Cost Benefit Analysis of Excluding Independents From GOP Primaries

Anytime an individual or a group is agonizing over an important decision, it's time to use a cost-benefit analysis to tally up the pros and cons of doing or of not doing something.

The issue of the day is whether or not to allow independents to participate in the GOP primary voting.

Both sides have good points. Arguments for excluding independents are many. It forces fence sitters in voter registration who lean Republican to register that way. Also it reduces the chance that Democrats could change registration to manipulate a key election.

However, consider the costs? The liberal press will certainly bash Republicans for being a small state party that finds a way to exclude people who would otherwise show interest. Conservative outlets may even join that chorus for reasons of their own. Bad press represents a cost even though ideally it should not serve as a factor.

Also, how often do we have a situation where we have close primary races between one very electable candidate and one extremely awful candidate? Not many Democrats in West Virginia would drop their registration at this point to intentionally smack down an electable GOP alternative.

Finally, how many registrations would we pick up to offset the costs? A few hundred? Maybe.

A better plan lies in remembering our free market ideals. We have competition from the Democratic, Independent, and in some races, Mountain brands. Instead of finding ways to reduce the competition for registered voters, let us embrace the system as it is and create a product that voters will choose. An exciting, energetic, innovative GOP will attract registrations and voters come election day. Building up the party is the answer.

No Title of Nobility Shall be Granted

231 years ago the 13 British colonies declared independence, in the Declaration of Independence, they clearly stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Five statesmen from Massachusetts signed that document; John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine and Elbridge Gerry.

March 4, 2009 British Prime Minster, Gordon Brown stood before a joint session of the US Congress and stated, “I want to announce that Her Majesty The Queen, has awarded an honorary Knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy.” Now our founding fathers knew that titles of nobility inferred inequality of men. They promptly outlawed titles of nobility in the Articles of Confederation to insure the equality of men.

When considering the new constitution the Founding Fathers had very strong convictions. The outlawing of nobility titles was so important that James Madison had this to say about including that prevision in the new constitution, “The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.” - January 25th, 1788, Federalist Papers #44

Alexander Hamilton ranked the banishment of nobility titles at the top, he even used all capital letters for emphases when he wrote, “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains” He went on to say, “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #84

As we know from history the pleas fell on receptive ears, because the banishment of titles of nobility made it into the US Constitution under Article 1, Section 9, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Today Senator Ted Kennedy and the US Congress have to make a decision. Are they statesmen or politicians? I think we can guess what the first Massachusetts Senators Caleb Strong and Tristram Dalton would recommend. Senator Kennedy should politely say, “No, thank you,” sighting the US Constitution. While Senator Kennedy has a long and distinguished career he is our equal nothing more. Congress should grant no exception and if Senator Kennedy wishes to accept, then he should resign from his office and renounce his US citizenship, just as the founding fathers renounced their British citizenship in order to form a nation of equals.

Barnes vs Blair: Rhetorical Cagematch Between Good Republicans

Anyone paying attention to the news lately has seen the state GOP finally capture the headlines for something positive.

Delegate Craig Blair has used his aggressive rhetoric to outline a plan to drug test all applicants for welfare. He contends that the taxpayers are served poorly when their funds go to enable continued drug use by aid recipients. To those who argue that the plan is cost prohibitive, Blair argues that the savings created by drug users shying away from identification will make up for the price of drug testing.

Senator Clark Barnes contends that this violates the constitutional right to privacy as well as rights explicitly spelled out in the 4th Amendment. To Barnes, Republican ideals mean that government ought to stay out of the lives of individuals until they give an overt reason to bring the police power of the state upon themselves.

This debate has overshadowed Governor Manchin and the Democratic Legislature and at times has become heated. However, this debate demonstrates the strength inherent in the ties that bind Republicans together. At the beginning of the day, Craig Blair and Clark Barnes are good friends. At the end of the day they will remain friends despite disagreements. At the end of the day, the party appreciates the efforts and different strengths each man brings to the table.

