OPINION: The Truth About Sanford's South Carolina Victory

• 

Mark Sanford won the special election in South Carolina’s first congressional district Tuesday night. Democrats really thought they could win this seat, going so far as to outspend Sanford.  

But it was not in the cards.  

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, their preferred candidate, was a terrible candidate in a heavily Republican district.

In 2009 and early 2010, the Democrats won a series of special elections and trumpeted that voters were embracing Barack Obama. They went on to get spanked by the voters in the 2010 general election. Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

What is there is the simple fact that, despite what the national media would have voters believe, there are still many parts of the country that do not like liberals.  

Just as a Republican could never win Nancy Pelosi’s district, Nancy Pelosi helped Mark Sanford rally conservatives to his side in a very Republican district.

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch showed her shallowness on a number of issues, including not recognizing what “Toomey-Manchin” is in a very second amendment state.  (If Ms. Colbert-Busch is reading this, that would be the gun control measure that failed in the United States Senate)  

Consequently, she opted out of most debate opportunities.  Instead of debating her, Mark Sanford toured the district with a life sized cut out of Nancy Pelosi.  It worked.

Sanford, for all his personal faults, is a master of retail politics.  He opted for large, wooden, spray painted campaign signs put in the front windows of local shops and the side of roads.  

He toured the district aggressively while the Democrat held meet and greets with rich donors.  

He ate a lot of barbecue.  

He shook a lot of hands.  

He spent time one on one with voters at their doorsteps.  

He let those who had issues with him address them on their front porch to his face.

On election day, Mark Sanford voted and make almost a dozen campaign stops.  Elizabeth Colbert-Busch voted and disappeared.  

The pace was consistent throughout the special election. Even with news about Mark Sanford getting in trouble with his ex-wife, Colbert-Busch did not hustle on the ground, just expecting voters to embrace her.  

In the end, Republicans found a mug shot of her arrest during a messy divorce. The Democrats were caught off guard and did not respond.

The irony now is that Democrats are left to say Mark Sanford’s victory is a loss for women.  These very same Democrats are putting up a man, Chuck Sheheen, to run against South Carolina’s female Governor, Nikki Haley.  

Democrats can claim the GOP is hypocritical voting for a guy like Mark Sanford while claiming to be for family values.  

Between Bill Clinton and Kermit Gosnell, no one would ever accuse the Democrats of being for family values.  They will also accuse the GOP of selling out its fiscal values by supporting a guy like Sanford who, while being paid by taxpayers, went to Argentina to see his mistress.

But the lesson of South Carolina’s special election Tuesday night is actually simpler than all that — some areas of the country just hate liberals. 

The Democrats may have yellow dog Democrats who’d rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican, but the Republicans have Sanford Republicans.  They’d rather Mark Sanford, warts and all, than an elitist liberal whose greatest claim to fame is her brother Stephen.

Now the real fun begins.  

Mark Sanford is no fan of Republican leaders in Congress. They yanked their money from his race, choosing to let him fend for himself. 

On election night, the National Republican Congressional Committee, in charge of helping Republican candidates, mentioned Mark Sanford once and Nancy Pelosi twice in its press release on the race.

They opposed Sanford, a strident fiscal conservative, in the primary and did not help him against the Democrats.  

This should be fun to watch.

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.

Erick Erickson

Related Stories

Sanford Wins With Mistress By His Side

View the original article here

MOMENT OF TRUTH: Will New Testimony Expose Benghazi 'Cover-Up'?

• 

• • 

    Will Benghazi whistle-blowers unearth a cover-up?

  • 

    Could the military have helped during the Benghazi attacks?

  • 

    Bias Bash: Difference in Benghazi media coverage

Republican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up -- as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House's version of events. 

The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt. 

But a series of carefully timed leaks on the whistle-blowers' testimony indicates House Republicans could have the goods to at least merit a second look at the administration narrative. 

"The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?" Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. "The American people were lied to." 

Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of that committee, said if it weren't for lawmakers' persistence, "we would be left with a whole host of lies coming out of this administration, because they were not truthful about this." 

The "truth" surrounding the Benghazi attack has been elusive. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses. 

The witnesses are: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former U.S. Marine and presently the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya. 

The witnesses are expected to cover a breadth of material in their testimony Wednesday. Lawmakers have questioned to what extent security requests were ignored before the attack, whether the military could have done more to respond the night of the attack and whether talking points were intentionally changed for political reasons after the attack to downplay terrorism. The witnesses could address all three areas on Wednesday. 

Issa claimed one "cover-up" is "undeniable" -- that the State Department botched security in Benghazi in the run-up to the attack. But, he said, "it still doesn't explain the president misleading the American people over a period of weeks." 

The Weekly Standard reported last week that the initial CIA talking points on the attack said "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." The reference to Al Qaeda was later taken out, and the initial reference to "attacks" was reportedly changed to "demonstrations." 

According to The Weekly Standard, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised "serious concerns" at the time about the draft, concerned it could fuel criticism of the department. 

The language continued to be watered down. 

Issa told Fox News, in reference to the revisions, that "it's very clear ... that this was a political change." 

Hicks, according to a transcript, also told congressional investigators that he thought it "was a terrorist attack from the get go." 

The whistle-blowers will be able to provide a new perspective on what was happening on the ground that night.   

Hicks, according to transcripts, told investigators that the U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed. Further, he claimed that a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early the next morning was told not to go. 

He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12 but got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight." 

He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority." 

Thompson has also claimed that Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop that night.   

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday. 

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges. 

"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."

View the original article here

The surprising truth about milk

• 

Sure, milk does a body good, but how much is enough? Also, what type should your child be drinking? And when is water a better option? Read on to find out – the answers might surprise you.

