I'm not one to agree with Robert Byrd much in the last several years. His New Deal approaches to development hold West Virginia back in building a private sector. Also, I do not agree with his war stand. In 2006 John Raese had a better vision for West Virginia's future than Robert Byrd. However no one can deny that Byrd loves his state and has worked extremely hard over the years for its benefit.
What the liberal left has done to Robert C. Byrd is disgraceful. From 2003 until recently he served as their point man against the Iraq War. A popular senator with respect, seniority and an untouchable seat, Byrd was perfect for their purposes. They publicized every criticism of Bush and the war while promoting him as an experienced voice of reason. The real liberal left senators, for the most part, hem hawed. John Kerry voted against the war before he voted for it, or maybe it's the other way around. Hard to tell with him and his pals. Byrd, agree or disagree, spoke his mind. In doing so he alienated a lot of people in his home state and took real risks on behalf of his party.
Liberal leftists adored Byrd right up until he secured his seat for another six years. After all in an election with no incumbents a man of John Raese's name recognition and financial support could have won it. No, they wanted that seat assuredly marked with a (D) for at least another term. Sure that meant promoting an anti-abortion, pro gun, pro school prayer octogenarian who once portrayed a Confederate general in a movie. For liberal left wingers, that could not be easy. But hey, he was anti-Bush.
But now look at the situation. Liberal leftism's official voice in the nation's capital, the Washington Post, has started publicizing some of the lapses of old age the senator occasionally shows. He went from left wing hero to an old man whose time has passed. A columnist ridiculed Senator Byrd's speech about his dog during a congressional committee hearing on pet food safety. Another on May 30th pointed out Byrd's former affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan. Somehow conservative arguments about old age and past connections with terrorism held no relevance nine months ago. Now that the liberal left is done with Byrd, let the undermining of a senator's reputation commence. Republicans have criticized Byrd for many years, for many reasons, and rightfully so. The GOP at least generally remained consistent.
Maybe liberal left wingers do not realize that a younger and more charismatic version of Joe Lieberman is all but ready to take over the seat when the opportunity presents itself. The flip flop (are we even surprised when liberal leftists do this anymore) on Byrd has ranged over into hypocrisy, well past ingratitude. They used Senator Byrd and now they are throwing him aside. A very cruel way for the liberal left to treat a man that served the Democratic Party for so long. Maybe because they no longer in any way shape or form represent the kind of Democratic Party that Senator Byrd or most other West Virginians have supported all these years.
He's not from my party and I don't always agree with him. Senator Byrd's still a West Virginian though. Although there has been a lot to criticize from the point of view of a West Virginia Republican, it's tough to watch a bunch of elitist, snobbish Washington D.C. left-wingers using an elderly man from our state for their own purposes and disposing of him so callously when he is no longer useful to them.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Quinton Andrews' Natural Rights
Quenton Andrews is a man getting a lot of unwanted attention these days. The West Virginia University starting free safety was arrested this week. News of arrests of college football players sparks a knee jerk reaction generally. Why can't these kids just respect the law? What is wrong with these thugs? Etc., etc.
This situation seems a little different though. According to all accounts, Monongalia County deputies arrested Andrews for merely refusing to show officers his identification, citing him for obstructing an officer. The officer was in the process of arresting a former football player that actually had committed the crime of underage drinking. Andrews himself did nothing criminal. He even tried to go back inside his residence.
When did it become illegal to not show your identification to police when requested? The US Supreme Court in 2004 ruled that citizens have the obligation to present ID at the request of officers at any time for any reason. It sounds too much like the KGB or the Gestapo officer demanding "Papers please!" Don't get me wrong, I am not equating our hard working and courageous law enforcement with those notorious institutions of oppression. The vast majority of police do their jobs honestly.
However this gives police too much power to harass citizens into what is now defined as criminal behavior. Sure one can argue to just give the guy the ID and save yourself some grief; if you are not doing anything wrong, why worry? That argument can easily extend to searching your car, home, mail, hard drive, or anything else. Citizens have natural rights so long as they are not harming others. Quinton Andrews did not harm anyone, nor did he obstruct an officer doing his job. He simply dared to peacefully exercise his own rights.
Now let's be honest about Andrews too. He was not standing up for some heroic principle when he left his house that night. Like a lot of other guys in their late teens, he shot off his mouth in a situation where prudence demanded he keep quiet. However he had the good sense to leave the scene and go to his home when the officer responded. Was it dumb? Absolutely. That still does not mean that Andrews gave up his rights.
This situation seems a little different though. According to all accounts, Monongalia County deputies arrested Andrews for merely refusing to show officers his identification, citing him for obstructing an officer. The officer was in the process of arresting a former football player that actually had committed the crime of underage drinking. Andrews himself did nothing criminal. He even tried to go back inside his residence.
When did it become illegal to not show your identification to police when requested? The US Supreme Court in 2004 ruled that citizens have the obligation to present ID at the request of officers at any time for any reason. It sounds too much like the KGB or the Gestapo officer demanding "Papers please!" Don't get me wrong, I am not equating our hard working and courageous law enforcement with those notorious institutions of oppression. The vast majority of police do their jobs honestly.