Compare this to how the Democrats have responded to Blair's proposals. Delegate Sally Susman (D) Raleigh, openly ridiculed Blair in a transparent attempt to deflect the debate into the margins. Senator Barnes debates the issue on principles and merits. Democrats wish it would go away because they fear open and honest discussion.

The strength of the state Republican party lies in our ability to disagree and remain supportive of each other. Senator Barnes opposed the presidential nominating convention last year, but remains one of the most respected Republicans in the state. When Democratic United States Senator Joe Lieberman backed President Bush, his party essentially banished him. They tried to run him out of office with a primary opponent more loyal to the party line, showing a distinct intolerance for diverging points of view. The same is about to happen to Representative Heath Shuler, Democrat from North Carolina (yes the former Tennessee quarterback.) His opposition to Nancy Pelosi has earned him banishment to the political wilderness and most likely a well funded liberal primary opponent. That is the way Democrats operate. Thank God we in the Grand Old Party are different!

Republicans understand that sometimes we have to agree to disagree. Debates among different points of view, such as between Blair and Barnes, leave us stronger at the end of the day. Even when our party members respectfully disagree with the party itself, this is not a negative. Republicans gain a reputation for free thought and ideological tolerance. Think of our state party without Clark Barnes?

Respectful debates between free thinking Republican leaders create an atmosphere of excitement that will help recruit young people to be active in the cause. We need to recognize this buzz that Blair and Barnes are creating and continue to build upon it. Respectful, honest, and open public debates over issues always help our party and its image.

Throw another Law on the Barbie

In the movie "The Philadelphia Experiment" the destroyer USS Eldridge is part of an experiment to make warships invisible and everything goes wrong. Well maybe Delegate Jeff Eldridge (D-Lincoln) needs to become invisible, because he has gone all wrong.

Delegate Eldridge has proposed a bill to ban the sale of Barbie. Yes, Barbie, the Mattel doll that is turning 50 years old this year. The same doll that has taught generation of young girls they could strive for more. In 1965 Mattel introduced Astronaut Barbie years before real life women were accepted into NASA's Space Program. Barbie has worn the uniform our all branches of our armed services, competed in the Olympics and been part of the corporate world. While Barbie may just be a doll in the world of the imagination she has shown lots of young girls what they could be and many have gone on to achieve more than even Barbie, because they dare believe in themselves.

Now it has not been reported if Delegate Eldridge is going base his bill off another law. One law that I did find that was similar was passed by Saudi Arabia in 2003 in which Saudi's outlawed the sale of Barbie dolls, saying that she did not conform to the ideals of Islam. Perhaps the real reason for outlawing Barbie in West Virginia is because she is shown taking career paths that are unlikely to be available in our state because of the tax and legal structure that keeps us at 50th in the states rankings?

Delegate Eldridge should be introducing legislation to improve the economic conditions in West Virginia by putting in a business friendly tax structure and revamping our legal system to attract businesses to the state. Let's create the economic opportunity for the young girls in this state to actually have the jobs that Barbie shows them are available, so they don't have to leave the state to find those careers. Instead changing West Virginia for the better, what the delegate proposes is to take away the young girls dreams of being something better because his party is unwilling to offer it to the people of this state and they don't want the people to leave to find it.

Shelley Moore Capito Criticizes Porkulus Package

The Wheeling News-Register recently editorialized on the dangerous amount of government spending in the pork laden stimulus package passed by Obama and Congress. One thing the president and Congress agreed upon in the first month of office was the need for an unpopular Democratic Congress to toss money at temporary or useless projects instead of refurbishing America's infrastructure or putting money back into the hands of taxpayers.

Token tax relief does exist. On average, workers will have $13 more per paycheck than before. This may buy an additional two lunches per month, but it fails to help spur the big ticket purchases that will help the manufacturing sector. Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito stated that the nearly $800 billion package needed "more overall tax relief and less government bloating."

