfortunate that Andy Harris has chosen to skip the debates this time around because, in the wake of the Chris Stevens murder in Benghazi (“Obama lied, Chris Stevens died”: new foreign policy slogan) the time has come for a robust debate about how we treat both foreign relations and our dealings with Islamic extremists such as the ones who attacked our compound there.

Meanwhile, we also have to worry about our own border security in the wake of the killing of Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Ivie last week. The Center for Immigration Studies rushed out their assessment of the situation, which bolsters an argument that we need to mind our own borders. They add:

Nicholas Ivie’s name is now added to the large and growing list of individuals killed on both sides of the border as a result of failed and corrupt policies.

We need border security, but perhaps it’s time to be more libertarian and consider the impact of our War on Drugs. I can’t promise it would eliminate the Mexican cartels, and honestly their battles with a corrupt Mexican government may end up as a civil war on our doorstep. But one also has to consider what the crackdown does to American youth as well.

You’ll note I panned Andy Harris for his apparent refusal to debate a couple paragraphs ago. That works for both sides, and especially so in the wake of Barack Obama’s recent debacle.

Fifth District Congressman Steny Hoyer claims people know where he stands, but he’s obviously afraid to defend his views onstage and challenger Tony O’Donnell takes exception to that:

Regardless of where we stand on the issues, this election is not about where we both have been, it is about where we are going.  The citizens of our district reserve the right to witness the passion I encompass when I know our rights are in jeopardy.  Representative Steny Hoyer has lost this spark and is merely a smoldering ember underneath the smokescreen of his 45 years as an elected official in Maryland.  It’s time to blow the smoke away and ignite a new fire.

My campaign has invited Representative Hoyer to debate in front of the citizens in each county and once on television.  In addition, The Chris Plante Show attempted to arrange an on-air debate.  Also, citizens throughout the District have called for a debate.  Yet Representative Hoyer rebuffed all requests.

That’s because Hoyer knows he has some built-in advantages: the power of incumbency along with the franking privilege, a willing and compliant press, and lots of money in the bank to create 30 second commercials. In a debate he can’t control the narrative, and that’s a position of a politician who knows he’s not as popular as he may let on.

I would expect that attitude of arrogance mixed with fear from Steny Hoyer, who’s long past his sell-by date, but I hoped Andy Harris would be better than that.

In Hoyer’s case, this ad from Americans from Prosperity should be beamed into his office. It’s simple but powerful in its message.

Time to try something different indeed. I received a number of reactions to the latest unemployment report, including ones from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Lt. Col. (and Congressman) Allen West which flat-out accused the Obama administration of making it up. That’s okay, the Democrats lie on Medicare too.

Even Andy Harris responded, noting that:

I agree with what Vice President Joe Biden recently said when he stated that the middle class was “buried” over the past four years.

That is why the House voted to stop President Obama’s tax hike proposal on small business owners and the middle class, which would destroy over 700,000 jobs. We need the President and the Senate to work with House Republicans instead of continuing to promote job-destroying policies that the American people can no longer afford.

Even before the unemployment figures came out, though, the Republican Study Committee hammered President Obama and the Democrats for incomes which had fallen faster during this so-called recovery than during the preceding recession, particularly at a time where gasoline prices are skyrocketing.

The jobless recovery even extends to Wicomico County. As local researcher Johnnie Miller writes in an e-mail I obtained:

Wicomico has 132 fewer workers this year as compared to the same period last year – (08/12 vs. 08/11).  Even though the unemployment rate has declined in Wicomico from 8.8% to 8.2% – the real indicator points to the fact that those receiving unemployment checks have now exhausted their benefits and still not found jobs.

More alarmingly, somehow the county lost 1,613 workers from their labor force between July and August. 190 of them simply disappeared off the unemployment rolls as well, allowing the county’s unemployment rate to drop to 8.2%.

If this is recovery, I’d hate to see a depression. I could only imagine what the county’s U-6 unemployment rate would be.

I suppose there’s the possibility that these employment rolls may have been kept up like voter rolls are – perhaps they forgot to remove a few deceased workers. After all, the deceased really can vote in Maryland, according to the watchdog group Election Integrity Maryland:

While just scratching the surface of voter roll research, having looked at 35,000 voter registration records so far in Maryland, EIM has discovered 1,566 names of deceased still on the voter rolls.  Of these names, apparently two voted and three registered to vote after their deaths.

Talk about a serious case of rigor mortis.  But there are about 3.5 million registered voters in Maryland so if you extrapolate the numbers in a statewide race that’s 200 voters who would have been discovered, not the mention the potential for 156,600 zombie voters. It’s long past time to cull the voter rolls AND enact photo voter ID.

But let’s go back to the economy for a little bit, since those dead voters seem to be among those supporting a Governor who seems to be killing Maryland’s prospects for economic recovery in the next decade.

After Governor O’Malley appeared on CNBC yesterday, his nemesis Change Maryland immediately found significant fault with his remarks. Larry Hogan, Chairman of the group, delivered the real story:

We are very familiar with Martin O’Malley putting out falsehoods about his own record when it comes to Maryland’s economic performance. Maryland is a laggard in economic performance in our region, so he compares us to states like Michigan and Nevada.  The difference in those hard-hit states is that there top elected officials are dealing with structural problems in their economies while our Governor enjoys seeing himself on TV and making partisan attacks.

Martin O’Malley does seem to suck up a lot of airtime these days. I’ll bet a debate with him and Larry Hogan would be fun to watch in much the same manner some watch NASCAR rooting for the 14-car pileups. We all know the engineer of that train wreck would be Martin O’Malley, so the trick would be seeing if Larry Hogan could keep a straight face during all that. I’m sure I couldn’t.

What I can do, though, is leave you on that note as my e-mailbox is in much better shape. I do have some Question 7 and SB236/PlanMaryland/Agenda 21 items to discuss, but those merit their own posts. Three score odds and ends are in the books.

Illegal alien Question 4 debated at Salisbury University

On Wednesday night, sliced in among the debate spin on the local news, you may have seen a few sound bites spliced out of the debate held by PACE at Salisbury University. The topic: in-state tuition for illegal aliens – and yes, “illegal aliens” is the correct legal term.

Moderator Fran Kane of PACE was flanked by four participants, two taking the side for Question 4 and two against. Both sides had a Delegate and an expert, with the pro-Question 4 side featuring Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez of Montgomery County and Kim Propeack of illegal alien advocates CASA de Maryland. The pair against Question 4 were Delegate Pat McDonough of Baltimore County and Bob Dane of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

McDonough drew the opening statement for his side, making the case the debate is about another dream: the American dream. While Pat stated he was “firmly and vigorously pro-immigration,” he stated the case based on two principles: the rule of law and economic justice. Regarding the latter, “you will hear a lot of emotional and compassionate arguments” in favor of the law, but warned “you cannot govern a great nation on emotionalism.”

