Protic said in a statement that he consulted with state party leaders and legal counsel before concluding that the local committee lacked another “viable option” and would need to issue a new call.
New candidates will have the opportunity to join any of the contested or uncontested races for nominations. Among those without challengers for their party’s nomination are Supervisors Bruce E. Tulloch (Potomac), Jim Clem (Leesburg), Mick Staton Jr. (Sugarland Run) and Eugene A. Delgaudio (Sterling), as well as newcomers Michael Firetti, running for the Republican nomination for board chairman, and Mark Albright, running in the Blue Ridge District.
The new call, which must be approved by a vote of the Loudoun Republican Committee, will also set the nomination format. One issue is whether the party committee will stick with the convention format. If it does, additional delegates will be able to sign up to participate.
I’d link to the Protic statement but there’s nothing over at the LCRC’s web site since the March 27th statement that they were going to appeal. Unlike many in this debate, I don’t have an issue with the format of a convention to choose nominees. The argument I keep hearing is that a firehouse primary is “more open” and allows for greater participation. Personally, I think that’s a euphemism for “I don’t want to take up a Saturday on the process so let me have my say and my weekend, too.” I cannot disagree that the convention format will draw the more dedicated members of the party and I have to ask if that’s a bad thing. I don’t think it is. Until the Commonwealth starts having people register by party so the participation in a party’s internal processes can be reasonably restricted to members of that party, it also allows a given party to provide some measure of assurance that the process is being held and decided by party members and not just anyone off the street.
That said, I think the people who are screaming loudest about that last point – that Democrats and “RINOS” are skewing the vote – are starting to sound like the typical Democrat activist to me. You know, the ones who think that if their candidate didn’t win it must be because someone cheated, not because their candidate was a loser.
The LCRC better get on this quick if they intend to keep their convention on 9 June. They need to vote on the format and approve a new call. Then, if they decide to stick with a convention, they need to approve the delegates. According to the story, there’s actually been more people sign up to be delegates than there are open seats, so it’s a matter of actually deciding who to seat rather than just taking all comers.
More on this as it comes up. Keep an eye on Too Conservative as they’ll probably be debate central on this issue.
After doing everything in his power to generate a lynch mob atmosphere – including engaging in illegally hiding evidence from defense attorneys – Mike Nifong was finally called out by the Attorney General of NC for what he was. He was a rogue agent, a man who saw the case not as a pursuit of justice but a rung in his own personal career ladder. With everything now in the open, he’s got the audacity to get up on camera and perform a disgusting “apology” where he tries to not only cover his own ass but suggest that the 3 men whose lives he damn near ruined should just get over it and go away.
The local prosecutor who charged three Duke lacrosse players with raping a stripper apologized to the athletes Thursday and said the North Carolina attorney general’s decision to drop the case was right.
“To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused,” Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Roy Cooper not only dropped all remaining charges against the players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, but pronounced them innocent and said they were the victims of Nifong’s “tragic rush to accuse.” Cooper branded Nifong a “rogue” prosecutor who was guilty of “overreaching.”
“I have every confidence that the decision to dismiss all the charges was the correct decision based on that evidence,” Nifong said.
In what appeared to be a plea to the athletes not to take any further action, such as a lawsuit, he said: “It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases.”
Yeah, I’ll just bet he’s got a desire that getting his wrist slapped on TV “will serve to remedy any remaining injury”. Those young men had a sincere desire that Nifong’s office would actually follow the proper procedure, weigh the evidence as it was and not how Nifong wanted it to be, and be treated with the presumption of innocence that we are all supposed to be accorded. None of that happened and Nifong was a happy little cheerleader about that. Where his was supposed to be the voice of calm reason, he played the part of the village jerk, extolling everyone to grab a torch and a pitchfork so they burn down the local witch’s house.
And have you ever seen something that was supposed to be an apology so rife with weasel words and conditionals? “To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect…” He makes it sound like he just lost a hand of poker, not that he was railroading 3 men into jail. He talks about “the three students that were wrongly accused” as though someone else was responsible. Nifong accused them. It shouldn’t read that they “were wrongly accused.” Nifong should have said, “…that I wrongly accused.” See the difference? The latter takes responsibility. The former is trying to excuse his actions.
And for all this, he still wants a walk. He still wants everyone to just let bygones be bygones and for him to go back to work, never to be reminded of this again.
