novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts published in January, 2010

It appears Nancy Pelosi is still not ready to give up the good ship Obamacare. Granted, the ship has not sunk yet. The ship is listing, there is fire on the poop deck. The crew is leaping into the water. The keel has broken on the rock and shoals of reality. But, Nancy has just begun to fight!

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people…”

Red Nancy knows what is good for us, better than we do. I read the above and the following words run through my mind.

we shall defend our Republic, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the blogs, we shall fight in the congress, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

The American views the current 2700+ page health care as an invasion. An invasion that will give the government the power over our bank accounts, our end of life decisions, and most importantly, our bodies. This is the subjugation of America in a single legal stroke.

Nancy knows this. The progressives know this. Be afraid. There are still 59 Democrat Senators. That is far too many to feel comfortable, let alone complacent. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is time for the American people to awaken from this seventy year slumber.

Much has been written and discussed these past several days regarding this weeks LCRC meeting. With that discussion, comes a fair amount of misinformation, spin and curiosity from those who were not there, as well as those who were there, yet lacking the required background information to put  the events of that meeting in the proper context.  My friend, colleague and current LCRC Chair Glen Caroline, having chaired this meeting, has authored the following fair and accurate summation of this event.


There has been much back and forth on numerous blogs concerning what I believe to be some unfortunate events that occurred at our Jan. 26 Loudoun County Republican Committee (LCRC) meeting.  As LCRC Chair, allow me to offer some thoughts.

First, keep in mind, the story line out of the Loudoun County Republican Committee is a strong one.  We thumped our opponents in last year’s elections, and swept every statewide race and House of Delegate race in, or encompassing parts of, Loudoun County.  Our Jan. 26 meeting started off where it should have—focusing on our successes and recognizing some truly outstanding volunteers for their efforts.  I thank all who were involved in our efforts last year and feel we are strongly positioned for future victory.

Unfortunately, some in attendance—some LCRC members, some non-members who held proxies, and even one who is seeking to succeed me as Chair—decided that, rather than helping to make a difference, they were going to try and make a point.  Though, for the life of me and scores of others in attendance, I do not know what that point was.

I commend Mark Sell and the others who took hours of their time a year ago to review proposed revisions to our LCRC Bylaws.  Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our Committee’s control (weather, lack of super-quorum), our best attempts to vote on these revisions in 2009 did not materialize.  I was very pleased walking into to our Jan. 26 meeting that we had sufficient attendance to finally vote on these revisions, and finish the hard work that Mark and the others on the sub-committee started.

When the time came to vote on these revisions, Mark Sell, offered an obscure motion to, rather than vote on the bylaws revisions he himself supported and help draft as a whole, vote on them section-by-section.  Why a supporter of the changes who was integral in drafting them would call for such a motion, only Mark Sell knows. Clearly his motion was going to cause what could and should have been a three minute procedure, to devolve into a 90 minute procedure, replete with parliamentary torture, unnecessary roll call votes, and at times, less than courteous behavior.

I offered Mark the chance to withdraw his motion because I thought it appropriate to afford him that opportunity.  He declined.  Others offered Mark the opportunity to explain what his concerns were that led him to offer his motion how to proceed.  He declined.  Similarly, at a later time, I as Chair ruled a motion out of order, and was subjected to boos and catcalls.  Those of you who know me know that I could not have cared less about such reactions, as my skin is very thick.   However, for the sake of fairness, hearing that a few attendees disagreed with my ruling, I invited a motion to over-rule the Chair.  The motion made and was voted down—as was virtually every other motion made by these same individuals, thus sustaining my original ruling by a majority of the body.

As we went through the bylaws, section-by-section, under the steady hand of our Parliamentarian  John Millhiser (who, earlier and prior to Mark’s motion being made, had informed the Committee of the proposed revisions to the bylaws and their effect), the maker of the motion, Mark Sell, never once participated in the debate; the very debate he asked for.  Numerous motions were made for division, requiring a count of the “yeas” and “nays” and on every occasion less one, I accommodated the request.  While every one of the revisions to the bylaws passed by majority vote, two failed because they failed to achieve the required super-majority.  Perhaps these two failed because some in attendance decided to leave once they began witnessing the time-consuming and arduous process that was afoot.  Could that have been part of the strategy?

Dimitri Kesari, who is not an LCRC member, but held a valid proxy, was the primary architect calling for the numerous division votes.  I have seen Dimitri at very few LCRC meetings, as again, he is not a current member.  Nonetheless, he apparently chose to attend this meeting, to call for vote by division on nearly every vote pertaining to revisions of the bylaws that govern a Committee that he is not a member of.

As I noted earlier, not only was Mark Sell part of the sub-committee that reviewed and approved the revisions to our bylaws, but exactly two weeks earlier at our LCRC Executive Committee meeting at the Rust Library in Leesburg, I mentioned to the ExCom and to Mark that we would be voting to review the bylaws and asked him directly, as a member of the subcommittee responsible for the revisions, if he himself had or knew of any potential concerns with the proposed revisions to the bylaws.  He answered he had not.  Similarly, at multiple times during the previous year when I was hopeful the LCRC would have the opportunity to vote on the revisions to the bylaws, I asked Mark in person at our mutual place of employment that, if he had concerns, knew of concerns, or wanted to discuss these or similar matters, to simply let me know, so we could chat and address them in advance.  He did not take me up on my offer.

As the LCRC Chair, above is the factual recount of what occurred at the Jan. 26 LCRC meeting with a bit of historical background.   All I ask of those who were in attendance, or are inquiring as to what happened, is that you look at the facts, and draw your own conclusions as our Committee moves forward.

