Few situations in politics are easier to predict than the moral certainty and lack of open-minded perspective brought to the table by the leftist mindset. The sad fact is people like President Barack Obama, and his followers, sleep well at night because they are utterly convinced in their intellectual superiority.

They also are convinced that their superior level of intellect and problem solving skills give them a mandate to lead.

Once a liberal has determined a position on a public policy issue it is unlikely to change. Examples are easy to see and include Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s anti-gun crusade and President Barack Obama’s quest to nationalize health care. Both Obama and Daley can force their own beliefs on their constituency because they are convinced of possessing a profound and highly skilled insight into what is in everyone else’s best interest.

By hiding behind the cloak of infallibility, leftist ideologues can justify the increase of governmental authority into just about any private arena.

Banning guns is required to save the children, motorcycle helmet laws were created to protect people from their own bad decisions, smoking bans are foisted upon society regardless of public support, and in the most recent example the left paved the way for governmental control of health care.

Leftist self-righteousness also allows them to ignore the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law or individual rights under the guise of providing security, safety or monetary gain for the citizens.

Telling people that taking aware their freedom is for their own good borders on insanity. But, the left in America makes that exact argument when they want to ban guns and legislate how parents raise their children. Such a certainty of conscious makes life easy because there is no need to consider an outside viewpoint, no need to consider if there other paths to the same goal, or even the need to care.

For years, the gun community suffered because the anti-gun left flaunted just that kind of morally superiority attitude. Gun owners were belittled for their beliefs not only by anti-gun leaders, but by the left in general. Children were told by public schools to turn in their parents for keeping a gun in the house, and doctors counseled against keeping guns in the home for self-defense.

All under the pretense that the leftist intelligentsia knows what is best for each and every citizen.

The same arrogance set the groundwork for a government stimulus plan that was little more than collectivism hidden behind political spin.

There is nothing about taking taxpayer money and recklessly spending it that stimulates anything except for the self-righteous and self-congratulatory leftist ego.

Just such an ego is necessary to foist the anti-American socialist miscarriage of governmental power that became the health care reform bill. Sadly, when the American people threw in their lot with President Barack Obama, the die was cast and health care reform became inevitable. Regardless of the vocal majority that stood up against giving control of health care to the American government, Obama knew better, discounted the will of the people and did it anyway.

Few political acts in American history can equal the hubris it took to look squarely into the television camera and effectively tell Americans that going against their wishes was for their own good.

Leftist hubris isn’t just the specialty of the Democrats, since while in office George W. Bush did the same thing when he expanded Medicare’s prescription drug coverage, and tried to pass an illegal alien amnesty bill.

Obama’s decision to shred the Constitution by putting the federal government in charge of car companies and banks is yet another of his direct attacks on liberty.

Without liberty and the freedom our Founding Fathers fought and died to secure, there is nothing that can’t be taken away. How a person worships, who a person marries, the choice to have children and the other fundamental choices that define us are at the whim of the government unless Americans refuse to accept the growth of socialism.

When the governmental takeover of health care is complete, it will mean the decision of a bureaucrat can take away the most fundamental element of humanity – a soul’s right to breath.

They already control whether a retiree’s social security check will arrive and determine when a veteran gets treated at the Veteran’s Administration Hospital. If the leftist ideologues get their way, the government will act as nanny from cradle to grave, a sad and frightening thought for most.

But, for our self-proclaimed liberal benefactors the thought of the government as the citizen’s decision maker is the definition of utopia. Only of course, if they are the decision makers controlling the government, and therefore the citizens.

They claim that right, and a mandate to lead, because they are intellectually and morally better than the rest of us – just ask them.
(Gerard Valentino is a co-founder of Buckeye Firearms Association, BuckeyeFirearms.org, and the author of The Valentino Chronicles – Observations of a Middle-Class Conservative, on sale at Amazon.com)

By viewing the important issues of our day through their liberal prism, the left can see class warfare that isn’t really there, and can create hatred where none exists. They can also use emotion to negate logic, and brand anyone that disagrees with their socialist polices as a racist, sexist or worse.

