Give back pay raise

by Sean Carpenter
Daily Local
Monday, December 29, 2008

There is nothing restricting Barbara McIlvaine Smith and Andy Dinneman from returning their COLA pay raise to the Pennsylvania Treasury. In fact, this is exactly what Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th, is doing. Hopefully all our other representatives will be so concerned about our deficit to do the same thing, and finally see fit to repeal the COLA pay raise entirely.

They are simply performing another political trick with our taxes.

Why can’t McIlvaine Smith and Dinneman give the money back to the Pennsylvania Treasury, and back to the taxpayers of this state?

Please, let’s focus on the message

by Jane Gilvary
Daily Local
Wednesday, December 31, 2008

In response to Ms. Karen Porter’s recent letter to the editor citing how the cré�che outside of the Chester County Courthouse is offensive because it portrays Jesus as non-Middle Eastern, I’d like to point out that Ms. Porter, who claims to be a lifelong Christian, is indeed correct. Jesus was a Jew from the town of Nazareth, which is located in the Middle East. Ms. Porter’s accuracy ends there.

Nazareth’s first inhabitants were Canaanites, Israelites, and Galilean Jews, all of whom were primarily white. And while many Middle Easterners are indeed darker skinned, most ancient and modern depictions are of Jesus as a white male. While definitive proof of Christ’s skin color might never be proven until He comes again in glory, riding on a cloud, shining like the sun as the trumpets roar, I hardly think it offensive that a manger scene portrays him as white. Are we about changing history for the sake of political correctness? True Christians know that Jesus died for everyone, not just white people.

As a “lifelong Christian” perhaps Ms. Porter should direct her spiritual and editorial energies to praying for the folks behind the “atheist tree” that looms over the cré�che, obscenely proclaiming that both God and Christ are frauds. At Christmas, nothing could be more offensive than to mock the faith of devout believers by placing a “Tree of Knowledge” next to the infant Savior.

More important than Christ’s ethnic origin, however, is his message to “love one another” and it is God’s greatest commandment. Taking the focus off of that message by complaining about a couple of statues is just plain wrong.

Be fiscally responsible

by Denine Brosius
Daily Local
Thursday, January 1, 2009

We are living in bad economic times. Many are losing jobs and not getting raises or bonuses this year, mainly in part because of the fiscal irresponsibility of our national government and banking system.

In Pennsylvania, why can’t the House Democrats from Chester County be fiscally responsible by returning their COLA to the state treasury? By donating it to charity, they are still taking it. Does this really make them look good? Giving to charity is a good thing, but not at the expense of taxpayers.

Rep. Curt Schroder is returning his COLA to the state treasury and I think other House Democrats should do the same. This would help ease the projected $2 billion deficit that has been created by them. It would make me angry if those who took the COLA ended up voting to raise taxes next year in order to make up for the deficit.

They should get their own holiday

by Rosemary Boyce
Daily Local
Thursday, January 1, 2009

Can someone give me a reasonable explanation as to why the Freethought Society has a right to put up a so called “Tree of Knowledge” at Christmastime? Or, why they want to? Is the Freethought Society a religious organization? No. What does a “Tree of Knowlege” erected by atheists signify? Does it signify that religious people are stupid because they believe in God?

It’s interesting that the Freethought Society always chooses Christmastime to erect this tree. It is, in fact, because they are anti-religious that they choose this time of year to demand their rights to have a symbol right next to the creche and the menorah, religious symbols. Why our society and the county commissioners tolerate this blatant insult to those who believe in God and celebrate a national holiday commemorating the birth of Christ is indicative as to how political correctness has poisoned our society. Now, the most important thing is not being sued by the ACLU so all is tolerated, no matter what.

I would challenge the Freethought Society to get their own holiday so they don’t have to infringe on religious holidays and insult those who believe in God. No one makes these anti-religious citizens go to church or worship in any way. They are free to believe whatever they want and it is telling that they feel such a need to insult those who think differently from them — free thought, indeed!

