Cap and Tax passes House 219 to 212
Democrats 211 Y, 44 N
Republicans 8 Y, 168 N
3 not voting
Friday, June 26, 2009
Getting to the Bottom of the AmeriCorps Scandal
If anyone doubted that the federal government rests firmly in the hands of traditional Chicago style politics, the ripening AmeriCorps scandal should erase the doubts except amongst the truest O-believers.
Just after AmeriCorps seemed to benefit from a statutory expansion of its numbers and role, Obama broke the law and fired the inspector general. Legally, inspectors general are supposed to be immune from instant firings and political retribution. This was a noble piece of legislation recently cosponsored by---Senator Barack Obama.
Apparently the mayor of Sacramento misused federal funds and Inspector General Gerald Walpin doggedly investigated. He ran into trouble because Mayor Kevin Johnson happens to be a strong supporter of---you guessed it--- Barack Obama.
Democrats in Congress wish it would die. The GOP has too little leverage to launch a major investigation without a public outcry. However it does prove that Chicago politics is alive and well. Imagine the possibilities for corruption with all of these federal funds raining down upon these big city Democratic machines. We have already seen in the Chrysler scandal how the targeted dealerships for closure were almost all GOP supporters. Now we see Obama breaking his own law to purge his own official to protect his own friend.
Meanwhile North Korea is now capable of hitting Alaska with a nuclear bomb.
Thanks Democrats. We sure do love all this change.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
WV GOP Chairman McKinney: Democrats’ “Cap And Tax” Hurts West Virginian Families And Workers
WV GOP Chairman McKinney: Democrats’ “Cap And Tax” Hurts West Virginian Families And Workers
For Immediate Release Contact: Doug McKinney, M.D.
“As a lifelong West Virginian, I am extremely concerned about the impact of the Democrats’ national energy tax on our state. President Obama and Congressional Democrats’ ‘cap-and-trade’ plan is a large energy tax that will increase costs for the average American household by more than $1200, and endanger 10,000 to 25,000 jobs in energy production, an industry important to West Virginia. During a time of economic uncertainty, President Obama should not increase taxes on hard-working Americans.
“Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are out of touch. The American people want energy independence and a cleaner environment without a national energy tax. Today, concerned citizens will deliver candles to the West Virginia Democratic Party and ask them to take action by urging their Democratic Members of Congress to vote against ‘cap and tax.’”
How Do You Fight Radical Islam?
In the past two weeks I have been reading in my spare time a book called The White Nile. It's about forty years old (pre New Left) and I picked it up at Goodwill for maybe a quarter. The book describes the colonization of the region now called Sudan, still one of the most dangerous points on earth.
Britain did not really want to control Sudan at first. They were drawn in by their hatred of the slave trade. British administrators worked with Egyptian government officials in a very complicated manner to try and end slavery while bringing order and peace to the region. All our children learn about in public school and college is "evil British imperialism."
Enter a charismatic and energetic British officer, Major General Charles George Gordon. The Sudan increasingly came under the sway of an Islamic mystic called the Mahdi. He started as a true charismatic cult leader and ended up (as many of them do) a degenerate and cruel individual. It was said that he employed the same maniacal grin at most events, including the slow torture of opponents. The Mahdi drew many into his camp that wanted the brutal slave trade restored and thus also opposed the British and Egyptians.
The Mahdi deployed his holy warriors against strongholds of Egyptian provinces governed by Europeans. One province led by Major General Sir Rudolf Antin Carl von Slatin surrendered. The Mahdi put to death all that did not subscribe to his brand of Islam. Slatin actually converted to Islam to avoid certain death. To those of his time, Slatin was considered a coward with no principles. He weakly defended himself by citing a less that strong religious upbringing. He kept his life at the price of dignity and respect.
Gordon was made the same offer and valiantly refused, even as the Mahdi surrounded his position for months. Relief was held up by the Liberal Party government who dithered over whether or not Gordon should be simply removed or augmented by more force. Gordon believed that he had made promises to the people in his province of Khartoum. They believed in him and Britain and would die horribly if not under the protection of the Union Jack. Gordon was a figure that inspired awe in the people of his province and elsewhere. He always publicly displayed perfect physical courage and endurance whether in battle of on long rides. Gordon had an infectious confidence also.
Eventually Gordon's city and garrison ran out of food. Reports he tried to sneak out about his dire condition fell into the hands of the Mahdi. The final attack on Khartoum after a seige of many monthswas horrifying. Crazed Mahdists cut down men, women, and children indiscriminately. Women that were not killed were savagely raped and tortured. Gordon, when he knew the end was near, calmly changed into his white dress uniform and awaited the end. When the Mahdists charged him, he defiantly turned his back and awaited death by the sword. Public education makes sure that children hear about Crusaders sacking Jerusalem many centuries ago. Where is the discussion of fanatical Islam and what they can do?
