Tag Archives: commentary
By Sid Denton
Eric Spicer has been boasting that he is the only one running for State Representative that has met both private and public payrolls. This must not go unchallenged.
I knew Eric’s father for many years and the business that Eric is talking about is the carwash on Fairfield Rd. in Beavercreek. His father built the carwash and was the owner of it. Eric was put in charge of it so he would have a job. Like all good fathers, he worried about Eric’s ability to support himself and right to the end, he was putting money by the hands full in it just to keep it afloat. Under Eric’s leadership, that business either went out of business or came very close to it before they dumped it. That’s not meeting a payroll that’s just the redistribution of his fathers’ money. As for his ability to run the Company, just ask those that had to sue him for not paying them. Court records show it to be in the tens of thousands and in some cases well over one hundred thousand dollars.
As for his assertion that he meets a public payroll, it is just one of the many ways that he shows his total disregard for taxpayers’ money. Because he by definition does not meet a payroll, he is just redistributing our money not his and when his union buddies want more money he comes to us to get more. I say his union buddies because he made it clear in an article that he wrote for the union where he stood. Now he is entitled to his position on unions. What he is not entitled to is thinking that the voters are foolish enough to believe that he can represent us the Republican voters and then come back to his union buddies. One of us will come out on the losing side of that deal and I’m sure we all know which one that will be. The Republican votes not his union buds.
But Eric like so many other liberals can’t just wait for something to come up where he can help the rank and file and Democrat Party. He has said on more then one occasion that he intends to keep his job with the Sheriffs Department. If elected to be our State Representative, he has said that his boss Sheriff Gene Fisher is willing to make allowances for him going to Columbus several times a week. Now either Sheriff Fisher is way over staffed or the contribution that Eric Spicer makes to his day-to-day operation is so minimal that it will go unnoticed. Whatever the case, we the Taxpayer–as is so often the case–will be the big losers. Not to mention what we would lose if he were to become our State Representative; then we lose on two fronts and paying for both of them. Let us not forget the fact that both the Sheriff Gene Fisher and Capt. Eric Spicer are probably in violation of the Federal Hatch Act, which doesn’t allow them to run or be engaged in a partisan campaign.
Why is it that Eric Spicer is so fast to attach guilt to others with out all the facts being presented? Could it be his attempt to avoid attention being pointed at himself about the fact that he was charged with Domestic Violence by his ex wife? Let us also not forget to ask him about his being charged with being a deadbeat Dad, after all these things go to caricature. By State law when a police officer is charged with such a crime, his gun is supposed to be taken away from him. In the Greene County Sheriffs Department, you are just moved up to Captain and then get the case expunged. There just doesn’t seem enough ways to count how often we the Taxpayer can be taken advantage of. But give a liberal like Eric and his Union Buds enough idle time and they will come up with new ways.
By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought
In the pursuit of peace, alliances and interests, western policy-makers tend to sacrifice perplexing Mid-East realities on the altar of oversimplification and wishful-thinking. However, their attempts to implement unsubstantiated policies tend to inflame rather than extinguish regional fires.
The distinquished Mid-East historian and former Director of Mid-East Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Lebanese-born Prof. Fouad Ajami, asserted that Mid-East realities constitute “a chronicle of illusions and despair and of politics repeatedly degenerating into bloodletting (The Arab Predicament, Cambridge University Press, 1990).”
Western policy-makers and public opinion molders would benefit from studying the writings of some of the key Mid-East historians and scientists, whose research reaffirms that Mid-East fundamentals have remained largely intact for the last 14 centuries.
For example, the late Iraqi-born Prof. Eli Kedourie, from the London School of Economics, who was the leading Mid-East historian, wrote in Islam in the Modern World (Mansell publishing, 1980): “The fact that political terrorism originating in the Muslim and Arab world is constantly in the headlines, must not obscure the more significant fact that this terrorism has a somewhat old history…which would not be easy to eradicate from the world of Islam.”
The late Egyptian-born Prof. P. J. Vatikiotis, from the London University School of Oriental and African Studies, another icon of Mid-East history, wrote in Arab and Regional Politics in the Middle East (Croom and Helm, 1984): “The use of terrorism by [Arab] states or rulers…has been for domestic, regional and international political purposes… Rulers of this provenance and background are hegemonists of power… If Islam and those who claim to represent it and wish to implement its law and rule over man, society and the polity reject all other human forms of law and rule…then clearly there is an unbridgeable gap between them and all other social and political arrangements… The dichotomy between the Islamic and all other systems of earthy government and order is clear, sharp and permanent; it is also hostile.”