The Importance of Electing a Republican Slate in 2009

By Bob Guzzardi

On Tuesday, November 3rd, we, the people, will again head to the polls to vote. On the ballot are the often-overlooked judicial elections.

Although I rarely advocate electing a single-party slate, I think that this year presents an important case for electing the Republican judges at all levels.

Our individual freedom and autonomy, the very heart of Constitutional limited government and free markets, is under unprecedented attack by Leftists now dominating the Democratic party. The same Leftists control the U.S. Congress, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate giving one-party rule to the furthest-left administration in history.

While I disagree with many of the established politicians of both parties, the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that within the Republican Party are conservative reformers dedicated to Constitutional limited government, economic freedom, individual accountability, individual autonomy, and American exceptionalism. There is no viable reform movement within the Democratic Party; in fact, is is being led by Union organizers implacably committed to monopoly control of a collectivized workforce and statist Leftists advocating consolidated government control and coercion.

This is where the Republican party, at this time, is different, through its viable and principled reform movement. This is highlighted by the campaign of Pat Toomey with his themes of Constitutional limited government and individual and economic freedom. Examples can also be found in Peg Luksik’s campaign and the work of State Senators John Eichelberger and Mike Folmer.

These reformers, along with the Constitutional limited government/individual liberty/economic freedom movement entirely, are threatened by one-party rule, where dissent is simply ignored. I don’t want some “know-it-all genius” adjucating from Olympus; I want someone competent and careful. I want a judge with depth of experience in criminal law; someone who has shown persistence; someone who understands that decisions in the courtroom impact the lives of real people; someone willing to work for a better Republic; someone dedicated to the rule of law. Knowing the law is indespensable; yet there is more than simply this to be a judge.

For Commonwealth Court, the Republicans have two complimentary candidates in Judge Patricia McCullough and Kevin Brobson. Winning the primary despite not getting party endorsement, Patricia McCullough is independent and principled on Constitutional limited government. She is thoughtful and understands the philosophical and moral implications of her decisions. Kevin Brobson’s thirteen years’ of practice before the Commonwealth Court qualifies him as the most technically knowledgeable of all the candidates. Combining Kevin Brobson’s technical skills with Patricia McCullough’s philosophical and Constitutional focus will benefit us all.

For the Superior Court, there are four Republican candidates: Temp Smith, Sallie Mundy, Judge Judy Olson, and Judge Paula Ott. Judge Ott is from West Chester and has an outstanding reputation among politically active Chester Countians.

Finally, Judge Joan Orie Melvin is heading the judicial ticket for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Judge Orie Melvin is impressively smart and her presentation is stunning. I have no question of her commitment to public service and to the integrity of the Constitution.

There are also local judicial races across each county. This year, more than any other, presents a compelling case to vote for the seven Republican judges highlighted above as well as Republican judges at the local level. Voting for the Republican slate supports the Constitution and its ideals of limited government and individual and economic freedom; failure to do so will only bolster the one-party rule and make the reformer’s job that much more difficult.

Remembering September 11, 2001

By JOTUS

Reprinted from http://janeoftheunitedstates.blogspot.com/

September 3, 2009

Every year around this time I survey my eleventh grade students to see what they remember about September 11, 2001. Naturally, every year students remember less because every year they are younger and further removed from the terrible events of that day. This editorial is for them and for the generations after them, so that they never forget.

I remember September 11. There were big puffy clouds in the Pennsylvania skies that day and temperatures were in the high 70s. New Yorkers enjoyed the same pleasant skies, as did residents of Washington, DC that day. The day started routinely enough with FoxNews on the TV as I readied myself for another habitual eight period journey of shaping young minds in my high school English classroom.

I remember the urgency in my principal’s voice as he came over the PA system during second period with the shocking news that terror had come to our shores in the form of commercial jetliners hijacked by people we would later determine to be radical Islamists seeking the death and destruction of innocent and unassuming Americans in New York City, and Washington, DC and fatefully, western Pennsylvania. My country was under attack.