They ripped Gordon's body apart, threw it down a well, and paraded his head to the Mahdist towns. This was out of hatred, but also fear. The people had to know that Gordon was dead because they feared his power almost as much as the Mahdi. One Mahdist leader said Gordon was the perfect warrior and leader but for his devotion to Christ instead of Mohammed.
What can we learn from this story? America must look for respect in the world of radical Islam, not love. The Mahdi only directly attacked Gordon when he knew Gordon was weak, after reading Gordon's own letters. Otherwise they respected and feared him and even the Mahdi would not have dared attack. Weakness invites disrespect and disrespect invites violence.
When our Gordon led, the Islamic and wider world had respect. Now we have elected a Slatin who is ready to capitulate even on the issue of Christianity. Only if America is in chains and disrepute will radical Islam no longer favor us with their hate.
Most Americans would rather die in their dress white uniform with their boots on than embark on a loathsome surrender. Surrender is exactly Obama's choice of action. Hopefully we will not lose too much face before he can be replaced.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Could Sarah Palin Offer a Radical Solution to North Korea?
North Korea now has missiles capable of reaching Alaska. Their promises to arm them with nuclear weapons ought to chill every American.
Democrats spent more time waging war against those trying to open Alaska's resources than discussing national security. Now that President Bush is gone, North Korea has no fear of America.
Here's a radical idea. In the absence of a presidential concern over US security, perhaps a governor in an emergency can step up.
Assuming that the Alaska Air National Guard has the capability, it ought to adopt its own contingency plan. Should North Korea continue to menace the United States, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin should adopt a plan to take control of the Alaska National Guard and launch attacks on North Korean facilities.
Sounds very extreme, but who ever anticipated a president who would dither in the face of such a threat. I am not advocating an attack now, but simply for Governor Palin to plan for the possibility that an emergency could happen and Obama not respond.
Constitutionally Governor Palin could face no federal punishment as far as I know for this sort of action. She does, however, have the obligation to defend lives and property.
After all if several oil wells are a threat to Alaska's fragile ecosystem, imagine an atomic bomb.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
National Energy Tax Bad for West Virginia
Contact your Congressional Representative today! Tell them Al Gore's ideas are bad for West Virginia. 
Sen. John D. Rockefeller | ||||
| E-mail: senator@rockefeller.senate.gov | ||||
| Website: rockefeller.senate.gov | ||||
| District Offices: Charleston, (304) 347-5372; Beckley, (304) 253-9704; Fairmont, (304) 367-0122; Martinsburg, (304) 262-9285 |
| Alan B. Mollohan |
| Website: www.house.gov/mollohan |
| District Offices: Morgantown, (304) 292-3019; Parkersburg, |
| Shelley Moore Capito |
| Website: http://capito.house.gov |
| District Offices: Charleston, (304) 925-5964; |
| Nick J. Rahall II |
| Website: www.rahall.house.gov |
| District Offices: Beckley, (304) 252-5000; Bluefield, (304) 325-6222; Huntington, (304) 522-6425; Logan, (304) 752-4934 |
Obama's Quest to Raise Your Electric Bills Marches On
Last week Obama's anti-energy policies took a new turn for the worse as the federal government sought to weigh down West Virginia coal companies, miners, and the families that depend on their paychecks with additional rules on permits.
It's no secret. Obama has stated repeatedly that he wants the price of electric to rise. He promised additional taxes. Adding structural costs accomplishes the same goal without as much bad publicity. In a time when people struggle to simply keep their service turned on, the president callously demands that we needlessly sacrifice more. It's like asking a person to starve themselves at a low price buffet.
Certainly we should remove obstacles in the path of windmills and other alternative forms of energy. They form part of a cornucopia of energy sources both new and traditional. America needs cheap and plentiful energy to power our economy. Unfortunately Obama thinks otherwise.
Shelley Moore Capito has expressed grave concern, not only due to the impending rise in costs, but also the effect on thousands of working West Virginians. West Virginia's second district Republican congresswoman has shown more concern for these families than Obama or the Democratic congressional leadership. To be fair, Senator Byrd has also led attacks on these anti-Mountain State policies.
Of course over 60% of West Virginians could have predicted this result.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Too Much Water! A Plea to the City of Keyser. Also, Region Inadvertantly Slammed By Marylander
Contrary to the expectations of some folks in leadership positions, many property owners in and around Keyser got more than their fill of water. Storms repeatedly slammed the area, dumping several inches of water in a short period. Many homeowners who have never seen this problem before were cleaning out their basements. Kudos to Eric Beeman who singlehandedly cleaned out the major mess in the basement of Calvary United Methodist Church.