The assumption that the stormy Arab winter of 2011 is a temporary mishap, which could be cured by a constitutional panacea, is detached from Mid-East reality. Moreover, most Arab rage has been directed toward Arabs, and was introduced long before the 2011 turmoil and butchery on the Arab Street startled. For instance, some 200,000 Lebanese were killed in internal violence during the 1970s and 1980s; tens of thousands Syrians were slaughtered by Hafiz Assad in 1982; some 200,000 Iraqis were murdered by Saddam and additional 300,000 Iraqis were killed during the 1980-1986 war against Iran; about 2 million Sudanese were killed, and 4 million were displaced, during the 1983-2011 civil war; public executions and decapitations are regularly held in Saudi Arabia; etc.
The deep roots of contemporary Mid-East Islamic violence are highlighted by Prof. Efraim Karsh, Head of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at London’s King’s College, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and author of Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006): “In the long history of the Islamic empire, the wide gap between delusions of grandeur and the forces of localism would be bridged time and again by force of arms, making violence a key element of Islamic political culture… Arab rulers systematically convinced their peoples to think that the independent existence of their respective states was a temporary aberration. The result was a legacy of oppressive violence that has haunted the Middle East [from the seventh century] into the 21st century… It is doubtful whether Middle East societies will be able…to transcend their imperial legacy and embrace the Western-type liberal democracy that has taken European nations centuries to achieve…”
A key lesson to US policy-makers was delivered by Prof. Vatikiotis (ibid): “Inter-Arab relations cannot be placed on a spectrum of linear development, moving from hell to paradise or vice versa. Rather, their course is partly cyclical, partly jerkily spiral, and always resting occasionally at some ‘grey’ area. Secondly, American choices must be made on the assumption that what the Arabs want or desire is not always – if ever – what Americans desire; in fact, the two desires may be diametrically opposed and radically different.”
Western interests and the pursuit of peace would be dramatically enhanced, should Western policy-making be based on the knowledge of the deans of Mid-East studies, thus learning from history by avoiding – rather than by constantly repeating – costly errors.
See also www.TheEttingerReport.com.
By Gary Palmer
The primary focus of the 2012 election has been the economy, but there is another major issue that should be on voters’ minds in November … the blatant disrespect and disregard of the Constitution.
With President Barack Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the President brushed aside the Constitution’s requirement for all presidential appointees to be approved by the United States Senate. In addition to appointing Cordray, Obama also bypassed the Senate by appointing three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.
The Obama Administration attempts to justify these appointments by claiming that the Constitution provides for a president to make appointments while Congress is in recess. It should be noted that Congress is not in recess because the Republicans specifically wanted to block these and other Obama appointments. It should also be noted that the Democrats used the same tactics to block President George W. Bush’s appointees.
According to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, Congress cannot be in recess for more than three days without the consent of both chambers. Neither chamber passed an adjournment resolution, therefore, Congress is not in recess and in fact, continues to hold pro-forma session.
Despite this fact, the Obama Administration has argued that Congress is not doing any work and is therefore not in session. Because the Constitution requires that both the House and the Senate pass adjournment resolutions, it doesn’t matter whether or not Congress is actually doing business or even if a majority of members are present. According to the Constitution, they are still in session.
During the Bush Administration, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro-forma session to prevent Bush from making any recess appointments. As a member of the Senate, Obama supported this tactic. And even though President Bush was urged to ignore the pro-forma sessions and make recess appointments anyway, he refused to do so.
In an effort to justify Obama’s appointments, some argue that Bush did the same thing when he appointed former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court during an “intrasession” recess. That argument was whether or not the President could make appointments during an “intrasession” recess instead of an “intersession” recess and doesn’t apply here because Congress is not in recess.
On January 5th, The Wall Street Journal editors wrote, “These appointments are brazen enough that they have the smell of a deliberate, and politically motivated, provocation.” The Obama campaign has made it clear that running against Congress will be central to their re-election strategy. However, by running rough shod over the Senate’s advise and consent authority for presidential appointees, the Obama Administration has made the Constitution a major election issue.
Restoring constitutional government is a mainstay of the Tea Party Movement agenda. It was a major element in the 2010 elections that resulted in the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives and almost losing the majority in the Senate. Voters in that election were outraged by the perceived abuses of the Constitution in everything from environmental policy to the passage of Obamacare.
Considering that a November 2011 Rasmussen survey reported that 69 percent of Americans believe that the federal government no longer has the consent of the governed, brushing aside the Constitution and making these appointments only reinforces that perception. It is the political equivalent of throwing more fuel on a political fire that burns hot, not only with Tea Party members, but also with millions of others who are concerned that the Constitution is being violated.
