Stop Iran Rally Postponed

Stop Iran Rally PostponedWith yesterday’s (Sept. 10) blocking of a  disapproval resolution by Senate Democrats, the Delaware Valley Stop Iran Coalition has postponed its rally scheduled for Sept. 13 on Independence Mall, Philadelphia.

“We condemn, in the harshest manner, the votes of 42 Senators who successfully filibustered the resolution of disapproval of the horrific Iran deal,” said even organizer Don Adams.  “Due to the overwhelming public opposition to this deal, as indicated by recent polling, the Senate should have allowed this resolution to reach the President’s desk.”

Adams said, however, the group was not quitting.

“Please continue to be vigilant in this extremely urgent matter.  In the words of John Paul Jones, We have only just begun to fight.  For the peace, strength, and security of America and our allies, we must stop Iranian aggression–there is no other option.”

Stop Iran Rally Postponed

Bill Shuster Primaried

Congresssman Bill Shuster, who has represented Pennsylvania’s 9th District since 2001, is going to be again primaried by businessman Art Halvorson according to PoliticsPa.com Bill Shuster Primaried

Halvorson took Shuster on in  2014 Republican race getting 35 percent of the vote to Shuster’s  53 percent. Also running was Travis Schooley who got 13 percent.

Former GOP U.S. Senate candidate Tom Smith had expressed interest in a primary challenge to Shuster but had to drop out due to health reasons. Halvorson, who was backing Smith this go around, said he would step in for another shot. He is dedicating this race to Smith says PoltiticsPa.

Shuster is embroiled in a scandal, namely he was caught dating an airline lobbyist last April. Shuster chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Shuster replaced his father, Bud, in a special election in May 2001. Bud Shuster has represented the district since 1973.

Bill Shuster Primaried

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 9-10-15

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 9-10-15

Yes Anthony, Elias Howe patented his sewing machine exactly 169 years ago today (Sept. 10, 1846).

Unions Spending Big On Pa Supreme Court

By Leo Knepper Unions Spending Big On Pa Supreme Court

Leading up to the May primaries we noted that organized labor had made significant contributions to the campaign of Judge Kevin Dougherty. (Note: Dougherty’s brother was just made the head of the Philadelphia Building Trades Council.) The spending did not stop after the primaries ended; it expanded. According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article, organized labor has now made over $1.3 million in direct contributions to candidates for the Supreme Court.

Unions see the composition of the Supreme Court as being of critical importance in the near future:

“‘For us right now, the Supreme Court is ground zero,’ said Joe Battaglia, treasurer of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 1, representing about 3,000 workers in Southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.”

The article outlines how unions see the Supreme Court as a bull work against any legislation that affects whether or not the government will act as a union collection agent for dues and political contributions. Supreme Court elections are generally sleepy affairs. However, this year’s elections will impact what ability the Legislature has to address issues like liquor store privatization and pension reform for decades.

If the Supreme Court races have flown under your radar up until now, you had better start paying attention. Otherwise, Pennsylvania may find itself with a court more interested in affecting policy than being interested in what the laws and state constitution actually say.

Mr. Knepper is with Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, anon-profit organization founded to raise the standard of living of all Pennsylvanians.

Unions Spending Big On Pa Supreme Court

Blame America For Europe’s Problem

By Chris Freind Blame America For Europe's Problem

If only paprika repelled refugees the way garlic does vampires.

But it doesn’t. So Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, is doing everything else in his power to stop the unchecked flow of Middle Eastern refugees into Hungary, and in doing so, is protecting his people.

And you know his tactics are on the right track when the rest of the nauseating politically correct European Union roundly criticizes his actions as barbaric and inhumane.

But there are other, much more appropriate terms for leaders like Orban: Gutsy, bold, smart, and most of all, visionary. And that last one is the most important, because it shows that Orban sees what will happen if he opens the floodgates and allows his country to be inundated with refugees.

So let’s cut through the name-calling and irrational demands of the open-borders crowd by dispassionately analyzing the situation:

1. Blame for the sake of blame is pointless, but blame so that mistakes aren’t repeated is priceless. So let’s cast blame onto whom it belongs: The United States.

Indisputably, America caused this crisis. And before the partisans holler “it’s Obama’s fault,” let’s be clear that it is the result of very bad decisions by President Obama and President George W. Bush, along with a complicit Congress.