Bob Dane explained the purpose of FAIR, making the brash statement that “we don’t give a damn about business and their addiction to cheap immigrant labor.” The question before us, though, was one of whether to respect the rule of law or bend it to allow lawbreaking. “Being an illegal alien in Maryland is a pretty good proposition,” said Dane.

Speaking for the pro-illegal side, Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez called the ballot language (which was projected on a screen beside the participants) a “wonderful summary,” claiming “there’s a lot of misinformation out there.” The bill is similar to one vetoed by then-Governor Ehrlich in 2003, Gutierrez continued, and the law applies to those here “through no fault of their own” who graduated from a Maryland high school and enrolled in community college. Moreover, those taking advantage had to have parents who filed their taxes (she started to say “paid” but caught herself) and promised to apply for permanent residency afterward.

Propeack added that the out-of-state tuition was three times the expense, which had to be paid entirely out of pocket because illegals were ineligible for aid. “We can talk about the rule of law,” Propeack countered, “but this law is broken.” Kim went on to emphasize the “diversity of support” the law had; everyone from CASA de Maryland (a “worker justice organization,” as she described it) to the unions which supported the Maryland DREAM Act “without exception.” Even 25 high schools around the state filled with what Kim referred to as “DREAMers” were supporting the ballot issue as well as a row seated within the audience.

At this point, the questions solicited from the audience were asked. It was a little muddled because Kane chose to combine a lot of specific questions into ones which were more broad.

The first question was actually covered in an opening statement, as it asked about financial aid. Gutierrez repeated that illegals weren’t eligible for aid, while Propeack added that those in Guatemala don’t have an in-state option like a Maryland college.

On the other hand, McDonough posited that the discount, which adds up to about $40,000 per student, “doesn’t come out of thin air.” The illegals displaced American students, and if 1,000 students took advantage it would cost the state $40 million per year.

This actually segued well with the next question about economic impact, where Dane asserted if we pass the DREAM Act, it’s only a matter of time before we end up in the same boat as California. It’s an “incentive for more illegal immigration,” Dane said.

Delegate Gutierrez countered that “education is our best investment” and that these students would have an opportunity to become professionals. The illegal population pays $52 million in taxes annually, added Propeack.

When asked about the Obama amnesty, Gutierrez called it an “incredible benefit.” 1.7 million can take advantage of the executive order, with 30,000 of those in Maryland. But there was no legal obligation to become a citizen, countered Dane. Instead, the DREAM Act excuses parents from their responsibility and “one amnesty benefit fuels another round of illegal immigration,” said the FAIR representative.

McDonough also remarked on the subject, reminding the audience that there was no pathway to citizenship yet established for these students.

Propeack responded by saying the impact in California, a state where the DREAM Act is already in effect, has been “very, very small.”

“This is not an immigration bill, it is an education bill,” she added.

In that same vein, answering the next question, Kim asserted that the community colleges could accommodate the students; in fact, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges is the bill’s “strongest supporter.”

Yet Dane claimed that 10 years of illegal immigration in Maryland had seen $32 billion sent away to the various homelands claimed by these workers. And with 30,000 potential students affected by the bill, Dane called it a “falsity that (community colleges) are open enrollment schools.” If they are underfunded it affects access. Moreover, “there has to be a higher principle,” said Bob.

Someone asked why it was important to be a citizen. McDonough said “the most important thing to an American is citizenship.” His fellow Delegate Gutierrez made the more emotional appeal – an immigrant herself, she told us “I would not be here as a citizen under the current laws…now we’ve closed the door.” Propeack made the statement that the law had “nothing to do with status, but the value of education.”

Finally, they were asked whether the state law would violate federal law. Propeack said the issue has been litigated and doesn’t violate federal law. But Dane disagreed, calling the Obama executive order “illegitimate, unconstitutional, and a breach of the separation of powers…the most corrupt use of a social policy.” We allow more immigration than any other country, Dane added. McDonough restated his belief that America needs to reform our immigration policy.

There was a question I had regarding how the veterans were added to the bill. Pat McDonough said that portion was actually introduced as a standalone bill, with the measure then “filled with feelgood stuff that doesn’t really matter.” That’s what I figured.

Each participant made a closing statement.

“The law will win or lose, depending on how you vote,” said Bob Dane. “The glue that holds us together…is the law.” Bob went on to say that “Maryland is heading in the wrong direction,” and concluded “the DREAM Act is an amnesty benefit…parents should not be absolved of lawbreaking.”

“You can’t be like the President and circumvent the law,” said Delegate McDonough. “There are a lot of emotional arguments…you must look at the facts” and not the “Pinocchio language” of the bill. “This is not a Disneyland for illegal aliens,” said Pat.

Delegate Gutierrez repeated her claim that “this bill does not violate any laws.” It showed the pendulum was swinging away from a “strong anti-immigrant climate.” Fairness and tolerance was “intrinsic” in the bill, said Gutierrez.

In her final remarks, Propeack quoted the president of the University of Maryland who stated “the American dream belongs to all of us, or none of us.”

The participants posed for a picture afterward. No, we did not have President Obama.

As predicted by McDonough, the side in favor of Question 4 mainly stuck to an emotional appeal, forgetting that these students will cost taxpayers real money the state doesn’t have. It’s true that we need to reform immigration laws, but this is not the direction immigration law should do as it rewards lawbreakers while putting those who did things the correct way at a disadvantage.

I thought this table of literature for support was interesting as well.

I tried to get a photo of the red bumper stickers up close, but my attempts wouldn’t come out. The reason these were fascinating was the authority line, telling me the stickers were paid for out of Delegate Gutierrez’s campaign funds.

Of course, the next question which will be considered at Salisbury University also depends greatly on emotional appeal for passage.

That forum promises to bring a full house, one likely filled with every local LGBT activist that can show up.

A friend needs a hand

Originally I was going to write this evening about the Maryland DREAM Act debate which happened in Salisbury last night, but that isn’t time-sensitive so I’ll post my thoughts on that tomorrow.

In the meantime, one of the longest-tenured and dearest friends of monoblogue sent out a bat-signal tonight and I’m responding. She lives in Virginia and has taken on the daunting task of coordinating the eastern end of the state for their chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Melody Scalley has been a freedom fighter for several years as a local radio host, 2009 candidate for Virginia’s House of Delegates, and all-around advocate for conservatism.

But right now she’s looking for the cavalry to come in this Saturday, as AFP is making a house-to-house push in the Hampton Roads area. Melody is looking for volunteers who would like to help with several activities, but most specifically door knocking on Saturday. I spoke to Melody earlier this evening and was informed that AFP will cover travel expenses for those coming down from our part of the Eastern Shore. You can also help on the phones from the comfort of your home.

