Sunday, January 10, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Young Guns Movement Invigorating GOP
People have lost whatever like they ever had for the Democratic Party, but are not embracing the Republican Party in droves either. Concerned citizens express frustration that in many areas the same faces occupy the same places and that principle disappeared from party. In 1994 we got a new beginning, but a decade later the emphasis shrank from real change back to simply winning elections in the easiest ways possible.
In 2008, even as the collapse of GOP influence accelerated, the next generation of Republican leaders decided to get away from the old structure and create their own.
The Young Guns movement weds party with principle, youth, and energy. It seeks out qualified people to run for office. It is not blind support, but a calculated effort to get people into Congress that support Republican issues. They concentrate on fiscal issues and have a deep understanding of public policy. This gives them the knowledge and the capabilities to adapt free market philosophy to their particular district. The National Republican Congressional Committee saw the direction of this group and absorbed it into its structure.
Movements of this type reflect 21st century conservatism. Outside of abortion, the old social conservative issues do not translate to this decade's fear over loss of freedom. Younger candidates are steeped in belief in the Constitution and fear for its future. This creates a vigor that if encouraged can revitalize the Republican brand heading into the next election.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Kanawha County Republican Executive Committee Chair Replies to Charleston Gazette Charges
Those type of attacks are the same old tiring message from those who are uninformed. The Kanawawa County Republican Executive made a wise decision after much discussion and fact finding.
Our two main concerns:1. How much will this cost the taxpayers of our county?We were told lots of figures, anywhere from $85,500.00 to $900,000.00 and everything in between Never anything in writing which makes good business sense, although I requested the estimates in writing.
2. Will this increase voter particpation? This was asked of our county clerk and Commissioner Shores. They did notknow if it would or not. But, County Clerk Vera McCormick said on several occassions that Early Voting has not overall voter turnout. This has been place since 2002. Voting figures support this.Voters can vote in their precincts on election day, vote by absentee ballot, vote early (have 20 days prior to election day), and if in hospital, clerk's office has people who will take ballot to hospital to let those people vote.The last election in Kanawaha County cost taxpayers $500,000,00.
The KCREC did not think it fiscally responsible to ask taxpayers of ALL parties to pay an estimated addtional 20% for an experiment at a time when the county is cutting the budget and using an emergency account to pay bills. I am very proud of our committe for having the courage to make a good decision. There are far too many people in politics who do not speak up because of their own self interests. We are setting the standard and will lead if others refuse to. You cannot go wrong by standing on principle
Our two main concerns:1. How much will this cost the taxpayers of our county?We were told lots of figures, anywhere from $85,500.00 to $900,000.00 and everything in between Never anything in writing which makes good business sense, although I requested the estimates in writing.
2. Will this increase voter particpation? This was asked of our county clerk and Commissioner Shores. They did notknow if it would or not. But, County Clerk Vera McCormick said on several occassions that Early Voting has not overall voter turnout. This has been place since 2002. Voting figures support this.Voters can vote in their precincts on election day, vote by absentee ballot, vote early (have 20 days prior to election day), and if in hospital, clerk's office has people who will take ballot to hospital to let those people vote.The last election in Kanawaha County cost taxpayers $500,000,00.
The KCREC did not think it fiscally responsible to ask taxpayers of ALL parties to pay an estimated addtional 20% for an experiment at a time when the county is cutting the budget and using an emergency account to pay bills. I am very proud of our committe for having the courage to make a good decision. There are far too many people in politics who do not speak up because of their own self interests. We are setting the standard and will lead if others refuse to. You cannot go wrong by standing on principle
Kanawha County GOP UNfairly Attacked By the Charleston Gazette
Today's Charleston Gazette contains an editorial blasting the Kanawha County Republican Executive Committee for its refusal to agree to the establishment of costly satellite polling stations for early voting. The editorial implies that voters will only have the choice of voting at the courthouse and fails to mention the fact that voting can be done in convenient precincts on Election Day itself.
The Kanawha County Republicans, I would imagine, are concerned about wasting taxpayer money in these very uncertain times. The Gazette does not even share their side of the story, but accuses them of restricting voting.
Of course the Gazette specializes in these kinds of hatchet jobs. We can counter this unwarranted attack through letters to the editor or comments directly on the editorial's webpage, link included here. http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201001060434
The Kanawha County Republicans, I would imagine, are concerned about wasting taxpayer money in these very uncertain times. The Gazette does not even share their side of the story, but accuses them of restricting voting.
Of course the Gazette specializes in these kinds of hatchet jobs. We can counter this unwarranted attack through letters to the editor or comments directly on the editorial's webpage, link included here. http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201001060434
Transparent As Mud
Occasionally the media does do its job. This occurs most often when it is in its own interest to do so.
Two years ago, Obama promised to urge Congress to put negotiations over important legislation on C Span. One can argue that the "transparency in government" theme helped to create an image of a president who would do things differently and keep the people in mind. Conservatives saw through the rhetoric, most believed it.
Needless to say, very little of the health care bill's battles have appeared in any public forum. Obama has completely backed off his pledge to encourage it. Why? Maybe because the final product will include massive taxes on the health care plans of th emiddle class. Many employers, including state governments, keep health insurance plans inexpensive to employees in lieu of raising salaries. Pro health care deform advocates call them "Cadillac plans." Most holders of "Cadillac plans" are government employees and union members working full time jobs. Unions have quietly opposed such taxes, advocating (as usual) soaking the health care plans of the rich. Of course the rich don't tend to have costly plans because they can afford high deductibles, or in many cases can go without entirely and only pay on a cash basis.
As a result, the public has little idea what is happening behind the scenes. What they do know they do not like. In one poll only 32% of respondents had a favorable opinion of the legislation.
C Span has fired back at Obama and congressional Democrats, demanding that they adhere to the pledges made that helped them to get elected.
One wonders if C Span will now get the "Fox" treatment from the White House. It is refreshing to see some in the media doing their job.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Capito Wants Final Health Discussions Televised By C-SPAN
Congresswoman Supports Request from C-SPAN Officials
WASHINGTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is urging the Democratic congressional leadership to consent to a request from C-SPAN officials that all final health care negotiations be available for live broadcast to the American people.
“We’re talking about legislation that will immensely change the make-up of our nation’s health care system,” said Capito. “It should follow that West Virginia families have an opportunity to watch as such meaningful negotiations unfold.”
“The President himself once said that health care discussions should be open to the public and aired on C-SPAN. So it is only appropriate that the American people would expect such a promise to be honored.”
