DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
.jpg "Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton")
Today’s front page story in the Daily Times regarding Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton’s new “Slumlord of the Week” policy fails to answer several questions:
IF Ireton was actually doing something to close these loopholes and to actually enforce the spirit, as well as the letter, of the city’s zoning laws that would be one thing. Instead, we have seen one woman loose her rental income because of zoning (last Sunday’s DT), but we’re not seeing any progress in taking care of the scores of non-conforming uses in the city.
Ireton isn’t pushing the issue in the appropriate forum – the city council – because he knows that the “council majority” of Gary Comegys, Louise Smith, and Shanie Shields are owned by the city’s slumlords. Instead of exhibiting a backbone, my friend Jim is doing what liberals do best – making a show without accomplishing anything.
Does he really believe that a slumlord is going to be shamed? It’s time for a little reality check Jimmy.
Because Ireton is unwilling to stand up to either the Barrie Comegys bloc on council or the bureaucracy within his own administration, Salisbury’s citizens are being forced to pay for Allan Webster’s six month paid vacation, watch city officials spend money that has not been appropriated, and now they are being given a “show” rather than real solutions to the rental problems that have faced Salisbury for years.
In just over a month, Ireton will present his first budget. I am confident that it will include a sizable tax increase. I can’t wait to see what kind of show Ireton will put on to justify that “policy” as well.
Jim needs to learn that the people who elected him expect solutions, not a “show”. Jim needs to learn that voters want him to DO SOMETHING rather than just claim to “feel their pain”.
from Delmarva Dealings
"I have received this pic from locals in ocean city that say this whale was washed up on shore on 7th street. . Quite impressive, but I don't have any other details."
There are only two rules you need to know when debating a liberal.
Rule Number One: You must define the debate in terms of First Principles, which is to say, you must be able to articulate those principles. (Read Essential Liberty for more.)
Conservatives subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of Essential Liberty as enumerated by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We understand that individual responsibility is the foundation of a free society. We advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. We promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.
In short, conservatives endeavor to conserve Rule of Law as our guiding principle, and any legitimate policy debate must start there.
Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to principles du jour; whatever solution feels best for the day's most popular, fashionable, or prominent cause célèbre.
In short, they believe that the feel-good solution (a.k.a. "rule of man") supersedes Rule of Law.
For the most part, today's liberals are a case study in hypocrisy, the antithesis of the once noble Democrat Party, the party of Thomas Jefferson.
Liberals speak of unity, but they incessantly foment disunity, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into constituent dependencies. They speak of freedom of thought -- except when your thought doesn't comport with theirs. They assert First Amendment rights -- except when it comes to religion or speech that doesn't agree with theirs. They promote tolerance -- except while practicing intolerance and seeking to silence dissenters.
Liberals deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals while ardently supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us -- the unborn, the infirm and the aged.
Liberals loathe individual responsibility and advocate statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.
Now, I'm not suggesting that everything liberals believe or support is wrong, but their underlying philosophical doctrine surely undermines our "unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as established by "the laws of nature and nature's God."
As Ronald Reagan observed, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Thus, don't be snookered into defending or denouncing the merits of any issue as framed in liberal terms. Such deliberations are rarely resolved and tend to end in gridlock, or worse, deadlock. (If congressional Republicans really want to end gridlock, they too need to control the debate in terms of First Principles.)
One means of taking control of a debate is to inquire whether an opponent has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" our Constitution. (If you have not, or wish to reaffirm your oath, then we invite you to do so by registering with The Essential Liberty Project.
If your opponent answers "yes," then inquire as to which constitution -- the one upon which our nation was founded, or the so-called "living constitution" adulterated by generations of legislative and judicial diktat.
Of course, you must be prepared to explain the difference -- to explain that only one of these constitutions exists in written form, while the other is a mere fabrication. This can be best accomplished by presenting your copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.
Another means of framing the debate is to ask your opponent to articulate the difference between constitutional Rule of Law and the rule of men. Again, you must be prepared to explain the difference.
You may also start by asking your opponent what "liberal" means. Most liberals will define "liberal" in terms of the issues they support, so ask your opponent if those issues comport with our Constitution.
Once you've framed the debate in terms of First Principles, give your liberal opponent a recess, and a copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.