Bullcrap. He owes far more to those young men than he’s offered, by a longshot, and he owes more to the rest of the law enforcement whose good name he’s run through the mud.
The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Scott York, has sent an e-mail out asking for public commentary on transportation issues. Since I haven’t seen it published elsewhere, I’m going to do so here in its entirety.
Changes in State and Local Transportation Funding
I hope you will take the time to read this entire message and then send me your thoughts. In a Special Session of the General Assembly March 28 Governor Kaine offered his amendments to the controversial transportation funding package that had been working its way through both houses. On April 4, both houses adopted the amended bill and the Governor signed this bill into law. This bill has four major components:
- A Statewide revenue stream
- A $3 billion dollar bond issue to be used almost exclusively for transportation funding
- A Northern Virginia Authority package
- A Hampton Roads Authority package
For the first time this allows a both the Northern Virginia region and localities the ability to raise and spend our own money on local transportation projects. The extent of the HB 3202 is far-reaching and is full of detail. A complete copy of the amended bill can be found at:
. However I would like to summarize the bill and further ask for your input on some important decisions that eventually must be addressed locally.
The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) was created by the General Assembly in 2001 to administer the expected revenues raised by a sales tax increase put on the 2002 ballot. When this tax increase failed the NVTA was left with primarily a planning role. A product of this Authority was the 2030 Plan designating long-term transportation goals. Membership on the Authority is made up of mayors and chairs of all Northern Virginia cities and counties with two members the House of Delegates, one member of the State Senate and two citizen appointments – one from the Commonwealth Transportation
Board. As Board of Supervisors Chairman, I represent Loudoun County on the NVTA.
In addition to new sources of funding HB 3202 makes some significant land-use changes. The most significant new change is to require the creation of Urban Development Areas (UDA) and allow Urban Transportation Service Districts (UTSD). The new law allows also for imposition of two kinds of Impact Fees throughout the county. The transportation impact fees will allow the County to adopt an ordinance
to require all new development to help pay for transportation infrastructure. With over half of Loudoun still not developed this new provision allows us to collect transportation impact fees anywhere within the county to include “by-right” development – an area where we could not previously get a developer to pay for infrastructure costs when no rezoning was required. This is a very valuable tool to help combat sprawl and relieve traffic congestion. The second impact fee authority in the legislation is not quite as useful because in order to use it, the County would have to take over maintenance of all roads in the Urban Transportation Service Districts.
HB3202 now allows some taxes and fees to be raised and administered by NVTA and others to be raised and administered at the county’s discretion. The rules constituting a “majority” for any vote by the NVTA is carefully written to prevent any one county or interest from gaining a simple majority. Any new fee or tax imposed by the Authority would need approval of the Board of Supervisors or City Councils of at least six of nine localities and the final funding vote must represent at least two-thirds of the population of the region. The localities in Northern Virginia are the Counties of Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington and Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas and Manassas Park.
By instituting new fees and taxes the total estimated region-wide revenues could amount to some $324 million dollars annually with as much as $35 million of that to be used in Loudoun County. The new law clearly states that the Authority must use “all revenues deposited to the credit of the Authority for projects benefitting the localities embraced by the Authority… with each localities total long-term benefits being approximately equal to the total of the fees and taxes” generated from that locality. It should be stressed that at this point the NVTA has approved NO new taxes or fees. However the law is written to allow NVTA to possibly levy new fees and taxes on the following:
- A 2% motor vehicle rental tax – raising an estimated $8.6 million/ $2.9 million for Loudoun County
- 2% lodging tax (TOT) – $23.2 million/$1.6 million for Loudoun County
- 1% initial vehicle registration fee $62.8 million/$2.1 million for Loudoun County
- 5% sales tax on auto repairs- $33.2 million/$0.5 million for Loudoun County
- A $10 vehicle safety inspection fee – $16.2 million/ $2.1 million for Loudoun County
- A $10 annual vehicle registration fee – $17 million/$0.5 million for Loudoun County
- A 40-cent Grantor’s, tax paid by the seller of a home, $163.6 million/ $24.8 million for Loudoun County
NVTA is also given the “menu” option of adopting all, some or none of the proposed fees and taxes unlike the Hampton Roads package which is “all or none.” Localities, such as Loudoun County may also raise transportation money themselves. Our options include:
o A surtax on commercial and industrial property up to a maximum of 25 cents per $100 value. If the full amount were levied it could return $12 million per year.
o Impact fees on new construction in the County to be used specifically for transportation needs. A one-time Impact fees of as much as $10,000 per new rooftop and could generate an estimated $4 to $6 million dollars per year.
o A local vehicle registration of $10 per year would raise an additional $500,000 annually.