Officials at the congress-focused cable news network recently sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting the opportunity to provide coverage of all forthcoming health care negotiations “LIVE and in their entirety.”
C-SPAN’s appeal for transparency, however, comes as top congressional Democrats have indicated that they will exclude Republicans from final health care talks.
Noting her frustration with these developments, Capito suggested that the American people deserve a more open and fair process.
“When we should be looking to find common ground and work together, instead we’re seeing more of the backroom, closed-door partisanship that has marked the entire health care debate,” she said.
“This isn’t what West Virginians expect from their elected leaders and I urge the Speaker and Majority Leader Reid to agree to C-SPAN’s very reasonable request.”
WASHINGTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is urging the Democratic congressional leadership to consent to a request from C-SPAN officials that all final health care negotiations be available for live broadcast to the American people.
“We’re talking about legislation that will immensely change the make-up of our nation’s health care system,” said Capito. “It should follow that West Virginia families have an opportunity to watch as such meaningful negotiations unfold.”
“The President himself once said that health care discussions should be open to the public and aired on C-SPAN. So it is only appropriate that the American people would expect such a promise to be honored.”
Officials at the congress-focused cable news network recently sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting the opportunity to provide coverage of all forthcoming health care negotiations “LIVE and in their entirety.”
C-SPAN’s appeal for transparency, however, comes as top congressional Democrats have indicated that they will exclude Republicans from final health care talks.
Noting her frustration with these developments, Capito suggested that the American people deserve a more open and fair process.
“When we should be looking to find common ground and work together, instead we’re seeing more of the backroom, closed-door partisanship that has marked the entire health care debate,” she said.
“This isn’t what West Virginians expect from their elected leaders and I urge the Speaker and Majority Leader Reid to agree to C-SPAN’s very reasonable request.”
The Case For Limited Government Proved Better Through Actions Than Words
We can talk all we want about the virtues of limited government, but actions speak louder than words. We can debate until the cows come home that cuts in spending and taxes help the economy better than waste, but the public must see ideas in action usually to believe them. We who believe in free markets and small government may someday get on our knees regularly and thank the Almighty for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Actions speak louder than words. President Bush, regrettably, all too often resorted to the easy panacaea of government action rather than the difficult choice of cutting government binds on the economy, allowing it to float to equilibrium. President Bush knew security and he believed in tax cuts, but he did not eliminate Clinton era intrusions into the free market. Politically this is hard to blame and too much criticism becomes Monday morning quarterbacking. George W. Bush was a good president, but not a visionary.
Our times require a visionary who believes in pushing back hard against the creeping socialism of the left. It is not enough to halt Obama and Pelosi's plans in their tracks. We must roll them back. However the more zealous out there must sometimes accept a 3/4 victory here and there rather than what we want in its entirety. Reagan was the most principled president of the last several decades, but his favorite phrase on compromise was that he'd rather get some of what he wanted than "fly off the cliff with all banners fluttering."
That being said, Republicans must stand for something in 2010, or the voters will fall for anything the Democrats ultimately say. We must stand for real restictions on taxation. We must stand for real restrictions on executive branch power and the return of state sovereignty. We must stand for real cuts in spending, not just limiting the yearly growth of spending. We must present a plan that cuts our debt while also cutting taxes. That means massive reductions in government spending across the board. It means that highways will have to go uncompleted for awhile, that military bases overseas may have to be phased out, that certain programs that make people feel good will have to go by the wayside. It definitely means that every bit of our budget needs to go through analysis of whether or not we actually need it. Our system has grown sick, the symptoms include debt, unemployment, and lack of prestige. The cure will be painful, but will bring us back to full health and vitality in a few years.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Capito Reacts to Latest News on Two W.Va. Mine Permits
Congresswoman Expresses Cautious Optimism
WASHINGTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va, released the following statement this afternoon in light of the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest announcement about the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County and the Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County:
“While today’s news regarding the Hobet mine is an important step forward, it is critical that all parties continue to seek long-term clarity in this process,” said Capito.
“This issue is not about one individual mine, but about laying a clear foundation on which all miners and mine operators can build upon as they navigate the complex federal bureaucracy. I hope today’s announcement can help lay that foundation and finally bring clarity to a process made difficult by a politically driven regulatory process.
“In this vein, I hope that today’s announcement regarding the Hobet mine will serve as a model for ongoing discussions regarding the Spruce mine and countless others across our state. We must have cooperation between state and federal officials to protect West Virginia jobs and strike an appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development.”
WASHINGTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va, released the following statement this afternoon in light of the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest announcement about the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County and the Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County:
“While today’s news regarding the Hobet mine is an important step forward, it is critical that all parties continue to seek long-term clarity in this process,” said Capito.
“This issue is not about one individual mine, but about laying a clear foundation on which all miners and mine operators can build upon as they navigate the complex federal bureaucracy. I hope today’s announcement can help lay that foundation and finally bring clarity to a process made difficult by a politically driven regulatory process.
“In this vein, I hope that today’s announcement regarding the Hobet mine will serve as a model for ongoing discussions regarding the Spruce mine and countless others across our state. We must have cooperation between state and federal officials to protect West Virginia jobs and strike an appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development.”
A Time For Choosing . . .
This takes some time. If you don't have a few minures to spare, come back to it later on. Ronald Reagan gave this speech to support the candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. He had spoken for years on the necessity of free markets and limited government. His experience with the Democratic Party's left wing and paying 94% of his income in taxes convinced this son of a New Deal official that the GOP had the better vision for America.
For Reagan it was not just party, but also principle that pushed him forward. He had a vision of American greatness that we have not yet lost. It will take work to get our America back. So take some time, read these powerful words, and reflect on what we all need to do to reassert our rights and retake the United States of America in the name of our Founding Fathers and our children.
Ronald Reagan
A Time for Choosing (aka "The Speech")
Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA
Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:
Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?
I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
For Reagan it was not just party, but also principle that pushed him forward. He had a vision of American greatness that we have not yet lost. It will take work to get our America back. So take some time, read these powerful words, and reflect on what we all need to do to reassert our rights and retake the United States of America in the name of our Founding Fathers and our children.
Ronald Reagan
A Time for Choosing (aka "The Speech")
Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA
Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:
Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?
I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
Monday, January 4, 2010
West Virginia and Other States Can and Should Nullify This Law
The above link takes you to a Washington Examiner story that should scare the heck out of any good American of any party.