Over 25% of the package goes to the states and most will use it to help balance their budgets. However, typical of liberal Democratic over management, responsible states such as West Virginia find their money has been allotted for specific purposes that our state government does not have. So the money is sent, can only be spent on specific things, and any unused money must be sent back. Republicans tend to prefer block grants allowing states to decide for themselves what to do.

Where were Senators Byrd and Rockefeller when this was all decided? Why didn't Rahall and Mollohan intervene with the Democratic leadership on behalf of their own state? Why did they not confer with Governor Manchin and determine what his priorities were? Surely they are on speaking terms, right? Such powerful senators then could have gotten what we needed. After all, that was the main reason they gave for being reelected. Would that have not made some sense?

At least West Virginia taxpayers have one congressional representative working for them this year.

********************************************************************

For Congresswoman Capito, the stimulus issue hits close to home. Her husband is an executive with troubled Citicorp, a target of stimulus money. Capito voted her principles and for her country's future despite its conflict with teh short term interests of her husband's employer.

Is it any wonder that West Virginians are clamoring for Ms. Capito to take a stronger role in the leadership of this state when the time comes?

Missed Opportunities

J. C. Watts went to Charleston recently to speak at the Kanawha County Republican Executive Committee Lincoln Day Dinner. The state and county organization publicized this visit heavily and over 250 GOP faithful packed the Civic Center to hear and greet him. He gave a charismatic and rousing address that was much appreciated by a party needing leadership and optimism.

In Gary Abernathy's Republican Gazette Watts is referred to as "former congressman." This is a high honor certainly, but certainly in the past few years this man could have been given some task to build a national resume.

One of the few major complaints I have with the Bush administration is the fact that they did not reach out to cultivate and develop GOP talent. The Republican Party in the United States is gifted with a large group of pragmatic and experienced minds that need some resume building. J. C. Watts is a perfect example. This man proved his leadership and conservative credentials in Congress. Could he not have been entrusted with some office or task that would have enhanced his reputation?

Closer to home we have a former state party chair with experience in Eastern European affairs currently serving as president of West Liberty. Was he ever offered an ambassadorship? He would seem to be a natural choice. Robin Capehart is still an intriguing figure who has earned bipartisan respect and could be a factor in congressional or gubernatorial elections in the future. A couple of years serving in a position of high honor would have built upon what is already a solid reputation. The Democrats eased Bill Richardson into the governor's office in New Mexico after a successful diplomatic career. Why can't we do something similar?

Although no one in power should say it, when we are in, we should always have an eye towards developing electable talent through appointments. Certainly you should only select people capable of doing the job, but there is no reason to not have a "farm system" of political leadership in operation when you can do it.

Change, Hope . . . Harding. Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Weeks Ago?

Apologies in advance for breaking the 11th Commandment (Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican) but honesty demands that we compare Barack Obama to Warren G. Harding. We warned before the election that we were electing a Harding, meaning a machine politician with zero ideas, zero experience, and tremendous potential for problems. We got something worse.

Harding, who incidentally figured out very soon that he was unfit mentally for the presidency, actually worked with a Republican Congress to craft economic policies that ended a post World War I recession. How did this happen? The GOP had stepped in to force him to select competent men for his Cabinet. He got statesmen and individuals who had found success in the private sector in the most important positions instead of political hacks. They did well despite him. In the end he was undone by some of his old machine buddies, but he died before the scandal could break.

Obama has blundered through his first month of the presidency. The stock market gains of the Bush era are gone. While Mexico dissolves, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes to our former enemies to beg for hard currency to finance the Democratic Porkulus package. The United States has lost the respect that Bush worked so carefully to build for eight years. We send $900 million to the Palestinians to rebuild Gaza while Keyser STILL waits for $9 million to rebuild its water treatment facility. The kindest commentators call Obama's transition "amateur hour" while the most critical describe a "deer in the headlights look." Meanwhile the president tells us we have everything in the world to fear and hopes to goodness something happens before he loses his friendly Congress in 2010.