I remember the tears on the faces of my fellow teachers and the chaos and confusion even among the network anchors on TV as they scrambled to piece together the magnitude of this terroristic sucker punch to our nation’s financial and legislative capitols respectively. I remember watching on TV with utter dismay and disbelief that our borders had been so unsuspectingly breached – violated by an enemy we had ignored or dismissed until that fateful morning when 2,993 Americans never returned home to their families. What did they do to provoke such wrath, such fury?

I remember images of desperate people dangling from the sky-scraping windows of the World Trade Center, ironically escaping the Towers’ collapse by desperately jumping to their certain deaths below as panicked New Yorkers in the streets ran for their very lives to escape the devastation and bedlam of a city under siege. I remember President George W. Bush bowing his head in humble prayer to ask for the Almighty’s intercessory power in the face of such terror, and I remember fervently joining him in desperate petition.

I remember the dust cloud that blurred the New York City skyline for weeks after 9/11, and the gaping hole in lower Manhattan where the Towers once loomed as the hub of our economic stasis, proud beacons of our capitalistic mores and financial stability engendered only from the convergence of toil and opportunity that is uniquely American. I remember pointedly watching Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor-Fitzgerald, weep uncontrollably as he explained to a journalist that simply because he took his daughter to her first day of kindergarten, he was the sole survivor of his 658 person company occupying five of the top floors of One World Trade Center.

I remember that as my shock and sadness subsided along with the powdery grime in lower Manhattan, my anger raged like a furious inferno. Jihad had rattled my patriotic cage. I wanted retribution, justice for the unforeseen kick in our homeland’s groin.

Eight years have quieted my rage somewhat, but time won’t ever erase the scars of America’s wounds. And as our nation marks another 9/11 anniversary eight years later, I still remember so that generations to come won’t ever forget.

Death Squads and Disingenuous Press

By Anthony J. Oleck
Letter to the Editor in The Daily Local

There have been several letters to the editor and many more comments from the elite media, mocking the health plan protesters’ use of the phrase “death squad.”  Brian Bernardini of Coatesville, in a recent letter asks the Daily Local to do a better job of fact checking on MSNBC this morning I listened as one elite after another mocked the “death squad” term and the town hall protests.

Brian, elite media – give us some credit please. We know that there is not a chapter or a page in any of the current bills titled “death squad.” But we also know that one of the president’s key advisers, Rahm Emanual’s physician brother, has talked about the need to “fact test” care options in the elderly. He believes that the money may be better spent on younger patients – or as he put it, on education or the arts.

So for those in the slow class let me elaborate – if grandma needs a new heart valve to live another eight years she may be considered a bad financial risk – that then becomes grandma’s death sentence.

Let’s look at another death squad possibility under the new plan. In the UK expensive drugs to treat women with advanced breast cancer were denied: why? Because they were too expensive for a country where socialized medicine has forced rationing. Being denied those life saving drugs is a death sentence to the women who need them. Because of all the publicity here in America and the protests in the UK, those women are now getting the drugs they need, but absent that protest and this debate – socialized medicine was their death sentence.

The other fact of life in this equation is that any plan that covers everyone, has no competition, and the only cost control is rationing care will lead many to die before treatment may be given. We have testimony and data from other socialized plans, in other countries that tell us that patients don’t get the care they need when they need it – another possible death sentence.

The other lie in Obama’s plan is that you will have a choice. That may be true for a short period of time, but make no mistake that choice will go away. As the government plan crowds out private plans they will not be able to compete financially with a taxpayer-funded public plan. Eventually they will become too expensive and employers will be forced to drop them – our only option will be the Obama plan. The president knows this full well as there is a YouTube video of him saying as much when he was a senator. There will be exceptions to this rule – Obama and all government workers will keep their generous plan and we will continue to pay for it.

