buzzsawBeaver

not to be overlooked is the fact that while our energy rates skyrocket and control over most every faction of our lives is granted to the government we all trust so much, we not only get unaffordable energy costs, but people in these regions actually lose sources of livelihood in the process. In simple terms, energy costs skyrocket, ability to financially survive gone, exactly what is it people will do to survive if not become completely dependent on government? highlight of the article to me, what a surprise................"The groups want the Obama administration to ban mountaintop removal and take over regulation of the strip-mining industry from the DEP." Hundreds join dueling mining protests By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer Advertiser CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Hundreds on both sides of the mountaintop-removal issue turned out Monday afternoon for dueling demonstrations outside the state Department of Environmental Protection's headquarters in Charleston. Environmental activist and attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. headlined the rally against mountaintop removal, urging an enthusiastic crowd to continue fighting what he called the "tyrannical practices" of the mining industry. "This is a crime," said Kennedy, son of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. "They are literally liquidating this state for cash." Kennedy spoke at a rally organized by Coal River Mountain Watch and other groups who oppose mountaintop removal and are making a Massey Energy operation that is blasting apart Coal River Mountain the focus of their national campaign. The groups want the Obama administration to ban mountaintop removal and take over regulation of the strip-mining industry from the DEP. "The whole world is watching," said Judy Bonds, a leader of the group. "We are ground zero to save the earth." Among the other speakers was Mike Roselle, a longtime environmental activist who has been leading civil disobedience protests aimed at shutting down Massey's operations. "We're putting pressure on these agencies, and we're going to make them do their jobs," Roselle said. Several hundred miners, other industry employees and coal supporters repeatedly chanted and cheered to drown out the environmental group speakers. Several coal trucks repeatedly circled the block, blaring their horns. Miners waved American flags, and displayed signs that said, "Hey Kennedy clan, fix your morals before destroying our family's jobs," "If you're against coal, then turn off your lights," and "Proud and Loud: WV Coal Miners." Mining supporters and mountaintop-removal opponents were separated by barricades that divided the DEP parking lot. State Police troopers patrolled the zone between the groups, though Kennedy briefly went over and talked to miners before taking the podium. "My kids depend on coal," said surface miner Pete Smith, who works for Republic Energy. "I'm worried to death because that's all I've done all my life." Monday's focus on mountaintop removal came as delegates from around the world gathered in Copenhagen for talks on combating global warming and as the Obama administration announced its formal finding that greenhouse gas emissions are endangering public health. Pressure has also been building on mountaintop removal. Environmental groups aren't satisfied with the Obama administration's plans to more closely review mining permits, and want new rules in place to halt the practice. Coal industry officials and their political supporters have criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permit reviews, saying they have ground new permit issuances to a halt across the Appalachian coalfields. Kennedy told the crowd he recalled his father talking about the battles to end strip-mining in the region in the 1960s. He said his father told him it didn't make sense for West Virginia to be among the nation's poorest states, given its huge coal resources. Today, Kennedy said, the situation is worse. Large earth-moving machines allow the industry to mine record amounts of coal with fewer workers than ever before. The West Virginia counties with the most mountaintop removal are the poorest in the state, he said. "It's because of the tyrannical practices of an industry that is liquidating the state for cash by tearing down the mountains," Kennedy said. "They're not just destroying the environment. They're forever impoverishing the communities. "This is a moral issue," he said. "We don't have a right to destroy what we can't re-create. It was God who made these mountains, and it's [Massey Energy President] Don Blankenship who is tearing them down."

