Aiken Standard
Dear Editor,
I was surprised to read your biased coverage of the 2nd Congressional District race (“Candidate for Congress sees SRS need,” Aug. 21). Congressman Joe Wilson has been a longtime supporter of SRS, even serving as a Personnel Security Hearing Officer there for eight years. He is a 31-year veteran of the military and the only Member of Congress with four sons in the military, including two who served in Iraq. He even founded the Victory in Iraq Caucus, standing with our troops and against those who have given up on their efforts. He opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, understands the needs of American owned small businesses, and supports environmentally sound drilling for oil and natural gas right here at home.
We were disappointed that you never profiled Congressman Wilson and his tour of SRS, nor did you properly identify a letter writer as a spokesman for the Aiken County Democrat Party. We are quite confident of an excellent Republican turnout on Election Day, including Congressman Joe Wilson’s overwhelming reelection.
David B. Lobb, Vice Chairman
Aiken County Republican Party
Monday, September 1, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Charlie Wilson's Peace
The following excerpt from an article appearing in the Washington Post today is well worth the time. Charlie is a former Democrat from Texas who did some great things during his years spent in the Congress and he is giving us good advice now.
By Charles Wilson
Published in the Washington Post
Thursday, August 28, 2008; Page A19
Russia's invasion of Georgia has led to a more serious foreign policy discussion in the presidential campaign. As tensions rise in the Caucasus and violence once again erupts in Afghanistan, we should recall the lessons we learned from our response to earlier Russian adventurism. We must recognize now, as we learned years ago, that a strong military alone is not enough to ensure our long-term national security.
In a scene near the end of the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," after the mujaheddin victory over the invading Soviet military, congressional appropriators turn down my request for funds to rebuild Afghanistan's schools, roads and economy. If we had done the right thing in Afghanistan then -- following up our military support with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance -- we would have better secured our own country's future, as well as peace and stability in the region.
In reality, this decision played out over several years and involved many people, but the scene makes clear what a mistake we made. Sure, the problems facing Afghanistan and the region were tough -- feuding warlords, the opium crop and the shift in our attention to the Persian Gulf War. But the Afghans, with our weapons, had done nothing less than help precipitate the collapse of the Soviet Union. And instead of intensifying our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to help the Afghans meet their postwar challenges, we simply walked away -- leaving a destroyed country that lacked roads, schools, and any plan or hope for rebuilding. For the rest of the story go to Charlie Wilson's Peace
By Charles Wilson
Published in the Washington Post
Thursday, August 28, 2008; Page A19
Russia's invasion of Georgia has led to a more serious foreign policy discussion in the presidential campaign. As tensions rise in the Caucasus and violence once again erupts in Afghanistan, we should recall the lessons we learned from our response to earlier Russian adventurism. We must recognize now, as we learned years ago, that a strong military alone is not enough to ensure our long-term national security.
In a scene near the end of the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," after the mujaheddin victory over the invading Soviet military, congressional appropriators turn down my request for funds to rebuild Afghanistan's schools, roads and economy. If we had done the right thing in Afghanistan then -- following up our military support with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance -- we would have better secured our own country's future, as well as peace and stability in the region.
In reality, this decision played out over several years and involved many people, but the scene makes clear what a mistake we made. Sure, the problems facing Afghanistan and the region were tough -- feuding warlords, the opium crop and the shift in our attention to the Persian Gulf War. But the Afghans, with our weapons, had done nothing less than help precipitate the collapse of the Soviet Union. And instead of intensifying our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to help the Afghans meet their postwar challenges, we simply walked away -- leaving a destroyed country that lacked roads, schools, and any plan or hope for rebuilding. For the rest of the story go to Charlie Wilson's Peace
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
GVW Election Results
These are the results of the GVW election by precinct. Only the question of incorporation is reported. In favor of means a yes vote for incorporation.