***********************************************************
Speaking of water issues, Kolin Jan of the Allegany County Chamber of Commerce was quoted in the Cumberland Times News recently while discussing the subject. In the past some have speculated that the region might be running out of water even in the midst of floods. Jan made a comment that was definitely not meant as a vicious slam on the region, but demonstrated some level of misunderstanding.
How many homes were affected? Hundreds? We don't know. If a lot of them were like me, they foolishly left clothing, books, magazines, etc on the floor to soak up water. The humid and warm days that follow guarantee that unhealthy mold will develop.
Keyser is proposing a cleanup in August. I suggest that the health hazard created by so many flooded basements constitutes a reason to act sooner. If possible, bump up the clean up day to July and rent a truck to pick up from the elderly and destitute that would never be able to get their own vehicle. I wonder if the county health department could get an emergency grant to assist the entire county.
Next rally the churches. Calvary United Methodist has a working youth group in town now. Mobilize them and Habitat For Humanity to help the elderly, disabled, and otherwise unable to clean out their basements. I am telling you, if you have a basement full of papers, wood, cardboard, clothes, etc, it is almost an overwhelming chore for a healthy man in his prime. Imagine a single mother, an elderly man, or a person in a wheelchair, trying to lift eighty pound bags of wet material.
If we do not act, we definitely run the risk of having larger numbers of sick children and elderly.
***********************************************************
Speaking of water issues, Kolin Jan of the Allegany County Chamber of Commerce was quoted in the Cumberland Times News recently while discussing the subject. In the past some have speculated that the region might be running out of water even in the midst of floods. Jan made a comment that was definitely not meant as a vicious slam on the region, but demonstrated some level of misunderstanding.Kolin Jan mentioned, "he discounts the notion that, as the area’s population as decreased from its peak over the past 20 years that there’s plenty of water. Lifestyles have changed, he said, and people often take two showers a day when “back then, a Friday night bath was a big deal.”"*
Amazing, simply amazing. I started spending a lot of time in this region about seventeen years ago. My wife's family bathed daily even way back in them there uncivilized days and I am sure they were not unusual even though they were living on the cusp of poverty.
He could have said that people wash their cars more often, or are more likely to baby and coddle their yards with regular watering. Both are true and both require more water than showers. But he "went there" and made a statement based upon stereotype, not truth. Like I said, it was not meant to be a slam based upon mythical perceptions of people in this region. But he did say it and he does seem to believe it. I wonder if he also believes that people around here just figured out that being photographed does not steal your soul?
* Cumberland Times News, "Marcellus Shale forum at Frostburg about water, not money" by Kevin Spradlin, June 21, 2009
* Cumberland Times News, "Marcellus Shale forum at Frostburg about water, not money" by Kevin Spradlin, June 21, 2009
Time to Constitutionally Reform Executive Orders
I do not like Executive Orders. I don't care who is president, I do not like them. They reek of monarchical, if not dictatorial, government and it is time to put some limits upon them.
Executive Orders are issued by the president and have the force of law unless Congress says otherwise. Franklin Roosevelt interned thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent by Executive Order. Clinton seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the final months of his presidency.
Here is my proposal. Constitutionally define what an Executive Order is. Then say that unless Congress approves it in three years, it is off the books. This allows the president to respond to emergencies and gives him or her enough time to sell the action to Congress.
Additionally any presidential executive order that involves the taking of land would need the approval of that state's legislature before going into effect.
This would have the effect of balancing presidential power while allowing for them to respond effectively to immediate emergencies.
Obama's recent moves againt West Virginia coal mining methods reveal that federal regulatory law may also need some congressional oversight.
If you have a discussion, then uphold Republican ideals
Recently I had a long discussion on the internet after I was contacted by a fellow that disagreed with some of my assertions. Looking back I found it interesting how a discussion evolves or degrades into an argument. How can you tell who is winning or loosing? Some may say if you win an argument on the internet, well, you have accomplished nothing. The question is if you get out correct information and have honest discussion, then was it worth it? I think it is worth it, because communication is the basis for all conflict resolution.
It started out simply enough with the guy asking a simple question that was pretty easy to answer. The problem was he didn't like the answer he got, even though the answer was based on verifiable facts. See whether or not you argue or have a discussion face to face or on the internet, the most important thing is to have your facts in order. As long as your facts fit your conclusion, then you should win the discussion. But you must keep in mind that if your opponent presents you with different information, then you must honestly examine it. If it is correct, then you may need to change your conclusion to fit the new facts. You can never make the facts fit your conclusion, which is something many people like to try. This will quickly cause them to loose the argument. Founding Father John Adams said is best, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
What I'm advocating is honesty in your discussion. Not just with your opponent, but yourself. If you can't be honest with yourself, then how can you be honest with anyone else? Don't rationalize to make the facts fit your conclusion, it will not work. If you're a Republican, then the facts should be on your side. Republicans tend to see the world how it really is and not as it should be or how we want it to be. That makes it easier for us in the end. When you have your discussion always make sure you have your facts in order. When present a point, then make sure you give the source for your opponent to check. If your opponent is unable or unwilling to do the same, then you the first indication they are arguing from a point of weakness and may not be able to back up their assertions. If you can't back up your positions with sources facts, then quit because your conclusion is wrong.