The end result is that Americans are no longer proud of their history, and instead are ashamed that all of the great achievements were attained through oppression and racism.

Leftist thinkers were successful in revising history because when viewed through the prism of 1960’s radical liberalism, achievement based education is considered elitist, demanding people enter the country legally is racist, having the same physical standards for male and female firefighters is sexist, and school admission standards that are completely blind to race, religion, gender and age are unfair.

Through the warped prism of liberal thinking terrorists from the 1960’s that bombed government buildings were justified in their actions while so-called right wing anti-government groups like the Oklahoma City bombers are considered truly evil. When in truth, both groups are merely common criminals and terrorists that made a cowardly choice to kill the innocent.

The left believes that demonstrators shutting down government buildings and schools during the 1960’s were righteously fighting the system, and people demonstrating today to protest obscenely high tax rates in the same manner are violent insurrectionists.

But, their illogical views don’t stop there.

One of the most illogical beliefs spawned by 1960’s liberalism is that someone fighting to protect the rights of the unborn is immoral and close minded, but those protecting the mythical right to destroy human life through abortion are acting with compassion.

When gun rights are put through the leftist prism, laws that arm murderers and crack dealers while disarming law-abiding citizens are seen vital to making our neighborhoods safe. Anti-gun leftists also believe that a criminal killed while violently attacking an armed citizen is a helpless victim of the epidemic of gun violence – when the true victim is the law abiding citizen that had to use deadly force in self-defense.

When the left grabbed control of our educational system, they became the arbiter of right and wrong for our children, and have run American history through the same prism that skews the left’s political views.

To a child being indoctrinated by the belief that America’s Founding Fathers were no better than the tyrannical monarchy they refused to obey, the other illogical tenants of 1960’s liberalism become believable. After all, based on leftist logic, America was formed by unenlightened racist men without regard to racial, social or societal differences which makes it easy to believe all of the leftist anti-American propaganda.

Never, in the mind of a leftist, is our government by the people, or for the people. In contrast, government exists to rule the people. Somehow, logically in the mind of the left, that is the definition of opportunity. If only Americans will allow the enlightened left to rule, everyone will have equality forced upon them, regardless of desire, talent or hard work.

The left’s ability to convince Americans that such a view is compassionate, honest and fair remains one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in political history.

The reawakening of traditional American values that took place after the government bailout of big business, and the election of Barack Obama, represents a refusal to look at America through the prism of 1960’s liberalism. In essence, it is a return to viewing America honestly, accepting the mistakes and triumphs without the constant reminder that we are a nation built through selfishness or oppression.

That is why it threatens people of the leftist political persuasion, and that is why keeping the political awakening part of the culture is vital as well. If the people provoked to voice their opinion after seeing the government overstep any reasonable bounds are lulled back to sleep, enemies of liberty can recalibrate views through the 1960’s leftist prism.

We’ve already seen the damage they did with their backwards view of the American dream the first time – we simply can’t afford to give them a second chance to redefine America, and what makes up the American dream.

(Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors, and is the author of The Valentino Chronicles is available at Amazon.com)

Although these events happened in Columbus, the same dynamic occurs in countless cities across the country.

As people got angrier, one caller after another rambled on about more police being required, or that a curfew is needed. One caller even demanded the city give out free air conditioners to city residents.

Over the course of three hours, only one caller pointed out that there is very little the government can do to change the culture of violence prevalent in many communities. That lone caller also pointed out that until people accept that the killers and thugs in their community are their children, cousins, brothers and sisters, it won’t do the government any good to crack down.

This dynamic exists in neighborhoods and at all socio-economic levels. We’ve all seen news reports about students in an affluent suburb who are caught cheating, or are caught breaking the law, only to have the parents use their considerable assets to deflect the appropriate punishment. So, it isn’t only a problem for the poor or middle class as some people claim.

