Friday, July 31, 2015

Thank you to the readers of the Coltons Point Times around the world


As always we like to acknowledge the faithful and new readers to the Coltons Point Times and thank you for sharing our world.  Next year will be the tenth anniversary of the CPT on the Internet.

Double click on picture for full view of video.

This has been a wild decade as we continued to remain faithful to our promise to you to never allow advertising, to never collect names and emails, and basically to never violate all your rights to privacy like most other web sites.

The top ten countries for readers of the Coltons Point Times shifted slightly the past week.

Only two English-speaking countries made the top ten.  United States readers were about 60% of the total while Russia came in second with over 28% of the readers.

Here is the new ranking based on total readers per country for the week:

1.       United States

2.      Russia

3.      France

4.      Germany

5.      United Kingdom

6.      China

7.      Ukraine

8.     Portugal

9.      India

10.  Philippines


Wednesday, July 29, 2015

What happened to the news media in America - Have we returned to the era of Yellow Journalism?


Do Journalists embrace ethics and avoid conflicts of interest?

Once upon a time, my favorite Scottish philosopher Edmund Burke in the 18th century coined the term "Fourth Estate" to describe the press.  It resulted from an attempt to distinguish the actions and interests of networked societies from those of the mass media.

By acting as a watchdog on other estates at the time, the First through Third Estates being clergy, nobility, and secular authorities, (the latter meaning civil law rather than religious law), the emerging profession of journalism elevated itself to the others' status and level.

Thanks to technology advances, we now have the term “Fifth Estate” to explain our collective ability to share information, to create communities, and to organize social movements through online networks.

With the proliferation of high-speed blabber in cyber space came the disintegration of truth and ethics.  Today, most people do not trust the news media no matter where it hides in society, as it seems to have lost its ethical foundation.

What is it in America that keeps our news media from being objective?

Have we returned to the era of "Yellow Journalism" in America?  You be the judge.

Quote by Joseph Pulitzer

Just what constitutes the era of Yellow Journalism re-emerging in America that dominated our newspapers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The "Yellow Fever" of Journalism

Yellow Journalism is a term first coined during the famous newspaper wars between the legendary publishers William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer II.

Pulitzer's paper, the New York World, and Hearst's New York Journal changed the content of newspapers adding more sensationalized stories and increasing the use of drawings and cartoons.

As newspapers published more and more cartoons, Pulitzer began to publish a cartoon of his own that he titled "The Yellow Kid" in 1896.  Created by R. F. Outcault, the cartoon became one of many objects fought over between Hearst and Pulitzer during their bitter and public rivalry.

Hearst later lured Outcault and his cartoon from Pulitzer by offering him an outrageous salary.  Pulitzer then published yet another version of the cartoon very similar to "The Yellow Kid" to continue competing with Hearst.

With so much competition between the newspapers, the news was over-dramatized and altered to fit story ideas that publishers and editors thought would sell the most papers and stir the most interest for the public so that news boys could sell more papers on street corners.

They often used the "Yellow Kid" cartoons to sensationalize stories and discredit the stories of other newspapers. Swaying public opinion on important issues such as the Spanish-American war was a frequent use of the cartoons.

Newspapers of the era did not practice the objectivity that newspapers and other news media supposedly strive for today.

The Society of Professional Journalists

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), formerly known as Sigma Delta Chi, established in April 1909 at DePauw University, is one of the oldest organizations representing journalists in America.

The stated mission is to promote and defend the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press; encourage high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism; and promote and support diversity in journalism.

There are nearly 300 chapters across the United States with more than 9,000 members of the media.

Major SPJ initiatives include a Legal Defense Fund that wages court battles to secure First Amendment rights; the Project Sunshine campaign, to improve the ability of journalists and the public to obtain access to government records; producing the magazine Quill; and conducting the annual Sigma Delta Chi Awards, honoring excellence in journalism.

It has also drawn up a Code of Ethics to inspire journalists to adhere to high standards of behavior and decision-making while performing their work.

Here is the full text of the Code of Ethics for Professional Journalists.

Society of Professional Journalists
Code of Ethics


Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society’s principles and standards of practice.


Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.
Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

 Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when additional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.

Never plagiarize.

Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.

Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent factor context.

Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.


Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists should:

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief:

Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.


Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. Journalists should:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.


Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should:

Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

About the Code of Ethics

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior.

The code is intended not as a set of “rules” but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society’s members. Sigma Delta Chi’s first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

So what do you think about the journalists of today?

Americans Abandon Voting - Less than 50% even participate - What democracy?


What the news media and political parties are not telling us about our $5 billion election next year?

Our media and politicians tend to portray the United States of America as the ultimate democracy in the world and have consistently presented us as the defenders of freedom and democracy.

Well I must be confused because nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be?  Come to think of it, no where are the words capitalism or political party mentioned either.

Our government is supposed to be a democracy!

What exactly is the definition of a democracy?

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "democracy"

The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.

A country in which power is held by elected representatives.

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "republic"

A country that is governed by elected representatives and an elected leader.

So in a pure democracy power is held by the people directly, while a republic elects representatives to look out for the public interest.  Well let us look at that in light of the current state of American participation in the election of our representatives and leader.

Pythagorean Analysis of Voter reality in America

Total USA Population Today          325,332,205
Total Population under 18                 78,000,000
Total Population 18 and over          247,322,000

Total Eligible Voters 18+                 247,322,000

Total Registered Voters                    142,200,000
Percent                                                            57%

Total Voter Turnout 2012                121,757,000
Percent of Registered Voters                        85.6%
Percent of Eligible Voters                             49.2%

Total Obama Votes 2012                    62,615,406
Percent of Registered Voters                        44%
Percent of Eligible Voters                             25.3%                                                                        

Total Romney Voters 2012                 59,100,000
Percent of Registered Voters                       41.5%
Percent of Eligible Voters                             23.9%                                    

Total Eligible Voters not Voting       125,565,000
Percent of Eligible Voters                             50.8%                                                

Total Leaning Independent                          43%
Total Leaning Democrat                               30%
Total Leaning Republican                            26%                           

Nothing can be more dramatic than the realization that not only do we not have a democracy we do not even have a functioning republic in this the citadel of world democracy.  For perhaps the first time in our history, more Americans refused to participate in the voting process by refusing to register to vote, a consequence of freedom or common sense I suspect.

Our political system has failed to support our constitutional requirements for a republic.  Yet I do not hear a single candidate for either party raise the issue of the disconnect between our political parties and our constitutional rights.

Wake up America!  Better yet, wake up news media and politicians who are ignorant of history and fail to understand the meaning of a republic.  As a last, gasp effort to steer them in the right direction, here is an explanation of the American system of government as envisioned by our founding fathers back before the concentration of power in our news media and political parties.

Is the United States a democracy?  Here is an explanation by

The Pledge of Alliance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. 

The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums.

(Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."

The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind (Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Alliance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4).  Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

Note Data Source for statistics: U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Projected Population by Single Year of Age (0-99, 100+), Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2060." Released December 2014. Web-based data files available at:


Tuesday, July 28, 2015

What Happened to Candidates for the People, not Political Hacks? The Second Congressional District of West Virginia - a hypothetical case study!


As we prepare to enter the "silly season" of politics and brace ourselves for the onslaught of up to $5 billion in political spending, mostly political ads, did you ever wonder how people are selected to run for office.

There are a variety of ways one used to be a candidate for office, particularly federal office, but the collapse of federal campaign finance laws and the failure of any candidate for president to propose new laws will insure the path to election is lined with cash.

What a pity.  Once upon a time, the two political parties reached out to people who were not career politicians to bring new life to political office and new ideas for people to consider.

Once upon a time, when people were running for office, whether Democrats or Republicans, once elected they actually worked to serve all the people in their state or district.  In fact, they even worked with members of the opposite party to help all people.

Unfortunately, that practice seems dead.  It is the political parties and the professional politicians they support who have fostered the bitter partisanship, the character assassination, and the smear campaigns to keep people out of office.

The result, many good people, and many deserving people who really care about all people get denied the chance to hold public office.  When this happens, people get cheated out of the caring, compassionate, and understanding leaders we deserve and need.

Where are the people's politicians who put the needs of the people first and who never lose sight of the sacred trust between an elected official and all the people they serve?

Let me give you a hypothetical example so you can see what I mean.  Let us take the Second Congressional District of West Virginia.  The Second District is one of the strangest in the nation as it extends from the Washington suburbs in the Northeast part of the state all the way through Charleston almost to Kentucky.