First of all, what is the purpose of allowing Interpol more authority and latitude than we would allow the FBI? Why do they get full police power within our nation when they are accountable to no one? Regardless of Obama's reasoning, state governments need to move fast and nullify this unconstitutional and dangerous Executive Order by Il Duce.
How can states nullify an executive order? First of all, presidents do not have any constitutional basis for issuing them in the first place. In the past they were seen as expedient ways to handle important issues, but have in recent decades grown into presidential directives with the force of law. Constitutional regulation of such orders needs to happen, but until then, they have no basis in law except for the fact that people needlessly obey them.
Granting sweeping powers to Interpol also violates states rights. An international police authority that is completely unaccountable can arrest American citizens and remove them from the country now as far as Obama is concerned. The Tenth Amendment, among others, forbids the president from cededing away these powers that belong to states first and foremost.
How can states retaliate? First they need to pass a law specifically nullifying Obama's action. Federal agencies are protected by the Supreme Court decision McCullough v. Maryland, but not Interpol. States have no limit on the legislation they can pass to hinder or outlaw Interpol. Second, all Interpol agents should be required to register with the state police, city or town chief of police, and county sheriff depending on where they want to operate. Their actions should be subject to supervision by local magistrates and circuit court judges. They should have no powers of arrest or transport. Any Interpol agent that breaks these laws would be subject to criminal prosecution and a minimum term of imprisonment in a state facility. In other words, they can do what any other foreign visitor can do, just under more strict supervision from state and local authorities.
Finally, Interpol agents would be subject to Castle Law provisions. Come into someone's house and you get shot. Period.
Obama's action was unconstitutional and will be unpopular. Even worse, it is inexplicable and highly dangerous. It is an end run around our rights as Americans. States need to assert their rights on this issue by telling Obama and Interpol that their violations of the Constitution shall not be tolerated. Obama has no constitutional basis for his action. His incompetence in not even securing window dressing for this action demonstrates his contempt for our country, its laws, and its traditions.
Capito Welcomes Ruling on Fola Coal
Miners Will be Able to Continue Mining Operations
CHARLESTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., released the following statement this afternoon in response to news that Judge Chambers has granted Fola Coal an extension that will allow miners to continue work at the Clay County site:
“This is welcome news for the community and welcome news for miners in Clay County,” said Rep. Capito, who joined Governor Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., in visiting the Clay County mine earlier this month.
“For nearly 500 miners facing the prospect of losing their jobs, today’s ruling offers new hope and an opportunity for resolution that does not involve massive job loss.
“As coal remains at the forefront of the legal and regulatory debate, we must continue to stand together on behalf of our miners and our mining communities.”
CHARLESTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., released the following statement this afternoon in response to news that Judge Chambers has granted Fola Coal an extension that will allow miners to continue work at the Clay County site:
“This is welcome news for the community and welcome news for miners in Clay County,” said Rep. Capito, who joined Governor Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., in visiting the Clay County mine earlier this month.
“For nearly 500 miners facing the prospect of losing their jobs, today’s ruling offers new hope and an opportunity for resolution that does not involve massive job loss.
“As coal remains at the forefront of the legal and regulatory debate, we must continue to stand together on behalf of our miners and our mining communities.”
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Will This Plot Help to Get Obama's Mind Right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581370,00.html
The above story came from the London Times by way of Fox News. Yemen claims it is overwhelmed with Islamic fundamentalist terror suspects and that it does not have the capability to counter them. Warnings have also emerged that this weeks terror attempt was not the only plot.
The above story came from the London Times by way of Fox News. Yemen claims it is overwhelmed with Islamic fundamentalist terror suspects and that it does not have the capability to counter them. Warnings have also emerged that this weeks terror attempt was not the only plot.
The media jumped on Republican criticisms of Obama's handling of this issue in wake of the foiled terror plot. However, Al Quaida's new aggressiveness demonstrates the fact that weakness invited this attempt. They knew that President Bush or a Republican successor would not hesitate to respond with all deliberate force to a terror attempt. Obama's victory last November and subsequent apology tour bore the fruit of an attempt to murder as many innocent Americans as possible.
Obama's conciliatory approach to Islamofascism needs to end. His apologies for America seeking to expand freedom to all peoples must end. Otherwise we are in for more, not less danger. Weakness will invite a war that shall never end. Firmness and resolve will destroy our enemies.
While Democrats debate the destruction of our economy, terrorists have been plotting again to harm us. We must hit back hard.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Commercializing Welcome Centers, Rest Areas Could Ease WVDOH Financial Burden
Forty some odd years ago NASA realized that a ball point pen would not write in space. They worked on the problem and spent over a million dollars to make a ball point pen that would write in zero gravity.They were successful and developed a beautiful pen at great taxpayer’s expense, but NASA solved the wrong problem. The problem was not to make a pen write in space, but to just “write” in space. The Russians realized that they only needed to write in space, not use a ball point pen and simply used a five cent pencil instead of wasting a million dollars. The lesson is the first thing you must do to be successful in solving a problem is make sure you have identified the true problem.
At the end of November the amount of expected revenue for the West Virginia highway fund was down $14.6 million, mostly because of the poor economy. Immediately there was talk out of Charleston about raising taxes, but the tax rate is not the real problem. The real problem is the rising cost and reduced revenue. Until these problems are solved, the state’s Department of Highways will continue to have problems even in good economic times. The state must get creative on generating additional revenue and cutting cost.
There are 22 welcome centers and rest areas run by the WVDOH. Each costs approximately $500,000 a year in annual maintenance for a total of $11 million dollars. Two of these on the West Virginia Turnpike have a Federal exemption to allow them to be commercialized, which is pretty common on toll roads. However they also occur in a few other places on non-Toll Road Interstates, such as I-95 north of Baltimore, MD.
Commercialization of West Virginia’s other twenty rest areas and welcome centers could provide a partial solution to the WVDOH funding problems. As these are leased to private companies then a $10 million drain on the WVDOH would disappear as responsibility for the maintenance would shift from the state to the private companies. There would also be a revenue stream generated from the lease agreements. A drain on the state highway fund would be turned into revenue generation, all without putting any additional burden on the taxpayers.
There would also be employment benefits for the state. Each rest area at a minimum would end up with a fast food restaurant and a convenience store/gas station. The average fast food chain restaurant employs about 60 persons and the convenience store 10 persons. This would generate approximately 1,400 private sector jobs across the state from entry level fry cooks to well paid manager positions. As an example; if the two rest areas in Braxton County were commercialized in this way, the Braxton County unemployment rate could drop from 8.3% to 5.3% making it the lowest in the state.