of course it's not really new, but with health care on the way towards being forced on the American people, the push towards forcing cap and trade on the country has started, and with the common tactic of this administration, fear, i.e. "we must act to save ourselves"... Notice in the very 1st paragraph and sentence that it doesn't sound anything at all like the free America that we've all been blessed with enjoying for so long. That 1st sentence actually spells out the real agenda in plain, undeniable english, .....imposing government control........ 4th paragraph, "energy costs would rise". skyrocket was the actual term the president used before, and if I didn't know better people are having hard enough time economically with aep's rate hikes, anyone else ready to support this administration's plan that will skyrocket those already hiked energy rates? "WASHINGTON – The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health. The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment or shift to other forms of energy. Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs. Environmentalists hailed the EPA announcement as a clear indication the United States will take steps to attack climate change even if Congress fails to act. And they welcomed the timing of the declaration, saying it will help the Obama administration convince delegates at the international climate talks that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem. Obama will address the conference next week. But business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up energy prices. "It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in recent months has been particularly critical of the EPA's attempt to address climate change. The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments for formal rulemaking. That marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday, "There are no more excuses for delaying," adding that the so-called endangerment analysis from global warming had been under consideration at the agency for three years. After the official finding, she said the agency is now "obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama "still believes the best way to move forward is through the legislative process" — something Obama has expressed on a number of occasions as he has pressed Congress to shift the nation's energy priorities away from fossil fuels and to reduce climate-changing pollution. The EPA said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution. "These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said Jackson. She rejected claims by climate skeptics that the science of global warming remains in doubt, an argument given additional attention in recent weeks with the disclosure through intercepted e-mails that a British scientist had privately discussed ways to shield certain climate data from public scrutiny. "The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it has grown even stronger," said Jackson. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a lead author of a climate bill before the Senate, said of the finding: "This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change. ... The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving." Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also a co-author, said, "The Senate has a duty to act." Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights. "Such regulations would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly, chill job growth and delay business expansion," argued Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which also has been critical of the climate legislation before Congress. "The Clean Air Act can complement legislation," said Jackson. In fact, if Congress were to cap greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA probably would be given the responsibility of implementing the law. The EPA's involvement in reducing climate-changing pollution, stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But the court said the EPA would have to determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it could regulate them. "

when the military and government don't back those who fight, "3 elite commandos to be court martialed for giving terrorist some justice", so tell me, when are we actually gonna back these people? "Recently a team of Navy SEALs captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the terrorist who murdered and then mutilated three Blackwater security guards in Fallujah in 2004. Now three of the Navy SEALs face a court martial for prisoner abuse. The alleged abuse is said to have taken place after Ahmed Hashim Abed was in custody. The three Navy SEALs in question have refused a non judicial punishment and have opted for a court According to Fox News: "Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault. "Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement. "Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation." In other words the three Navy SEALs are facing a court martial for beating a prisoner and then trying to cover it up. Hot Air's Allahpundit suggests that the strategy of going to a court martial is a smart one on the part of the Navy SEALs. The Navy SEAL court martial is taking place against the highly controversial spectacle of a show trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other terrorists in New York City. "The last thing The One needs after shipping KSM off to NYC for his close-up is the image of SEALs being hauled off to prison for busting some jihadi in the face. In fact, according to Fox, the SEALs requested a court-martial rather than nonjudicial punishment, presumably because they know full well how awful this looks for the military. Prediction: Wrist slap." It would be a bitter irony for President Obama if at the same time Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is denouncing the United States as a cesspool of infidels in open court, a trio of hero Navy SEALs is being put on trial for roughing up a prisoner. The military, under Obama, cannot go too easy on the Navy SEALs. So doing would insure the wrath of the media. But punishing American heroes for giving one of the worst examples of human debris a beat down runs the risk of angering everyone else. Despite the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib, most people, to quote Katherine Hepburn, would observe that people like Ahmed Hashim Abed and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could be, "Peeled like a pear and God himself would call it justice." The murder and mutilation of the Blackwater guards precipitated a series of major battles in which a Marine force was obliged to liberate Fallujah from terrorist control."

Liberals don't any real concept of the military or what it takes to win wars or the mindset troops and military personnel have. Most liberals don't even correctly identify with combat troops, to them they're all poor lied to folks who just needed the $, don't really want to fight or got scammed into front line positions by recruiters and who sit around complaining that they're at war, wishing some peace promoting organization would rescue them from their life at war. Of course the only time they have a hint of hesitation about orders is when they know that their government is not behind them and won't let them fight with the gloves off or just do their destructive jobs full force.

"A timeline means, we must do our job right the first time. We must do what we came to do. We can't go to other countries and fight meaningless wars and battles to prolong what has already been too long. A timeline means we are coming for you and we won't stop until 40,000 strong put an end to your way terrorism. They will do the job and will succeed. I have faith in my military unlike some of you do. Don't try to reply with I have faith blah blah blah. You don't I just read it. I'm sure those guys are really glad they are fighting for you. A timeline means, it isn't open ended. We have a job, we have to finish it in that time. Most tasks / jobs are that way. If we leave it open eneded, we leave it to be there for 45 years and then finally get the sense to leave. Russia spent a long time there with little to show." I hate to rain on your parade but I already served in iraq, I've more than put my $ where my mouth is about faith in the u.s military. Any soldier or marine will tell you that war won't be wrapped up in 2 years, especially if that time and effort is put into nation building and force protection instead of a strict agenda of hunting down and killing terrorists cells where they are out in the remote regions. You do know they intend to pull most troops out of those more remote regions at that don't you?