Iraq, when ruled by the iron fist of Saddam Hussein, was stable. Conditions were often brutal, but stability reigned. There were no car bombs, no suicide bombers, and above all, no chaos. Since Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, it should never have been invaded, an action America’s leaders naively believed would bring “democracy. “ In fact, it produced anarchy, and an unprecedented terror threat. And it was a colossal waste of American blood and treasure, since nothing was accomplished except giving our enemies a huge foothold.

Ditto for Libya, where America betrayed Moammar Gadfafi by eliminating him on behalf of the impotent Europeans. Now, Libya is ruled by the same thugs who fought America in Iraq (giving them billions in oil revenue with which to “play,” and spawning an exodus of refugees across the Mediterranean).

And perhaps most significant to causing the refugee exodus was America’s interference in Syria’s sovereign affairs, where we destroyed that nation’s stability by attempting to oust President Assad from power – an action that gave rise to the marauding ISIS.

The lessons for America are: A) stop playing policeman to the world; B) stop trying to force our values (democracy, human rights, etc.) on other countries in ways that always – always – backfire; C) become energy independent so that we can once and for all extricate ourselves from the Middle East quagmire that has us bent over a barrel. Enough is enough.

2. “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” So were the prophetic words of Ronald Reagan, who knew a thing or two about handling crises.

To be clear, most of the Middle Eastern refugees are not “vampires” looking to suck the lifeblood out of European countries, and the majority must be assumed to be good, hard-working people who faced severe hardships in their home countries. But where does it end? Are Western nations obligated to take in everyone facing adversity? If so, that amounts to most of the globe.

Who will pay the billions to house and feed the hundreds of thousands streaming into Europe? (There have already been nearly 400,000 this year alone). And what’s next? With many European countries already facing high unemployment rates (France, for example, is just below its all-time high, and the number of people seeking work is at a record level), where will these refugees find jobs? If there is a job market at all, since many are surely low-skilled. And when they can’t find work, they will become recipients of Europe’s social safety net, which is so obscenely generous (aka unaffordable and unsustainable) that the refugees will soon “play the game,” no longer incentivized to find employment, instead content to live off the taxes paid by productive citizens.

That’s a recipe for massive resentment and an inevitable violent backlash, which we are already seeing. And while violence can’t be condoned in a civil society, the critics fail to see that it is not rooted in xenophobia, but simple economics, and a sense that fair play has been jettisoned, with favoritism now shown to noncitizens, while those whose blood, sweat and tears built (and rebuilt) their country are left out in the cold.

Most people’s natural tendencies to protect their families, culture and country should not be cavalierly discounted by armchair analysts who live in ivory towers, far from the real life struggles of hard-working Europeans.

Temporary humanitarian assistance is one thing, but affording permanent status is quite another.

3. There is the charge against Hungary, which has erected barbed wire along its border with Serbia, that its people are inappropriately wary of Muslims entering their nation.

To many, they have good reason to be. Hungary’s Christian population clashed with the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled their nation for 150 years in the 16th and 17th centuries. And if the situation were reversed, it would be perfectly natural for Muslims to be wary of Christians occupying their lands. In fact, the presence of America and its Western allies in the Middle East is a major reason why they are (legitimately) viewed with contempt by the indigenous peoples. And no, the East Germans who fled into Hungary after the Iron Curtain was lifted are not comparable to the current migrants streaming in, for obvious cultural and historically ethnic reasons.

Let’s be honest. There will undoubtedly be a considerable contingent of refugees who care nothing for European culture and traditions, as evidenced by the behavior and outrageous demands of many who have previously emigrated to Europe, from advocating Sharia law to rejecting showing their faces for state-issued IDs, to, yes, terrorism. And there are those with ISIS sympathies who are using the crisis as an excuse to gain intelligence and secure a foothold for future operations against European targets. Even if that’s one-half of 1 percent, it still amounts to thousands more that the already overburdened security services have to monitor.

And the tragic attacks in England, Spain and France proved that doing so is impossible.

4. This crisis shows why the EU should be disbanded, at least for everything but a common currency. No nation should have its sovereignty – its domestic and foreign policy decisions – usurped by the dictates of clueless Europeans who have no knowledge of history nor any foresight. Instead, they value political correctness above all else.

