News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
When a soldier is killed in the line of duty, his family eventually gets a flag and a form note conveying sympathy from the United States Government.
When a pro basketball player announces he is gay, he immediately gets a personal phone call from the President congratulating him for his courage.
His idea of courage must be vastly different than mine, or am I missing something?
–Jim Vanore
The Beaver Valley Conservancy is a group of people who have joined forces to help preserve 324 acres of beautiful open spaces.
The property belongs to Woodlawn Trustees in Wilmington, Del., but is under agreement with 3 developers for town homes, 55+ community, single family homes and a commercial aspect with a 180,000 square foot big box store.
The property is between Beaver Valley Road and Rte 202 South in Concord Township, Pa. The property has been used as a wildlife refuge for over 50 years. This property has been used for many generations for mountain biking, dog walking, hiking, horseback riding and enjoying nature. It supports many wildlife species including fox, deer, raccoons, turtles, hawks, owls and bald eagles. The Concervancy’s mission is “To protect and preserve the natural beauty, wildlife and open space in Beaver Valley for the enjoyment of people in Concord Township and surrounding communities now and for generations to come. To educate the public on development plans through publications, online communications and word of mouth.” Concord Township supervisors are holding a public meeting scheduled for 7 p.m., Tuesday, May 14.
We would like the residents to be made aware of this meeting so that they may voice an opinion regarding the rezoning necessary for this developing to occur. There was a preliminary meeting held Oct. 2, 2012 that was continued until this May 14 date.
Many Garnet Valley resident have no idea of this pending change. The goal is to NOT allow rezoning. It would be a bonus if we could have this property as an extension of Delaware’s National Monument since the property is adjacent to the Delaware parcel recently granted this status. Concord Township is losing precious open space at horrible speeds. We believe the residents would prefer keeping the open spaces. But they need to be made aware of it. We have a FB page: BeaverValleyConservancy; website: www.BeaverValleyConservancy.org and a group linked from us: SavetheValley.org.
What a crime to destroy this beauty!
This piece first ran in Investor’s Business Daily.
The Affordable Care Act may not yet be fully implemented, but its negative effects and exorbitant price tag are already being felt in statehouses, hospitals, and homes across the country.
Yet in the face of the President’s and the Senate’s unwillingness to address the law’s many issues, some states—including my home state of Pennsylvania—are taking proactive steps to help protect taxpayers and families from the ACA’s burdensome costs by refusing to expand Medicaid programs that fail to serve the poor.
Fifteen states have so far announced their intention not to participate in the ACA’s Medicaid expansion program.
The President may not like this development, but it’s a decision that makes sense—both fiscally and morally.
Consider Medicaid’s current bill of health. Medicaid has a poor record of serving the people who need it the most. The program’s broken system of doctor reimbursements and its reams of red tape mean that many doctors have to choose between accepting Medicaid patients and staying in business. As a result, Medicaid recipients have fewer options, spend more time in the waiting room, and ultimately don’t get the care they need.
The 48-year old program is bleeding red ink. It is already the single largest item in most state budgets, accounting for roughly 23 percent of state spending on average. Pennsylvania alone expects to spend more than $9 billion in state funds on Medicaid over the next year.
The national numbers are even more enormous. Medicaid spending ballooned from $73.7 billion in 1990 to an estimated $450 billion last year. And the GAO predicts Medicaid costs will continue to grow faster than taxpayers’ ability to pay and consume a larger share of state and federal spending.
These numbers—already at mind-boggling levels—are expected to accelerate under the Affordable Care Act. Rather than rein in the runaway cost of Medicaid, the ACA urges states to expand the program using an unfortunate “carrot and stick” approach.
The “carrot” is that the federal government has promised to shoulder the additional costs at first, but its payments will trickle off after three years. The “stick” is 20 new federal taxes that residents will still pay for Medicaid expansion in other states, even if their state refuses to participate. It’s nothing more than financial extortion by another name.
Pennsylvania has seen through this ruse, as have 14 other states, with ten more still weighing the offer. Past experience has taught these governors that Washington politicians will renege on their promises—President Obama has already suggested cutting the federal matching rate. Even if the federal government keeps its end of the deal, states will be forced raise taxes to pay for a program they have little control over.
That’s why Governor Corbett should also be praised for requesting an “innovation waiver” for the program. Unlike the fake flexibility pursued by Arkansas, these waivers offer states wider latitude and have a good track record in the states where they exist.