However this gives police too much power to harass citizens into what is now defined as criminal behavior. Sure one can argue to just give the guy the ID and save yourself some grief; if you are not doing anything wrong, why worry? That argument can easily extend to searching your car, home, mail, hard drive, or anything else. Citizens have natural rights so long as they are not harming others. Quinton Andrews did not harm anyone, nor did he obstruct an officer doing his job. He simply dared to peacefully exercise his own rights.
Now let's be honest about Andrews too. He was not standing up for some heroic principle when he left his house that night. Like a lot of other guys in their late teens, he shot off his mouth in a situation where prudence demanded he keep quiet. However he had the good sense to leave the scene and go to his home when the officer responded. Was it dumb? Absolutely. That still does not mean that Andrews gave up his rights.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Not Getting What We Paid For
During the darkest days of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia, a place called Srebrenica became one of the most hellish places on earth.
It was supposed to be a safe zone because the United Nations said so. They dispatched a handful of soldiers from the Netherlands with orders to fire only in self-defense. Ethnic Serbians under the orders of the notorious General Ratko Mladic swept into the region. Mladic's troops intimidated, but scrupulously avoided shooting at the Dutch. 8,000 men and boys died under the so-called protection of the powder blue flag. I cannot imagine an American soldier standing by and watching that kind of horror, orders or no orders, whether outgunned or not.
This certainly reinforces the idea stated here before that only warriors can be peacekeepers. How can you protect anyone if your gun is always on "safety?" Sure, many of the perpetuators have ended up tried for war crimes, but for rape and mass murder they get sentences that in the United States would be light for major drug felonies or attempted murder. It has led to another result, a lawsuit. Bosnian female relatives of the dead have filed suit against the United Nations and the Dutch government for their lack of action.
Although it is always fun to see the UN inconvenienced, the problem is that if they lose a lawsuit and actually pay up, American money goes towards the lion's share of the bill. One more reason why the taxpayer dollars from the Potomac Highlands and the rest of the United States ought not support that white elephant of an international organization.
It was supposed to be a safe zone because the United Nations said so. They dispatched a handful of soldiers from the Netherlands with orders to fire only in self-defense. Ethnic Serbians under the orders of the notorious General Ratko Mladic swept into the region. Mladic's troops intimidated, but scrupulously avoided shooting at the Dutch. 8,000 men and boys died under the so-called protection of the powder blue flag. I cannot imagine an American soldier standing by and watching that kind of horror, orders or no orders, whether outgunned or not.
This certainly reinforces the idea stated here before that only warriors can be peacekeepers. How can you protect anyone if your gun is always on "safety?" Sure, many of the perpetuators have ended up tried for war crimes, but for rape and mass murder they get sentences that in the United States would be light for major drug felonies or attempted murder. It has led to another result, a lawsuit. Bosnian female relatives of the dead have filed suit against the United Nations and the Dutch government for their lack of action.
Although it is always fun to see the UN inconvenienced, the problem is that if they lose a lawsuit and actually pay up, American money goes towards the lion's share of the bill. One more reason why the taxpayer dollars from the Potomac Highlands and the rest of the United States ought not support that white elephant of an international organization.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Solving Our Law Enforcement Problems Starts With Development
The State Journal on May 31 gave extensive coverage to a relatively hidden problem in the Potomac Highlands. In the article, the Mineral and Hardy County sheriffs discussed extensively their respective problems with personnel and funding. Both counties have a handful of deputies and a huge number of square miles and back roads to cover. They also have serious drug problems and an increasing demand from newer residents for immediate police response even in remote areas.One solution, as discussed in the article, lies in raising taxes. This idea does not garner a lot of enthusiasm. Mineral County just shot down a law enforcement levy and currently the property taxes are higher than a lot of poor and middle income residents can stand.
The alternative option to raising taxes lies in economic development. One can only wonder how much a cabinet plant could have bolstered Mineral County's tax receipts. Grant County currently pays farmers to not sell land to those that would use it for industrial development. The State Journal did not cite Grant County, but one would assume they share the same funding problems as their neighbors. Can they afford to not encourage manufacturing?
Residents of the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia deserve quality services for the high taxes they pay and all too often do not get them. The primary role of government lies in protecting lives and property, but over time it has taken on many more roles. Raising taxes on an eroding base no longer represents a viable solution. We must stop discouraging development.
The alternative option to raising taxes lies in economic development. One can only wonder how much a cabinet plant could have bolstered Mineral County's tax receipts. Grant County currently pays farmers to not sell land to those that would use it for industrial development. The State Journal did not cite Grant County, but one would assume they share the same funding problems as their neighbors. Can they afford to not encourage manufacturing?
Residents of the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia deserve quality services for the high taxes they pay and all too often do not get them. The primary role of government lies in protecting lives and property, but over time it has taken on many more roles. Raising taxes on an eroding base no longer represents a viable solution. We must stop discouraging development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)