During the most recent election in 2014, the party candidates for Congress included the former chairman of the West Virginia Democrat Party running against the former chairman of the Maryland Republican party.  Democrat Nick Casey and Republican Alex Mooney squared off.

As whacky as it sounds that is what happened.  Professional politicians from both political parties squared off to represent the Mountaineers.  Mooney, who did not even live in West Virginia when he started his campaign, was running for public office in his third different state: New Hampshire, Maryland, and West Virginia.[

Casey, the prohibitive favorite as former state Democrat party chairman, president of the ABA, prominent Catholic, Charleston resident, person with exceptional charitable credentials, and candidate with by far the highest public recognition, got just 60% of the vote in the primary and 43.9% in the general election.

Mooney pulled off a major upset.

As we approach the 2016 election cycle, what do you suppose is happening in the now GOP Second District.  Mooney is preparing for the re-election campaign although there is some speculation that if a Republican became president Mooney would be in line for a major position in the new administration.

On the Democrat side the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, is encouraging Nick Casey to run again for the Second District WV Congressional seat.  The fact such action is being reported in the news media suggests the DCCC has decided to push Casey and discourage any other candidates from running, much like is being done with Hillary Clinton at the presidential level.

As for Casey vulnerability, I believe Casey could lose the race by even more votes than the last election.  Several issues could cause serious damage to his efforts. Casey is vulnerable for two reasons, his time as Democratic State party leader in West Virginia, and his statements in the last campaign.

While I have only completed a cursory review of the actual voting breakdown, certain things are quite clear.  First, in 2016, there will be massive GOP spending for president and the message will be targeted at two potential Achilles heels for Casey, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Like it or not Casey is linked to Obama, to DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and to key elements of the Obama program.  As a result, the GOP will portray him as just another party hack doing the bidding of the professional politicians.

His super-delegate and party spokesperson role put him on record supporting what Obama, Pelosi, and Schultz told people to say.  The fact he had to say he was going to vote against Pelosi in the last campaign, if elected, showed his party vulnerability.

His strong support for Obama on Obamacare and energy policy both became campaign issues used against him, and will be larger issues in the next campaign because of the spending in the presidential election.

That same party loyalty over what is good for the people of West Virginia will include his relationship to Hillary who already has her highest negatives recorded and the campaign has barely begun.

Since Casey was on record saying he wanted the Clintons help in his campaign, and he supported her during her State department days, it links him to her and her standing in the polls.

However, from a hypothetical standpoint there may be a far better candidate than either Mooney or Casey.  One who will never get to serve the people of West Virginia because the professional politicians want to keep the seat in the control of professional politicians.
My hypothetical candidate is a real person, Clarence E. Martin, III of Martinsburg.  "CEM" Martin possesses about every quality known to elevate politicians to friends and advocates for all the people.

Since this is a key swing district in a key swing state, it would seem one grounded in serving people like Martin rather than parties, is an ideal candidate.  He is homegrown from West Virginia with three generations of prominent family in public service serving the citizens of West Virginia.

Why CEM Martin should be the Congressman, hypothetically speaking that is.

He is homegrown with a statewide network of friends and long go demonstrated a commitment to family, faith, and loyalty.  CEM Martin was a past president of the State Bar Association.  His grandfather was past president of the American Bar Association.  CEM would garner support from a variety of local networks like lawyers, the Chamber of Commerce, religious groups, non-profits, and the business community.

Throughout his career he demonstrated how to serve people and put their interests first.  With Congressional committee staff experience, international experience through think tanks, and his standing as one of the highest-ranking members of the Papal backed Knights of Malta in the USA, he is free of partisan political association.  When you add his family legacy and a charming wife and daughters, he could make a formidable candidate.

Most important is the legacy issue.  West Virginians seem to like authentic, homegrown candidates and if ever there was a race when it should have been evident, it was last year.

Clarence E. "CEM" Martin, III is a Shareholder at Martin & Seibert, L.C. and is the third generation of his family to be a member of the firm. His Grandfather, Clarence E. Martin, President of the American Bar Association in 1932-1933 founded the firm over 100 years ago, in 1908, in Martinsburg.