Precinct - 1 Gloverville 15
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 125
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 72
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 57.60%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 5 6.94%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 67 93.06%
**************************************************************
Precinct 2 Graniteville 16
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1025
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 436
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 42.54%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 230 53.86%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 197 46.14%
**************************************************************
Precinct 3 Vaucluse 38
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 121
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 62
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 51.24%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 11 18.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 49 81.67%
**************************************************************
Precinct 4 Warrenville 41
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1154
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 538
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 46.62%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 101 19.24%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 424 80.76%
***************************************************************
Precinct 5 Breezy Hill 50
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 754
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 545
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 72.28%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 239 44.51%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 298 55.49%
***************************************************************
Precinct 6 Midland Valley 51
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 533
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 359
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 67.35%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 130 36.52%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 226 63.48%
***************************************************************
0750 Absentee Votes
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 114
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 46 40.35%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 68 59.65%
***************************************************************
PRECINCT REPORT AIKEN COUNTY
0800 Failsafe - (Not really sure what this category means)
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 0
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 3
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 1 33.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 2 66.67%
Throughtout this campaign, the financial backers chose to remain silent, but promised to reveal their names after the election. Hopefully, they will fulfill that promise.
Precinct - 1 Gloverville 15
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 125
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 72
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 57.60%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 5 6.94%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 67 93.06%
**************************************************************
Precinct 2 Graniteville 16
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1025
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 436
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 42.54%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 230 53.86%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 197 46.14%
**************************************************************
Precinct 3 Vaucluse 38
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 121
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 62
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 51.24%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 11 18.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 49 81.67%
**************************************************************
Precinct 4 Warrenville 41
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1154
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 538
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 46.62%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 101 19.24%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 424 80.76%
***************************************************************
Precinct 5 Breezy Hill 50
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 754
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 545
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 72.28%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 239 44.51%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 298 55.49%
***************************************************************
Precinct 6 Midland Valley 51
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 533
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 359
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 67.35%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 130 36.52%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 226 63.48%
***************************************************************
0750 Absentee Votes
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 114
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 46 40.35%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 68 59.65%
***************************************************************
PRECINCT REPORT AIKEN COUNTY
0800 Failsafe - (Not really sure what this category means)
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 0
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 3
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 1 33.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 2 66.67%
Throughtout this campaign, the financial backers chose to remain silent, but promised to reveal their names after the election. Hopefully, they will fulfill that promise.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Americans Give More Than Others
It was a little galling to hear the Democrat's presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, tell Rick Warren that "America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me."No other country in the world gives as much as Americans give. On a per capita basis, Americans give 3.5 times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Americans are 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss and 32 percent more likely than the Germans.Not content to merely insult us periodically, the senator has sponsored legislation called the Global Poverty Act which would result in the imposition of a tax on Americans in order to reduce poverty in other countries by 50 percent by the year 2013. The bill ties levels of our foreign aid spending to the priorities of the United Nations. Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s Millennium Project, confirms this legislation is tied to a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay an additional $65 billion per year to what our taxes already send overseas. Does the senator really fail to understand that the funds for these programs all too frequently wind up in the hands of dictators and in the U.N. coffers? Maybe it is because of this kind of legislation that the Democrat-controlled Congress has historically low single-digit approval ratings. Before the senator presumes to lecture us, he should practice what he preaches. The Chicago Tribune reported that in 2002, the Obamas had an income of $259,394 which ranked them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households. That year the Obamas only donated $1,050 to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household in that year gave $1,872 in gifts to charity, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. The national average for charitable giving is 2.2 percent of household income. Obama's tax returns from 1997 until he arrived in Washington in 2005 fell well below that benchmark.It is not surprising that the senator reverts so easily to condemning Americans because he was surely influenced after spending nearly his entire adult life listening to the anti-American and racist rantings of his pastor, Rev. Wright. But for someone who is asking for our vote, it is unforgivable that he sneers at us while conveniently forgetting that Americans are the most charitably generous people in the world. Apparently the senator's theme: "Change we can believe in" is really "Believing we should give more change."Before the senator continues to further push his class warfare themes, he should remember the words of America's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, who said this about class warfare: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Mary Beth Seaha
Mary Beth Seaha
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Future of Nato
The following article was published yesterday in the Times of London and sent to me by email. The U.S. and Great Britain are standing firm but despite the optimistic thrust of this article the French and the Germans are already waffling and I think it is unlikely that NATO will act forcefully. I sincerely hope I am wrong!
The Future of Nato
The crisis in the Caucasus shows that the North Atlantic alliance needs to evolve faster to protect its members, but is as relevant as ever.
Russia's Ambassador to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, wrote last month that “with the demise of communism, reasons for the West and Russia to be in confrontation vanished”. He would be hard put to stand by his remark when Nato meets tomorrow for an emergency summit forced on its members by Russia's invasion of Georgia, especially given its troops' continued presence there despite two ceasefire deals, its extraordinary threat to Poland last Friday, and reports that it is considering arming its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.