Now I understand this practice of helping out in Virginia has ruffled a few feathers in Maryland because we have key races and good candidates who need help here, and I completely get the point. This appeal, then, is more for those who would like to help with AFP’s practice of educating voters and helping them make the right choices. I’m trying to expand the pie of political activism in instances where the political races may not excite you, but helping to promote the long-term conservative cause does. To that end, I agreed to provide this forum to let people know – conveniently, this weekend is not a Maryland GOP Super Saturday.

These two sites are probably the best in terms of ease of access for Maryland’s Eastern Shore residents:

  • Cagney’s Restaurant, 1108 East Little Creek Road in Norfolk (8:30 a.m.) Onsite contact: Joan Maguire
  • Parking lot at the Office of Gary Byler, 505 S. Independence Boulevard in Virginia Beach (9:30 a.m.) Melody is the contact for that site.

If you’d like to help out a good Eastern Shore conservative (and genuinely nice lady) give Melody a call at (703) 258-4200; that’s her direct AFP line.

More questions on the third man

Now that Maryland voters have been introduced to Rob Sobhani, the vetting is coming full force. Take as an example the Red Maryland crew, which has been hammering him mercilessly on a number of subjects, including their “Broadside” radio show.

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

The same goes for Jim Jamitis at Anthropocon, who questioned Sobhani’s journalistic integrity as a CNN Middle East expert.

But now Rob has drawn fire from his Republican opponent Dan Bongino, whose campaign posits their own set of unanswered questions (via Sharon Strine, Deputy Campaign Manager for Bongino):

After 16 months of countless interviews, surveys, and a grueling primary election Dan Bongino’s candidacy has been thoroughly examined. Senator Cardin’s 45 year record of voting for tax increases is extensively recorded. Rob Sobhani, however, has had far less scrutiny regarding his background, thanks in part to the convenient timing of his entry into the race for U.S. Senate.

Our campaign just announced our best fundraising quarter to date thanks to the support of thousands of donors throughout Maryland. Mr. Sobhani, lacking that grassroots support, is self-financing his campaign.

Individuals funding their own campaign is not wrong, but valid questions do become more apparent that are simply not getting asked.  Especially if, for example, that individual obtains ballot access by hiring a company with a history of being associated in several states with accusations of deception and illegalities in their signature-gathering practices.

This, along with two previously failed Senate campaigns and a job on Capitol Hill, are not the typical resume one would expect from someone presenting himself as an independent, Washington outsider.

Mr. Sobhani recently joked about hitting the jackpot and that is why he decided to run for office instead of buying another house. Maryland’s future representation in the U.S. Senate is no laughing matter.  With so much at stake this election, we cannot be too careful or too diligent in our efforts to learn more about those seeking higher office.

Perhaps this isn’t the most elegantly worded assessment of Sobhani, but there are legitimate questions regarding the company which circulated their petitions and alleged previous shady practices of theirs.

Needless to say, many Maryland Republicans aren’t thrilled with the late entry of Rob Sobhani into the race, which is why the long knives seem to have come out. After all, even an article from Eric Ostermeier of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Political Affairs and found on Sobhani’s site claims:

At 21 percent, Sobhani is clearly cutting into the support of the Republican Party this cycle.

The Ostermeier article goes on to talk about Sobhani’s platform, which to me is perhaps best described as centrist. It weaves red meat issues for conservatives like immigration reform and English as a national language with feelgood pap like “We must cut programs, but not leave people without safety nets” and “I favor a simple, 15% flat rate for most working Americans. Those who are making a lot more can pay a little more.” Sobhani’s platform would certainly be to the right of Ben Cardin’s, but well to the left of Dan Bongino, who also addresses a number of issues Sobhani does not.

But other questions not yet answered give me pause. Rob got into some hot water for this statement attributed to him:

There’s a young lady here in the United States who is in her mid thirties. She’s a Deputy Secretary of Education in the United States, an American Iranian. That same 30-something in Iran has to prostitute herself to make ends meet.

When pressed, Sobhani blames “well-known and identified apologists for and supporters of the clerical regime of Iran (who are) grossly misrepresenting and cleverly spinning out of context my words from various speaking engagements and media interviews.” Fair enough. But what about statements I found earlier about the plight of Iranian-Americans, like this from an earlier Senate run?

As a United States Senator what I hope to achieve for Americans of Iranians descent is straighforward (sic): end the demonizing and stereotyping of Iran and Iranians. In fact, my first act as an elected official will be demand a public apology from Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat from California) for calling the Iranian nation “terrorist” in her interview with CNN last February.

Beyond this significant symbolic act, I hope to channel available federal funds to non-profit organizations in the United States dedicated to the preservation of our heritage. Also, and more to the point, I will work very hard to end the discrimination against Iranians who wish to visit the United States to see their relatives and loved-ones.

Yet perhaps even more pronounced than Rob’s homage to his Iranian heritage is his advocacy for big business deals. And if the Americans can’t do them, perhaps Canada can. This is a portion of testimony given to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, April 11, 2000:

The Chairman: The problem we have a little bit is the problem of priority and resources, because you’ll appreciate that we’re told the same thing when we go to China, we’re told the same thing in various parts of Africa, and we’re told the same thing in practically every developing economy. It’s almost a sine qua non that there’s a role for government that exceeds that of business in say Europe or the United States. I think we might even find that we would get the same story in Latin America. It then becomes a question of how we allocate government resources, and whether or not the Canadian interests in the region are substantial enough and whether the potential of the region is substantial enough. However, that’s for us to grapple with, and we’ll look at that.

Just going on the potential of the region, can any of you help me with one question? What is the size of Canadian… We have some idea about the mineral activities in these countries, but in the Azerbaijani oil play, we hear the figure that Canada’s participation is around 4% or something like that. Is there any way to quantify what the Canadian participation in that region is?

Dr. Rob Sobhani: Canadian participation in Azerbaijan is very minimal. The major presence is the company that I represent, the Alberta Energy Company. They have 5% of a major structure in the South Caspian, which, if proven and discovered, is 9 billion barrels of oil. That’s a sizeable structure.

The Chairman: What does that do to their share price?

Dr. Rob Sobhani: If you’re an AEC shareholder, you’ll be a very rich person.

To give you a comparison, the partners in that one project in which AEC has 5% are BP Amoco with 15%, Exxon-Mobil with 15%, the Turkish Petroleum Company with 10%. And I know that if you take the totality of all the contracts, you will find that Exxon-Mobil and BP Amoco are by far the dominant players. Beyond Alberta Energy, there is very little Canadian presence.