"The Bush Admin tried ignored warnings after warnings about Al-Qaeda etc... until something happened" Bush administration? Bush was president for 9 months before sept. 11th, do you really just spout false statements thinking we really just don't know any better? Are you not familiar with who was president when al queda bombed the world trade center in '93? Or who was president as they increased their threats and attempts throughout the '90s up till they bombed the u.s.s. cole? Are you not familiar what president had the opportunity to seize bin laden in the late '90s but deemed him not a credible threat?

"Obama's admin at least had the balls to send them to the right place instead of Iraq. Taking our concentration off of the Islamic Extremists and putting it on a retalitation for daddy was the biggest disgrace that I have ever seen." I don't know where to start, retaliation for daddy, how many times have we been over this. Comment on these quotes if you will. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"Why shouldn't there be some sort of rebuilding the infrastructure of their gov't. If we don't, we will have these problems for years to come. Their gov't knows and allows the extremists to operate in their country. The extremists are independent, but operate with the knowing of the gov't who do nothing to stop it. Many of the people in that country are in the stone age and don't know of any ruling government or care." Because the country simply doesn't function the way most countries do, making it something it's not is not only difficult but it's likely to fail, the last sentence you wrote that I quoted is exactly the reason. Not only is it likely to fail, but the president just up and declares that the u.s. is going to change the country of afghanistan, ancient in it's ways, in a matter of 2 years and then withdraw in time for the 2012 elections? Iraq is a completely different type of country with a complex government and a population with a committed interest in their government and country for decades.

It is a long trip, I actually enjoyed the fact that when the game was over I was in my kitchen. It's good yall enjoyed it to, I see your son went. Bluefield's white on white uniforms are 1 of my favorites, they used to be the most common away uniform except in inclement weather, but 1st time they've worn those in a while that I can recall. Listening to the radio, I couldn't tell what the factor was for wayne's success on the ground against bluefield, but knowing wayne, it was likely their misdirection and fakes, it's always been effective against bluefield's reacting d. It's 1 of the tougher types of o bluefield faces for them in my opinion. They execute exceptionally. Wayne county is located up on the ky border and is around 30 minutes south of huntington. They've always had enthusiastic fans, they're a quality program that is very consistent overall. As for bluefield's o, that's been an up and down changing side of the ball all season because of adversity and factors really beyond their controll, with all due respect to them, I don't think they were ever as strong on o as they were in the 1st 3 games of the season with their qb at 100% with the wildcat o scheme. Their o had 4 distinct phases that I saw, only my opinion, but there was the initial wildcat, the very 1 demensional style they used against ccds after the qb was injured, and against gate city. Then they had the phase were lilly was qb with a lot of changes in style and play with the sophomore rb put into the scheme, and then their qb returned as a starter the last regular season game and through the playoffs and that had a much different feel to it. All in all, even though they had some high scoring games against some lesser opponents, I honestly don't think they ever really clicked on o with so much change after their qb was injured in game 4.. Early in the season it seemed their o matched their d is strength almost. At the end of the season and through the playoffs, most contenders should be and most were on top of their game and playing like a well oiled machine, bluefield's o, while they did what they had to do, never matched the potential of their players overall, in my opinion. They simply had to much change throughout the season on o to be clicking the way other contenders were through the playoffs. If that makes any sense. In this game it seemed they were more content to be less aggressive, relying on their d, and if I had to guess there must have been good reason that lilly hardly touched the ball in the 3rd or 4th. But they wisely adapted overall and earned the title. Congrats to them again. ..

it's some channel a lot of areas in wv have if I'm correct, but it's more up in northern wv than anywhere else.