As it happens, Mr Rogozin was wrong. There have been myriad reasons for confrontation between the West and Russia since 1991. The implosion of a hollow ideology gave way to a series of more practical grounds for dispute, from Washington's passion for missile defence to Moscow's foot-dragging over Iranian uranium enrichment. But there has been no provocation quite so blatant as the flooding of South Ossetia and parts of Georgia with Russian tanks. Nato has so far floundered in response, but this does not make it irrelevant. The opposite is true.
Nato will be 60 next year - past retirement age for most personnel under its command. Until the Georgian war, retirement, to many, seemed an option for Nato itself. It had triumphed in the Cold War against the Warsaw Pact with scarcely a shot fired in anger. It had rained high explosive on Kosovo, ending Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims there. But in Afghanistan, too complex command structures and absurd restrictions on some of its members' deployments too often have made its operations ineffectual. In Europe, polls taken before the August 8 invasion of Georgia found that decreasing numbers of taxpayers thought Nato vital for security. In Brussels, Nato officials are as undecided as their EU counterparts on whether to help work towards an enhanced EU defence capability, and if so how.
August 8 provided a moment of clarity. The impunity with which Moscow ordered heavy armour into Georgia showed that the principle of collective security on which Nato is based remains the only serious guarantee of its members' borders. It showed that Russia seeks nothing less than a veto on further Nato expansion. And it showed that the price of denying Russia that veto could be high: absent the threat of mutually assured destruction, the notion that an attack on one Nato member state is an attack on all, to be resisted by all, now seems more likely to lead to conflict than at any time in the Cold War.
So anyone who thought Germany might cite recent events as vindication of its opposition to further Nato expansion at the organisation's last summit in Bucharest may have been surprised to hear Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday assuring Georgia that it would become a member of Nato if it wished to. They need not have been.
Deferring Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine was right, not because of Russian threats but because neither country has earned it yet. Both need to consolidate their democratic reforms. In the meantime, Nato needs to fix what is going wrong in operational terms in Afghanistan. Winning hearts and minds while fighting a fanatical counter-insurgency is tough at the best of times and hugely ambitious with a multi-lingual force drawn from 40 countries.
In Brussels tomorrow Nato must address not just the immediate crisis in the Caucasus but the need to streamline its command and control systems in conflict zones. Only then will guarantees of territorial integrity for new members serve their ultimate purpose of deterring aggression.
Mr Rogozin has called Russia's relations with Nato the basis of global security. On this he is right. But those relations will founder until Russia understands that Nato means business.
The Future of Nato
The crisis in the Caucasus shows that the North Atlantic alliance needs to evolve faster to protect its members, but is as relevant as ever.
Russia's Ambassador to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, wrote last month that “with the demise of communism, reasons for the West and Russia to be in confrontation vanished”. He would be hard put to stand by his remark when Nato meets tomorrow for an emergency summit forced on its members by Russia's invasion of Georgia, especially given its troops' continued presence there despite two ceasefire deals, its extraordinary threat to Poland last Friday, and reports that it is considering arming its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.
As it happens, Mr Rogozin was wrong. There have been myriad reasons for confrontation between the West and Russia since 1991. The implosion of a hollow ideology gave way to a series of more practical grounds for dispute, from Washington's passion for missile defence to Moscow's foot-dragging over Iranian uranium enrichment. But there has been no provocation quite so blatant as the flooding of South Ossetia and parts of Georgia with Russian tanks. Nato has so far floundered in response, but this does not make it irrelevant. The opposite is true.
Nato will be 60 next year - past retirement age for most personnel under its command. Until the Georgian war, retirement, to many, seemed an option for Nato itself. It had triumphed in the Cold War against the Warsaw Pact with scarcely a shot fired in anger. It had rained high explosive on Kosovo, ending Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims there. But in Afghanistan, too complex command structures and absurd restrictions on some of its members' deployments too often have made its operations ineffectual. In Europe, polls taken before the August 8 invasion of Georgia found that decreasing numbers of taxpayers thought Nato vital for security. In Brussels, Nato officials are as undecided as their EU counterparts on whether to help work towards an enhanced EU defence capability, and if so how.
August 8 provided a moment of clarity. The impunity with which Moscow ordered heavy armour into Georgia showed that the principle of collective security on which Nato is based remains the only serious guarantee of its members' borders. It showed that Russia seeks nothing less than a veto on further Nato expansion. And it showed that the price of denying Russia that veto could be high: absent the threat of mutually assured destruction, the notion that an attack on one Nato member state is an attack on all, to be resisted by all, now seems more likely to lead to conflict than at any time in the Cold War.