The benefits do not stop at increased employment and reduced operating cost to the state. The free market approach also creates new tax revenue streams into the states coffers. The 1,400 new employees and the new businesses created will pay income taxes to the state. There will now be property taxes paid to the counties at the rest areas on the equipment installed where before there was none. Most important to WVDOH is the gasoline sold at the new filling stations will pay new taxes directly to the highway fund without raising taxes on struggling WV families.
In these hard economic times West Virginia must work to solve the correct problems and reduce the burden of taxes on all the people of the state in the process. We must look for new solutions to old problems and stop thinking the only solution is increasing taxes.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The "N" Word
Federal action against coal operations in West Virginia has put hundreds of men and women out of work and denied the state its share of potential revenue. The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a War on Coal to destroy mining operations. Right before Christmas, an EPA action resulted in the layoff of five hundred in Clay County.
What can the State of West Virginia do in response?
This may seem painful, but a way might exist to constitutionally void federal regulations. That is nullification.
Nullification doctrine first emerged in the 1830s from the mind of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Federal import taxes raised prices on manufactured goods, crippling farmers. Calhoun suggested that the state legislature pass an ordinance nullifying the tariff within the boundaries of the state. President Andrew Jackson met this action with a military deployment. Since then, nullification of a law passed by Congress has been seen as unconstitutional.
What about state legislative nullification of a federal agency regulation or executive order? The Constitution does recognize Congress's right to pass binding legislation. It does not recognize regulatory law or presidential executive orders. State governments are under no obligation to abide by these so called laws. In fact, the Tenth Amendment protects states from many of the laws that Congress uses to bind their actions today.
All states have to do to regain their sovereignty is to swear off of federal funds for anything. At that point, Congress has very little authority over what a state can or cannot do. West Virginia cannot arrest federal officials inspecting or making reports, but it can pass acts preventing the enforcement of executive branch regulations. Swearing off of federal funds does mean a huge drop in money for roads, schools, and other items. However, the drop in money is offset by the fact that the state no longer would have to spend countless resources on paperwork and unfunded federal mandates.
Nullification is a last ditch tactic because it will provoke a serious contitutional crisis. Thousands will gather soon in Austin, Texas to ask their governor to do that very thing. In the name of freedom, strong steps may have to be taken. The election of 2010 will go a long way towards moving back to a Republic, or forward to crisis.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Left Wing Policies Dramatically Hurt the Young
Obama and Democrats generally like to tout their popularity among the youth, even to the point of hauling out pre teens to voice approval of their policy initiatives, as if America ought to follow a ten year old on the country's gravest issues. The current Democratic Congress has already substantially harmed the young when it comes to employment and threatens to do more damage in the future.
According to Walter Williams at George Mason University, teenage employment has not seen such a bleak outlook since directly after World War II. The age 16-19 group currently sees 25% unemployment. When narrowed to blacks in that age range, the percentage jumps to 50%.
Small businesses employ more people than any other sector of the market in the United States. Minimum wage hikes slash away at their miniscule profit margins, forcing them to divest themselves of the luxury of extra part time help. Instead of hiring someone, they will do extra work or get family members to help. These are the places where a kid has teh best chance to find a solid starting job that will give him income and a real reference. Many 16 to 19 year olds do not just work for extra cash. but to support families started too early.
Worse news is coming down the pike. If health care deform and the massive taxes designed to support it pass, small business will take the brunt. They will lay off even more workers or shut their doors altogether.
The minority angle on this problem was explored further by Walter Williams in the link below
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas from the Potomac Highlands Conservative
Please enjoy the performance of the Keyser Middle School Jazz Band
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
The Grinch
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
The Grinch
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Another Sign of Things to Come in 2010
Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama's 5th Congressional district announced yesterday that he will switch his registration to Republican as the country moves into its off election year.
In terms of legislation this affects voting in no way at all because Griffith voted a conservative line on most important issues. This does provide the GOP a psychological boost heading into one of its most important election years in recent memory. Griffith expressed his frustration with left wing Democratic ideals last fall to Tea Party activists and in town hall meetings.
Like many other Democrats who rode the anti GOP wave into office in 2006 and 2008, Griffith found himself in step with a majority Republican constituency, but increasingly opposed to the Pelosi led lurch to the left. Republican voting states found themselves denied their proportionate share of the so-called stimulus package, so Griffith had no tangible reason to remain with the Democratic Party either. His voters did not share Democratic beliefs, nor did they benefit by his association with them.
Voters in other areas that have elected Democrats for years find themselves under attack by the federal government and Congress. The West Virginia First and Third districts have congressional incumbents currently rolling over for Pelosi. Since they will not represent their constituents, it is time that the constituents elect someone who will represent them.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Another Democrat Believes in Bringing Back Legal Sedition
Is this really what the Democratic Party stands for? Several months ago they wanted citizens to report on their friends, family, and neighbors if they heard peopel criticize the health care deform plans. Others favored passing regulations that would destroy conservative talk radio shows. Now an elected member of Congress wants to attack the free speech of a Florida citizen who dared to parody his website.
Is this really the party that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded? First they trample the rights of the states, then the citizens. Some of them have no concern for the Bill of Rights, nor do they believe in natural rights' legal ideals. People like this gentleman want your money, the power to control you, and for you to kindly shut up while they are doing it. Of course he wants a citizen put in jail for five years for making a parody of his website, all the while calling female professionals whores and comparing Republicans to Nazis.
Most people understand that Republicans labor under a double standard in politics and the media. I would hope that no Republican would want to jail another citizen for such a trivial thing, or even consider it a crime.
When satire becomes a crime, thousands of actors and commedians may have to find somewhere else to live.
Is This Really Compromise?
Senate Bill Still Cuts Hundreds of Billions from Medicare, Leaves West Virginians to Pay for Sweetheart Deals to Other States
CHARLESTON - As the United States Senate works frantically to meet its arbitrary Christmas deadline on "health care reform,” it appears that Majority Leader Reid has resorted to backroom deal-making in order to gather the necessary 60 votes on legislation that remains unpopular with the American people.
Media reports suggest that Vermont, Nebraska and Massachusetts may get exemptions that subsidize the expansion of Medicaid, while Florida, Pennsylvania and New York will be exempted from major cuts to Medicare Advantage. As most states (including West Virginia) shell out millions in tax dollars to fund new Medicaid recipients and seniors across the country see their Medicare Advantage benefits dry up, these exempted states will be shielded from the impacts of the Senate bill.