5. As detailed in prior columns, the solution is for the West to fund and fully equip regional anti-ISIS fighters so that stable governments can once again gain the peace. They may not be the most benevolent regimes, but the situation would become infinitely better, and the refugees would be able to do what is most important: return home.

Anything less, and the powder keg of Europe, which already caused two world wars, will move closer to detonating.

Blame America For Europe’s Problem

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 9-9-15

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 9-9-15

Baking soda does not absorb refrigerator odors.

Open Letter Explains Trump Popularity

This  open letter explains Trump popularity perfectly. It was posted by someone with the handle Sundance at The ConservativeTreeHouse.com and is a response to Jonah Goldberg of National Review who is in a panic over Trump. We are shamelessly stealing it. We hope every professional Republican reads it and takes it to heart.  Open Letter Explains Trump Popularity

A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.  Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.  The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies.  It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber.  I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation.   Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred.  Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.  Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

From your own writing:

[…]  If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.  (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto?  Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people.  Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option.  While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.  Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable.  Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.   Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities.  I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?  A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads?  Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel.  The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget.  We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test?  Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle?  You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration.  Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013?  When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”.  Remember that?  We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign.   To teach us a lesson?  Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.  The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners)  with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.  Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?   All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”.  Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers?  This is a conservative position now?  A need to “tax the poor”?  Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy?  This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

McConnell and Boehner

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?

Open Letter Explains Trump

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 9-8-15

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 9-8-15

I am asked why earthworms have five pairs of hearts. Don’t know why, but they do.

Charlotte’s Restaurant Review

I took my parents to  Charlotte’s Restaurant in Newtown Square for their 56th Wedding Anniversary. The experience was  66-percent enjoyable. Charlotte's Restaurant Review

Charlotte’s has been open since 1981 at  3207 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, Pa. 19073.

It may be Dad’s favorite restaurant. He loves –well, loved — their crab cakes with the champagne sauce.

Anyway we went there Saturday just in time to catch the early bird specials and as it was their anniversary I was the only one to take advantage of them.

I got the 12-ounce rib eye. It was perfectly cooked, smothered in onions and mushrooms, and was truly delicious. Mom got the veal piccata, also delicious.

Dad, as expected, got the crab cakes and gave it a thumbs down. I tasted them and have to agree. They were dry and not what we remembered.

Also getting a thumbs down were the drinks. Dad did not like his Manhattan and my house Merlot tasted boxy wineish. Cheap boxy wineish.

Mom did not complain about her Sprite.

At this point, I’d like to note the sides. The restaurant is generous with sides — the regular meals come with a salad and vegetable — and they were very good. The early birders also get soup du jour,  escarole in my case which was superb,  and a desert for which I picked an ice cream dish. The vanilla was smothered with strawberries and a liqueur sauce. I won’t call it gourmet but I certainly won’t complain about it.

The service was great and friendly.  The price was $85.41 not counting the tip, which I count as a very good bargain.

The bottom line in any restaurant experience is will one return. I think it is safe to say yes in our case. Dad might even give the crab cakes a second chance. I think I will stick to Sprite though.

Charlotte’s Restaurant Review

 

 

 

 

John Roman R.I.P.

John M. Roman, journalist extraordinaire, died last week. He was 73. John worked for the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin and the Delaware County Daily Times. He was the author of the mystery novel “Ink in His Blood” set in Philadelphia.   John Roman book signed

John was likely the first journalist who gave extensive coverage to Nicholas Yarris, who spent 21 years on death row for a rape-murder in Upper Chichester before being exonerated by DNA tests.

Phil Heron, his editor at the Times, has written a touching tribute.

When I walked into the Delaware County Daily Times newsroom here in beautiful downtown Primos for the first time back in 1982, one of the first people I met was John Roman. He stuck out his hand and offered a hearty welcome to the new guy who was shaking in his boots as he braced himself for the challenge of being the dayside city editor at the Daily Times.

Go here for the full column.

Update: All services for John will be Friday morning, Sept. 9, at Sacred Heart Church in Manoa, 105 Wilson Ave. Havertown, PA 19083 Visitation is 9:45 to 10:45 followed by Mass.
John Roman R.I.P.