Congrats to bluefield, that said congrats to the wayne pioneers as well, they're without a doubt the states 2nd best aa program, they've been very strong for 10 seasons. Bluefield simply has an exceptional d and playmakers who make things happen. That was the difference in this game. They had a very bendable d, but inside the 20 they were something special all season overall. It wasn't really any different against magnolia the week before. But that said, congrats to them all, the fans, players, the coaches, band, everyone. # 10 in my opinion is a monumental milestone for everyone associated with bluefield, past and present. ....

Unfortunately I agree, I'm all for the u.s. fighting the war aggressively as long as they have to, but if they truly are intending to pull troops out in that time frame really what's the reason to get a lot more troops k.i.a. in the meantime? I'd just assume they surrender now and not make them risk their lives needlessly and let the u.s. learn another hard lesson about what it takes to win a war. Unfortunately the u.s. probably will have to learn that lesson (as they should have already) when terrorists seize some u.s. elementary school, like in Belsin, and kill hundreds or school children, or worse.

Thoughts, those in command on the ground requested 60 to 40,000 more troops, this administration doesn't seem to mind slighting the military and putting more lives at risk by not approving the levels of troops required. They requested these troops in august.. ...... The mission shouldn't have anything to do with building afghanastan as a country, what does that have to do with the problem of islamic extremists in the region that are completely independent of any country. Announcing a withdraw in 3 years, absolute incompetence. They've just told the enemy they all they have to do is lay low for 3 years. They've just told American troops to put their lives on the line for 3 years for nothing, all efforts will be wasted when they pull out with a lot of unfinished business and the job undone. It's political, another campaign tool, 3 years, i.e. in time for the 2012 elections. They've just told the troops they don't mind risking their lives, forcing them to lose a war, all to further the democrat election machine. They just showed the world the u.s. doesn't have the will to finish a fight, if they fully intend to do things as the American people were told they would be done... Complete incompetence in every way. Not to mention msnbc's chris mathews actually stated that westpoint was "enemy territory". On the air after last night's speech, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews questioned the venue for President Obama's speech on Afghanistan, calling the U.S. Military Academy an "enemy camp" where officials in the Bush administration went to drum up support for "democratizing the world." http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/video-chris-matthews-calls-west-point-enemy-camp/ Could the liberals be any more of a disgrace to this country and all that it has stood for? They're the enemy.

any thoughts on the actual x and o's of this game? I don't know much about wayne, I know overall they're well coached and play very hard, are physical, but as for this team of theirs I don't what their particular strengths are, ect....

congrats to richlands, it is an impressive program yall have going. Best to yall in '10 as well.

where do they have title games in nc?

It's a long trip for certain even from bluefield. I've estimated that since they've been in aa, this is their 9th trip to wheeling, even though it's almost 6 hours, round to 5 for easy math, 10 hours round trip, x9 is 90 hours of travel, you can drive to ca. in 40 some from here. That's almost if not the equivalent of coast to coast to coast travel to and from the title games for bluefield.

If you drive carefully with stops, around 6.

I agree the coached won't overlook any team, perhaps this game will be a reminder to the players as well that they'll have a difficult task in the title game. I'll listen to it on the radio, I enjoy away game trips but gate city was the only game I could realistically attend this year.. .... There are game photos on their school site, perhaps you could use some of those if you emailed them. http://bhs.merc.k12.wv.us/beavervoice/sports/football/index.htm

Bluefield will have to be prepared regardless, all the talk about bluefield magnolia being the title game is downright ignorance, it could prove to be correct, but till then not at all. In the last 2 decades I recall 3 previous semi games that were considered the title game, bluefield poca, '95, bluefield weir '03, '04. bluefield was defeated in 2 out of 3 of those title games the week afterward those "semi title" games....

I'm not surprised that frankfort's a better team than people expected. I thought they might be. It could be wayne overlooked them some, but frankfort's a real contender..

edited, see it

"Legislation would impose 40 percent tax on premiums above threshold" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34113947...th-health_care "Senate healthcare bill's 40% tax on Cadillac plans will "be put on only a few very wealthy Americans and ..........many more in the middle class"... discouraging companies from offering coverage with so many benefits". Discouraging companies from offering so many benefits? Aren't benefits good? I know if there's 1 thing I'm looking for in health care it's the plan with the least benefits? Sheeessseeee it's beyond words what this administration is doing. "The president's promise: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." Translation: "you can keep your doctor and health care plan after we tax the hell out of it."" Do any liberals even care to tell us you support this?