As the number of callers demanding government action mounted, the inability of people to consider their own accountability came into focus. Nobody suggested it is incumbent upon the community to stomp out violent crime and take back their neighborhoods. Somehow, it seems America forgot that 9/11 and Katrina exposed the inability of government to protect individual citizens, and that in a crisis only people who are prepared can expect to survive.

Granted, we can’t expect citizens to arrest felons or seek vigilante justice. Still, too many neighborhoods have succumbed to the apathy and fear caused by gangs, drug dealers and the never ending march toward turning over responsibility for our personal security to the government.

Returning to a time when people lived in the same house for a lifetime, or when neighbors truly cared for each other is impossible considering the transient nature of life in America today. But, we can take back our streets by simply taking personal responsibility for our own personal security.

When callers demanded action by city hall they are in essence waving the white flag of surrender to the criminal element.

Criminals thrive when apathy and a sense of isolation exist in a community because they know a lack of engagement by citizens keeps them from taking action to combat neighborhood decay. The same apathy allows gangs to fill the gap left when a community no longer cares for people on the fringe.

If people accept personal responsibility for their own personal security, it forces them to engage in the type of community planning that combats tactics used by gangs to recruit, and also thwarts tactics used by gangs to terrorize.

Accepting a key role in their own personal security also forces people to look at their own family and support systems with a critical eye, and demands they take action to get their own house in order.

Government has always been incapable of instilling the sense of community that was commonplace in many neighborhoods in the past. Even though we can never expect such close knit relationships between neighbors to return, we can do everything possible to work within the current boundaries. To a certain extent, by accepting that people are responsible for their own safety, it sends the message that reliance on government is a fool’s hope.

After Katrina people accepted that the government will fail them in a crisis, but just a few short years later many have already forgotten.

Over the years each generation has claimed the next is less responsible and a lot more reliant on the government. But the question at hand isn’t generational, the question is when did we cross the line and begin to accept that government is the answer to societal ills.

Looking at the law, or looking at the tax code won’t help define when government overstepped the boundaries established by the Founding Fathers. Instead, we need to look at the people to determine when the majority gave up their personal security to the government.

The moment Americans gave up on being their own personal security advocate, it allowed government to fill that void. Until that changes, and people no longer consider the government their only personal security plan, nothing will change.

Our neighborhoods will continue to decline and many will continue rant about what the government should to when they should be looking in the mirror.

(Gerard Valentino is a co-founder of Buckeye Firearms Association, BuckeyeFirearms.org, and author of The Valentino Chronicles -Observations of a Middle Class Conservative on sale at Amazon.com)

By taking the quotes in question out of context it condoned the “gotcha” game of politics prized by the left in America and openly scorned for years by more reasoned and considerate political organizations.

Stooping to dirty tricks, politically correct blackmail and trickery is a tactic best left to the Obamaistas and the other leftist antagonistic political schemers. The true right in America is better than this, and we need to make sure the public understands that.

Conservatives should expect more from anyone that claims affiliation to the right because we stand for a willingness to look past the sensational media frenzy to find the truth.

Conservatives also profess that action is the key indicator of intent and the farmer at risk of losing his farm in this case credits the now disgraced USDA worker for saving it.

The condemnation of this type of trickery used in the name of conservatism needs to be loud and clear. True conservatives should not let this type of leftist scheme invade our ranks because we don’t have to use deception.

In the end, we have the ultimate and most important benefit in politics – we are on the correct side of nearly every issue and on the race issue in particular.

By playing “gotcha” games with the left, conservatives lower the level of discourse and turn political debate into a Jerry Springer like circus. There is no doubt that conservatives should fight for our beliefs. However, we need to accept that when we play down to the left we not only lower our own standards, but take the battle into their comfort zone.

When the entire tape is viewed in this case the message conveyed by the Shirley Sherrod is one of personal enlightenment and that help shouldn’t be based on skin color. Instead, of condemning her in this case, conservatives should praise her. Especially since those sentiments are a vital piece of the conservative message.