The only positive of the last four weeks is that Americans have lost their faith that the federal government can solve all problems. Democratic leadership has undone the myth they have tried to cultivate since the 1930s. Every day, people are understanding what conservatives have taught all along. The federal government is not the answer, but it generally is the problem. Every move Obama and his administration makes solidifies that conviction. It is time for the states and the people to step forward and take the initiative. The federal government has failed. Let us get back to state sovereignty and individual initiative.

Let's rephrase that olf campaign question from 1984. Are you better off than you were four weeks ago?

Protestors Rally Against Bailout

Del. Craig Blair pushes for Drug Testing before receiving welfare

More anti-economic development propaganda sent out

Last week I got more e@mails from the anti-economic development group that is trying to stop windmill based jobs, tax revenue and lease revenue from coming into our community.

This time I got a story about why they are bad in Great Britain. Well I’m not real worried about what is best for Great Britain, but I am interested it what is best for my country. Well let’s look at the differences between the UK and the US.

First the UK power grid is much smaller than ours. We actually have three semi separate power grids in the US and we are in the largest of the three. Now the article states, “In 2006, according to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent.” Again what does that have to do with power generation in the US? Nothing!

Consider that the Isle of Great Britain is a little less than 600 miles top to bottom. The east coast power grid (which includes part of Canada) is over 2000 miles from top to bottom. While the UK power grid is small enough for the wind to stop blowing over the entire country, which is almost impossible in the US. While the wind may stop here in Mineral County for the day, the odds that the wind stops in Florida, Maine, Michigan, etc at the same time are not likely. The article even states, “Wind turbine advocates have claimed that this can be avoided by the geographical spread of wind farms, perhaps by creating an international ‘super grid’.” Well we already have the ‘super grid’ in place, so we are ready.

The article also talks about the need for gas turbines to back up the wind energy when the wind doesn’t blow. In the US we will have less of a need to back up the wind turbines, because of our large power grid and if when we do need back up it is locally produced coal firing our generators. We already have the system in place.

The article goes on to talk about tax breaks. These are UK tax breaks, not US tax breaks. Our wind generation industry has much less tax breaks than the UK. The facts are our local tax revenues to the county and state will increase when the wind farms are installed.

You have to be careful when making comparisons. You must have all the facts and details. You must compare apples to apples; Great Britain is not the United States. The anti-economic development group doesn’t want you to use your common sense, but when you do our community wins.

Open Primary vs. Closed Primary

The motion currently pending before the West Virginia Republican State Executive Committee to close our party's primary elections to all but registered Republican voters is beginning to draw public attention, as it should. The question is an important and weighty one which affects, ultimately, all West Virginians.

State GOP Chairman Doug McKinney has appointed a committee to investigate the issue and make a recommendation to the state Executive Committee at its Summer 2009 meeting. I'm honored to have been chosen to serve on that committee, which is made up of several distinguished West Virginia Republicans who will give this matter the attention it deserves.

My commitment to Doug, to our Republican elected officeholders, to all affected voters, and to you, our readers, is to consider this possibility fairly and make a recommendation based upon our view of what is in the best interest of West Virginians, Republican officeholders, and the Party.

One of the things I believe the committee should do is solicit public comment; I'll be reading newspapers and blogs, watching news reports, and listening to talk radio to hear the opinions of the voting public regarding this question. If anyone wants to weigh in on this issue, I invite you to do so. My e-mail address is tom@tomoneill.org

Lincoln Ranked First Among Presidents By Panel of Sixty Five Historians

Although not surprising that they picked Abraham Lincoln, frankly they got it dead wrong.