"These exemptions strike me as blatant admission by Democratic leadership that major components of this bill are a bad deal for states and a bad deal for seniors," said Capito. "What should have been an open process of give and take appears to have degenerated into a series of sweetheart deals for some states that leave the rest of us to pick up the tab."
Earlier this year, Capito wrote to the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources regarding the budgetary impact of expanding Medicaid. In a letter to the secretary, Capito noted that - after a short-term grace period - states would have to pick up a significantly larger share of the Medicaid burden, which could mean new taxes or more budget cuts.
She has also raised concerns about severe cuts to Medicare which threatens to alter coverage for thousands of West Virginia seniors.
"On top of $56 billion in cuts to home health care and $143 billion in across the board cuts to Medicare providers, by gutting Medicare Advantage the Speaker's bill blatantly breaks the President's promise that if you like your current plan you can keep it," Capito said in November after the House passed their version of the health care bill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Price of “Reform”
Some States Get Special Treatment Under Democrats’ Bill – But Not West Virginia
Politico: Reid Holds Caucus Together One Vote at a Time: “Reid was able to hold his caucus together, in part, by writing state-specific provisions that won over senators, one vote at a time. Nebraska, Vermont and Massachusetts scored $1.2 billion in special Medicaid assistance. Nelson got something for Nebraska the other states didn’t — a permanent exemption from increased state costs for new patients that come into Medicaid through the plan. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Senior citizens in Florida, Pennsylvania and New York will see their Medicare Advantage benefits protected at a time when the program will be trimmed nationwide.” (Politico, December 21, 2009)
Wall Street Journal: Change Nobody Believes In: “…Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that "will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees," as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator. So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare? (WSJ Editorial, December 21, 2009)
Washington Post: ‘Cash for Cloture:’ “Indeed, the proliferation of deals has outpaced the ability of Capitol Hill cynics to name them. Gator Aid: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) inserted a grandfather clause that would allow Floridians to preserve their pricey Medicare Advantage program. Handout Montana: Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) secured Medicare coverage for anybody exposed to asbestos -- as long as they worked in a mine in Libby, Mont. Iowa Pork and Omaha Prime Cuts: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won more Medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the sort commonly found in Iowa, while Nebraska's Nelson won a "carve out" provision that would reduce fees for Mutual of Omaha and other Nebraska insurers.” (Washington Post, Dana Milbank Column, December 22, 2009)
CHARLESTON - As the United States Senate works frantically to meet its arbitrary Christmas deadline on "health care reform,” it appears that Majority Leader Reid has resorted to backroom deal-making in order to gather the necessary 60 votes on legislation that remains unpopular with the American people.
Media reports suggest that Vermont, Nebraska and Massachusetts may get exemptions that subsidize the expansion of Medicaid, while Florida, Pennsylvania and New York will be exempted from major cuts to Medicare Advantage. As most states (including West Virginia) shell out millions in tax dollars to fund new Medicaid recipients and seniors across the country see their Medicare Advantage benefits dry up, these exempted states will be shielded from the impacts of the Senate bill.
"These exemptions strike me as blatant admission by Democratic leadership that major components of this bill are a bad deal for states and a bad deal for seniors," said Capito. "What should have been an open process of give and take appears to have degenerated into a series of sweetheart deals for some states that leave the rest of us to pick up the tab."
Earlier this year, Capito wrote to the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources regarding the budgetary impact of expanding Medicaid. In a letter to the secretary, Capito noted that - after a short-term grace period - states would have to pick up a significantly larger share of the Medicaid burden, which could mean new taxes or more budget cuts.
She has also raised concerns about severe cuts to Medicare which threatens to alter coverage for thousands of West Virginia seniors.
"On top of $56 billion in cuts to home health care and $143 billion in across the board cuts to Medicare providers, by gutting Medicare Advantage the Speaker's bill blatantly breaks the President's promise that if you like your current plan you can keep it," Capito said in November after the House passed their version of the health care bill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Price of “Reform”
Some States Get Special Treatment Under Democrats’ Bill – But Not West Virginia
Politico: Reid Holds Caucus Together One Vote at a Time: “Reid was able to hold his caucus together, in part, by writing state-specific provisions that won over senators, one vote at a time. Nebraska, Vermont and Massachusetts scored $1.2 billion in special Medicaid assistance. Nelson got something for Nebraska the other states didn’t — a permanent exemption from increased state costs for new patients that come into Medicaid through the plan. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Senior citizens in Florida, Pennsylvania and New York will see their Medicare Advantage benefits protected at a time when the program will be trimmed nationwide.” (Politico, December 21, 2009)
Wall Street Journal: Change Nobody Believes In: “…Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that "will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees," as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator. So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare? (WSJ Editorial, December 21, 2009)
Washington Post: ‘Cash for Cloture:’ “Indeed, the proliferation of deals has outpaced the ability of Capitol Hill cynics to name them. Gator Aid: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) inserted a grandfather clause that would allow Floridians to preserve their pricey Medicare Advantage program. Handout Montana: Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) secured Medicare coverage for anybody exposed to asbestos -- as long as they worked in a mine in Libby, Mont. Iowa Pork and Omaha Prime Cuts: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won more Medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the sort commonly found in Iowa, while Nebraska's Nelson won a "carve out" provision that would reduce fees for Mutual of Omaha and other Nebraska insurers.” (Washington Post, Dana Milbank Column, December 22, 2009)
Friday, December 18, 2009
Yes West Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate
Hopefully this lack of movement indicates that the faux climate change movement is about to collapse. The timely journalistic coup that exposed global warming's biggest advocates as cunning manipulators of public opinion and enemies of scientific inquiry probably saved the day.
We should continue to find technologies that reduce pollution, but we do not need chicken little scare tactics to keep moving forward towards cleaner use of all energy sources.
Hopefully this lack of movement indicates that the faux climate change movement is about to collapse. The timely journalistic coup that exposed global warming's biggest advocates as cunning manipulators of public opinion and enemies of scientific inquiry probably saved the day.
We should continue to find technologies that reduce pollution, but we do not need chicken little scare tactics to keep moving forward towards cleaner use of all energy sources.
WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO 6 AM EST SUNDAY
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN STERLING VIRGINIA
Event: Winter Storm Warning
Alert:
...WINTER STORM WARNING NOW IN EFFECT FROM 9 PM THIS EVENING TO
6 AM EST SUNDAY...
THE WINTER STORM WARNING IS NOW IN EFFECT FROM 9 PM THIS EVENING
TO 6 AM EST SUNDAY.
* PRECIPITATION TYPE...SNOW.