The Chairman: Do you see a future interest of Canadian oil and gas companies in that, given what you said about the resources that are available in Alberta at this time?

Dr. Rob Sobhani: Absolutely, and not only in the upstream discovery, but also in the downstream—refining, pipelining, and getting the oil out. There are enormous opportunities. As I’ve said, $10 billion needs to be spent to build these pipelines.

The Chairman: I understand the opportunity, but do you get a feeling that Canadian companies are starting to come as well? Or have they even realized—

Dr. Rob Sobhani: At least in Azerbaijan, I don’t, because I think there is this gap. They’re there, but their flag is not there. The way it works, the Maple Leaf needs to be there. If they don’t see the Maple Leaf, it’s difficult, because when they’re negotiating with the president, the prime minister, or the oil minister, his first question is to ask where the ambassador is. The response is “Sorry, Canada doesn’t have an ambassador”. That immediately takes away from the bargaining position. (Emphasis mine.)

The reason this is important to me is that Sobhani is hinging a large part of his campaign on the promise of billions of dollars of investment for Maryland. There’s a line between being an outsider with business experience – Mitt Romney is an imperfect example, but one nonetheless – and someone who could be enriching himself with the deals he makes. Perhaps Canada followed Rob’s advice and made him a very wealthy man, since he admitted to working for the Alberta Energy Company.

In an era where government seems to strive to socialize risk while privatizing profit for the well-connected, I have to wonder what’s in it for Rob. We really haven’t had an honest accounting of where this promised money will come from, nor has the obvious question of why this investment needs Rob Sobhani to be involved been answered. If it were such a great deal, one would think it would already be underway.

Beware of men who make big promises.

Poll results disappointing to MD conservatives

The most recent Maryland Poll by Gonzales Research came out on Wednesday, and the results can only be described as disheartening to Maryland conservatives, who have their work cut out for them in the last month of the campaign. (Hat tip to Maryland Reporter for the link.)

First, the terrible topline numbers here in the state:

  • President: Barack Obama (D) 55, Mitt Romney (R) 36
  • U.S. Senate: Ben Cardin (D) 50, Dan Bongino (R) 22, Rob Sobhani (I) 21
  • Question 4 (in-state tuition for illegal aliens): For 58, Against 34
  • Question 6 (legalizing gay marriage): For 51, Against 43
  • Question 7 (expanding gambling): For 45, Against 46
  • President Obama has a 54% favorable rating, with 32% unfavorable
  • Vice-President Joe Biden has a 47% favorable rating, with 34% unfavorable
  • Mitt Romney has a 35% favorable rating, with 50% unfavorable
  • Paul Ryan has a 36% favorable rating, with 38% unfavorable

Gonzales did not poll on Question 5 (redistricting) or any of the Congressional races; in the latter case it’s likely because the sample sizes would be too small for reliable results. 813 self-proclaimed likely voters made up this sample.

One thing I have always liked about the Gonzales surveys is their willingness to provide the actual numbers. Instead of massaging the results to a certain turnout model, the Maryland Poll is set up to reflect the electorate based on party registration – so 56% of the respondents were Democrats, 30% Republicans, and the remainder unaffiliated. This closely matches the state’s current voter registration totals.

Because of that, some trends can be determined. For example, as a percentage fewer Democrats are behind Barack Obama (81%) than Republicans backing Romney (86%). This is because there’s always been a percentage of Democrats in Maryland who are simply registered as Democrats but often vote for Republicans. It’s President Obama’s 88% approval rating among black voters (which matches their lockstep 88% support) that saves his bacon in Maryland.

On the other hand, though, Democrats strongly back political lifer Ben Cardin (74%) while Republicans are just 60% behind Dan Bongino, their U.S. Senate nominee. The presence of onetime Republican-turned-independent Rob Sobhani is all but destroying GOP chances of posting an upset in the race, since Cardin is only at 50 percent. This is because Sobhani is taking more votes away from Bongino (22% of Republicans) than Cardin (16% of Democrats.) More troublesome is that these numbers are undermining Bongino’s stated intention of making inroads into the minority community, because just 8% of black voters support him but 15% back Sobhani, who was born in America but is of Iranian origin.

Meanwhile, the political correctness bug seems to be biting some of the squishier members of the GOP. While the state party has come out against these issues in a broad manner by supporting the idea of “repealing O’Malley’s laws” the Maryland Poll finds 29% of Republicans are for in-state tuition for illegal aliens, 17% support gay marriage, and 35% are in favor of expanding gambling. Could this be the Bradley effect manifested in a different manner? There’s no way to tell.

Overall these numbers are quite disappointing, but the silver lining which exists in them is now we know where to focus our efforts. For one thing, we are close enough on some races that enhancing GOP turnout could turn the election, particularly on Questions 6 and 7.

It’s also important to remember that a number of Congressional races could hinge on turnout as well. Simply based on voter registration numbers it’s clear that Eric Knowles, Faith Loudon, and Frank Mirabile have the steepest uphill battles but there’s more possibility of an upset from Tony O’Donnell, Nancy Jacobs, or Ken Timmerman. Even Roscoe Bartlett could fall into the “upset” category based on the gerrymandering Democrats did to make his seat endangered for Republicans.

There is one other observation regarding the races I need to make. Given the 19-point advantage Barack Obama enjoys here in the formerly Free State, it’s clear he probably won’t be spending any money in the local Baltimore television market. (Washington, D.C. is a different story because Virginia is in play.) Yet that commercial time is being vacuumed up by the millions of dollars both sides are spending on debating Question 7.

Because of that simple fact, it will be harder for those advocating other ballot issues and downticket candidates to afford television time, and that works against both sides equally. This makes the retail and social media campaigns that much more important because one easy outlet is no longer as readily available.

You may ask why I’m so strident on some of these issues. In my case, there’s a lot of areas where they crossed my line in the sand a long time ago and I’m simply fighting a sort of guerrilla war trying to beat things back where I can. But like Benjamin Netanyahu, we need to pull out our red Sharpie and draw our own line this time around because once that’s passed there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Once we allow illegal immigrants in-state tuition, the next thing they’ll want is full amnesty and voting rights – never mind they have broken numerous laws by crossing the border (or overstaying their visa) while thousands who try to do things the correct way are denied or face long delays in receiving what’s due for them. Crime is not supposed to pay.

Once we tell Democrats it’s okay to ignore geography and cynically make up Congressional districts which place people with little in common together for base political interests, there’s no telling what other steps they’ll take to dictate what they determine is fair representation. Obviously political affiliation is a fickle standard, but when only 56% of voters are registered Democrat should they have 88% of the Congressional representation? Obviously it could work out that way even if the state was scrupulously and evenly divided based simply on existing geographic lines, equalizing population, and contiguity, but I suspect it would not.