As you put forth a logical argument and your opponent can not overcome your facts a logical thinker will begin to see things anew and come to a consensus with you. If your counterpart is not a strong thinker, then they will typically switch to a personal attack. Responding with emotion is a natural response for anyone cornered whether is in an argument or a dark alley. The personal attack is the sure sign the attacker cannot refute the logical sourced facts, but does not want to admit defeat. On an internet argument, the loosing side will typically call in reinforcements. More people repeating the same incorrect information does not make them right. They rarely offer any new information, but will increase the personal attacks and usually offer some type of statement saying the winner doesn't understand. This begs the question, why would you come to their point of view because they attacked you personally when their failed argument didn't win you over?
That should be the end of it, but sometimes in rare cases people want to escalate it further rather than admit defeat. Interestingly in the recent discussion I had some of the friends of the original decenter post on the internet a note and tied in many top politicians in the state. People that had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion and were never involved. As a Republican I believe in personal responsibility and I choose to enter into the discussion. With that, any political fallout is of my own making, but when it is important I believe in stand up for what is right. Dragging in innocent bystanders does not help you win a discussion you have already last it destroys your last ounce of credibility, not to mention making enemies.
If you feel the need to have a discussion about something you believe in. Then do it with the truth and make sure you can back up your facts. Always be honest and respectful, never make personal attacks. If your presented with verifiable information the contradicts your position, then re-examine your position as it is probably wrong. Never drag in anyone else that doesn't want to be part of your discussion. Be a graceful winner, be a Republican.
It started out simply enough with the guy asking a simple question that was pretty easy to answer. The problem was he didn't like the answer he got, even though the answer was based on verifiable facts. See whether or not you argue or have a discussion face to face or on the internet, the most important thing is to have your facts in order. As long as your facts fit your conclusion, then you should win the discussion. But you must keep in mind that if your opponent presents you with different information, then you must honestly examine it. If it is correct, then you may need to change your conclusion to fit the new facts. You can never make the facts fit your conclusion, which is something many people like to try. This will quickly cause them to loose the argument. Founding Father John Adams said is best, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
What I'm advocating is honesty in your discussion. Not just with your opponent, but yourself. If you can't be honest with yourself, then how can you be honest with anyone else? Don't rationalize to make the facts fit your conclusion, it will not work. If you're a Republican, then the facts should be on your side. Republicans tend to see the world how it really is and not as it should be or how we want it to be. That makes it easier for us in the end. When you have your discussion always make sure you have your facts in order. When present a point, then make sure you give the source for your opponent to check. If your opponent is unable or unwilling to do the same, then you the first indication they are arguing from a point of weakness and may not be able to back up their assertions. If you can't back up your positions with sources facts, then quit because your conclusion is wrong.
As you put forth a logical argument and your opponent can not overcome your facts a logical thinker will begin to see things anew and come to a consensus with you. If your counterpart is not a strong thinker, then they will typically switch to a personal attack. Responding with emotion is a natural response for anyone cornered whether is in an argument or a dark alley. The personal attack is the sure sign the attacker cannot refute the logical sourced facts, but does not want to admit defeat. On an internet argument, the loosing side will typically call in reinforcements. More people repeating the same incorrect information does not make them right. They rarely offer any new information, but will increase the personal attacks and usually offer some type of statement saying the winner doesn't understand. This begs the question, why would you come to their point of view because they attacked you personally when their failed argument didn't win you over?
That should be the end of it, but sometimes in rare cases people want to escalate it further rather than admit defeat. Interestingly in the recent discussion I had some of the friends of the original decenter post on the internet a note and tied in many top politicians in the state. People that had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion and were never involved. As a Republican I believe in personal responsibility and I choose to enter into the discussion. With that, any political fallout is of my own making, but when it is important I believe in stand up for what is right. Dragging in innocent bystanders does not help you win a discussion you have already last it destroys your last ounce of credibility, not to mention making enemies.
If you feel the need to have a discussion about something you believe in. Then do it with the truth and make sure you can back up your facts. Always be honest and respectful, never make personal attacks. If your presented with verifiable information the contradicts your position, then re-examine your position as it is probably wrong. Never drag in anyone else that doesn't want to be part of your discussion. Be a graceful winner, be a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)