And let me ask a rhetorical question: Do you think the teachers’ union or the UAW are going to give up their plans for a public plan? My guess is that they will not, so we will continue to pay for those generous plans as well.

Finally, I am amused at how outraged my liberal friends are at the very vocal town hall protests. Are your memories that short? Recently I saw liberals throw pies at Ann Coulter, force a conservative speaker at Columbia University off the stage with their taunts and wild screaming and who can forget the Vietnam protests – occupation of government buildings, bombing government buildings – riots in the streets and on college campuses.

If you are not happy with conservatives speaking out at town hall meetings, you have only to look to yourselves – you taught us well.

Taxpayer Dissatisfaction Not Considered Newsworthy

The grassroots conservative Tea Party firestorm crossing the country stopped on the corner of Market and High Streets in West Chester last Saturday. From noon till one, a vast cross-section of men, women, and children wearing tea bags and holding signs showed up to peacefully voice their collective discontent with taxation and government overreach. Four hundred people gathered on the courthouse steps for the hour, headlined by speeches from PA State Representative Curt Schroder and US Congressman Joe Pitts.
It certainly was newsworthy – but it apparently wasn’t news.
Conspicuously absent from the crowd were news reporters. The Daily Local sent a photographer, but even the lone West Chester newspaper could not free up an actual reporter until after the event had ended. Television news outlets admitted when contacted earlier in the week that they were not interested in coming, and they held true to their word.
So it should come as no surprise that the only news account of Saturday’s amazing turnout of concerned Americans had little to do with the actual Tea Party. It had little to do with a mass of citizens gathering with signs such as, “I’m 2 & I Owe China $80,000 Thanks To Congress,” and “Spread My Work Ethic – Not My Wealth.” It had little to do with Representative Schroder speaking emotionally about his efforts to protect our economic and voting freedoms. It had little to do with Congressman Pitts describing the delinquency of our current representatives, or the Russian immigrant speaker drawing erie parallels between the decline of his country into communism and the actions by Congress today.
There was a conservative firestorm passing through West Chester last Saturday. If it wasn’t clear before, it should be exceedingly obvious now – spreading our message of limited government, lower taxes, and economic freedom is up to us. We are not going to be helped in the slightest by traditional media outlets. Unfortunately, many of us knew this all along.

From ‘Compromise’ to Chaos

By Greta Scriboni

The rhetoric in Washington becomes more hysterical with each passing day.  In January, Congress’ actions resembled The Keystone Cops, or a remake of a Marx Brothers movie.  By March, our elected officials took on the mood of vigilantes – calling for AIG executives to commit suicide, proposing 90% taxes on a select group of American citizens, declaring the power to break legal contracts, and demanding authority to assume control of privately-held companies.
Now, as April approaches, I understand that there is nothing funny about what is happening to our America. Now, I realize, Washington is becoming something much more sinister and terrifying. On a daily basis, those of us who are watching see the images of destruction – a voyeuristic reality show starring Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Christopher Dodd, and a cast of thousands, including big business, union leaders, ACORN, Wall Street, and the antagonists of the story, the adoring mass media.
If you believe that all the world is a stage, then Washington has become the Theatre of the Absurd. And like that theatre, we do not want to watch, but we cannot look away. Our Lady Liberty is crying out from the corners of small towns, from military families, from immigrants who entered the country legally, from corporate executives who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and from small business owners who bet everything for that one thing, the American Dream.

Where has our America gone? Will we resign ourselves to endless government tyranny? As we watch, we feel the lifeline of a Republican form of government slipping away. If we wait too long, it will be gone from our grasp, and we will be left with the faded remnants of a country, like a life taken too soon.

Believe me, fellow citizens, when I say that the chaos in Washington is intentional. We have heard the Obama administration state that, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” We’re told that, out of this chaos, will come “change.” And while we pay attention to the chaos in one hand, the sleight of the other hand is diminishing our constitutional rights and leaving us with a shell of a nation, founded on platitudes and socialist doctrine.