With flexibility to fix Medicaid, states have saved money, improved patient care, and produced more satisfied participants. In the face of the ACA’s crippling uniformity, such waivers are the best means for states to improve the health care of their neediest citizens while balancing their budgets.
The ACA’s problems are obvious, whether you’re sitting in Washington, Harrisburg, or anywhere in between. That’s why leaders in statehouses across the country should do the right thing and follow Pennsylvania’s lead. Instead of waiting for dollars and dictates from D.C. to expand a broken program, our states can save our ailing health care system by fixing Medicaid themselves.
# # #
Thomas J. Smith was Pennsylvania’s 2012 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate and is a member of the Board of Directors for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org) Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.
I received this fundraiser email from quasi Republican and 100% Squish Lehigh Commissioner Percy Dougherty who is faced with a primary. Lt. Gov. and Corbett Surrogate and Deon Union Republican BucksCo Jim Cawley is fundraising for NOT the Forgotten Taxpayer’s Friend Percy Dougherty!
Yikes, why is governor endorsing in a county commissioner Republican Primary? Because the Governor’s actions do not match the rhetoric at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference (sometimes called the Incumbent Protection Conference with shameless promotion from Fred Anton, his spokesman Dave Taylor and the phony and failed Charlie GID Gerow). Incompetence is Us! Is it a wonder Republicans are losing Pennsylvania.
Percy Dougherty has opposed the Lehigh County’s Reform Agenda and most recently enabled the Democratic Unions and Democratic Allentown Mayor Ed Pawloski’s Lehigh County Authority Water/Sewer Lease effectively enacting a stealth tax increase on Allentown water and sewer customers. As a Lehigh County Commissioner, Percy Dougherty had the opportunity to vote with real Republicans on the LCA. And voted with plugged in Democrat and Allentown Parking Authority Solicitor and former Allentown City Solicitor Dan McCarthy
Because the Governor is a failure and a phony as his polling numbers show. Fortunately, he has obtained competent campaign help from Ed Rendell and his billionaire funding network headed by Comcast Obama Democrat David L. Cohen. And more at Huffington Post
Once again, the Governor, through his surrogate, Deon Union BucksCo Republican Jim Cawley, has intruded and endorsed a local commissioner candidate in a Republican Primary! Two years ago Governor Corbett and State Chair Rob Gleason backed quasi Republican 100% Squish Dean Browning who supported Lehigh County Democrats’ spending and tax increases.
One would think that the Governor, whose plummeting poll numbers are common knowledge, would distance himself.
Note Percy Dougherty corrected my misperception that he was running in tandem with quasi Republican and 100 percent Squish Dean Browning. My mistake. I assumed (without evidence) that the Governor had reached into a local Republican primary on loser Dean Browning’s campaign in 2010 and is, was, again, reaching another quasi Republican 100% Squish, the campaigns were related. Dean Browning and Percy Dougherty are NOT running as a team.
Although County Chair Wayne Woodman and I have exchanged some heated words, I admire and support the policies of NO ENDORSEMENT primaries that he and his Lehigh County supporters instituted. Let Republican Voters decide whom they want to represent them. We recall the disastrous effects of CorbettCawley’s endorsement of losers Steve Welch, Dave Freed, John Maher! CorbettCawley = Loser.
America is in a gunfight. The bad guy government wants to disarm the good guy citizens. The battle: tyranny versus freedom. The Obama government has started the bleeding-out of Constitutional rights and protections for all citizens through its ramped-up attacks and erosions of Constitutional amendments. On patrol at the Constitution’s perimeter are leaders like Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, among others, who refuse to back down and bow to totalitarianism.
Few Americans are aware of the surprisingly narrow defeat in the Senate, 53-46, of a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would have effectively savaged the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To see which senators voted for the U.N.’s control over American gun rights, read here (Ed. note Bob Casey voted nay and Pat Toomey voted aye)
The following letter from Texas Attorney General Abbott to President Barack Obama regarding this President’s support of the U.N. treaty over the Constitutional rights of American citizens demonstrates how real leaders, defending America, step forward in times of peril:
April 2, 2013
Sent via facsimile and U.S. mail
Dear Mr. President:
The Arms Trade Treaty agreed to today by the United Nations (UN) is a threat to Americans’ Constitutional liberty. I urge you to reject that treaty. If you sign it, and if the U.S. Senate ratifies the treaty, Texas will lead the charge to have the treaty overturned in court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
America is exceptional in part because our Constitution safeguards our individual liberties — including the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment. During your reelection campaign, you consistently claimed to support Second Amendment rights. Yet the day after you won reelection, you announced your support for the Arms Trade Treaty, a UN agreement on firearms restrictions. That treaty:
Fails to recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms or the right to defend one’s family, person, and property;
Empowers a new UN bureaucracy focused on firearms restrictions that will be run by international bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people of the United States; Employs vague and sweeping language that could be used for any number of future restrictions on Second Amendment rights; and Places no defined limits on the UN’s power to interfere with Second Amendment rights.