Principled liberals (admittedly an oxymoron) will remain satisfied that what they feel is equivalent to, or even supersedes, Rule of Law. These poor souls are on their way to becoming über liberals, or Leftists, and are probably beyond any logical redemption.
But if you use your Essential Liberty Guide as an education tool rather than a hammer, some liberals may actually start to come around, and this conversion should be your primary objective.
Further, if confronted by your opponent with a challenge to provide a constitutional defense for some Republican legislation, don't bite. Most Republican legislation, though it may be more in line with our Constitution, rarely comports with the plain language of Rule of Law. Don't let your opponent frame you as a hypocrite. Remember: You are, first and foremost, a constitutional conservative, not a tool of any political party.
Alas, selective interpretation of our Constitution has expanded its meaning beyond any semblance of its original intent, and it will take time and discipline to contract its meaning through due process to restore its original intent.
Finally...
Rule Number Two: You must distinguish between liberals and Leftists. The former subscribe to a plethora of contemporaneous solutions, while the latter are bona fide "useful idiots," those Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas that terminate with the institution of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism masquerading as regulation and taxation.
When it comes to debating Leftists, the outcome is utterly dependent on who has superior firepower.
The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us
The Heritage Foundation
Obamacare’s Procedural Fraud on the American People
Posted March 10th, 2010 at 11:33am in Health Care with 37 comments Print This Post
The Health Care Nuclear Option is still the stated plan to get Obamacare to the President’s desk.
The latest wrinkle is designed to allow pro-life Democrats to vote for the Senate’s taxpayer funded abortion language while still claiming they never voted for taxpayer funded abortions. Don’t be fooled.
First, let’s be clear that the Senate bill allows tax dollars to be used for abortions. According to Chuck Donovan of The Heritage Foundation, the Senate passed Obamacare bill funds abortion in several ways, even creating an appropriation for Community Health Centers that contains no restriction on abortion subsidies. If the Senate version of Obamacare is passed by the House and sent to the President, then the House has consented to the federal funding of abortion.
House members have come up with a unique way to structure a vote that attempts to avoid the House voting on legislation before it goes to the president. First, the House Budget Committee will report out a reconciliation bill. It is unclear as to whether the Stupak Amendment will be added. This reconciliation measure would be reported for consideration by the House of Representatives as a whole.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would then package the Senate passed Obamacare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one measure. The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote. The rule will be self-executing in the sense that the House will have been deemed to pass the Senate Obamacare bill if the House can muster the votes to pass the reconciliation measure. The House has used this procedure in the past during a debate on funding the Global War on Terror and in passing debt limit increases under the “Gephardt Rule.”
There is a constitutional issue raised by this procedure. Article 1, Section 7, of the Constitution states in part “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States.” If the House does not vote on a bill, is it considered to “have passed the House of Representatives?” Don’t expect the Supreme Court to take up this case, because this is in the realm of a political issue that the Courts tend to want resolved by the House and Senate through the democratic process.
It is a Constitutional concern and should be discussed by all Americans. If any member of Congress claims to have not voted for the pro-abortion Senate passed bill, one can point to this provision in the Constitution to argue the opposite.
Procedurally, this would happen in the following order. The House Rules Committee would approve this self-executing rule. The House would vote on the rule that allows this scenario.
Then the House will vote on the reconciliation measure. Upon passage of the reconciliation measure the Senate Obamacare bill will be deemed to have passed the House and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate. This so called “Deeming Resolution” is a trick that allows the House to pass a bill they never voted upon. Therefore, the real vote on the pro-abortion Senate passed bill will be the vote on the rule to allow this scenario to roll out on the House floor.
One provision that may make the rule is a provision that does not allow the House to report the Senate passed Obamacare bill to the President until the Senate passes a reconciliation bill. Bills are enrolled before being sent to the President for his signature and the House can prevent the enrollment and delivery of Obamacare to the President until the Senate completes work on the reconciliation measure. Sound complicated? Yes and it is supposed to so the American people can’t understand that the House is on the verge of passing an unpopular Obamacare bill, yet they are reserving the right to claim that they did not vote for the Senate passed bill.