There is one single president that transcends the office even while defining it. No president faced the kinds of challenges overcome by this man. No other president comes close to him when one considers leadership ability, long term effect of his presidency, or any other standard of leadership.

It may be unfashionable to speak the obvious, but George Washington is and will always be the greatest president in United States history.

Before Washington there was no office of the president. The Constitution offered some vague details, but little in the way of guidance. Washington's generation had no contemporary examples to serve as models either. King George III? Thanks, but no thanks. The office of Prime Minister was too tied to the legislative branch for Washington's taste (Congress tended to grate on the Father of our Country's nerves.) Washington looked somewhat to the consuls of the Roman Republic, who held many of the same powers. Most of all he looked to his own common sense.

Washington strove to create balance. He needed balance in foreign affairs. A vulnerable infant nation in a world of rapacious Great Powers could not succumb to any one side, but needed to maintain a dignified neutrality. A nation with no economic growth in 1789 needed to balance the agricultural interest with his own vision of America growing into a commercial empire. He had to balance his attention between his two friends and colleagues Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Most importantly he balanced the need to enhance the respect of the people for the office of president while maintaining an air of republican simplicity.

In short, Washington had to define the office of president and also went a long way towards defining what the United States would be in its distant future. Lincoln was a great president, but no one has ever overcome the kinds of challenges faced by Washington so successfully.

*******************************************************************

Predictably the list of presidents rated George W. Bush very low, even below Carter (who actually dropped since the last ranking.) Seven years of prosperity and security combined with a new respect for the United States around the world did not impress the historians. Of course none of them brought a sliver of bias to the table.

Surprisingly, Ronald Reagan, who used to be placed in the middle or near the bottom, reached number ten. George H. W. Bush, once criticized and ranked poorly because he left Saddam Hussein in place in 1991, rose to number 18.

Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, James Madison, William McKinley, James K. Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower are my top ten.

Why is Theodore Roosevelt as low as he is? The more I read about his domestic policies, the more squeamish I get. Yes the government needed to expand some regulatory powers, but his tended to follow his own whim rather than the rule of law. Were it not for a wildly successful foreign policy, I'd send him lower. I prefer McKinley who had a strong foreign policy and a more limited ideal of government power. Truman goes before Reagan by a hair because he recognized the Soviet threat before many others and challenged it almost from the beginning. James Madison was flexible enough to alter his position during the War of 1812, casting ideology aside in the greater effort to beat the British. I left out Jefferson because his foreign policy led directly to economic disaster. He also used the authority of his office to financially crush political rivals.

George W. Bush to me is definitely in the top 20. You cannot lay the current financial crisis at his feet since he tried to get both Republican and Democratic congresses to address the various issues that caused the problems. It would be like blaming Isaiah for the Babylonians conquering Judah. It's not his fault that nobody listened. The second Bush will climb as we get further from his presidency.

Byrd: Obama in power grab

Who Is John Galt? Do You Dare Find Out?

The most important book for any conservative or libertarian to read in 2009 is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It extends for over a thousand pages and drags from time to time, but within the story lines of this novel emerges a philosophy that we as Americans must embrace again. If we do not, our nation has but two fates, empire or collapse. We must either brutally conquer to add resources to pay for our bloated government and increasingly depraved psyche, or our civilization will collapse due to over regulation, a culture of entitlement, and lack of initiative.

The book is about an America where industrialists who seek profit and their self-interest over a more vague concept of public service are demonized. Government forces business into cooperative ventures that play to the emotions of the populace and force unsustainable burdens on capitalists. Considering the plight that General Motors is in due to its attempt to conform to the ideal of "good corporate citizen," the message of Atlas Shrugged is more important than ever.

My only problem with Ayn Rand is her atheism. Her Russian Orthodox background led her to see Christianity not as an exercise in free will, but as another parasite on man's reason. To me, religion and that which is done in God's name is another choice that people make and the freedom to choose represents the lifeblood of dynamic humanity to Rand.