In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether or not the Republicans in Congress will stand and fight for the Constitution. After all, they did take an oath to uphold and defend it.
Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.
(RE: “Austria bows out to avoid primary,” Dayton Daily News, Dec. 31, 2012) Steve Austria, Dave Hobson’s hand-picked successor, claims he is “not going to run for Congress next term as a result of the redistricting map.” Really? Here’s a career politician who for the past five elections has tried to convince his constituents that he will fight for them in Columbus and Washington, and now he’s dropping out because his Party redrew the map? Sorry, but if you believe that now, and you supported Austria since he was elected State Rep in 1998, you have taken foolish to a new level.
This was not Austria’s decision. The GOP elitists, led by House Speaker John Boehner, made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Even more disgusting is the Republican Party spin. “I’d like to be one of the first to thank Steve for his service to Ohio and our country,” says Mike Turner. Former Congressman Dave Hobson, who endorsed Austria twice for Congress, says, “(Austria) made the best choice – a graceful exit with integrity and honor.” And Montgomery County GOP Chairman Greg Gantt complimented Austria for doing what was best for the Republican Party by avoiding a costly battle. Make no mistake about it; Steve Austria did what was best for Steve Austria.
When the truth comes out regarding Austria’s undisclosed conflict of interest relationships with 501(c) non-profit corporations Nextedge Development Corporation (Springfield), the Dayton Development Coalition and the University of Dayton*, it will become crystal clear why lap-dog Steve Austria has now become a liability to the GOP. And it’s my guess that when Austria goes down, he’ll take more than a few familiar faces with him.
*The “smoking gun”: Steve Austria’s Federal Financial Disclosure Statements filed on May 15, 2008 (Form B) and May 24, 2011 (Form A), www.legistorm.com
By David Zanotti, CEO, The American Policy Roundtable
Partisans and pundits heralded the 2011 Ohio election as a “bell weather indicator” of the 2012 election to come. Ohio voters may have thrown the pundits a bit of a surprise. On Election night Ohio voters threw out Issue 2, a collective bargaining reform bill but at the same time issued a resounding rebuke to Obamacare.
Issue 2 was a referendum against a statute passed by the legislature. Big labor gathered and paid for the petition drive and the ballot campaign. The collective bargaining statute they were protesting was 300-pages long. Ohio voters have a long tradition of voting “No” on any measure that is not clearly presented and well understood. People did not know what was in the statute. Both sides amplified this voter confusion by spending millions on negative commercials. The issue was doomed from the start and the Republicans walked into this defeat with an amazing lack of clarity. In spite of all the above, 39% of voters supported the collective bargaining reforms in Issue 2. A clear 61% rejected Issue 2 and sent it resounding defeat.
Issue 3 was a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by citizen petition. It was a referendum on Obamacare seeking to exempt Ohioans from mandatory nationalized health care. Granted this is a symbolic approach given that federal law trumps state laws and Ohio is not exactly a bastion of states rights advocacy. The fact the measure passed is remarkable in such a pro-union turnout model, especially since the pro-Issue 3 campaign had no money to spend. That Issue 3 passed with a higher majority (66% for) than the defeat of Issue 2 (61%) is even more substantive. In other words, there was a 5% greater animosity toward Obamacare in the Ohio electorate than the animus toward Governor Kasich’s collective bargaining reforms. In this off election year where union turnout dominated the day, Issue 3 passed in all 88 Ohio counties.
Said another way, 34% of Ohio voters favored Obamacare while 39% of Ohioans favored the collective bargaining reforms. Thus, the pro-union, anti-Kasich turnout on November 8, 2011 is even more distrusting of the current nationalized health care plan than collective bargaining reforms.
Governor Kasich and his allies got their clocks cleaned on Issue 2 on November 8th. If this election is an indicator of things to come, however, the 2012 election may actually become a referendum on Obamacare. Not even the pro-union crowd in Ohio seems to like that idea.
David Zanotti serves as CEO of The American Policy Roundtable an independent, non-profit, non-partisan education and research organization that has been active in Ohio public policy and ballot issues since 1980.
By Jim Robbins
Sarah Palin’s critics routinely mock her intellect, so when the state of Alaska released 24,000 emails she wrote while serving as governor, “AOL Weird News,” an offbeat component of AOL.com, had a representative sample analyzed to see how well she wrote. They expected the results to confirm their anti-Palin bias, but they were in for a surprise.