The UN has concluded its negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty. It is now up to you to sign it – or reject it. Do not sign this treaty.
Agreeing to the treaty does more than trample Second Amendment rights. It also threatens to erode all liberties guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution by establishing the precedent that the UN has some level of authority to govern our lives. The very reason we fought for independence was to free ourselves from dictates by leaders in other lands. This treaty contradicts the underpinning philosophy of our country.
I recognize that the ostensible purpose of the treaty is to combat the illegal international trade of weapons into third-world war zones. The treaty could, however, draw law-abiding gun owners and gun store operators into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty. For instance, the treaty appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN.
The treaty also contains a vague and open-ended call for heightened domestic regulation of imported firearms, which make up a large percentage of the market for new firearms in this country. Indeed, the most troubling aspect of the treaty is the vagueness of its language. As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document. Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.
Treaties do not trump constitutional liberties. Even if you, as the President, signed and the Senate ratified the UN Arms Trade Treaty, our Constitution remains the Supreme Law of the Land and would supersede any treaty provision that violated Second Amendment rights. When the Constitution says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it means no one–including the UN–can infringe that right.
These principles have long been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, (1957), the Supreme Court ruled that the United States cannot use its treaty power to violate Constitutional rights. In that case, an international agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom provided that dependents of American service members stationed in the UK would be tried for crimes by military tribunal and thus deprived of certain Sixth Amendment rights, including the right to trial by jury. When the wife of an American serviceman was accused of murder and convicted by a military court, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. The Court rightly concluded that ‘no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” Id. at 16. In a passage that should be required reading in our public schools, the Supreme Court affirmed that “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Id. at 5-6. For that reason, the Supreme Court “has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” Id. at 17.
As Reid v. Covert demonstrates, the Second Amendment is by no means the only constitutional right that can be threatened by international agreements. Regardless of their position on gun rights, all Americans should oppose any treaty that does not adequately protect our constitutional rights. If the Second Amendment can be trusted to international organizations that do not share our constitutional traditions, then why not the First Amendment? Why not the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment?
Our Nation’s Bill of Rights is a rare and precious thing. It does not exist anywhere else in the world. And the UN cannot be trusted with it. The UN includes foreign governments that have shown hostility to the kinds of constitutional liberties guaranteed to Americans. All Americans are harmed when unaccountable international bodies like the UN are empowered to interfere with our protected freedoms.
If the UN Arms Trade Treaty is ratified or applied in a way that violates the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, it will be null and void. That will be little comfort, however, to law-abiding gun owners who would no doubt wonder why the United States entered into a treaty that empowers the UN to interfere with their Second Amendment rights. Rather than reach that point, the better course is to stop the treaty before the Senate can even consider it.
If the UN Arms Trade Treaty is not stopped at the federal level, I — and my fellow state attorneys general — will take up the fight to preserve the Constitution. Ratification of this treaty would compel immediate legal action to enforce the Constitution’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Sincerely, G
reg Abbott,
Attorney General of Texas
There’s good and bad news.
The good: If you’re still reeling from the self-imposed trauma of watching nonstop bombing coverage from your recliner, you can go to the Penn Relays this week to recover. Backpacks there are being banned, so you can pretend you’re safe and feel good about yourself! (Although, just like our wildly inconsistent airport security policies, not all backpacks are banned. Go figure.)
The bad news, however, is that if the above sounds good, you’ve contracted a horrible disease: Americanis Moronis.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The massive and unwarranted reaction of the government, and the media as its all-too-willing accomplice, in finding two punks was infinitely more frightening than the crude bombs they exploded.
The precedent of imposing martial law whenever a relatively small tragedy occurs bodes ominously for maintaining our rights in the future.
Were the events in Boston tragic? Of course. Three people lost their lives, with scores injured. But let’s shove the wimpy, show-emotion-for-the-sake of-showing-emotion mentality aside and put this situation into perspective.