Below is a speech given by the main protagonist John Galt. In Rand's book, he organizes a strike of capitalists and intellectuals against a society that demands more and more while offering less and less tangible reward.

It will either reinforce your beliefs and help you to openly argue with socialized liberals, or it could radically change your mind. Seriously, if you read this book you will literally at some points step back and say "Whoa!"

For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's impossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Something Is Rotten In the State of Denmark, Or At Least the District of Columbia

The latest news coming out of Washington is shocking to say the least.

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg withdrew his name from consideration for the post of Commerce Secretary over some deeply disturbing revelations about Barack Obama's conception of executive power. The United States Census Bureau will, under Obama's plan, be removed from the Department of Commerce and placed under the control of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Of course Gregg was selected to give bipartisan cover for this plan which would raise more than a few eyebrows. Thankfully he stuck to his principles instead of accepting the honor of being a Cabinet Secretary, still an honor even if left nothing to do.

Excuse me? Yes, the White House Chief of Staff will run the census, not the Department of Commerce. To what purpose has Obama systematically cut out his major Cabinet selections when it comes to major jobs? Hillary Clinton has been shut out of any major world affairs issues. All of these thorny issues get special presidential envoys. Clinton has no chance to play the same statesmanlike role that Condoleeza Rice enjoyed.

Why, again, would the White House Chief of Staff need to run the Census? I am quite positive that congressional Democrats will find this as shocking and disturbing as the GOP. They thought they elected a visionary, what they got was a bumbling version of Old Man Daley, the Chicago political boss from the 20th century.

Obama has gone from charismatic male Oprah, to bumbling, to highly disturbing in the matter of a few weeks. It's time to demand that the Democratic Party reign this guy in. Better to nip this power hunger in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Steele Curtain Coming Soon!

Republicans have not felt this kind of excitement since 2004. Michael Steele won election as RNC Chair.

Most folks say, so what. Who cares who the party chair is?

This was a moment in history. Three of the last four candidates for the position were black, the other was incumbent Mike Duncan. With a dramatic flourish, Duncan stepped to the podium Friday and acknowledged the need of the GOP for new leadership. He pulled himself out of the race. It came down to Steele and South Carolina Chair Dawson. Dawson has spoken in the past about his experience growing up with segregated schools. Steele prevailed on the fifth vote.

What does Steele bring? He has a laid back charm in person, as many of us discovered last summer in Flatwoods. Steele does not bring an aura of superiority to interpersonal exchanges, unlike Obama. However he does bring energy and charisma to his speeches. Steele earned a heroes reception when he spoke in Flatwoods and at the national convention.

We need to move forward, reaffirming traditional principles with new methods. Americans are gaining a sense of buyers remorse from this election. Many voted for Obama because it seemed like time to elect a black president. Steele is the right man to open a new 21st century Republican era and beat back the leftist Democratic clique now running Washington.

State GOP backs Blair’s drug testing bill, agrees to study Primary election issue

State GOP backs Blair’s drug testing bill, agrees to study Primary election issue

CHARLESTON – Members of the West Virginia State Executive Committee on Saturday passed a resolution endorsing a bill backed by Del. Craig Blair that would require drug testing for anyone receiving welfare, food stamps or jobless benefits, and agreed to study whether to continue the practice of allowing non-affiliated voters to participate in the GOP Primary election.

While Blair’s proposed legislation won the backing of a solid majority of the state committee, the vote was not unanimous, after State Sen. Clark Barnes raised questions about its constitutionality and fairness, even though he said he respected Blair and understood his intentions with the bill. Del. John Overington had asked for the committee’s approval of the resolution, and state GOP Chairman Doug McKinney allowed Blair, who was also in attendance, to defend the merits of the bill after Barnes spoke. Eventually, a majority of committee members gave it their endorsement.