* ACCUMULATIONS...HEAVY SNOW WITH ACCUMULATIONS OF 10 TO 16 INCHES
THROUGH SATURDAY NIGHT.
* TIMING...SNOW WILL BEGIN FRIDAY NIGHT BETWEEN 9 AND 11 PM. SNOW
WILL BE HEAVIEST FROM 4 AM TO 4 PM SATURDAY.
* TEMPERATURES...TEMPERATURES WILL HOVER IN THE LOW TO MID 20S.
* WINDS...10 TO 15 MPH THROUGH THE EVENT...WITH GUSTS TO 25 MPH
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
Instructions: A WINTER STORM WARNING MEANS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF SNOW ARE EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. STRONG WINDS ARE ALSO POSSIBLE. CONDITIONS WILL DETERIORATE VERY RAPIDLY EARLY SATURDAY MORNING AND WILL MAKE TRAVEL EXTREMELY TREACHEROUS.
Target Area: Hampshire Morgan Berkeley Jefferson Pendleton Hardy Western Mineral Eastern Mineral
Event: Winter Storm Warning
Alert:
...WINTER STORM WARNING NOW IN EFFECT FROM 9 PM THIS EVENING TO
6 AM EST SUNDAY...
THE WINTER STORM WARNING IS NOW IN EFFECT FROM 9 PM THIS EVENING
TO 6 AM EST SUNDAY.
* PRECIPITATION TYPE...SNOW.
* ACCUMULATIONS...HEAVY SNOW WITH ACCUMULATIONS OF 10 TO 16 INCHES
THROUGH SATURDAY NIGHT.
* TIMING...SNOW WILL BEGIN FRIDAY NIGHT BETWEEN 9 AND 11 PM. SNOW
WILL BE HEAVIEST FROM 4 AM TO 4 PM SATURDAY.
* TEMPERATURES...TEMPERATURES WILL HOVER IN THE LOW TO MID 20S.
* WINDS...10 TO 15 MPH THROUGH THE EVENT...WITH GUSTS TO 25 MPH
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
Instructions: A WINTER STORM WARNING MEANS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF SNOW ARE EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. STRONG WINDS ARE ALSO POSSIBLE. CONDITIONS WILL DETERIORATE VERY RAPIDLY EARLY SATURDAY MORNING AND WILL MAKE TRAVEL EXTREMELY TREACHEROUS.
Target Area: Hampshire Morgan Berkeley Jefferson Pendleton Hardy Western Mineral Eastern Mineral
A Crowded Field and Digging a Deeper Hole
Complicated or refreshing? When you look at the field of candidates contending for the GOP nomination in the First Congressional District, either one of these words could come to mind. Yes there is currently a bewildering array of contenders, some strong, some with more of an outsiders' chance. They agree on many basic ideas, but differ in important ways. Over the next few months we will try to help sort out the differences between the candidates.How is this refreshing? The people have come out and let it be known that Congress as currently constituted has performed unacceptably. As usual they show a complete disconnect from the people, but in the past few years they have also worked very hard to drive our country into decline. Massive debts destroy the financial reputation that we worked so hard to create dating back to Alexander Hamilton. The world has lost faith in our ability to lead the economy and make sound decisions. Some see an opportunity to use the current crisis to tweak the eagle's tail and cut us down a peg. No doubt our own left wing in theis country loves to see the United States shorn of its traditional dominance. But is this healthy for the world at large?
Who to blame? Obama has done a lot of damage, but the current majority party has seen nothing but decline since they took office in 2007. When Obama blames current problems on conditions created before he took office, he is careful to forget the votes and policies of a Democratic Congress.
Obviously the problem is the Democratic Party's massive lurch to the left. Mollohan has to march in step to ultra left winger Nancy Pelosi and her desire to destroy gun rights, coal mining, publicly fund abortions, raise the debt sky high, and do a lot of other things that will harm our nation and its people. We realize that a vote for Alan Mollohan os a vote for Nancy Pelosi and her disastrous record. Regradless of the good services he has done for individuals seeking help from his office, he is supporting the majority party in Congress whose almost every move has harmed West Virginia.
Most recently Congress raised the debt ceiling to allow yet another so-called stimulus package through by the barest of majorities. Alan Mollohan and Nick Joe Rahall voted to waste more money. Shelley Moore Capito voted against it, remembering much of the stimulus money spent last time went to groups like ACORN.
2010 cannot come soon enough. Mollohan's weakness is evident in his paltry fundraising and the enthusiasm of an army of candidates expecting to unseat him. Republicans in the First District need to band together this summer and fall and send Alan Mollohan and the Dmeocratic Congress into retirement.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
NOAA: WINTER STORM WATCH IN EFFECT FROM LATE FRIDAY NIGHT THROUGH LATE SATURDAY NIGHT
WINTER STORM WATCH IN EFFECT FROM LATE FRIDAY NIGHT THROUGHLATE SATURDAY NIGHT
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN STERLING VIRGINIA HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WATCH...IN EFFECT FROM LATE FRIDAY NIGHT THROUGH
LATE SATURDAY NIGHT.
* PRECIP TYPE...SNOW.
* ACCUMULATIONS...HEAVY SNOW WITH ACCUMULATIONS GREATER THAN 5 INCHES.
* TIMING...SNOW WILL BEGIN LATE FRIDAY NIGHT AND WILL CONTINUE THROUGH SUNDAY MORNING.
* TEMPERATURES...UPPER 20S TO LOWER 30S THROUGH THE EVENT.
* WINDS...10 TO 20 MPH THROUGH THE EVENT...WITH GUSTS OF 25 TO 30 MPH SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
A WINTER STORM WATCH MEANS THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
SNOW THAT MAY IMPACT TRAVEL. CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE LATEST
FORECASTS.
Capito Votes Against Democrats’ Year-End Spending Spree
House Leaders Rush to Spend Even More as 2009 Session Comes to Close
WASHINGTON – With the House of Representatives finishing up the year today with appropriations measures and a hike in the debt limit, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., didn’t mince words when discussing her views on the Democrat’s year-end agenda.
“This is nothing but more of the same: more spending, more taxes and little to show for it,” said the 2nd District congresswoman.
“My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing an agenda with more spending on programs that can’t even spend what they have now. And they’re hiking the nation’s debt limit to $12.4 trillion so they can borrow the money they need to do it. It’s irresponsible, it’s ill-conceived and it’s unlikely to meet with any more success than what we’ve seen with the first stimulus package.