Once we allow gay marriage to pass, then the question becomes what will be legitimized next: plural marriage, marriage between adults and children, or some other bastardization of the concept? Where does the line get drawn? Despite common misguidance, marriage is NOT a right and despite the best efforts of the gay lobby to promote the idea this quest shouldn’t be equated with the civil rights movement of a half-century ago. As this group points out, there are no “gay only” drinking fountains.

Certainly people of any gender can be in a loving relationship with one of their own gender, but as far as the legal concepts of marriage our state already covers it. What was wrong with civil unions? I could live with that as a compromise which preserves, as much as possible in this day and age, the sanctity of marriage.

I’ve seen elections where people down double-digits in polling have come back to win in the last week, and a month is an eternity in political circles. Just a month ago Wendy Rosen was a game but underfunded challenger to Andy Harris until the startling allegation she voted twice in two consecutive elections, and now Democrats are reduced to pinning their hopes on a write-in candidacy. So anything is possible, good or bad.

But polls make news, and this poll certainly garnered a lot of attention across the state. The question is whether we can make it a “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment.

Sons of Liberty punctuate Wicomico MSOP meeting

In front of about 50 diehard lovers of freedom who decided the fate of their country was more important than a Ravens game – which meant they had their priorities in order – the Wicomico chapter of the Maryland Society of Patriots met Thursday night at Mister Paul’s Legacy Restaurant.

I’m sort of glad they modified the choices at the end. Anyway, Dr. Greg Belcher, the leader of the WMSOP, opened the meeting by bringing up the subject of an upcoming petition drive which had copies on each table, including mine. Sorry the picture is a bit blurry, but I’ll bring you up to speed in a moment.

Senate Bill 236, which passed in the 2012 regular session, is thought of as an extension of the PlanMaryland and UN Agenda 21 movement to revoke property rights. In fact, Belcher intoned that “our property rights future is at stake.” All 24 Maryland jurisdictions, including Wicomico County, are supposed to have the prescribed four-tier plan in place by December 31 of this year.

Next with remarks was local activist Cathy Keim of Election Integrity Maryland, who reminded us that there are two more online poll watcher training seminars coming up: October 1-2 and 24-25. While this training isn’t required to be a poll watcher, it’s helpful to know what can and can’t be done, said Cathy.

Keim briefly went over the seven statewide issues on the ballot this November, with a particular emphasis on the latter four. “Martin O’Malley will look pretty silly (running for President in 2016) if we stop him” in 2012, added Keim.

She mostly reserved comment on Question 6, though, to the next speaker: Robert Broadus of Protect Marriage Maryland.

Broadus actually began his presentation by speaking briefly about Question 5, the redistricting issue. He quoted former Baltimore County GOP head Tony Campbell, who commented that “all we have to do is show people the map and it’s a winning argument.”

As for the gay marriage issue and other referendum questions, Broadus emphasized the importance of reaching out to the local minority population. For example, in majority-minority Prince George’s County local leaders there support both Question 4 (in-state tuition for illegal aliens) and Question 6 because they are considered civil rights issues, and oppose Question 5 for the same reason. On the other hand, they are against Question 7 (expanding casino gambling) because they see it as benefiting the so-called “1 percent,” said Broadus.

Gay marriage is on the ballot, not just in Maryland, but three other states: Maine, Minnesota, and Washington, Robert reminded us. “The goal (of proponents) is to change our society,” he added.

Broadus also conceded that some were for Question 6 because they had gay friends or family, but asked whether the relationship with these friends or relatives was more important than their relationship with God. And while secularists “are attacking on all fronts,” Broadus called this “our Roe v. Wade moment” and admonished people not to trust the polls on this issue.

In response to a comment about secular rather than faith-based arguments about Question 6, Broadus believed this was an effort to neutralize gender in society, even though God created man and woman differently. “Marriage is not a right,” concluded the longtime marriage protector.

Finally, it was time for our main speakers, the Sons of Liberty. If you can’t read the background slide, here it is below.

It’s sort of a long name for their ministry, but Bradlee Dean and Jake McMillan have taken their show on the road to hundreds of high schools throughout the country. What we were presented is only about a quarter of what they do in a normal high school stop, said Dean.

In his presentation, Bradlee Dean bemoaned a nation which had seen a “decline since the Supreme Court said no to God” back in 1962. What we are now seeing is “the fruit of a nation which turns its back on God.”

Bradlee continued by saying the Catholic Church is “right on the money” in fighting President Obama and his contraception regulations. He asked, “Why are (leftists) always attacking God? Because they want to be God.” Dean showed a number of different quotes from the earliest leaders of our country acknowledging the divine Providence shown by our Creator, as opposed to the secular humanist attitude of today’s leaders.

That general attitude was due in no small part from our mainstream media. Just read the quote on the wall behind Dean.

It was determined that controlling 25 newspapers would do the trick, and this was back in 1917! Now we have a cabal of alphabet networks working in conjunction with the largest newspapers to promote a overtly secular agenda. “You’re being lied to. End of story,” said Dean. “The media works for a corrupt administration.” Even Fox News didn’t escape Bradlee’s blunt assessment, since they decide what they want to report to you as well.

At this point Dean stepped aside for a moment, allowing “The Other Guy” Jake McMillan to present a short question-and-answer section admonishing us to think about what we read and say, with a little audience participation.

A sample question: What do they call the raised lettering which enables the deaf to read? Most people would reflexively say “Braille” but if you pay attention you’ll know the true answer is “deaf people can already read, they just can’t hear.” It was part of a broader point that “most of the liberals count on ignorance of the issues,” said Jake.

Returning to the microphone, Bradlee rattled off a number of observations about the media and Hollywood. One slide referred to a warning sign he saw in an AMC theater in Kansas a few years back when the Mel Gibson movie “The Passion of the Christ” was showing. While the sign correctly noted the movie was in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles, and had violent content enough to earn an R rating, curiously there were no other warning signs for the other PG-13 and R rated movies in the theater. “It’s not about the money, it’s about the indoctrination,” said Bradlee. “If I entertain you, I’m controlling you.”

Dean then turned to a distinction not often found in the media, which commonly refers to our nation as a “democracy.” (As have presidents since Ronald Reagan, Bradlee noted wistfully.) Our nation is a republic, continued Bradlee, ruled by law and principle rather than by what the public desires. Dean quoted several early Americans who pointed out that democracies expire from within to become tyrannies. And having visited hundreds of public schools, Dean observed that they commonly are surrounded by fences, covered by security cameras, and patrolled by armed law enforcement officers. “They’re getting kids ready for a police state” in public schools, he warned.

Continuing on to a subject near and dear to several there, Bradlee went on to describe the fight about gay marriage as one “about upending your Constitution.” It’s being used as a “political battering ram” to take us further away from our roots as a nation. “You’re dealing with totalitarianism,” Dean believed.