Unfortunately, we lost a golden opportunity to use that point by choosing to take the easy route. Had the website that put this situation in motion pointed out that a clearly defined tenet of conservatives was in play and that our message was being conveyed, we could have used the tape to do some good.

By choosing to take the low road we lost that chance, and using leftist mudslinging damages our message.

Still, a valuable lesson can be learned in all of this.

Conservatives don’t need to stoop to this level and can use situations like this to our advantage only if we raise the level of discourse in the process.

(Gerard Valentino is a co-founder of Buckeye Firearms Association, BuckeyeFirearms.org, and the author of The Valentino Chronicles, Observations from a Middle Class Conservative available at Amazon.com)

Somehow, George W. Bush and Congress thought an even bigger government bureaucracy would fix the inefficiencies that existed prior to 9/11 and allow the intelligence community to better communicate. To that end, they created a huge and unwieldy government agency.

The new cabinet level organization was supposed to usher in a new age of cooperation between America’s intelligence organizations and keep another 9/11 from occurring.

Fast forward ten years and we are seeing the results of the government’s handiwork in a Washington Post report that documents the intelligence community’s growth and the lack of government control.

If, as the Washington Post reports, our federal intelligence community can’t even account for its own American intelligence personnel, it is easy to see they are incapable of the cooperation promised when the Department of Homeland Security was created. An occurrence that isn’t a surprise to the liberty minded Americans who know too well that governmental red-tape is the greatest threat to American security, and liberty.

Once the intelligence lapses that allowed the 9/11 plot to slip through were identified, the Bush Administration and Congress were compelled to do something to look like they were acting on a clear and present danger to American security. The problem is instead of removing the red-tape that was guilty of bogging down the system, they threw more into the process.

Few situations can better illustrate why government fails better than our current intelligence situation as shown by the Washington Post. Instead of paring down the bureaucracy at the top that led to battles between intelligence gathering organizations, the government created yet another layer. Anyone looking at the situation objectively could see the inherent problems with such a solution, except of course the politicians.

As usual the federal government failed on its promise to better protect America, just as the federal government always fails when the chips are down. We see it time and time again, yet many Americans still believe the federal government will ride to the rescue in their time of need.

The cases where the federal government failed are not only tragic, but are well publicized – Katrina, the BP oil spill, 9/11 and countless floods, wildfires and hurricanes all exposed government failures to respond when needed.

Whether the problem is poor education, intelligence red-tape or corporate fraud the answer to the problem is never more government, and the report by the Washington Post clearly makes that point. It also reminds Americans that when a disaster strikes relying on the government for rescue is a mistake that can lead to tragic results. Luckily, first responders controlled at the local level are usually there, but their resources are limited.

Reliance on government isn’t limited to dealing with disaster since millions of Americans are tied to social security payments and other government programs. The fact remains that such reliance feeds the government encroachment into people’s private lives to a frightening level. After all, if the government can’t account for intelligence assets, how can it be trusted to deliver a social security check?

The simple fact is the government can’t be trusted to follow through under pressure because they can simply change the rules, or refuse to deliver on the promises made.

By exposing the failure of the federal government to administer the intelligence community, the Washington Post sent another message to the American people that more government is never the answer. It also reminded us that when faced with a crisis situation, we are one our own since the government will surely fail.

We can only hope the next proof of governmental incompetence isn’t another 9/11 or a similar terrorist attack. The report by the Washington Post should bring such a threat to the forefront of political debate and should also put the specter of a terrorist attack back on the front burner.

Unless it does, we will remain unaware of our enemy’s plans and that is what empowered our enemies in the first place.

(Gerard Valentino is a co-founder of the Buckeye Firearms Association, BuckeyeFirearms.org and is the author of The Valentino Chronicles, Observations of a Middle Class Conservative available at Amazon.com)

Few rights were more valued to the Founding Fathers than the right to keep and bear arms, and their writings on the issue make that point very clear. One of the clearest statements ever made by the Founders on gun rights came from Thomas Jefferson.