Capito noted the troubling state of the job market and expressed skepticism that the Democrat’s latest “jobs” bill would realistically address it. She also raised objections to Democratic efforts to raid TARP funds that were originally pegged to help pay down the debt.
“Don’t be misled, this is not a ‘jobs’ bill,” she said. “Last time I checked, after passing a $787 billion stimulus package, the national unemployment rate is still in double digits and West Virginia’s unemployment rate is on the rise.”
“Instead of repeating the mistakes of the original stimulus so my colleagues can feign concern on jobs, let’s offer real relief for small business owners and put a stop to the troubling anti-growth policies that continue to stem from this congress.”
WASHINGTON – With the House of Representatives finishing up the year today with appropriations measures and a hike in the debt limit, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., didn’t mince words when discussing her views on the Democrat’s year-end agenda.
“This is nothing but more of the same: more spending, more taxes and little to show for it,” said the 2nd District congresswoman.
“My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing an agenda with more spending on programs that can’t even spend what they have now. And they’re hiking the nation’s debt limit to $12.4 trillion so they can borrow the money they need to do it. It’s irresponsible, it’s ill-conceived and it’s unlikely to meet with any more success than what we’ve seen with the first stimulus package.
Capito noted the troubling state of the job market and expressed skepticism that the Democrat’s latest “jobs” bill would realistically address it. She also raised objections to Democratic efforts to raid TARP funds that were originally pegged to help pay down the debt.
“Don’t be misled, this is not a ‘jobs’ bill,” she said. “Last time I checked, after passing a $787 billion stimulus package, the national unemployment rate is still in double digits and West Virginia’s unemployment rate is on the rise.”
“Instead of repeating the mistakes of the original stimulus so my colleagues can feign concern on jobs, let’s offer real relief for small business owners and put a stop to the troubling anti-growth policies that continue to stem from this congress.”
Tea Party Movement Now More Popular Than Either Political Party
This morning's news broadcast out of Washington made an interesting statement. For a few weeks now polls showed that the Tea Party movement outstripped the Republican Party in popularity. This morning the Democrats now find themselves looking up at the Tea Party in terms of support numbers.
Liberal media types write with glee about the demise of the Republican Party and th epotential for splintering going into the election of 2010. That being said, the GOP has substantially outraised the Democratic Party since Obama took office.
Left wing control of the government sparked outrage over the waste of money and time. Frustrated protesters have seen the Republican Party as stumbling along too slowly and getting behind the curve on important issues. All too often they accuse Republicans of differing viewpoints of not being real conservatives. The media also fails to realize that committed Republicans have held Tea Party rallies.
The problems within the GOP and conservative movement overall are relatively picayune. Libertarians and conservatives in some areas have problems with party leadership, usually more on procedural than ideological grounds. Democrats are splitting on ideological issues. Conservative Democrats fear the wrath of constituents and left wing leaders. Some have courageously split, others try to steer the rapids in the middle of the river.
Republicans need a leader to emerge as Reagan did in the 1970s. From 1976 to 1980 the GOP was split by ideological differences. "Moderates" such as Nelson Rockefeller battled Goldwater inspired small government conservatives such as Ronald Reagan. Reagan understood the anger he shared with the American people, but channeled it into a specific vision of a brighter future rather than simply dislike of Jimmy Carter.
Where will that leader come from? The same model should succeed in 2012 as in 1980. Whoever it is needs to step forth and help inspire party loyalists and those that are simply mad as hell at the movement away from true American values.
Troops In Afghanistan Face More Restrictions Than Your County Sheriff
This article is almost a month old, but worthy of mention for anyone with loved ones in Afghanistan, as my family has.
It speaks for itself but fails to point out an important salient fact. Your county sheriff, or any other law enforcement officer in the US, has more latitude in fighting crime than Army and Marine officers have in fighting terrorism.
I understand the problems involved in counterinsurgency from an academic standpoint, having researched and delivered papers on the subject. There must be an understanding of the population's role. However you must make the population feel secure to get them on your side. These rules of engagement would seem to weaken the US military's ability to offer that kind of security.
Guest Commentary: And Another Thing....
Hey y'all. Fatcat here again, Obama and the Commie left's favorite whipping boy.Yesterday we talked about how Obama likes to rip on fat cats to score political points. A little mouse told me, before I ate him, that Obama was not literally talking about cats. Apparently that is a term they use for businessmen and heads of banks and whatnot. Now it all makes sense! Or does it?
Okay let me try and make sense of all this. You (the government) offer banks loans to bail them out because they made dumb decisions that, for the most part you had either been strongly encouraging them or forcing them to make. Of course some of them compounded that by making a lot of stupid decisions all by themselves. These decisions, made at your behest, screwed up the world's financial system. Now you give them bailout money instead of letting them go down the drain, probably because if you did not give them the money, they would reveal just how big a role that you (the government again) helped to screw everything up.
So they make decisions you don't like and now you want to force them to, once again, abide by the political needs of the government instead of the needs of who they are really accountable to, customers and shareholders.
Meanwhile the executive branch and the army of czars have not figured out one idea that actually worked because, surprise, there is no one there that has the ear of the president who has any knowledge of how a free market system actually works!
Take some advice from a real fat cat. Get your hands off the banks, General Motors, etc. Stop buying the support of NBC through cap and trade intercourse with their parent company, General Electric. Let companies rise and fall by their own merits. The free market system works if you let it. Half a$$#d socialism only creates an economy that works at a mediocre level because no one is sure what political whim will next sweep through the system.
If anyone out there wants to blame fat cats, don't blame capitalism and don't blame me. neither one of us had anything to do with what is going on now. We have met our economic enemy and once again it's the flipping government. Oh and guess what. The inflation that is coming? That's the government's fault too! It spends too much!
Fat cat signing off!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Why Is This Man Still In the Executive Branch?
Warning (seriously) the following link has graphic and fairly disgusting material within that relates promotion of bizarre sexual practices to young boys and girls with the "Safe Schools Czar" appointed by ObamaWhere does Barack Obama find people like Kevin Jennings? Seriously! It is almost as if he looked for the scuzziest and nastiest people on Earth to serve as his top advisors. And this guy has authority over federal school policy!!!!
If you read the link, you know that Jennings is a man who should never be allowed within a thousand yards of a school, much less serve as an educational advisor to the president. These conventions should be as carefully attended by FBI agents as pro Klan churches were during the civil rights movement. After all, they promote child molestation.