We all suffer ever-worsening traffic and while not perfect, HB 3202 gives us an opportunity to provide some relief. However, what is important now is to hear from you as to your thoughts! While I could ask the Board to hold a Public Hearing, which can be tough for many to attend given busy schedules, I thought I would send this out VIA e-mail so you could comment at your convenience. Thank you for taking the time to read this; I look forward to hearing from you.
Scott K. York
Chairman – Loudoun County Board of Supervisors
Ed: You can e-mail Scott York at Scott.York@loudoun.gov.
Captain’s Quarters has a post up about Joe Biden’s expressed desire to send American troops into Darfur to stop the genocide there. Laudable goal, but CQ asks why the Senator is so keen on Darfur while calling for a cut and run from Iraq.
Good question. I asked something similar back before the last elections. I find it mystifying that Democrats don’t see that they’re making the argument for staying in Iraq by making the argument for going into Darfur. I tend to agree that Darfur needs the help, but why would we pull out of one place because “it’s a civil war and our boys are dying” and then send those boys into another civil war where they’ll no doubt suffer losses?
These are the guys in control of the Congress, folks. Remember that next time the elections roll around.
North Carolina’s Attorney General has finally admitted on the behalf of the state that the case against 3 former Duke University lacrosse players was not a pursuit of justice but a fabricated ploy to score a conviction. He has dropped all charges against the 3 men and gone on record with a blistering indictment of the former prosecutor, Mike Nifong:
A few hours earlier, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper hadn’t just dismissed all the remaining criminal charges against Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. He took the extra step of declaring the players innocent — the victims of a “tragic rush to accuse” by a rogue prosecutor who could be disbarred for his actions.
“This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor,” Cooper said.
Yes, it does. And, as I said when I wrote about the matter back in January, it also sullies the reputation of every D.A. and prosecutor in the system. While he should absolutely be disbarred, that’s not quite good enough. This jerk decided to use his office as a tool to keep his grip on the brass ring of public office in this case. What about other cases? How many people did he put behind bars that were actually innocent? Nifong deserves jail time for his crime against these men and the citizens of North Carolina.
And let us not forget, in our relief that someone in the law enforcement system actually did their jobs, that there was another force trying to whip up sentiment against these guys and to convict them on the basis of their prejudice. There were dozens of professors at Duke University who were just shy of being a lynch mob. They spoke out in their classes, accusing these young men in venues where there was no chance for the men to defend themselves. They took out a newspaper ad screaming for the men’s heads on pikes. Duke University officials either endorsed such behavior or, at best, remained silent about it. Every single one of them should be held to account. Every single professor who signed that letter or spoke about it in their class should be required, as a condition of continued employment, to publicly retract their statements. They should admit they were dead wrong and apologize to the men and their families.
Duke should make a public apology and those men should be offered the chance to complete their degrees on Duke’s dime.
Maryland has passed a law that will offer the state’s 10 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular election rather than let its slate of Electoral College delegate cast their votes. Of course, they’ll do no such thing unless a majority of other states follow suit, so this isn’t the brave act its played up to be.
Buried in the story, however, is the shocking admission by the AP that George W. Bush actually won the 2000 elections:
Other states are considering the change to avoid an election in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.
Yes, you’re reading that right. The AP is actually going on record as saying that Al Gore lost the 2000 election to Bush. Not that Bush stole it or that Bush was appointed. He won the election.
Only took 7 years.
In a story over on FoxNews.com, the recent spate of murders in Florida of women who had restraining orders filed against abusive boyfriends and ex’s has people wondering whether restraining orders are worth the paper they’re printed on. The authors of the story take a stance I’m rather shocked to find published on an outlet of the MSM, even Fox News:
But restraining orders often aren’t worth the paper on which they’re written, even when they are served.
For a stalker intent on killing his victim or committing suicide after the attack, the penalty for violating a restraining order is irrelevant. With Seattle police’s response time of seven minutes for the highest-priority emergency calls, the police simply can’t be there to protect you even with a restraining order. Seven minutes can seem like an eternity.
With such rampant failures in the system, there is one piece of advice that could have saved Rebecca’s life: Practice self-defense and a get a gun.