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

In today’s America, however citizens are forced to beg the government for the right to carry a gun for self-defense because a minority of society sees them as a tool of evil. The fact remains, however, that a gun is simply a tool of whoever possesses it and only a gun in the hand of someone determined to take away the safety or security of others is truly an evil device.

If our Founders were alive today, they would surely see the tyranny inherent in the disarmament of the American people because they lived through the threat of being disarmed and subjugated by a tyrant. Our Founders knew that when they drafted the Bill of Rights, which is why it included the Second Amendment.

In celebrating Independence Day, American citizens are honoring the words Thomas Jefferson crafted into the Declaration of Independence. But, we also can’t forget that his earth shattering words weren’t enough. Independence was truly won years later at the point of the Colonial Army’s muskets.

Our Founding Fathers not only wrested liberty from a tyrant, they restated through the creation of America how rights are derived by people in the first place. In an inspired moment, they declared to the world that human rights are endowed by the creator and need protection from governmental intrusion.

All of the Founder’s eloquent and poignant words about freedom raised the discourse of human thought and redefined the way people interact with government. Their ideas remain some of the greatest achievements of humankind and elevated all of society. Underneath the philosophy, and utterly brilliant scope of ideas that shaped America, however, was the never ending faith in defending the values of liberty with a firearm.

Revisionists can try to take the importance of the gun, and gun rights, out of the narrative of American independence. But, it is woven into the very fabric of the Revolution and therefore the story of America remains the story of people banding together in arms to defeat tyranny.

By choosing to rule in favor of gun rights just before the July 4th celebration, the U.S. Supreme Court not only gave us a symbolic reminder of how important the gun is to liberty, unfortunately they reminded us that our fight goes on.

Four justices ruled that gun rights can be severely infringed by government and therefore that rights can be subjugated to the state. Such an argument spits on the legacy of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It also forces American citizens to accept that our rights are under constant threat, and we must be vigilant in defending the values so many have died to protect.

Just as the ideas that shaped America transcended their time and defined forever what liberty means, they also warned us that government, by its very existence, remains liberty’s greatest threat. So, the misguided political leanings of the Supreme Court Justices who ruled against the idea that rights are inalienable shouldn’t surprise us.

Our Founders did their best in creating a system that would block the power of the state and gave us the roadmap to protect our freedom. Luckily, there were enough Supreme Court Justices who remembered that our rights aren’t a gift of the government and voted to protect the right to bear arms.

Their ruling was not only based on the intent of our Founders, but was also a gift to the American people. A gift that began with the creation of America, and a gift that was presented yet again by Five Justices who chose restrict the power of government, and their own power, to protect liberty.

(Gerard Valentino is a co-founder of the Buckeye Firearms Association, BuckeyeFirearms.org, and is the author of The Valentino Chronicles- Observations of a Middle-Class Conservative for sale at Amazon.com)

Since the growth of the nanny-state in America beginning in the 1930’s, a constant debate has raged about how much control the government should have over people’s lives. The sad fact is the mere creation of programs like social security put the government in charge of people’s financial lives – whether the people want it that way or not. It also destroyed any semblance of autonomy from government control since citizens couldn’t opt-out.

That left people capable and willing to care for their own future stuck within the government plan.

Regardless, as soon as liberals gained control of the apparatus of government, they created nanny state programs that were compulsory. Everyone knows that unless people are forced to take part in such programs, like social security, they won’t do it. That meant the government had to use the threat of jail time to compel people to take part in social programs not wanted by the majority in the first place.

Liberals argue that nanny state programs were created to let the government better help people, not to control everyone’s life. The problem is that whenever the government takes a hand in something, they ultimately end up in total control which explains why liberty minded Americans are against such programs.

People know that by their very nature, programs that transfer money from one person to another, or that confiscates money with the promise of ‘safe keeping’, are immoral. Most of the government programs force a citizen to pay into a system for years and then still demands you jump through hoops to their satisfaction before returning a citizen’s rightful property.

