Megan Hutto: 2012 Winner — The 45 Most Admired Republican Women Under 45

Megan Hutto

Megan Hutto is the mother of two children and a candidate for the Lexington (SC) County Council. The county is experiencing phenomenal expansion and is one of the fastest growing areas of the nation.
As Hutto emphasizes, the growth is not a coincidence and is due to a pro-business outlook. The county is aggressive in recruiting employers, and several have been offered free land and other services in exchange for jobs.
Last year over 2000 new “good jobs at good wages” were threatened when Amazon announced the cancellation of a planned distribution center. The action came after the South Carolina House of Representatives rejected a promised sales tax exemption. Amazon said the exemption was one of the main reasons they had selected the state.
Hutto never thought of running for public office but was disappointed when many officials in county and state government appeared unconcerned about the potential job loss.
Lexington citizens responding by mounting a massive lobbying campaign. They wore “Amazon Yes” tee-shirts and turned out in large numbers. They said Amazon operates on a global scale, and whether they are located in South Carolina or another state, the company would still have the same business. They said Amazon should not be compared to a local retail business.
Their arguments were persuasive and the General Assembly reversed itself, and Amazon expanded its Lexington plans. Michelin added to the celebration by hiring another 500 workers.
The Amazon experience surprised many political experts and inspired Hutto. She is running to “present fresh, innovative ideas for economic growth without raising taxes.”
Hutto grew up in Lexington, graduated from the University of South Carolina, and obtained her real estate license at just 18.
She has never been a politician but has a resume with diverse experience, and says “I have always been an integral part of my family business.
“I have been an entrepreneur and my many occupational titles have included metal recycling, restaurants, real estate agent, residential builder, general commercial contractor, and property management. . .
“Lexington attracts investors and corporations that create jobs because we are a low tax county with an educated and motivated work-force, multiple interstates and competitive prices for property. I pledge to keep the focus on economic development and job creation. We must continue to aggressively recruit good businesses.”
The Amazon campaign demonstrated the power of citizen action and the past few months have been surprising, “I am really enjoying the campaign trail. It’s been a while since I’ve met so many new faces!”
You can read more about the contest rules and background at: The 45 Most Admired Republican Women Under 45

Nikki Haley: 2011 Winner – The 45 Most Admired Republican Women Under 45

Nikki Haley


Nikki Haley (R-SC), 39, is the youngest Governor in the nation and the first woman to hold her position. She previously served six years in the state legislature.
The Governor is intelligent, vivacious, and exotic having a Sikh-Indian heritage. She is the perfect representative of the New South.
In 2004, as a virtual unknown she beat the longest serving state legislator in a Republican primary. In 2008 she was sent back to the statehouse with 83 percent of the vote – the highest percentage earned by any lawmaker facing a contested South Carolina election that year.
Last year she received 50 percent of the vote in the gubernatorial primary and was thus able to avoid a run-off. The opponents she defeated included the then state attorney general, a Member of Congress, and the sitting Lieutenant Governor.
Her campaign began as a long shot but it gained steam in the closing months, and received a boost when Sarah Palin endorsed her.

Katherine Jenerette: 2011 Winner — The 45 Most Admired Republican Women Under 45

Katherine Jenerette is a former Congressional candidate who previously worked for the U.S. Congress. She has an MA and is the mother four children.
She is also a paratrooper who is currently deployed with the U.S. Army in one of the most dangerous cities in the world, Kandahar, Afghanistan. She began her military career at 19 when she was sent to Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War as part of Operation Desert Storm. She is now a Captain with the 25th Infantry Division.
You can read more about the contest rules and background at: The 45 Most Admired Republican Women Under 45

Republicans: Who Are The Real RINO's?

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) do not want to end all funding for Planned Parenthood (PP). They wrote: “The program has successfully reduced the number of unplanned pregnancies, therefore helping to reduce health care costs.” However, they both voted for the GOP budget (HR 1) which cuts off PP. HR 1 contained an amendment of Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) which eliminated the Title X family planning program, which provides contraceptives to low income women. Sens. Jim DeMint (SC) and Rand Paul (KY) both voted against the GOP budget. Continue reading

Social Security and Reflections on the Power Town

"Bad Boy: The Life And Politics Of Lee Atwater" by John Brady, DeCapo Press, 352 pages.