New guidelines for toddlers

It used to be that when a child turned 2, pediatricians would tell parents to switch them from whole milk to 2 percent milk – but that’s no longer the case. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued new recommendations in 2008 stating that after age 1, kids should drink skim or 1 percent milk.

So why the lag? “It’s going to take a while for that to shift, because the thinking had always been: Don’t put kids on a low fat or non-fat diet—they need fat,” said Dr. Laura Jana, a pediatrician, spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and co-author of Food Fights: Winning the Nutritional Challenges of Parenthood Armed with Insight, Humor, and a Bottle of Ketchup.

“Not all fat is created equal,” said Jana, who notes it’s more important to look at the amount of saturated fat versus the amount of total fat when it comes to milk. Monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil, avocado, nuts and seeds are the good fats that should be a part of a child’s diet.

In addition, the AAP recommends reduced-fat milk for children 1 to 2 years old who are at risk for being overweight or obese.

They’re probably drinking enough

Breast milk or formula is a big part of a baby’s diet, but after the age of 1, there’s no reason to be alarmed if the amount drops. “They just finished the fastest growth rate they’re going to have in that first year,” Jana said. She added that eating table food usually provides enough calories and nutrients for your baby to develop.  

Between ages 1 and 2, toddlers are also more active.  “They don’t eat as much and sometimes they don’t need as much,” Jana said.  

Iron and vitamin D is another issue when offering milk. Drinking milk is great for vitamin D, but drinking too much can decrease iron levels and may even lead to anemia. For children ages 2 to 5 years old, two cups a day and no more than 16 ounces is enough to maintain vitamin D and iron, according to a recent report in the journal Pediatrics.

After age 1, aim for two to three cups, or no more than 24 ounces a day. If your child’s eating yogurt and cheese, less is OK. For ages 2 to 8, aim for two cups and for ages 9 and older, three cups.

When it’s too much

Drinking milk all day long isn’t a good idea, especially because it can ruin a child’s appetite for meals. Also, bathing teeth consistently in milk’s natural sugars can lead to tooth decay.

A good rule of thumb is milk with meals and water with snacks, Jana suggests.  

During the warmer months or when your kids are playing outside, water is a better option than juice, milk or sugary drinks to keep them hydrated. “It keeps kids more focused on the drink for thirst,” Jana said. “If you get them in the habit of it, they like water.”

Julie Revelant is a freelance writer specializing in parenting, health, food and women's issues and a mom. Learn more about Julie at revelantwriting.com.

Julie Revelant

View the original article here

The dirty truth on green cleaning products

When a product becomes trendy or appealing to consumers, manufacturers respond. 

It’s why over the last few years, you’ve probably noticed a proliferation of “all-natural” this, “organic” that and “green” as far as the eye can see, whether on food packaging, cleaning product labels, clothing, or furniture. 

It can be difficult – almost impossible – for the average person to make sense of it all, and to decipher between the good, the bad and the truly awful. After all, the terms “all-natural” and “organic” can easily refer to substances that are indeed both natural and organic – and also bad for your health.

For nearly 15 years, I have been manufacturing green cleaning products, which are derived from plants and minerals; free of harmful chemical ingredients; made from biodegradable ingredients; effective; and safe to use in your home, school or office building. I take my responsibility to consumers very seriously, and have had our product line third-party tested and verified so that you can trust they are as healthy as we say.

But not all cleaning product manufacturers take this extra step, and some are downright dishonest about being natural, organic, or green.  Cleaning product manufacturers are not required by federal law to disclose ingredients on their labels or websites, so the only way for consumers to discover what’s inside is to read each product’s material safety data sheet (MSDS), a federally mandated list of ingredients provided so that workers are aware of chemical hazards in cleaning products used on the job.

It is practically pointless, however, for anyone without a working knowledge of the cleaning products industry to read an MSDS, because they are chock full of long, complicated ingredient names that give no indication of whether a product is safe or not. You may know that ammonia is dangerous, but can you identify – or even pronounce – an ingredient called 2-butoxyethanol?But, it is contained in some products that are touted as 'green.'

Actually, 2-butoxyethanol is a solvent that can cause eye irritation and damage red blood cells, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), one of the nation’s leading environmental health research and advocacy groups. It is hardly a green ingredient, as the product’s name implies.

Such misleading nomenclature is exactly why we need a more concise, easily accessible system to help consumers make informed decisions about which cleaning products to buy, and which to avoid like the plague. 

Currently, you can locate healthy products by searching databases like the EWG Guide to Healthy Cleaning, or checking to see if your favorite product is recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment Program. This can be helpful, but is not entirely effective: Each database, listing or guide requires different criteria to meet its set of unique standards for green validation.

Which leads me to this: How can you find the best, healthiest and safest cleaning products to use in your home? 

Here are some helpful hints of what to look for, regardless of a product’s name, labeling, or database rating:
• Full disclosure of all ingredients
• Ingredients should be derived from plants and minerals
• Must not contain petroleum-derived or petro-chemical ingredients
• Label must stipulate the origin of fragrance and whether it is naturally derived or not
• All ingredients should be biodegradable
• No animal-testing, no animal-derived ingredients
• Finished product must be safe for septic tanks and grey water
• Must not be corrosive
• Must not contain compounds that cause or contribute to the creation of greenhouse gases or ozone depletion
• Must be free of any known human carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, and endocrine disruptors

Deirdre Imus, Founder of the site devoted to environmental health, dienviro.org, is President and Founder of The Deirdre Imus Environmental Health Center™ at Hackensack  University Medical Center and Co-Founder/Co-Director of the Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer. She is a New York Times best-selling author and a frequent contributor to FoxNewsHealth.com, and Fox Business Channel. Check out her website at dienviro.org. 'Like' her Facebook page here.

View the original article here