Horror stories of elderly Americans having their social security payment stopped at the whim of a bureaucrat read like something out of the Soviet Union. Such a debacle leaves citizens with only one option – do exactly what the government wants – if they want to get their own money returned.

As an aside, to think it will be different with health care is to live in a dream world.

One particularly troublesome story involved an elderly man from the suburbs of Chicago who had his social security check stolen. What makes this case truly maddening is the social security administration knew,
without any doubt, that the person in question didn’t claim the check was stolen as part of a scam to get a double payment.

Yet, for years, the social security administration threatened to cut off his benefits unless he dragged himself down to the local office to prove he wasn’t a criminal. Each time he would leave with a letter stating the matter was now closed, and yet, the same thing would happen the next month, or two months later. It was like a sad game of Russian roulette because he never knew whether his check or another accusation of being a criminal would arrive in the mail.

Don’t think for a minute the previous letters created by social security administration employees helped a bit, either. They weren’t worth the paper they were printed on because the new bureaucrat discounted any previous investigation.

The reason this story resonates so much is that it happened to my father -a man who paid into social security for nearly 50 years and served his country in the Air Force. He was always employed, paid his taxes, raised four college graduates despite living paycheck-to-paycheck in a neighborhood rife with gangs and drugs.

But, what choice did he have? He needed the money to live, and was forced to appear, hat in hand, and beg for what was rightfully his. Forcing honest citizens to prostrate themselves at the feet of government beurocrats is the very definition of tyranny.

President Obama claims such a mandate for bigger government due to his win in 2008. But the truth is most Americans would rather care for their own retirement instead of having the government confiscate their money and ‘save’ it for them.

Many Americans have their ability to save how they see fit destroyed by programs like social security. For some, the money taken out of their paycheck for social security is all they can afford to set aside for retirement. So, not only does the government confiscate their hard-earned money, it eliminates any chance they have to save for themselves.

Ultimately, it leaves too many people at the whim of liberal planners obsessed with controlling the lives of honest Americans.

In a last act of political dishonesty, proponents of social security use polls that show Americans getting close to securing benefits overwhelmingly support the current social security system. Expecting anything else is plain crazy. Once people have paid into the system and are at retirement age, they rightfully expect to receive what was promised. (You could call that support!) Plus, as already mentioned, many people lacked the financial means to save independent of social security, and they need the payments. After all, what they could have saved was confiscated, remember?

But then that is the nature of such programs, which suck anyone nearby into a cycle of need – often against their will. Liberals might be willing to subjugate freedom to the whim of the government, and might use
immoral social engineering to control people’s lives, but they aren’t stupid and understand how to create a need for government where none previously existed.

The end game is what all liberals ultimately want – subservient subjects instead of vibrant citizens.

The main thrust of this observation is this: the week of May 20th had certain Congress Critters demanding even more money from the taxpayers. As an aggregate and as individuals, they said the same thing: that without cooperation of the public in taxation and sacrifice, the U.S. Government will not be able to maintain services.

No kidding? For real?

After mismanaging citizen monies over decades of disgrace, suspicion and corruption, and bankrupting the unwelcome institutions and programs citizens were coerced into joining against their better judgment, the bureaucrats – true to form – discount their very own track record of incompetence and have the ignorance to state publicly that if we don’t give more, they won’t be able to keep being stupid.

This is not hutzpah, it is further incompetence and fraud similar to compounding the felony. The admission of not being able to continue unwanted services is the admission of how stupid they think we are. Out of touch is not strong enough. It is a public admission that they are morbidly impaired persons.

Some laugh at this ludicrous state on theirs. Imagine being so self-absorbed that they actually take from citizens by force, mismanage it, and then have the stupidity to say that we will suffer if we don’t sacrifice even more.

Will we?

Or will we be much, much, much better off?

This is not a disaster. Losing tons of government programs is no disaster; it’s a delicious opportunity to be free again. Too big to fail, or too big to succeed? Should we let it all fail?