1. This was not remotely close to being another 9/11, despite many “analysts” in the media saying so. It was obvious within minutes that it was amateur hour, unlike the precision attacks of Sept. 11. Comparing Boston to the 2001 attack is the worst insult one could make to the families of the 9/11 victims, as well as to all sane Americans.
2. Government and media officials saying things such as “no one in America can feel safe until these bombers are caught” only feeds into the hysteria, which is totally counterproductive.
3. It was apparent we weren’t dealing with seasoned military operatives, despite media and government officials’ repeated claims (with no evidence) that the bombers had “paramilitary” training, whatever that buzzword means. Why? Because they didn’t surrender, instead fighting the police with guns and homemade grenades. Well, call out the National Guard, because that means we have “paramilitary” forces in every American city, every night. There is another term: Criminals who don’t want to get caught and won’t hesitate to kill. Hey, welcome to Philly.
4. Why the brothers did it is to be determined, and while Muslim fundamentalism may be at the core, it seems more likely that they were two pampered kids mad at the world, desperate for attention. How do we know they weren’t highly trained terrorists? A.) No disguises, despite knowing they would be captured on video. And if they didn’t know that, they’re really dumb; B.) You don’t bomb a city in which you live; C.) Exit strategies are somewhat important, yet they neglected planning one; and D.) Robbing a 7-Eleven in the city where you live and just bombed might raise a red flag.
5. So was it really necessary to impose martial law, locking down an entire metropolis and, topping it all, imposing a no-fly zone? Where are we? Iraq? And if such an extreme measure is used, why publicly announce it?
Even though the media redefined “overkill,” their news helicopters could have aided in finding Tweedle Dee as he scurried below like a scared coward.
6. The biggest irony? You can bet every Massachusetts liberal (that’s pretty much everyone) screaming “gun control” either was wishing they had a gun or, more likely, grabbing their firearm. Such hypocrisy has no bounds.
The baseball write-up in Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer stated that the Red Sox “defiantly” returned to Fenway. That’s nice. Though who and what they were “defying” remains a mystery since neither the Red Sox nor Fenway were affected in the slightest.
Opening your heart to a tragic situation is one thing. Making it all about you is another. But that’s what Americans do.
We have become a nation of narcissistic sissies, whining and living in fear (perversely liking it), all while seeking constant positive self-affirmations and “likes” on Facebook about the trauma we (actually don’t) suffer. When did we embrace the delusional need to always hug each other (and post a corny motivational quote about it), while alternately, A.) attending our 17th candlelight vigil, B.) observing so many moments of silence that we can barely speak and C.) dancing in the streets?
Do these people have the faintest clue what they are celebrating? Given the trite, canned responses of “we’re all just pulling together … drawing on each other’s strength … we won’t be stopped,” the answer is a resounding “no.”
Worse are employee-support services stamping their imprimatur on such absurdities. Sorry, but you don’t need a grief counselor or bereavement specialist to cope with the Boston bombings. If you’re still experiencing anxiety, sadness, anger, fear or any of the other meaningless pyschobabble traumatic conditions, then move to France.
It’s time America finds itself again, kicking butt and taking names, not coddling from cradle to grave, refusing to ban things just to make people feel good, and not exponentially overreacting every single time something happens. In doing so, we wouldn’t be giving terrorists the recipe, as we just did, for how to paralyze a nation.
If we don’t wake up, the next time a major attack occurs, you can kiss the American way of life goodbye. And no amount of hug-ins will bring it back.
Pastors Targeted by Obama’s Justice Department
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is leading the fight and all Americans have a stake in the outcome. The junior Republican is already a frontrunner in the defense of faith, freedom and patriotism — all of which are under threat today in America. Cruz has exposed six attempts of unprecedented power grabs by the Obama administration in six cases before the Supreme Court:
“If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the President’s whims, bring debilitating lawsuits against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person’s private property without just compensation.”
(Scribd.com posts the Senator’s full report, The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts To Expand Federal Power)
Cruz, a Harvard Law graduate whom Professor Alan Dershowitz calls “off-the-chart brilliant,” exposes the Obama Justice Department’s hit list. On the hit list is freedom of religion with Christianity as the primary target. Long a bane to the liberal Left is that the Ten Commandments — that are foundational to the Judeo-Christian faith — served as the biblical inspiration for both the U.S. Constitution and Capitalism. True Christians stand with Israel much to the disdain of Democrat Presidents from FDR, to Jimmy Carter, up to Obama who treats the Jewish nation as an irritant at minimum. True Christianity is a blockade to bigotry and tyrannical aspirations.