Far from being an illiterate bumpkin, the standard Flesch-Kincaid readability test showed that Ms. Palin’s emails were written at an 8.5 grade level. This was “an excellent score for a chief executive,” AOLWN reported. To put some perspective on this number, Martin Luther King’s August 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech — much more heavily edited than Ms. Palin’s emails — ranked at 8.8 on the same scale, while Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address came in at 9.1.
A study by Smart Politics on the readability ratings of recent State of the Union addresses also showed Ms. Palin in good company. President George H.W. Bush’s average SOTU score was 8.6. Bill Clinton came in at 9.5. Ronald Reagan, who like Ms. Palin was heavily criticized by liberals and regarded as a doddering old fool, logged an impressive 10.3 rating. And George W. Bush, who earned even more left-wing contempt than Mr. Reagan, if that’s possible, edged the Great Communicator with a10.4 ranking.
Then there is President Obama, heralded as the smartest president and the most gifted orator in living memory, but whose 2008 “Yes we can!” victory speech came in at a comparatively anemic Flesch-Kincaid rating of 7.4. Some numbers just speak for themselves.
James S. Robbins is senior editorial writer for foreign affairs at the Washington Times. His latest book is “This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive,” published by Encounter Books. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
By Andy Myers
Are you kidding me. Of course I’m for it. Why? Well for one thing it was paramount in establishing limited government so that we could enjoy what so eloquently was stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
This of course was just a pretext leading up to even more limitations upon the government as the Constitution outlines in Article I Section 8.
So why then with the supreme law of limited government so expressly written by the founders could so many have such difficulty in understanding limited and government? Granted those two words define irony.
Fortunately though these statesmen came up with these amazing amendments to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. Now these aren’t your rights. These are restrictions and limitations put upon the government so that you could enjoy the unalienable rights mentioned above. But wait. It gets even better. To make sure, as if it wasn’t clear enough that government was to be limited to the extent that the states and the people were to be sovereign, they included the ninth and tenth amendments which in a nutshell says, Article I Sect. 8 is ALL the powers you are granted and that if it isn’t in that clause..to bad Jack–the power is retained in the States and or the people. You really only need a grade school education and a little common sense to vindicate this side of the rule of law.
But the declaration above cannot survive the atmosphere of big government that we have today.
In his commentary published on Friday in Xenia Daily Gazette’s Opinion section, Steven Conn was correct when he said, “Lincoln was really the first ‘big government’ president.” And he was correct in pointing out the irony of the tea party folks holding a rally in front of a memorial of a president who shredded the “rule of law” which is what the tea party folks are supposedly championing-limited government, states rights, individual liberty, free markets and a limited foreign policy based on our charter documents.
I guess in today’s mental climate the above stated declaration and the rule of law is just some “blank piece of paper” according to a recent executive and too many others. All three branches have been treasonous and both major parties are guilty of crimes against the very documents they swore to uphold.
But, Mr. Conn is wrong in that “states rights” aren’t an avenue worth exploring. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99 proved the threat of nullifying or interposing unconstitutional laws gave the states-and the people the last say-so. Thomas Jefferson put it plain and simple when he said,
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks of one government upon the other, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from what we separated.”
Folks, what makes America unique is are uniqueness. We are not a one-size fits all people. Human nature will never allow it and until we accept the fact that what may be good for you might not be good for me, government is going to continue to enslave us. States’ Rights and Nullification is a tool that brings power back to the people. It has worked in several states issues such as Real ID, Firearms Freedom Acts, Medical Marijuana Acts just to name three. You as an individual wouldn’t come onto my property and threaten me with force to live and do as you see fit. So why then would you appoint a group of people-government to do what you cannot or would not do as an individual? That is tyranny. Which even a fifth grader understands is the opposite of liberty
Andy Myers is a resident of Jamestown and is a policy analyst for The Ohio Freedom Alliance.
The slap happy graphic commentary was captured by Drewski at “That’s What You Think” blog.
I can vaguely remember being slapped once or twice for not obeying my parents. My candy grabbing hands and sometimes gluteus maximus was stung by my very annoyed momma or pappa bee.
I must admit that I’m glad the government inspired hate crime goons did’t exist during my child arrearing.
Of course, this is not to deny real abuse exists. But, as the good book says, “spare the rod (or hand or paddle) spoils the child.” If you hope your child will one day grow to live the way he or she should, training is of a necessity. Pain teaches about consequences for doing what should not be done and praise teaches reinforces good behavior.
It looks like the kid must have given Dad his lesson. Poor Dad.