Congress says it won’t have enough money to continue services we didn’t even want. Well, who asked ya to begin with?

Do it. By now, we know it’s just another bluff. Let’s call their bluff. Let’s cut back on everything, and let’s start over.
___________________

Basically, whenever a candidate pops up in a spot he doesn’t like, he keeps whacking them until they pop up in a different hole – or not at all.

Oddly enough, things actually started easily enough for Kevin DeWine in his first electoral season in full control of the Ohio Republican Party. But, matters beyond his control, including the candidacy of liberal Republican, and failed U.S. Senator Mike DeWine for Attorney General sent things into a free fall.

Now, Kevin DeWine is left with a fractured Party that is lining up against his handpicked candidate for Attorney General, and is in the midst of a brutal campaign for the State Auditor nomination.

Once Mike DeWine was officially in the Attorney General race, Kevin DeWine decided that Delaware Prosecuting Attorney Dave Yost needed to drop out. Instead of complying, Yost went on the offensive and vowed to stay in the race. But as time went on and Kevin DeWine continued to whack at the Yost campaign, he relented and agreed to run for State Auditor.

With one problem solved, Kevin DeWine turned his attention to yet another, since State Representative and CPA Seth Morgan had already declared his candidacy for Auditor.

Now, Kevin DeWine has a conservative base angry over his choice to champion liberal Mike DeWine over Dave Yost in the AG race, and a base even angrier at being forced to choose between the only two true conservatives left on the statewide ticket. In true brother against brother fashion, the campaign between Morgan and Yost has been ugly at times.

The simple fact is in Dave Yost and Seth Morgan, Republicans have nearly perfect candidates for the Attorney General and Auditor race respectively. But, with a background as a CPA, it’s clear that Morgan is more qualified to fill the Auditor role. That doesn’t matter to Kevin DeWine, who has attempted to whack Seth Morgan and his supporters until he leaves the race.

Despite alleged strong-arm tactics at county Party meetings, Morgan continues to win endorsements, proving the ORP is once again out of touch with the rank and file.

In a time when Obama’s backroom deals over health care angered voters, the Ohio Republican Party leadership decided to use the same tactic to cajole candidates to move where they saw fit, an inexplicable mistake in a state with a highly energized Tea Party movement that is demanding less political gamesmanship. Ohio Republicans are also coming off of an election season where some of their most established candidates were easily beaten.

While the Republican leadership in Ohio blamed conservatives for those losses, it was their willingness to marginalize the state’s large pro-gun and conservative base that led to defeat. Now, they are creating a rift in the Party by refusing to let rank and file voters determine Republican candidates for the state’s most important offices.

Further proof that the ORP is out of touch is Kevin DeWine’s decision to run a Bob Taft-like candidate for Attorney General in Mike DeWine. For those that don’t remember, former Governor Taft was an anti-gun, pro-tax liberal Republican that left office with an approval rating hovering around 12% – a historic low. Mike DeWine is not only a contemporary of Taft, but a near political clone.

In a vacuum, it might have been a good idea due to Mike DeWine’s statewide name recognition, but in a time when conservative voters are angry over the unsurpassed expansion of government, it hasn’t played well. Even Mike DeWine’s attempt at catering to the right is backfiring. His decision to get a concealed carry license was met with scorn due to his longtime record of opposition to gun rights.

Election year conversions never play well, and Mike DeWine’s case is no exception.

The outcome of the primaries will have a huge effect on the future of the Ohio Republican Party. If Kevin DeWine’s hand-picked candidates lose, he will blame conservatives for fracturing the Party just as the ORP leadership always does after a loss. If they win, he will claim a mandate to run more liberals in the future, and will further marginalize conservative voters.

Either way, a unified Ohio Republican Party is unlikely as the 2010 Congressional elections loom, and that’s bad for Republicans in Ohio, and across America.