The committee, meeting in it annual Winter session, also agreed to study the issue of whether voters other than registered Republicans should continue to be permitted to participate in the GOP Primary election, a practice that began in the 1980s. Some committee members have indicated a desire to limit the Primary to Republicans only, although it is unclear whether they represent a majority of members. The state Democratic Party recently opened its Primary to non-affiliated voters.

McKinney offered a State of the Party address, reviewing the events of his tenure to date, and describing his decision to hire Gary Abernathy as executive director. McKinney told the committee that fundraising was strong, noting that February was on pace to match or exceed January’s showing of nearly $19,000 raised. A handout on McKinney’s activities since becoming chairman in the summer of 2006 showed that he had traveled nearly 30,000 miles attending more than 160 events, and personally donated more than $57,000 to candidates and the party, including in-kind contributions.

McKinney noted that GOP opposition to the federal stimulus bill was one of the biggest motivators in recent years for Republicans, and predicted much improved election prospects beginning in 2010, promising, “We will be ready.” At the conclusion of his remarks, McKinney received a standing ovation.

The committee heard an audit report from Vice Chair Tom O’Neill, who reviewed the findings of a recent examination of the party’s books. While reporting that all records appear to be accurate and in order, O’Neill said the committee was recommending several procedural changes. Treasurer Marti Riggall also addressed the committee and reported that many of the recommendations have been implemented, or soon will be.

Committee members also heard from 2008 candidates Beth Walker (Supreme Court), Dan Greear (Attorney General) and Michael Teets (Agriculture Commission), all of whom ran strong races while falling short of victory.

During lunch, committee members and guests heard from Dr. Russ Sobel, author of “Unleashing Capitalism,” who discussed findings of research regarding judicial reform that will be presented in a new forthcoming book.

In the morning meeting of county chairs, House Minority Leader Tim Armstead updated chairmen on the legislative session. Joe Garcia, chairman of Summers County and chairman of the county chairs, reviewed the 2008 election county by county, and asked the chairs for input regarding their vision for the future of the party.

In other business, the committee:

* Heard a resolution from National Committeewoman Donna Gosney to add former Gov. Arch Moore, Jr., and his wife, former First Lady Shelley Moore, as emeritus members of the committee. Because the resolution was not offered 30 days in advance of the meeting, it cannot be enacted until the Summer Meeting, but it seemed clear that members were strongly in favor.
* Agreed to examine the issue of removing members from the committee who have missed four or more consecutive meetings.
* Heard a report on Camp Lincoln from Brig. Gen. John “Doc” Bahnsen. Camp Lincoln is a summer camp open to West Virginia high school students, and teaches them about politics and government. Bahnsen said a special scholarship is available again this year for minority students.
* Heard a report on Internet developments at the party from webmaster Tommy Phillips.
* And approved the addition of new committee members Sue McKinney of Harrison County, Gary Howell of Mineral County, and Gary Dungan of Jefferson County.

After the meeting, McKinney expressed his delight at the number of young Republican activists who attended, including Lisa Peana , executive director of the West Virginia Federation of Young Republicans, who carried the proxy of WVFYR Chairman Ashley Stinnett.

MCREC Dinner Guest Speaker: Andrew Wilkow

Monongalia County Republican Executive Committee
Spring Dinner
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Pines Country Club
3062 Point Marion Rd
Morgantown, WV 26505

Guest Speaker: Andrew Wilkow Conservative talk show host Sirius Radio
Channel 144

Contact:
Pam Krushansky
Post Office Box 2369
Westover, WV 26502
(304) 292-1265
Krushansky7@aol.com

Opposing more rail regulation keeps our highways clear

As a longtime member and current secretary of the U.S. 50 Association, I am usually focused on state issues that have a detrimental effect on our highway system, and on Route 50 in particular. But all too often it is legislation at the federal level that has unintended negative effects on our road system. One such initiative currently in the works is legislation that would roll back the Staggers Act of 1980, named for Congressman Harley Staggers of Keyser, and reregulate our nation’s rail systems.