In an outrageous attempt to increase its power, the Obama administration attempted to usurp the right of a church to choose its own pastors. In the case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Justice Department reportedly argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it “had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers.” The Supreme Court foiled Obama’s egregious attempt to curtail a fundamental right of churches. In a 9-0 opinion, the justices sided in favor of the Lutheran Church. For further details on the case, click here.
Christianity is under siege by the Obama administration. The day Barack Obama swore on the Bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution — which includes the freedoms of speech and religion — the assault began. Obama’s gibes at Judeo-Christian belief and scripture are well documented by a list of affronts, which are easily verified by existing video and audio recordings. Gaining control of who preaches in Christian churches would have given the Obama administration control of the message. Obama acolytes in the pulpit would be in position to convolute scripture to serve their political ideologies.
The takeover of churches has been a longtime goal of Socialist-Progressives in the Democrat Party. In early 2010, I wrote the article, Hijacking the Faith: The Obama Way. In it, I revealed the Obama administration’s assault on Christianity and what was to come:
“Years ago, the head of a major Gay rights organization told Pacifica radio that he thought Bill Clinton could deliver what his group wanted, but when a sitting president failed, he suggested he now understands that you “have to go after the churches.” That is a strategy that the Obama administration appears to have adopted.” (Read more…)
The article, Christian Purge: The Obama Factor, revealed that the hijacking was underway through Obama’s Socialist policy to “redistribute the wealth.” It reads in part:
Christianity is not a call to street activism or Socialism (social justice), Christianity is a call to the Cross. Coercing or manipulating the faith towards anything else is egregious to Biblical doctrine. The Obama administration would be wise to understand that administrations come and go, but no matter how doggedly they wage war against it – the Christian faith based on salvation by Jesus Christ – does not.” (Read more…)
As witnessed by the anti-God vote at the 2012 Democrat Convention, Progressives leading our government today are going to great lengths to escape the authority of God, preferring to live by their own countenance and self-devised morality while attempting to subjugate or eliminate God out of society. In a head-fake to voters, many assume the role as pretenders of faith. Those who outsmart themselves in matters eternal, including Presidents, cherry-pick the Bible and mismatch or purposely convolute scriptural intent to serve their political agenda. Both the Old and New Testaments are clear that God’s Word is the final authority and that He is unchanging. The Bible is the Word of God written through the instruction of the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals that God, Jesus Christ, is the Word:
JOHN 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
All of us, including those claiming world-class intelligence, fall desperately short of the wisdom of God. Time and again, many of higher intelligence have proven that they are not wise. The tragedy is that that the arrogant have outsmarted themselves and want the rest of us to join them. They have become too smart for the narrow gate as they fancy themselves superior to their Creator. Christianity is a loving faith that looks to share its great blessings. Christians pray for all who may never understand the teachings of Jesus to: “Love one another, even as I have loved you.” Matthew 7:13-15 reveals that it is a narrow gate that leads to Him and all should take heed:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
God’s message to all is: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55: 8-9
Everyone hears the echo of eternity – even Liberal politicians seeking to deny religious freedom to others. Deeming themselves a greater power over the people than God — is a presumption of all Socialists-Marxists in government. Called pastors belong in the pulpit, not frauds seeking to distort, mock or obscure scripture.
Iron Lady Thatcher: Last From A Great Era
There is a fascinating book by Irving Stone entitled, They Also Ran, the story of men defeated for the presidency. Stone, an historian, also analyzes the races to determine if the people chose wisely.
It’s a fascinating concept, as readers are left pondering how history may have been altered had there been a different outcome.
The opposite also holds true — how history would have changed had the winner not been victorious.
Reflecting on the the passing of England’s Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, it seems obvious — for so many reasons — that the Brits did indeed choose their leader wisely. And for the most part, the world owes them a debt of gratitude for doing so, for it is far safer because of Maggie.
With both Ronald Reagan and Thatcher now gone, the pangs of sadness resonate with the ending of a golden era. For those who lived through superpower showdowns and nuclear war games, it is impossible not to give Thatcher a special place in your heart. As America’s greatest ally in the Cold War, she never wavered in looking the mightiest Evil Empire of all time right in the eye, saying, “Give me your best shot — I can take it.”