This is an issue that is kind of scary. This guy has written books proudly proclaiming that he encouraged young schoolage boys to have sex with older men in bus stations, but only if they wore a condom. To me if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, a duck it most likely is. If this guy thinks molesting teenage boys is A-OK and is brazen enough to write a book about promoting it (isn't THAT a crime?), I doubt it would take much digging to find a serious felony in his past.
A conservative and a golf star cheat on their wives and it is big news. Obama appoints a guy that promotes child molestation and no one utters a peep. Am I missing something?
The thought that a child molestor currently serves as Obama's top advisor on education is chilling. No one has ever said he actually molested a boy, but he has repeatedly stated that there is nothing wrong with it. And that is horrifying enough.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Irony, Global Warming Style . . .
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,663858,00.html
If they were not so dangerous, this would be hysterical.
If they were not so dangerous, this would be hysterical.
Guest Commentary: A Response to Barack Obama
Hi America. I'm mad as H ee double hockey sticks and I am not going to take it anymore!Every darned time some liberal or left wing pinko Commie gets a bee in his bonnet about the business cycle or banks or just rich people in general, they attack me. Why? What do they have against me? What you see right here is what you get. I'm not rich. I'm sleeping on a #$!%&!% pizza box for crying out loud. Sometimes I stretch out in the driveway too. It's not like I spend twenty hours a day worrying about the profitability of a multibillion dollar corporation or somwething like that.
Yeah I know what you are saying. You may spend 23 and 1/2 hours a day asleep somewhere and the rest eating, a lot like many of the folks who receive redistribution of wealth, but are all fat cats like you? Of course not. Some fat cats knock $#!& off the counter and break it because they are unaware of their girth. Others do their business in the clean laundry basket instead of in the litter box. My point is that we may all be fat cats, but most of us know how to behave. Liberals and lefties love to assign stereotypes that are not accurate, yet elicit an emotional response (yes I said elicit, you got a problem with that? I may have no opposable digits, but I ain't dumb.) Of course when conservatives suggest that we may want to keep our eyes on the guy rocking back and forth in the airport whispering Allah Akhbar over and over, wearing a trenchcoat in summer over a suspicious bulge in his stomach, they scream "profiling! stereotype!" But when they want to stick all us decent fat cats in the same boat as the one that poops on your foot while you are asleep in bed that is apparently perfectly alright.
So Obama, you go on bashing fat cats on your weekly radio speech that is carried on no radio station I ever heard of, but MSNBC seems to have playing constantly. I'll live my life. Just quit profiling me and my friends. Don't dump the good in with the bad just to get an emotional political response. That's irresponsible. Even a cat knows that.
Medical Marijuana
This is another one of those posts that comes with a caveat of "opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone at Potomac Highlands Conservative, etc. etc. etc."However, with that caveat in mind, the time has come to consider the positives of introducing some form of marijauna for medical use.
In 2003 almost five million people reported using opiate pain medication for "non medical purposes" according to a National Institute in Drug Addiction study. (In comparison, experts believe that two million people have a cocaine addiction.) Now this number has certainly A) risen sharply in the past six years and B) was underreported to begin with because a lot of people do not like admitting to this kind of behavior. Opiates include darvocet, percocet, oxycontin and other pills derived from opium.
For anyone, opium based drugs are highly physically addictive. All too many people have a predisposition towards addiction that makes them highly vulnerable to the "high" created by these medications. Mix a vulnerable person, physically or emotionally, with a highly concentrated opiate such as oxycontin and you are sure to get an addict nearly every time.
Enter marijuana. As a medication or social drug, marijuana has a much lower physical addiction rate. Certainly the high can create emotional dependence in many cases, but that is much easier to break than the physical dependence created by opiates. Marijuana when properly used has almost the same pain killing effect as most of the opiate drugs. Getting a similar benefit with a much lower rate of desperate addiction is a strong argument in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical use. As far as abuse is concerned, misuse and addiction to opiates is rampant already. Any measure that could stem the tide of normal people growing addicted in the course of taking a legitimate prescription is a bonus for society.
Medical marijuana gives us a potential alternative to the highly addictive opiates, but the problem does not stop there. We need to reign in some of these "pain clinics" that have as much concern for their patients as Mexican drug cartels do for their customers. Doctors that knowingly hand out pills to addicts for no real medical purpose at all need to be treated in the same manner as crack or meth dealers. Their degrees and nice clothes do not make them any better than any other drug dealer. Some highly addictive drugs need to be used only in cases of terminal illness or the most severe and debilitating conditions, the kind of real pain problems that would preclude a normal life anyway.
Medical marijuana is only part of the solution to runaway pain pill addiction in this country, but it is an important step towards keeping good people from sliding down that path in the first place.
***************************************************************************
One last thing. Those of you that support this and have rallies and meetings that end up on TV, here is a public relations hint. Get rid of the long hair and beards. Wear a button down shirt, maybe even a tie. It does not help the cause of medical marijuana to have on television the Jerry Garcia look alike contest. Now I used to have a lot of friends that looked like this, maybe still do. However, seeing these people wandering around in the background of TV coverage does not advance the movement. Not trying to be mean or discriminatory, but just take it as food for thought.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
It's About Time
It is about that time again. Campaign season.Some people welcome it. Some shrink in horror. Many don't notice any difference at all until they see signs up at every road corner. Nevertheless it is almost upon us.
People involved in politics get jaded because the parties tell us every election year could be the most important ever. This year is the one that demands your time, attention, and money more than any other. We hear that every year, but this year it is true.
We are not debating abortion, gay marriage, high or low taxes, school textbooks, or other such issues this time. These definitely require attention, but they remain secondary to the question of 2010 and then 2012 after it.
This question affects our entire nation and permeates elections at every level. We must ask ourselves as we go vote what kind of nation we want. Do we want a country with a government putting its hands into every aspect of our lives, stealing the rewards of the hard working to buy the votes of the less fortunate, allowing neither to thrive? Do we want a government dominated by the United Nations, its members seeking to force America to give up competitive advantages and bankrupt itself and its people? Some in the world want to see us weakened and chastened, many of those work in the executive and legislative branches of our own government.
Most of us want a strong, prosperous, and secure America. To get that back, we must vote for people that support American values. Beyond that we cannot have the anti-socialist vote split. We must come together. Republican candidates have to clearly oppose the Obama/Pelosi plans and libertarians need to support them.
We as a people and a party must have a clear message that our nation and the wider world needs to hear. The American people are not prepared to follow Barack Obama into the dying of our light. We will vote to protect our freedom and resist tyranny. The Democratic Party leadership and the world need to understand that once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)