So anyone who thought Germany might cite recent events as vindication of its opposition to further Nato expansion at the organisation's last summit in Bucharest may have been surprised to hear Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday assuring Georgia that it would become a member of Nato if it wished to. They need not have been.
Deferring Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine was right, not because of Russian threats but because neither country has earned it yet. Both need to consolidate their democratic reforms. In the meantime, Nato needs to fix what is going wrong in operational terms in Afghanistan. Winning hearts and minds while fighting a fanatical counter-insurgency is tough at the best of times and hugely ambitious with a multi-lingual force drawn from 40 countries.
In Brussels tomorrow Nato must address not just the immediate crisis in the Caucasus but the need to streamline its command and control systems in conflict zones. Only then will guarantees of territorial integrity for new members serve their ultimate purpose of deterring aggression.
Mr Rogozin has called Russia's relations with Nato the basis of global security. On this he is right. But those relations will founder until Russia understands that Nato means business.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Aiken County Republican Party Meeting
The Aiken County Republican Party will hold its
monthly meeting on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. at its new meeting location:
Aiken County Historical Museum
433 Newberry Street SW, Aiken, SC 29801.
Hope to see you there!
monthly meeting on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. at its new meeting location:
Aiken County Historical Museum
433 Newberry Street SW, Aiken, SC 29801.
Hope to see you there!
Energy Freedom Day
Will you join Senator Jim DeMint and Representative Jeb Hensarling and commit to protecting October 1, 2008 as American Energy Freedom Day?
On October 1, America will celebrate Energy Freedom Day when the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale recovery will end. Right off our shores there are reserves estimated to hold over 18 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And in America’s West, oil shale is estimated to between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Tapping these sources of American energy are desperately needed to lower gas prices AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But for over 20 years, Democrats have blocked access to this American energy.
And even now, at the height of an energy crisis that have sent gas prices sky-high, Democrats in Congress plan to extend the ban on American energy production.
Democrats will try to sneak a new extension of the ban into a must-pass government spending bill before the end of September. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so beholden to extreme environmentalists that they would rather force a government shutdown than help lower the cost of gas and home energy for struggling American families.
Senator DeMint and Representative Hensarling are committed to protecting American Energy Freedom Day. They have launched a new website at www.energyfreedomday.com to spread the word, but they need your help in these four important tasks:
1. Sign the Energy Freedom Day petition to Congress by clicking here.
2. Get 5 friends, family members, or coworkers to sign the Energy Freedom Day petition.
3. Send this email to 5 friends around the country so they can contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to support American Energy Freedom Day.
4. Share www.energyfreedomday.com by embedding the countdown widget on your blog.
You might be feeling a little relief at the pump this week, but you know it’s only temporary. America needs permanent solutions and it starts by protecting American Energy Freedom Day.
Please visit www.energyfreedomday.com today.To go there click on the title of this article.
On October 1, America will celebrate Energy Freedom Day when the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale recovery will end. Right off our shores there are reserves estimated to hold over 18 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And in America’s West, oil shale is estimated to between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Tapping these sources of American energy are desperately needed to lower gas prices AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But for over 20 years, Democrats have blocked access to this American energy.
And even now, at the height of an energy crisis that have sent gas prices sky-high, Democrats in Congress plan to extend the ban on American energy production.
Democrats will try to sneak a new extension of the ban into a must-pass government spending bill before the end of September. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so beholden to extreme environmentalists that they would rather force a government shutdown than help lower the cost of gas and home energy for struggling American families.
Senator DeMint and Representative Hensarling are committed to protecting American Energy Freedom Day. They have launched a new website at www.energyfreedomday.com to spread the word, but they need your help in these four important tasks:
1. Sign the Energy Freedom Day petition to Congress by clicking here.
2. Get 5 friends, family members, or coworkers to sign the Energy Freedom Day petition.
3. Send this email to 5 friends around the country so they can contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to support American Energy Freedom Day.
4. Share www.energyfreedomday.com by embedding the countdown widget on your blog.
You might be feeling a little relief at the pump this week, but you know it’s only temporary. America needs permanent solutions and it starts by protecting American Energy Freedom Day.
Please visit www.energyfreedomday.com today.To go there click on the title of this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)