But it wasn’t all bad news. Bradlee wanted to stress as well his thoughts on those who have perished in defending those rights endowed by our Creator, the over 400,000 who died and the millions who live on while missing their friends and family lost in battle. “Who’s going to stand up for the veterans?” he asked.

Overall, the message was simple yet elegant: “If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any rights.”

Afterward, Bradlee and Jake stuck around for over a half-hour to answer questions, sell their various wares, including CDs, DVDs, and books, and pose for pictures like the one below.

From left to right you have Bradlee Dean of Sons of Liberty, Robert Broadus of Protect Marriage Maryland, Jake McMillan of Sons of Liberty, and Dr. Greg Belcher of the Wicomico Maryland Society of Patriots. It’s also worth mentioning that a number of Republican Central Committee members were in attendance, along with the head of the Worcester County TEA Party and MSOP head Sam Hale.

And while there was no media there besides this reporter and Julie Brewington, who’s mostly pulled away from her Right Coast Conservative blog (but was videotaping the proceedings nonetheless), we did have two write-in candidates for office.

On the left is Mike Calpino, who’s running in the First District Congressional race as the write-in not endorsed by either political party, and on the right is Worcester County resident Ed Tinus, who is resurrecting his U.S. Senate campaign after finishing last out of nine Democratic candidates in their primary with 1,064 votes, or 0.3%.

To be quite honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this meeting because I’d not heard of the Sons of Liberty or Bradlee Dean’s Christian rap-rock band Junkyard Prophet before last week when I first promoted this meeting. In doing a little research on the group, the prevailing opinion on them was that they were typical bigoted Christian haters – yet I found nothing overly controversial about their viewpoints. I will grant they did not speak much specifically about gay marriage or Question 6, but their opinions on the subject are likely shared by millions in this state and across the nation. Having seen the trend of a nation falling away from a Christian God, they obviously fret that allowing same-sex marriage may open the door to an even further slouch towards Gomorrah, to borrow a term made famous by Robert Bork. I think it’s a legitimate concern, others may disagree.

And if the idea of public school is to teach children critical thinking then I can’t understand what the big deal is to have them come to a school for a few hours and speak to the kids there. But the impression I get is that Sons of Liberty faces a lot of static in putting together these presentations simply because they don’t have a politically correct viewpoint, even if the opinions they present are based in historical fact.

The duo is in the midst of a four-day swing through Maryland and northern Virginia, with future stops in several other states. Dean admitted it was hard on him to be away from his five children, but the fight to preserve his country and its God-given freedoms was worth it. Having heard the presentation, I tend to agree.

Layoffs in state resume disturbing trend

An identical article with photo is published at Examiner.com. Normally I split the text but there was no good breaking point in this post.

While we haven’t returned to the mass layoffs of a decade ago, it appears the trend in Maryland is going back in the wrong direction according to statistics compiled by the state’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation.

Federal law dictates states keep a running log of what they term Work Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN for short. So far in 2012 these job losses are approaching a three-year high with still a quarter to go. By way of comparison, I compiled through WARN statistics (which are available through the state back to calendar year 2000) the total number of jobs lost via these mass layoffs each year since:

  • 2000: 7,573
  • 2001: 10,041
  • 2002: 8,352
  • 2003: 11,123
  • 2004: 5,120
  • 2005: 7,445
  • 2006: 4,847
  • 2007: 4,586
  • 2008: 4,384
  • 2009: 6,170
  • 2010: 5,675
  • 2011: 5,611
  • 2012 (through September 13): 6,134

In short, we may suffer our worst such year in nearly a decade if the pace continues over the remainder of the year. Right now the two biggest layoffs – accounting for almost half this year’s total – are the Unilever plant in Hagerstown and the RG Steel plant at Sparrows Point.

Over the years, steelmaking and other manufacturing jobs have steadily left the state while retailers have contributed their share to the toll. Key losses over the years have come from US Airways, the shutdown of chain retailers like Montgomery Ward in 2001, Ames in 2002, and Super Fresh last year, WorldCom in 2002, Black & Decker and Bethlehem Steel in 2003, Baltimore’s GM plant in 2005, and Severstal in 2010. Sparrows Point in particular has been hard hit by losses.

And looming in the near-term are prospects of sequester-related job losses from Maryland-based companies, since we have 2.5 times the national 2.2% average of federal workers as a share of the overall workforce. It’s quite possible we could match or exceed the all-time record by year’s end, even if the layoffs are only temporary.

But the question isn’t so much why these layoffs and closures are happening, since this is common in an economy such as ours – after all, some of the worst years have come in periods where the overall economy was humming right along. The question is what can be done about it.

We have heard on many occasions that Maryland is a job creation pit – the group Change Maryland has picked up thousands of Facebook followers and made Larry Hogan a person in political demand simply by pointing this out. Unfortunately, we are saddled with our failed Annapolis leadership until 2014.

Thus it’s going to be up to localities to be smart about job creation, particularly ones which have been hardest hit by the exodus in jobs. Salisbury is no stranger to the WARN list; we lost a Super Fresh last year but many more recall the demise of Crown Cork and Seal, the Dresser plant, or United Stationers.

But we’ve also seen some job creation in these very locations: Crown is now an indoor sports facility, for example. Another instance of a shuttered facility getting new life is the old Reddy Ice plant, now home of Evolution Brewery. The brewers wanted the site because it has a well and access to clean, pure water – the better to make beer by. Both have found a niche in a market they can take advantage of despite the headwinds created by the state.

Still, it wouldn’t hurt to get the state out of the way. If, as some speculate, the economy suddenly blossoms once again because Mitt Romney wins the election and brings back a Republican-led Congress, we need to make sure Maryland gets in on the fun.

Odds and ends number 59

You know them, you love them…bloggy bits of goodness I expound upon which run from a sentence to a few paragraphs. Here’s my latest batch from a chock-full mailbox all but neglected over the weekend.

Actually, the first item doesn’t come from my mailbox but was shared with me on my Facebook page by Jim Rutledge, who urged me to read and share this piece by Diana West about how we’ll never win if we kowtow to Islamic radicals.

West writes about the saga of Marine Lance Cpl. Greg Buckley, Jr., who was killed in a “green-on-blue” attack last month. Chillingly, Buckley predicted, “one day they are going turn around and turn those weapons on us.” And so they did.