Now is the time for action. Now is the time for cool heads, great thinkers, and protectors of the constitution to speak up. Our government representatives must exert common sense, capitalist values, and patriotism. We must embrace conservative Democrats and encourage moderate Republicans to stand with their conservative counterparts. Raise your voices and put your backs into it. This is America – we can do anything!

*Editor’s note – Mrs. Scriboni’s reference to a “Republican form of government” does not refer to a government run by Republicans. Article 4, Section 4, of the US Constitution states, “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” There is a great deal of confusion about this, and I’ll be doing a column about it in the future. For now, the simple explanation is that a pure democracy is mob rule. Whatever most people want becomes law. In a Republic, the people don’t have the right, nor the ability, to convey to the government any right they don’t personally possess. For instance, in a pure democracy, the people could vote for the government to seize property to have it redistributed to themselves. If the majority prevailed, the government could do this. Conversely, in a pure Republic, this could never happen. Since the people individually don’t have the right to seize the property of others, they also cannot convey to the government the ability to seize property. More to come on this in a later newsletter.

The Wrong Choice For Solicitor General

by Tom Chambers
Letter to the Editor in the Daily Local

In July 2007, I wrote a Letter to the Editor that was subsequently published regarding Education institutions and the military. The purpose of my letter was to address the problem regarding the banning of ROTC programs and military recruiting on college campuses, particularly including many of our more elite universities including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Brown, Dartmouth, etc. Quoting further from this letter: The disdain shown the military on many campuses by the banning of ROTC programs over the past decades is well documented, and the military’s recruiting efforts have fared no better.

Now in 2009, there is the potential that a nominee for the position of U.S. solicitor general, Elena Kagan, a Harvard Law School dean, may be appointed by President Obama and, if so, it would be a travesty for all who believe in and support our military.

Dean Kagan has called military recruiting “discriminatory,” “deeply wrong,” “unwise,” and “unjust.” This nominee for solicitor general believes the military should be banned from campus. Kagan fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a federal law known as the Solomon Amendment, denying qualified students the opportunity to serve our country and infringing upon their constitutional rights.

For those not familiar with the Solomon Amendment, this law was passed in 1995 and signed by former President Clinton and, in essence, denies schools that bar military recruiters from campus any funds from the Department of Defense. The following year in 1996, Congress extended the law’s reach to include funds from the Departments of Education, Labor and Health & Human Services.

In 2002, the Solomon Amendment was strengthened further by interpreting it to require revocation of federal grants to an entire university’s subdivisions (its law school, for example). In 2005, Congress amended the law to explicitly state that “military recruiters must be given equal access to that provided other recruiters.

Believe it or not, and you can believe it because it is a fact, this possible appointee to the critical position of U.S. solicitor general, Elena Kagan, stood at the forefront of the fight against the Solomon Amendment. Kagan filed amicus briefs with the Third Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to try to justify institutional discrimination against the military. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down this argument. The court stated that the Solomon Amendment gives universities a choice: either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds.

The question is – how can anyone with the established anti-military record of Kagan, a nominee who was labeled by the Washington Times as an “anti-military zealot,” be considered for such an important post as U.S. solicitor general? And since it is the primary responsibility of the U.S. solicitor general to see that the laws of the United States are enforced, how could Dean Kagan serve in this capacity when it comes to defending a law, the Solomon Amendment that she thinks is immoral and says she doesn’t believe in?

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama, in his remarks at the Service Nation Presidential Forum, Columbia University, Sept. 11, 2008, stated that the notion that young people anywhere, in any university, aren’t offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake. Agreed.

And if Elena Kagan is eventually appointed as our U.S. solicitor general, it will be a huge mistake! It is hoped that Kagan’s appointment will never see the light of day. God bless our military for all their sacrifices on our behalf!