(Gerard Valentino is the author of The Valentino Chronicles, Observations of a Middle Class Conservative, on sale now at Amazon.com)

How the election plays out has huge ramifications for who becomes our next president since whoever holds the Ohio governor’s mansion in 2012 will have a distinct advantage in delivering the state to their respective candidate.

Everyone expects a vicious battle between Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland and the Republican challenger John Kasich. Even with a Republican victory in the gubernatorial race, however, the Party won’t be unified going into the 2012 presidential election due to the leadership’s willingness to shun Ohio’s conservative voters.

Longtime Party Chairman Bob Bennett was despised by conservatives in Ohio for running luke-warm Republicans at the expense of more conservative challengers. He was known for championing anti-gun, pro-abortion, big government candidates for flagship seats like Governor and Attorney General.

The same machine also helped put Mike DeWine, an endorsee of the Brady Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in the United States Senate.

When DeWine lost his reelection bid in 2006, most conservatives thought he would retire from public service. The subsequent retirement of Party Chairman Bennett left many conservatives with optimism over the future of the ORP. Their departure gave Ohio conservative Republicans hope that things would finally change.

Unfortunately, any hope of reform was dashed when ORP leadership paved the way for Mike DeWine to be the nominee for Ohio Attorney General. The move sparked near hysteria among the conservative wing off the Party, and set in motion a series of angry public protests over the backroom deals used to fast track DeWine’s endorsement. To clear the way for DeWine, the ORP forced Dave Yost out of the AG race and forced him run for State Auditor.

Ohio’s pro-life and pro-gun groups fully supported Yost for AG due to his conservative values and strong qualifications based on his background as a no nonsense County Prosecutor.

Adding to conservative angst is that State Rep. Seth Morgan, a well qualified Auditor candidate due to his background as a certified public accountant, was already in the race and is the only other strong conservative on the ORP statewide ticket.
The way conservative Republicans see it, another back room deal by the Ohio Republican leadership forced them into a no win situation. Either they can support leftist candidates like Mike DeWine, or stay home and give control of the state’s most powerful offices back to the Democrats.

The backroom deals led to a revolt from within manifested by a slew of new candidates with ties to Ohio’s Tea Party groups running for central committee seats. It’s clear that this time the Republican leadership in Ohio pushed the wrong buttons.

Oddly enough, Republicans in the Ohio House and Senate are staunchly pro-gun and most have strong conservative credentials. Yet, the ORP continually fails to elevate conservatives to a place of prominence on the statewide ticket.
Any hope the Ohio Republican Party had to capitalize on the growing anger over President Obama’s leftist agenda is being swept away by their willingness to champion candidates like DeWine. They also failed to recognize the anger generated by Obama’s backroom deals while negotiating health care reform and used the same cloak and dagger politics to clear DeWine’s path to the AG nomination.

The ORP’s inability to see that the electorate wants an end to secret political deals that ignore the will of the voters is inexplicable. It’s as if they didn’t notice the results in the Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey special elections.
Those victories came about because of an energized right wing base typified by the Tea Party movement in each state, combined with a growing anger among independent voters who felt ignored by President Obama’s myopic quest to reform health care.

If the ORP’s double-dealing angers conservatives to the point that they sit on their hands in 2010, it will set the table for a Democratic sweep of the state’s most important elections. Giving the Democrats control of the governor’s mansion means they will have the advantage of campaigning with the gubernatorial bully pulpit in 2012.

At that point they can use it to attack a Republican Party already weakened by brutal infighting.

Which might just turn President Obama’s failed 4 years into an 8 year odyssey our country can’t afford.

(Gerard Valentino is a conservative activist in Columbus, OH and author of The Valentino Chronicles: Observations of a Middle-Class conservative, available at Amazon.com)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racially charged comments brought to the forefront how Civil Rights groups have stopped caring about advocating for Civil Rights, and have instead become shills for the Democratic Party. By being in the pocket of the Democrats, any advocacy group gives up their autonomy and a lot of their power.

Same for groups that fall under the thumb of the Republicans.

You can find the full article here:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121713