Of course, that leads to the obvious question of why we remain in Afghanistan, which has no clear-cut answer. At this point, it truly makes no difference to the most radical Islamist whether we stay or go as we’re the Great Satan just the same. Right offhand, I have no idea what the body count is on their side, but I’m sure it could be a lot more if we didn’t pull our punches. Once we bombed Tora Bora back to the Stone Age to get Osama bin Laden, but it was a more precise Seal Team Six which sent bin Laden to those 72 virgins, with Obama trying to heist the credit. Certainly there are those Afghans who love the accolades they receive from their comrades when an American is cut down as well.

All in all, the Patton rule still applies: “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” Just substitute “religion” for “country” on their part.

Another old saw from the Left is that not throwing money at education produces inferior results. But that theory is debunked by a study recently released by State Budget Solutions. If the liberals’  theory was correct, then states which spent the most per pupil would have the best results – but the numbers suggest otherwise. In announcing the results, SBS noted:

From 2009 to 2011 the national average for state educational spending as a percentage of total spending dropped from 30 percent in 2009 to 29.3 percent in 2011. The top state spenders across all three years were Texas, Vermont and Arkansas, all spending at least 4 percent more than the national average. Michigan made the top five in 2010 and 2011. Virginia earned the #4 and #5 position in 2009 and 2011, respectively.

The states that spent the least as a percentage of total spending during 2009-2011 were Alaska, which came in last all three years, Hawaii and Tennessee. New York and Massachusetts also made the bottom five in 2010 and 2011.

For states that spent the most, only Vermont saw significant results from 2009 to 2011.  In fact, four out of the five states spending the most on education failed to produce correspondingly high graduation rates or ACT scores. Arkansas remained in the top five states in spending for all three years, yet Arkansas’ average ACT scores consistently fell below the national average, and continue to decline annually. In 2010 and 2011, Texas ranked first in the nation in spending, 36.9 percent each year, but fell below the national average in graduation and ACT scores.

One can have whatever educational Taj Mahal the taxpayers willingly – or begrudgingly – pay for, and teachers who receive the highest pay around, but if they can’t teach then all the money is essentially wasted. Otherwise, why would bright homeschooled children be the academic leaders of this country?

At this time in the election cycle, endorsements are always news. Recently the Conservative Victory PAC added two new Republican hopefuls to a growing stable of CVPAC-backed candidates as Second District Congressional hopeful Nancy Jacobs and Third District candidate Eric Knowles got the CVPAC blessing.

On Jacobs the group wrote:

CVPAC supports Ms. Jacobs’s education reform agenda, including expansion of Charter Schools in failing school districts, means-tested tax credits for parents with children in religious schools and other private schools, and tax credits for Maryland businesses that invest in schools or hire graduates from local schools.

CVPAC Treasurer Ruth Melson had this to say about Knowles:

Let me tell you why Eric Knowles must be your next United States Congressman from Maryland District 3.  Eric knows about defending the United States Constitution against foreign enemies and he will defend it at home the same way; he is a US Air Force veteran.   He knows about our terrible economic plight; he works as a bartender talking to regular folks every day.  In the United States Congress, he will always represent the interest of Marylanders like you and me.  He is not an ivory-tower politician building castles in the air; he is pragmatic.  Government, he says, must stay within its constitutionally enumerated powers; government must be rolled back to what we can afford.

Along with U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino, the Conservative Victory PAC has endorsed four of Maryland’s six Republican Congressional challengers: Ken Timmerman, Faith Loudon, Jacobs, and Knowles. I suppose they have a few weeks to add Fifth District challenger Tony O’Donnell and Seventh District aspirant Frank Mirabile to the list.

Bongino, meanwhile, keeps adding to his national profile by getting key endorsements of his own; most recently Lt. Col. Allen West added his vocal support:

The differences cannot be any clearer in the race for United States Senate. Ben Cardin has been an elected official for 45 years and you need to question ‘Is Maryland better off than it was in 1967?’ It is time the people need to elect someone who has some real experience, and that is why I am endorsing Dan Bongino for U.S. Senator for Maryland.

We need someone who has walked a police beat and not someone who all he knows how to do is walk into a chamber and vote aye and nay all day long!

West is a conservative darling who some believed would have been a great VP pick.

On the other hand, “establishment” Republicans may have been enamored with an endorsement closer to home – former Governor Bob Ehrlich:

Dan has the unmatched integrity and unique depth of experience necessary to defeat an entrenched incumbent like Senator Cardin. His background in law enforcement and federal investigations, combined with an entrepreneurial spirit and business acumen, afford not only a broad overview of the political arena but also personal expertise in job creation, fiscal responsibility, and community involvement.

We cannot continue down the same non-productive road we’ve traveled for the last 45 years. It’s time we elect someone new – someone who can relate to the needs of the average Maryland family. Dan’s message resonates strongly with both Democrats and Republicans alike, and he is the right person at the right time to represent Maryland and shake things up in Washington.

Gee, Bob, that sounds a little bit like your 2010 primary opponent I voted for. While it’s nice to have the endorsement, honestly I’m not sure the Ehrlich name carries the cache it formerly did among rank-and-file Republicans, let alone those who call the TEA Party home. They were more enthused by the Allen West statement, I’m sure.

Speaking of those who have spanked Ehrlich electorally, Martin O’Malley is once again getting beclowned by Larry Hogan and Change Maryland as they point out Maryland’s unemployment rate is rising as the national percentage drops:

Maryland’s unemployment rate inched up to 7.1%, marking months of consecutive upticks since January’s rate of 6.5%,  in the latest state employment picture released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The preliminary August numbers show a slight gain in employment due to July numbers that were revised downward by 1,600 jobs.  In August, Maryland payrolls increased by 1,400 over July.

The slight change in employment numbers, however, is not enough to lift Maryland out of the doldrums when it comes to competing with neighboring states.

“We are lagging in job growth in the region and are simply not competing with our neighbors,” said Change Maryland Chairman Larry Hogan. “This year’s performance on job growth is abysmal as it has been since 2007.”

On a percentage basis of jobs lost, Maryland’s decline of 1.4% since January of 2007 is the second-worst in the region after Delaware.

And Change Maryland had even more fun at O’Malley’s expense, reminding its audience that each and every Republican governor berated by DGA head O’Malley scored higher on job creation than he did:

In recent remarks in Iowa, O’Malley said, “We are the party that grows our economy; they are the party that wrecked our economy.’ This false statement is borne out today in the latest August employment numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that show Maryland’s loss of nearly 7,000 jobs this year is worse than Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Virginia, Texas, New Jersey and Maine. In some cases it is much worse.  For example, under Gov. John Kasich, Ohio has created 68,300 jobs this year; Florida Gov. Rick Scott, 50,500 jobs; and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, 26,200 jobs. So far this year under Gov. Rick Perry, the Lone Star state has created 140,000 more jobs than Maryland, which some have dubbed the “Fee State” as opposed to the official “Free State.”