*****
Every generation has a tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses, remembering the good times while letting the bad melt away. It’s a human trait that allows us to move past traumatic events so that life can continue.
However, one can make a strong case that, rainbows and lollypop reminiscing aside, the 1980’s truly were a remarkable decade, an enviable time when the country was unified, evidenced by substantial electoral victories by Reagan (and Thatcher). It was an era marked by monumental events thought unthinkable just a decade prior. The malaise of the 70’s had significantly eroded people’s faith, not just in their leaders, but in themselves. Optimism for a better tomorrow hit a brick wall in America and Britain, and for good reason: runaway inflation; interest rates of 20 percent; rationed gas; an aggressive Soviet Union; and the Iranian hostage crisis (444 days long). The pinnacle of failure came during the calamitous rescue attempt, which, in addition to the gut-wrenching loss of life, was an embarrassment of epic proportions.
It was this widespread self-doubt and loss of hope that led to the election of Reagan and Thatcher. They took the helm of a West in search of its identity, and carried the dreams of billions on their shoulders. In charting a new course, they once again lit the beacons of hope, resurrecting the West to become that famous shining City Upon A Hill.
And they succeeded. Big time.
Hostages were freed, militaries were beefed up, and economies roared back to life. With work came prosperity — hopes and dreams were not just restored, but realized. Peace through strength became the mantra, and though that policy was wildly effective (it eventually bankrupted and destroyed the Soviet Union, freeing hundreds of millions), it was not without its tests.
Who could forget Thatcher’s decisiveness in immediately dispatching the British fleet to reclaim the Falklands after they were invaded? That act of war by the Argentinians, by the way, was calculated on the belief that Britain had neither the resources nor the stomach to wage a conflict half a world away.
Were they ever wrong.
A throwback to another era — and likely the last time we’ll ever see it— Ships of the British Line steaming 8,000 miles in the mold of Nelson and Hornblower, freeing the people and routing the Argentinians. Perhaps most significant, Thatcher’s bold action put an exclamation point on the undeniable fact that British Pride was back.
Years later, Thatcher took considerable heat — but never faltered — when she allowed American bombers based in Britain to attack Libya after Gaddafi’s acts of terror. And of course, her chiding of George H.W. Bush as he wavered about helping Kuwait after Iraq’s invasion will forever define her testicular fortitude: “Remember George, this is no time to go wobbly!” Classic Margaret Thatcher.
Back home, she embarked on the Herculean task of reviving the sluggish, bureaucrat-laden economy, succeeding by instituting labor reforms, free-market principles and privatization initiatives. Just like Reagan, she endured some very tough days before things turned around, but she held fast, declaring to doubters in her own Party, “You turn if you want to…this Lady’s not for turning.”
Turn she did not. And she was reelected twice.
*****
As effective as Thatcher was, she had her drawbacks, none more significant than her handling of Northern Ireland. Declaring “crime is crime is crime; it is not political,” she let Bobby Sands and nine other Irish prisoners die from their hunger strike as they protested their deplorable conditions and political status.
Debating the England-Ireland issue is for another column. It is clear, however, that while Thatcher made some progress for peace in Northern Ireland, it wasn’t nearly enough. True, the conflict didn’t originate on her watch, but as a strong-willed leader, she could have and should have done more to rectify that situation. Too many —on both sides — died, too many families were needlessly ripped apart, and too many lives were ruined in Ireland during Maggie’s reign.
With few exceptions, the British Empire left the places they occupied considerably better off than when they found it. Not so with Northern Ireland, and the troubles occurring there in the 1980’s remain a black mark on what is otherwise a legacy for the record books.
*****
Reflecting on the 1980’s, it is clear that both Americans and Brits were far more unified in their respective countries. Sure, there were political rivalries and disagreements, but not nearly as mean-spirited and downright uncivil as today. Thatcher and Reagan could have a knock-down, drag-out fight with an opponent during the day and share a beer — and a laugh —that evening.
Maybe that was because we weren’t the only superpower back then. We knew the sobering capabilities of our enemy — and the consequences of failure in meeting its challenges. Maybe it was because, despite our political differences, that Cold War kept us sharply focused, binding us together as a people facing the ultimate threat.
But even more, it was because we had great leaders, true visionaries who believed in a hell of a lot more than themselves and their next election. Great communicators, Reagan and Thatcher were principled, God-fearing stalwarts who made us once again believe in something that had been lost before they came along: ourselves.
Gipper, your best friend is with you again. Iron Lady, thank you. Rest in Peace.
Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates FreindlyFireZone.com.
In 2010, Gov. Tom Corbett was elected by a wide margin, in part because of his insistence that the state-controlled liquor system be privatized — an issue on which he was absolutely correct.
Despite that being a cornerstone of his campaign, nothing was accomplished during his first two years, even though he enjoyed historic Republican majorities in both legislative chambers.
Since privatizing liquor is one of the few issues that enjoys a large consensus, it’s baffling why it took so long for the Republicans to put forth a plan. Now they have finally done so, yet it’s so ill-conceived that state-store union employees are punch-drunk with elation.
For now, though, it’s important to realize why privatization is so long overdue.
Sometimes the grass really is greener elsewhere. For Pennsylvanians, that “green” is all the money saved by consumers in other states because they aren’t gouged when buying alcohol.
For the uninitiated, here is a primer for how Pennsylvania’s alcohol monopoly works:
Pennsylvania is the largest purchaser of booze in the country. The state government, through the Liquor Control Board (LC
, controls the purchase, distribution and sale of all wine and liquor. You might think that with such immense clout, we would have outstanding selection and competitive pricing. But as we all know, that’s clearly not the case.
Interestingly, the LCB is charged with two distinct, and inherently contradictory, roles. While it is responsible for raising revenue through the sale of wine and liquor, it is also charged with controlling the sale of booze throughout Pennsylvania. By definition, if the LCB is succeeding at one, it must be failing at the other.
The major reason why alcohol is so expensive is courtesy of an 18 percent “temporary” tax. So a $10 bottle jumps to $11.80 — and that’s before the 6 percent sales tax is calculated, making Pennsylvania inherently uncompetitive. But since it’s a government monopoly, the bureaucrats don’t care. Oh, and why the 18 percent levy? To rebuild Johnstown after its second flood.
Which occurred in 1936. So much for “temporary.”
Anyone traveling outside Pennsylvania knows how refreshing it is to enter a grocery store and, remembering you need a bottle of wine, browse the plethora of vino at your fingertips. Since others accomplish this feat with little difficulty, it’s incomprehensible that the nation’s sixth-largest state can’t — or, more accurately, won’t — do the same.
It is infinitely more efficient when a private company, responsive to the needs of the free market (instead of bureaucrats), stocks its shelves with items that consumers actually want, at a fair market price. It is the core principle on which America was founded.
But Pennsylvania remains stuck in the Dark Ages, choosing to remain there. It hasn’t dawned on the politicos that they are losing untold revenue because of their Draconian system, as millions cross state lines to fill their liquor cabinets.
And despite protections from the Interstate Commerce Clause, if you are caught bringing alcohol into Pennsylvania, it’s a criminal offense. In fact, such “criminals” used to have their cars confiscated for doing so.
To be fair, today’s LCB has made substantial progress. Not too long ago, customers had to place their orders at the counter, since browsing was not permitted. The clerk would disappear into the bowels of the store, only to return 10 minutes later, more often than not stating that they were “out of stock” and asking for another choice. Now imagine that scene at Christmas, with 30 people in line.
But that’s not all.
Nothing was chilled. No ancillary items such as tonic water were sold. No employees were permitted to offer advice. And credit cards were not accepted.
And all this because former Gov. Gifford Pinchot, who as a young man became violently sick while imbibing overseas, became determined to make alcohol as difficult as possible to obtain.
But the LCB’s improvements amount to being valedictorian of summer school. The whole system has to be scrapped. The ultimate irony is that the Keystone State, birthplace of American democracy and cradle of liberty, continues down the path of state control and government regulation, to the detriment of its 12 million citizens.
Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy
“I don’t know…he’s either very smart or very dumb.”
– Quint, in ‘Jaws,’ trying to figure out the shark.
Quint’s
famous line perfectly sums up both Gov. Tom Corbett and the
Republican-controlled House as they push their liquor privatization
bill. They’re either very smart, trying to pull a fast one on
Pennsylvanians who expect better selection and lower prices (which they
know cannot happen with this bill). Or they’re very dumb, actually
believing the bill they’re peddling will actually accomplish those
things.
Here’s betting on the latter.
♦
No offense to Chris Christie, but anytime Jersey can do something better, you know you have problems.
And
clearly, buying wine and liquor is better there. Of course, that’s not
saying much, as 48 states have markedly better ways to buy liquor and
beer than Pennsylvania. Only Mormon-heavy Utah is also state-controlled.