In West Virginia, of course, our railroads are particularly important to our ability to transport coal safely and efficiently to energy suppliers across the nation. Ever since they were deregulated, railroads have provided a means of transportation that helps keep coal affordable and ready accessible for energy providers in every part of the United States.

But another, often overlooked, benefit of our rail system is the service it provides in keeping our highways and roads from being even more congested with truck traffic than they already are. If the Staggers Act is repealed or seriously rolled back – as legislation in the last Congress would have done – our roads would be even more congested and damaged by shippers using semi trucks to an even greater degree than they are used today.

As everyone traveling our highways knows, our roads and bridges are deteriorating quickly, and we can hardly meet the needs of pothole repair and general repaving and maintenance as it is. Legislation that would raise the cost of doing business with our railroads would only increase the damage to our roads.

It’s important to compare the efficiency of our railroads with the extra burden that would be placed on our highways if the Staggers Act was repealed. For example, one typical multi-car locomotive does the work of more than 280 semi trucks. It costs $1 million to $3 million per mile to add capacity to rail, as opposed to $10 million or more per mile to add a lane to urban highways.

As the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials said in its Freight Bottom Line Report. "Relatively small public investments in the nation's freight railroads can be leveraged into relatively large benfits for the nation's highway infrastructure, highway users and freight shippers.

Furthermore, railroads are there times as energy efficient as trucks. A train can move a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel, and are also three times cleaner. Since truck fatality rates are four times higher than train fatality rates, moving freight by rail will also save lives.

Since the Staggers Act was passed in 1980, the freight railway industry has seen drastic, quantifiable improvements, including a 168 percent increase in productivity, an 85 percent increase in rail traffic, and injury rates that have fallen by 68 percent.

For some reason, Sen. Jay Rockefeller has long been seen as an opponent of the railroad industry. But in this case, all West Virginians should hope that he will join many of his colleagues in opposing any effort to roll back the Staggers Act and reregulate our rail system. The railroad industry has been good for West Virginia, and for the coal business. Just as importantly from my point of view, our current system helps keep our highways and roads less congested than they otherwise would be. Let’s keep it that way.

Individualized Democratic Tax Cut For the Liberal Wealthy and England Shut Down By A Snowstorm

In 2002 Tom Daschle declared war on President Bush's plan to make permanent his groundbreaking tax cut plan. We now know that those cuts laid the foundation for seven years of prosperity.

Daschle fought hard against tax cuts. Like most Democrats, he screamed about "tax cuts for the wealthy." His primary goal was preventing the repeal of the estate tax from becoming permanent. Tom Daschle while in the Senate wanted to make sure that the government got its hands on fifty percent of every estate upon someone's death.

We also now know that Daschle did not exercise such diligence when paying his own taxes. Call it the Individualized Democratic Tax Cut For the Liberal Wealthy. It is very simple. Wealthy liberals choose when and if they pay their taxes. Easy as pie! Now three powerful Democrats nominated to high office by Obama have been revealed to have owed tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Daschle owes over $128,000.

$128,000 is about three times what the average American earns in three years. One year of that salary makes an American well off. Daschle owes that much in taxes.

************************************************************************

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." Winston Churchill said this during World War II, a testament to the grit and determination of Royal Air Force fighter pilots downing German bombers as they tried to annihilate German cities. During the Blitz, Britons continued to work and live as normally as possible. Everyone strove to overcome relentless attack from a bitter enemy.

The Germans should just have sent snow.

A snowstorm brought London and much of the rest of England to a halt this week. Was it two feet? Three feet? No. Four inches. Four inches of snow did what the Luftwaffe could not. Everyone stayed home from work and the country was paralyzed.

Pretty laughable for a major city this side of Atlanta to get shut down by four inches of snow. It might even have political fallout in a country that has wedded itself so much to laws addressing the myth of man made climate change.