“Martin O’Malley has no credibility whatsoever talking about jobs,” said Change Maryland Chairman Larry Hogan.  “What he can talk about, but chooses not to, are the 24 taxes and fees he has raised since taking office which remove $2.4 billion annually from the pockets of struggling Marylanders.”

I know Jim Pettit doesn’t necessarily write these releases to be laugh-out-loud funny, but when you consider the material he has to work with, you have to laugh to avoid crying – particularly if you still live in Maryland. As I’ve put myself on the record saying, take away the nation’s capital and Maryland is Michigan without all the lakes – or the jobs. (By the way, even that state is creating jobs much faster than Maryland.)

A surefire way to curtail job creation, however, is to overregulate land use to a point where no growth is possible. Whether consciously or not, the effect of new state rules may be the eventual death knell to the Eastern Shore’s economy.

There is an upcoming “Growth Offset Policy Meeting” Thursday morning to discuss these proposals, dryly described as follows:

The meeting will include a presentation by staff from Maryland Department of the Environment about the draft Growth Offset policy and the proposed timeframe for acceptance and implementation of the policy. Following the presentation, the remainder of the meeting is dedicated for a question and answer period. Participants are invited to ask questions and express concerns to staff from Maryland Department of the Environment, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Planning.

The Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology is organizing this event and would like to thank the Town Creek Foundaiton (sic) for their generous support which allows the Center this opportunity.

You can register here; it’s no surprise that plenty of seats are still available. I’m sure the Radical Green in this area will take time off their public-sector, taxpayer-funded jobs to try and convince these people that every acre in Wicomico County not already developed needs to return to its pristine, pre-settlement state.

If we were to take a path, I say join the one being blazed by Cecil County and say “to hell with the maps.” If Rick Pollitt wants to do something useful for a change, this is something to consider when you think about how similar Cecil County is in population to Wicomico.

Finally, turning to the national race: there’s a constituency group out there which is always assumed to be a solidly Democratic bloc and that’s the Jewish vote. But according to this ad from the Republican Jewish Coalition, voters are turning away:

Perhaps borne out by this ad, a survey by the American Jewish Council of 254 registered Jewish voters in Florida showed only 69% would vote for Obama. It’s noteworthy the survey was conducted prior to the 9-11-12 Islamic attacks on our embassies in several Middle Eastern countries, most notably Libya. On the other hand, they didn’t ask about the respondents’ 2008 vote so in that respect the survey has limited value – we have no basis of comparison to truly determine a trend.

But another number from the AJC survey serves as a way to tie this post together: 62% of those Jewish voters surveyed either strongly or moderately support U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear program. 74% of them would support Israel doing the same.

It all comes back to wars and rumors of wars, doesn’t it?

Upon further review…

You can tell I was beat last night when I wrote my previous post – driving for the better part of 10 hours will do that to a body.

But there was a key element I forgot to bring up about the 1,100 mile overall trip I took with Kim and her daughter to see my daughter become a wife. I saw a lot of farm fields, cows, and even a few horses and buggies riding through Ohio’s Amish country. One thing I didn’t see, though, was a whole lot of Obama or Romney signs or stickers in the two states which are considered the “battleground” states of my trip – Ohio and Pennsylvania.

That’s not to say there wasn’t some element of politics at play, and perhaps the fact I did the vast majority of the driving along interstate highways may have had something to do with the dearth of political propaganda. This may have been particularly true in Pennsylvania, where the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-70 simply served as a conduit for my passage. But it seemed the only place where I saw Romney and Obama battle it out was in Maryland, and that was a one-sided contest in Mitt Romney’s favor. Most of these signs were along U.S. 50 on the Eastern Shore.

Yet even driving through Ohio it seemed like there was much more interest in Josh Mandel’s U.S. Senate campaign than in the presidential sweepstakes. I saw a number of his signs dotting the landscape of rural northeastern and central Ohio. Similarly, there were quite a few Dan Bongino signs in Maryland with far fewer calling for Ben Cardin’s re-election.

Obviously these anecdotal results are skewed by the small, relatively conservative enclaves I drove through – perhaps driving through Montgomery or Prince George’s counties or through suburban Cleveland one is regularly greeted by signs professing undying support for Democratic candidates. That may mean a little more as these roads are somewhat more heavily traveled than the byways through Amish country in Ohio or U.S. 50 on the Shore. (On the other hand, a pocket of rural Obama support can be found just across the state line in Virginia through some of the hamlets along U.S. 13. The small Obama yard signs are in front of houses ranging from decently kept to barely structurally sound shacks, while the larger Romney, Scott Rigell, and George Allen signs are usually next to farm fields.)

But there is a value in yard signs as well. When I dabbled in precinct organization, I always wanted to have more yard signs on the block than the other guy did. If I couldn’t do that, I wanted at least one because it presented the fact that not everyone was willing to follow the commonly accepted norm that Democrats were entitled to rule my birthplace by fiat. Now while I rarely won the overall war, I think I did pretty well in my own precinct – not much of a consolation prize, but one nonetheless.

Yet that’s how political battles are won – one precinct at a time. Moreover, areas where one is strong can be used to provide more help to weaker areas. That’s why it burns me – and many others – up when resources which can be used to pick up the parts of (and races in) Maryland which serve as chinks in the armor of the majority party here are instead diverted to other states. While the other side is off trying to tip the scales someplace else, we can be effective in a rear guard action and plant our flag in a place they wrongly believed was safe.

Wouldn’t it be nice to wake up on November 7 realizing we have not only preserved a Constitutional republic by ousting a President thoroughly detrimental to America’s interests but removed a Senator who hasn’t held an honest job in four-and-a-half decades and picked up a couple House seats from right out under the nose of the Democratic establishment? I believe it’s quite doable, so let’s get to work!

The return

After setting up four posts for the weekend and a way to check comments from my phone, my weekend away is over. If you’ve seen my Facebook page, you’ll know I was in Ohio for my daughter’s wedding – she is now a happy newlywed enjoying her honeymoon and we made it home yesterday evening, tired but pleased with the experience. I really didn’t get into the political over the weekend aside from commenting on the asinine reserved parking for fuel-efficient vehicle signs I found in Maryland and Pennsylvania and seeing one of the buses for the “Obama’s Failing Agenda Tour” heading to an upcoming stop (I saw it near Youngstown, Ohio – it must be getting ready for stops in Ohio and Indiana this week.)

But there was a lot happening behind the scenes, which will probably end up as an odds and ends post later this week – perhaps tonight.

In a non-political event, I also officially got another inductee into the Shorebird of the Week Hall of Fame as Dylan Bundy made his debut. He’s the first player to be a SotW and make it to The Show in the same season.

So I’m glad you stuck through the weekend, as readership was fairly typical. Now it’s time to knock your socks off again, for I am back.