Why is Reform So Difficult?
New York is the nation’s financial capital and Los Angeles has the entertainment industry, but Washington, D.C. is the Power Town. Over the past three decades I have been fortunate to know some of the key players. I admire all of them, and they are intelligent, hard working and have good intentions. Continue reading

BOOK REVIEW: "The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968" by Kari Frederickson, 336 pages, UNC Press

Reviewed by Gregg Hilton
This is an important and thought provoking book. The author is a professor of history at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, and her effort resulted in the Harry Truman Book Award from the Truman Presidential Library. She is a liberal but there is no bias in her account of this period.
The Dixiecrats (or southern Democrats) were predominantly conservative, but the movement also included many racists. She accurately quotes them and that was enough to prove her point. Her account begins with Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932, but as she readily acknowledges, the Democratic Party’s Solid South really began with the end of Reconstruction in 1877. Continue reading

Answering The Libertarians: The 150th Anniversary of South Carolina Secession


It was 150 years ago yesterday that South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. To mark the occasion a “Secession Ball” was held in Charleston last night.
“Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. President Abraham Lincoln did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. . . I agree with Clyde Wilson that America can’t be saved or returned to its roots until the Republican Party is destroyed.” – Thomas DiLorenzo of the Ron Paul Revolution

The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, and it would not have been ratified had that provision been inserted in 1787.  The secession issue was one of the reasons legislatures were deliberately kept out of the ratification process. The founders knew the Constitution was not an ordinary law which could be changed by legislative action. To make sure of this, no state legislature approved entry into the Union. Their only role was to establish Conventions to decide the issue.
The issue of secession was raised at the New York convention. Some delegates wanted to amend their ratification with a provision allowing secession. Alexander Hamilton seriously considered this. The issue came to an end because of James Madison’s letter to Hamilton on the question of conditional ratification. Madison basically said once in the Union always in the Union. George Washington also believed secession was wrong, and Thomas Jefferson spoke against this in his first Inaugural.
President James Madison did have to confront this issue. He was the primary author of the Constitution, and after the war of 1812 the New England states spoke of seceding at the Hartford Convention. The scandal that secession had even been mentioned was used by the Democrats to accuse their opponents of treason, and was enough to destroy the Federalist Party. Madison said they had no right to do this. It was also an issue during the 1830 South Carolina nullification crisis.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) says the United States seceded from Great Britain so the southern states should have been allowed to break away from America. The founding fathers believed there was a moral authority to rebel against an abusive and controlling government. The framers did not create the British government as they did the US government along with its mean to change itself.  They weren’t even allowed representation in Parliament.
On the other hand, the South controlled the federal government for most of the time between 1801 and 1860. It probably would have continued even longer had the Democratic Party not split into three parts for the 1860 election allowing Lincoln to win. The American people never signed on to the British Empire, but they had created the Union. They had also created the means to change it should that become necessary.
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s goal was to stop the extension of slavery into new states and territories. He was not trying to abolish slavery at that time. The Emancipation Proclamation and later the 13th Amendment that ended slavery in the United States were a direct result of the war, not the cause of the war.
In his letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln said his objective was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
The 13 original states came together under the Articles of Confederation which uses the term “perpetual Union” in

Article XIII:  “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.”

The Constitution did not supersede the Articles. It amended them, and this included a complete revision of the then political arrangement.  In no place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” The Constitution does not say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Preamble of the Constitution is: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” Not a less perfect Union. There’s not a word about abolishing the the perpetuity of the Union anywhere in the Constitution. In the Constitution it does not say what the name of the country is.  The country was named “The United States of America” in the Articles of Confederation.
The states which voted for secession could have followed a legal route by calling for a Constitutional convention, or passage of an amendment allowing them to secede. To bring about change they would have need a two-thirds majority of the states. They decided to seek change by armed rebellion against the legitimate government. Lincoln said the Southern states could leave, but only if three-fourths of the states approved. He got that figure from Article V, which pertains to the amendment process.
As Madison intimated, the Constitution is a compact between two parties (The state and the union). If one wanted out of it, they had to do more than simply choose to opt out. There is no opt out clause in the constitution. Even in a divorce, both parties have to work out a settlement. One party cannot simply choose to not be married.
The federal government had every right to protect the union and to secure the liberty of the enslaved people. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to do this through peaceful and political means.  What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it’s people?
Congressman Paul also says “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
This suggestion was tried several times beginning with Thomas Jefferson’s administration, but the South had no interest. America also had a voluntary slave export program. As usual, Ron Paul makes everything  sound easy. What was the government to do if people did not want to sell their slaves?