CEM's parents

CEM is a former Assistant Counsel to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (now Energy and Commerce) and Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. He was a Member of the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1976 – 1982 and held various leadership positions.

In May of 2012, Martin was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to chair a select committee to review and revise the Constitution, Bylaws, Rules, and Regulations of the West Virginia State Bar. Mr. Martin has taken leadership roles in a number of professional and business organizations in West Virginia and beyond. He recently served as Chair for the West Virginia State Chamber of Commerce.

He has also served his communities in the following practices:

President of the West Virginia Bar Association in 1991-92
Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers from 1988-92
National Board of the American Board of Trial Advocates from 1986-94
Fellow, West Virginia Bar Foundation
Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America
Fellow of the American Bar Foundation
Board of Directors of the Defense Trial
Board of Directors of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, serving as Chair 2007-2008
Board of Advisors for Shepherd University serving as its Chair from 1990-92 and 1995-97
Board of Advisors for the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law
Board of Directors of Catholic Charities of West Virginia
Board of Directors for Vision Shared
Board of Directors for the West Virginia Education Alliance
Board of Directors for the International Partnership for Human Development
Board of Directors for West Virginia Council for Community and Economic Development
Board of Directors for the Holy Family Hospital Foundation
Board of Directors for the Federal Association of the Order of Malta
Member of the West Virginia Law Institute
Member of the National Association of Railroad Trial Counsel
Who's Who in America
Who's Who in American Law
Honorary Doctorate degree by Shepherd University


He was named a Super Lawyer in West Virginia in 2008 through 2011,which recognizes the top five percent of lawyers in the state, and named a Fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America in 2007, which recognizes the top two percent of litigators in the U.S.  In 2011, he was named to Best Lawyers in America, which is a peer rated listing recognizing the top lawyers in the U.S.

Also in 2011 he was elected to the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance. The Alliance is a nonpartisan group made up of insurance companies, corporations, law firms, and service providers committed to furthering the highest standards of litigation management.  In 2012 he graduated from the Alliance's first certification program in litigation management held at the Columbia Law School and is a Certified Litigation Management Professional.

In 1992 he was appointed to serve on the West Virginia Council for Community and Economic Development, which developed and directed the State's economic development programs and he  elected its Secretary and served until 1995. CEM also chaired the West Virginia Economic Development Foundation and the West Virginia Economic Development Corporation, which are authorized by the Council as private funding corporations for the State's economic development programs.

He now serves on the board of Vision Shared which works with the State's development office on economic development. He served as President of the Discover the REAL West Virginia Foundation from its founding in 1993 through 2004, focusing on economic development and international trade issues with U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV.

He is also Chairman of the Berkeley County Roundhouse Authority, which is restoring a historic railroad property. In 2003, Mr. Martin was elected a Fellow in the West Virginia Bar Foundation.

CEM is a member of the Board of Directors for the Holy Family Hospital Foundation which supports the Holy Family Hospital. The Hospital is the only hospital that provides critical, neo-natal care in Bethlehem, in the Palestinian Territories. He is also president of the Washington-Baltimore Chapter of the Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums.

In 2000, Mr. Martin was invested in the Order of Malta as a Knight of Magisterial Grace. In 2003, he was elected to the Federal Association's Board of Directors. In 2004 he was invested as a member of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Constantinian Order of St. George. In 2007 he was awarded the Cross of Merit by the Order for service to the Order and Church. In 2009 he was advanced in rank in the Order of Malta to the second class in Obedience.

In 2013 when he was named to the Order of St Gregory the Great by Pope Benedict XVI, an honor that was personally presented by the Pope.  It represents the highest award bestowed on a Catholic layperson.  More recently, he has had several private audiences with Pope Francis.

CEM is qualified to practice law before the following courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court, the West Virginia Supreme Court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third and Fourth Circuits, the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania, Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia, District of Columbia and Eastern District of Virginia, The Court of Appeals for Maryland, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.


Can you imagine that hypothetical candidates like CEM Martin will never get a chance to represent the people of West Virginia when they are exactly what the people of West Virginia need and deserve.

[Note - In the interest of transparency I was a classmate with CEM at the University of Arizona and he has consistently told me he is not a candidate for Congress in West Virginia, though he should be.]