Gee, what great company.
So huge numbers of Pennsylvanians
continue to stock up in other states, especially tax-free Delaware, to
the detriment of state coffers.
The fact that Corbett and the
House Republicans think that situation will change with the current bill
(which passed the House on Party lines) makes you wonder if they were
drunk while crafting such bad legislation.
Let’s review:
Despite being overwhelmingly
elected in 2010, in large part by promising to privatize liquor, Tom
Corbett did nothing in his first two years. Actually, that’s not true.
His big foray into that issue was commissioning yet another blue-ribbon
panel to – ready for this? – study liquor privatization.
Just thinking about that gives you a hangover.
And
now that they are officially on board with privatization – which is the
right thing to do – they vomit a bill that will neither increase
selection, nor, most significantly, reduce prices.
Only in Pennsylvania.
This
bill is a non-starter, and should it pass the Senate in its current
form – far from certain, since Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of
Chester, is lukewarm and the GOP lost 10 percent of its seats in the
last election – the people will be vastly disappointed upon realizing
that prices will be the same, or even higher.
Here’s why:
The
whopping 18 percent Johnstown Flood tax (established to rebuild that
city after its 1936 flood) remains in place, on top of which is the
state sales tax. End of story for lower prices.
Being hamstrung
by such an onerous tax gives the wholesalers and retailers absolutely no
wiggle room, forcing them to keep prices substantially higher than
stores in neighboring states.
There are only a few players in the
nation with the capital to buy in at the wholesale level, which will
cost tens of millions just to get a seat at the table. And that’s just
the beginning.
Funny thing about liquor – it’s bulky and very
heavy. Transporting it across 45,000 square miles will take one hell of
a lot of trucks and drivers, neither of which come cheaply. There
will be the need for huge warehousing space in multiple locations.
Personnel requirements will be substantial, and the costs associated
with distribution networks and other ancillary logistical issues will be
considerable. And last we checked, fuel costs were near record highs.
These companies are not in business
to break even or lose money. Translation: you won’t be buying liquor
any cheaper than you can today.
Making this bill even less than
gin-dandy are the pie-in-the-sky revenue projections related to
licensing. Beer distributors would be able to sell wine and liquor, but
for a substantially priced initial license fee (and subsequent
renewals). Great, except for three big problems:
1) Most beer
distributors are small, undercapitalized mom-and-pop operations. They
have a hard enough time making ends meet, so where exactly are they
coming up with the cash required for a license? With so many licenses
up for grabs, most banks will balk at loaning the necessary funds to
acquire a license, as it is will be seen as far too risky.
2)
Assuming a distributor could get a license, the capital outlay would
jump again, as they would have to add considerably more square footage
to their existing stores, or lease/buy a much larger space altogether.
Wine and liquor take up a lot of space, and recession notwithstanding,
that space isn’t cheap.
3) Distributors know nothing about wine,
so, in order to compete, they would have to hire additional staff with
knowledge of vino.
One of two things will occur. Many
distributors can’t or won’t apply for licenses, and for those who do,
their prices will increase to make up for their additional costs. When
you add in the mandated Flood Tax, it becomes obvious that overall costs
have to rise, perhaps dramatically. Distributors would also have to
compensate for the loss of revenue associated with the widespread
availability of six-packs and the elimination of the
buy-beer-by-the-case law.
♦
Granted, many politicians are
slow, but this one should be a no-brainer. Eliminate the 18 percent tax,
and you eliminate the need to cross the border and give other states
Pennsylvanian’s money.
Some will ask where the revenue shortfall
would be made up should the tax be rescinded. That’s easy. First, you
don’t keep a tax that is wrong just because you happen to rely on the
revenue it provides. You fix it. Second, that’s the Legislature’s job
every budget: decide how much money goes where. If there’s a shortfall,
other slices of the pie get smaller. Tighten the belt like families do.
Most
important, there wouldn’t be a shortfall. If the incentive is taken
away to go to other states, untold millions – which would be “new
revenue” – would find their way into Pennsylvania because of the massive
volume in liquor sales that would occur. Remember, as it stands now,
the state is getting zero from the millions currently flowing to other
states.
Corbett and the Republicans need to
put down the bottle and either rectify their error of pushing a bill
they think is good, or stop the political expediency of rushing a bill
they know is bad but can deceivingly trumpet as a success purely for
re-election purposes.
Do liquor privatization right, or not at all. And you don’t have to be blitzed to know that.