If the liberals in the House can pull off this trick, this would have allowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to have secretly written the version of Obamacare going to the President’s desk. Do you remember Harry Reid and the Chamber of Secrets? Reid merged, without any official proceedings, the Senate HELP and Senate Finance Committee versions of Obamacare, with his personal additions to the bill including a Public Option with an opt out for states, in closed door meetings with political elites. Basically, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, OMB Director Peter Orszag, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Max Baucus (D-MT), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and a few other liberal Senators have rewritten health care law in secret closed door meetings.
After those meeting the Senate moved to proceed to this bill, without any hearings or opportunity for public review. During debate in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid crafted a manager’s package of amendments and added the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska, a Louisiana Purchase and a Gator-Aid earmark. Now the House is preparing to pass this bill without a vote. The American people should demand that Congress start over. This secretive and non-transparent procedure is not way to force through Obamacare.
March 9, 2010 - The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) announces that the 2010 Lexus HS250 and 2010 4Runner earn GOOD ratings for frontal crash protection
March 1, 2010 - The 2010 Scion xB & 2010 Corolla earn the TOP SAFETY PICK award. To qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK, a vehicle must earn the highest rating of GOOD in the Institute's front, side, rollover and rear impact test and be equipped with electronic stability control. These two models are the first Toyota models to earn TOP SAFETY PICK since the institute tightened the criteria to win by adding the new rollover test for 2010. To earn a good rollover rating, a roof has to support the equivalent of 4 times the vehicles weight compared with the current standard of 1.5. In the Institute's test, the xB's roof withstood a force equal to 6.8 times the car's weight. the Corolla's roof supported 5.1 times the cars weight.
February 23, 2010 - The 2011 Sienna earns GOOD ratings for both front and side impact crash protection.
January 29, 2010 - IIHS announces, Toyota modified the 2010 Tundra's frontal airbags and safety belts and added knee airbags for the driver and front passenger to retain the GOOD rating it earned for frontal protection for 2007-09 models. This large pickup had previously earned GOOD ratings for side and rear protection, too.
February 10, 2010 - Intellichoice announced the winners of its annual "Best Overall Value of the Year" awards for 2010. These awards identify best-in-class vehicles that deliver outstanding value and lower than expected cost over time. Intellichoice.com identified winners in 31 vehicles classes, with nine overall category winners. Toyota took top honors in 5 of the eight overall categories and 11 of the 31 vehicle classes. Here's how they describe Toyota's performance:
Recalls hurt Toyota image, but not Toyota value. Toyota and Lexus badges took five of the eight overall rankings for cars and trucks, and 11 of 31 total vehicle segments, once again giving Toyota the highest number of winners. "In light of the current recalls we re-evaluated the data factoring in a potential drop in desirability, and 16 Toyota vehicles were still value leaders in their class, " said Charlie Vogelheim (Executive Editor of Intellichoice.com). "Specifically, we analyzed the long term impact on resale values and ownership costs of vehicles that had been subject to well publicized recalls in the past. And what we found is that while the vehicles take a short term hit, over a typical ownership period the changes are barely measurable, and fall within the range of fluctuations one typically sees in retained value over time. Also, given Toyota's history of strong long-term resale values, we expect these cars continue to recapture competitive to above average retained value at resale time. Toyota has built up a significant level of goodwill among the consumer over the past 20 years. Given that Toyota and Lexus vehicles excel in every facet of cost of ownership, they managed to lead the pack again this year, despite the issues created the recalls."
One idea is to move auto finance back to General Motors
WASHINGTON -- GMAC Inc. still has no business plan even after receiving a $17.2 billion investment from the government, and the Treasury Department has been lax in making sure that the bank repays taxpayers, a congressional panel said (Thursday). "The panel is deeply concerned that Treasury has not required GMAC to lay out a clear path to viability or a strategy for fully repaying taxpayers," said the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to oversee Treasury's spending of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. Treasury should consider the possibility of breaking up GMAC and merging its auto-finance unit back into General Motors Co., the panel said in a statement. "We appreciate the panel's responsibility to analyze history; however, GMAC's management team is focused on the future," GMAC said in a statement. "That includes continuing to provide the highest level of service to auto dealers and consumers in support of our auto partners, returning GMAC to a high level of profitability, and repaying the U.S. Treasury."