Indeed, the University of Washington goes in the opposite direction and tries to protect people by declaring the campus a “gun-free zone,” with the school’s code of conduct banning the “possession or use of firearms … except for authorized university purposes.”
Gun-free zones may be well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough. It is an understandable desire to ban guns; after all, if you ban guns from an area, people can’t get shot, right? But time after time when these public shootings occur, they disproportionately take place in gun-free zones.
It is the law-abiding good citizens who would only use a gun for protection who obey these bans. Violating a gun-free zone at a place such as a public university may mean expulsion or firing and arrest, real penalties for law-abiding citizens. But for someone intent on killing others, adding on these penalties for violating a gun-free zone means little to someone who, if still alive, faces life in prison.
Unfortunately, instead of gun-free zones ensuring safety for victims, ensuring that the victims are unarmed only makes things safer for attackers.
Absolutely, 100%, hands-down correct. The authors go on to report their findings from research they conducted at the University of Chicago. From 1977 through 1999 they found that multiple-victim public shootings in the US dropped by 60% when in a given state when that state passed right-to-carry laws. Deaths and injuries from those attacks dropped by 78%. That’s stunning. Not the statistic, which is well-known to anyone who bothers to do just a few moments of study on the matter. No, it’s stunning that a major media outlet is carrying that story. It’s Fox, of course. (I haven’t looked yet but I’m betting the story won’t appear anywhere near the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any of the other notoriously-leftish news outlets.)
You should read it all. Then you should make an appointment for yourself at the local gun range and take a gun safety course followed up by a few test-drives of weapons that fall within your interest and need range. You’ll be glad you did.
DC Mayor Fenty has filed an appeal of the decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals in DC which overturned DC’s gun ban laws. Fenty and the DC lawyers are asking the full 11-member Court to address the following questions:
- Does the Second Amendment protect firearms possession or use that is not associated with service in a State militia?
- Does the Second Amendment apply differently because of the District’s constitutional status?
- Do the challenged laws represent reasonable regulation of whatever right the Amendment protects?
DC is also alleging that the panel used a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court than “nearly every other federal court of appeals.” As many on the left are fond of saying, existing precedent doesn’t always make things right. I’m not completely familiar with the other precedents they’re speaking of in this comment so I can’t say for certain whether that characterization is even accurate.
I can hold forth on 2 of the 3 questions being asked, however. How can a law that bans the ownership of a firearm be considered a reasonable regulation of a protected right? Even if you go the route of saying that since someone’s allowed to own a rifle or shotgun, ergo they are allowed to own firearms, the regulation doesn’t permit them to carry the weapons nor are they allowed to keep the weapons in a usable configuration inside their own homes. This is reasonable?
That second question is implying that the American citizens that just so happen to have the misfortune of living in the District of Columbia are not due the same protections as Americans living in Maryland or Virginia. Does Fenty actually want to open up that can of worms? If the 2nd Amendment were to be ruled inapplicable to residents of DC because they’re not living in a “state,” what other Amendments might be dispensed with on the same basis? How about the 4th? Searches of persons and homes in DC without all that search warrant nonsense would certainly allow the police to secure the District more efficiently, wouldn’t it? How about the 14th? They could seize property those unannounced searches turn up without all that due process stuff.
I actually approve of this move by DC. I want this appeal to move forward. And, when they lose, I want them to appeal to the Supreme Court so this matter can be decided and be done. I just wish it wasn’t going to be a year before we see the end of it.
Did you know each state sends a decorated Easter egg to the White House every year? Yep, been doing it since 1994. This is Virginia’s. If you’re wondering what your state’s looks like, head to the White House to find out.
Considering the butt-whupping their Democratic allies got in the 2004 elections when they made military service a cornerstone of their campaign rhetoric, you’d think our MSM friends would take a little care in trumpeting the presence or lack of military service in a candidate’s record. Nevertheless, the AP focuses on the issue in this story headlined “Most ’08 Candidates Lack Military Record.”
The glaringly obvious point to make is that most Americans lack a military record, so it should be considered completely normal that most candidates for American office will also lack such a record. Please don’t misunderstand. I hold military veterans in extremely high regard and their voluntary service buys an awful lot of benefit-of-the-doubt with me. Most of them have a sense of honor and duty that I think would be valuable in public office, both for them and for me. But to imply that a lack of military service would somehow diminish a given candidate is overstating the case, at best.