The only reason I recount this is because I and others are receiving numerous queries, every day from many, many attendees, who are concerned and very frustrated over the manner in which Mark Sell, Suzanne Volpe, and Dimitri Kesari chose to proceed, and who don’t fully understand what happened.  The only reason I am specifically referencing certain names herein is because people are asking me who these individuals were.

As I have always tried to do in my near two years as LCRC Chair, my preference would have been not to have been forced to engage in this type of fruitless exercise and instead focus on areas of commonality and mutual goals.  I did not seek, nor did I relish the manner in which this debate was conducted, and feel it was handled fairly and openly.  For me and the LCRC, these issues are resolved and the matter is now closed, allowing us to continue our work moving forward to expand and grow our Republican base of support so we can continue to elect Republicans to office in Loudoun County.

I remain humbled and honored to be the LCRC Chair.
Glen Caroline

The argument between free and planned economies is not new …

The trouble is that Keynes was a libertarian when compared to any the socialists, from Mao to Mussolini. Hippies want to eliminate differences in wealth. Keynes just sought a solution to the boom-bust cycle.

Two quotes by Hayek that I find to be spot on given today’s political fads…

“A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”

“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”
Friedrich August von Hayek

Never waste a good crises either. Remember Obama’s little quip when talking to some bald plumber dude?

Spread the wealth around!! Obama is gonna make us all equal, miserably so.

We are getting a ton of “hannah giles photos” related search engine hits tonight. Thanks Hannah, and thank YOU, Stacy McCain.

The traffic spike does not seem to be affecting mobile browser access, because I can get to the site from my Blackberry just fine. Must have to do with scripts or something. Sorry for the inconvenience!

This is truly remarkable. Three amazing things happened in a period of 6 minutes.

1. A Democrat is not closing ranks with his fellow Democrat
2. A Democrat from MA recognizes that the money the Federal Government is spending belongs to the American Taxpayer. You know, the American Taxpayer the one who pays the bills a.k.a “those rich people”. He states this repeatedly as well.
3. The Democrat from MA recognizes that the folks at Bear Sterns got a crew cut, but the folks at Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar. This is typically called “picking winners and losers.” Behavior that any resident of a banana republic would recognize.

The Democrat on the hot seat looks typically impatient and shameless. Remember what ol’ Alinsky said, “The ends justify the means.”

The really amazing thing is that, it took a year for this scandal to finally start coming out. Where was our vaunted fourth estate all this time? The NYT’s is very good at broadcasting documents marked TOP SECRET and in doing so providing aid and comfort to the likes of Al-Qaeda. This whole mess with Goldman Sachs occurred in the New York Time’s back yard. Wall Street is near the Battery, the NYT’s HQ is in Midtown. I guess this story about Geithner: Democrat, Obama minion, former Goldman Sachs employee — is just not fit to print.

Where are the geniuses from MSNBC, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post etc? This is billions of dollars that belong to the taxpayers of the United States. Where did all these journalists spend their time? The answer is they spent their time trying to push the Obama agenda or dumpster diving in Alaska looking to write one more hit piece on Sarah Palin. Then there was the time spent reporting on the non-existent racist attitudes of the Tea Party movement.

MSM has been carrying the water of the Democrat party for a long time now. It would serve the nation, and the Democrat party if MSM would acknowledge its awe inspiring bias. A bias MSM denies; a denial the tax payer laughs at — while they go elsewhere to get their information regarding the state of our media, political parties, economy, nation, and the rest of the world we live in.

Jack has been harping on this topic religiously and he gets it as others here do. I got out my crayons and paper so that everyone can get it. Take 10 minutes of your time without regret. We’re going back to school!

School = free
Pre-requisite = a brain with cognative thought processes
Video = 10 minutes
Topic = our government system
Understanding = priceless
Liberal comprehension about our Founding father’s model = ZERO!

Watch video here.

I learned one thing for sure. It appears that in actuality, I am a friggin’ moderate. Oh, Dan; the irony of it all. HA.

Well, since I’ve said my bit about Patricia (and many don’t agree. Oh well) Stoner has come to surface as a volunteered candidate. You may disagree with this statement also but I have seen, over my many years, the best candidates are press-ganged into service. There are some good ones that actively vie for the job but NO ONE in their right mind would want to be in politics UNLESS they have an alternative motive, which could be having your name in history to seeing how well and for how long you can screw up people’s lives and still be able to pocket an exorbanant amount of change (someone elses change, of course) before you have to run for the hills.

But what qualifications does Stoner bring to the table? With my few happenstance meetings with the man I have seen this:
He strongly believes in the Constitution.
He has championed as many conservative individuals as possible running for public office (including Patricia).
He knows what works and what doesn’t-in other words great common sense (which makes him more than qualified).
He speaks out on issues that are wrong and has no problem getting in your face when you try to gloss stupidity. In other words, he doesn’t back down or get intimidated. This is another big quality.
He has tact and will work the issues to an amicable agreement if warrented.
He is already working within the LCRC and has many contacts as well as local notority.
He’s got a cop haircut.

Now I’m sure there’s more but I don’t want his head to pop and get goo all over my shoes. I’m sure he’s humble but I haven’t seen him embarrassed by anything. Since we do pick candidates for these races I, personally, think it would be a good idea to have his name in the hat. What do you think?

And Stoner; you don’t have a say in the matter. This is press-ganged, remember? (Gee, I hope I don’t get barred from the site for this)