Both Maryland and Virginia are trying to lure the Northrop Grumman headquarters to its state.  Who will win this selection?  It will be based on taxes, safe neighborhoods, quality of life, transportation, office space, a business-friendly approach, and other perks that are normally offered by the state's business development office. 

I predict Virginia will offer Northrop Grumman the best option as I will discuss below.

Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. says it's moving its corporate office from Los Angeles to the Washington area to be closer to key government customers and will move by 2011. Northrop said it was looking for a location in the Washington area, including the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. It plans to pick a site by this spring and open the office in summer 2011.

The corporate office will house only 300 of Northrop's 120,000 employees worldwide but give it a symbolic and physical tie to the nation's capital. Other defense contractors are located near Washington, including Lockheed Martin Corp., which is based in the suburb of Bethesda, Md.

Northrop said about 30,000 employees would remain in California to perform research, development and manufacturing. The company's aerospace systems sector is based in Redondo Beach, Calif.

Jack Northrop founded Northrop Aircraft Inc. in California in 1939. The company built jet fighters for the United States and other militaries, then expanded to make guided missiles, the B-2 stealth bomber and other defense systems. Northrop also provides electronics, shipbuilding and technical services to government customers and other companies.

Virginia has lower taxes, a business-friendly Governor and legislature, more affordable housing, a better quality of life that includes safer streets, better road and mass transit ssytems, and better office space choices.

Maryland offers a union mentality, a spend-thrift Governor and legislature, higher taxes, and a lower quality of life.  This includes the fact that Maryland welcomes illegal immigrants so there is more crime, more MS-13 gangs, and higher taxes to pay for the illegals.  Also, the state has pushed the fact that they are gay and homosexual-friendly and are pushing this unpopular liberal agenda.

Maryland is losing more and more citizens because they are getting fed up with a Democrat controlled state that taxes too much, spends too much, does not protect their citizens, and pushs  ultra-liberal social agendas.

Virginia just elected Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and he is making history by challenging the authority of the federal government.  All states should challenge the federal government when the Congress or Executive Branch imposes unfunded mandates, job-killing policies, or outlandish taxes. Examples of this are the Cap and Trade legislation, health care legislation, mandated unemployment payments, raising the debt ceiling that imposes more taxes, and environmental policies that affect jobs.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli took a gutsy and intelligent step Feb. 17 when he petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its ill-advised "finding" that carbon dioxide creates an endangerment for human health. The endangerment finding would let the EPA battle alleged global warming by regulating emissions of CO2, which of course is the gas that every animal and person exhales with every breath. The finding was ludicrous from the start, and now Mr. Cuccinelli makes a reasonable case that it also was unlawful.

"Attorney General Cuccinelli believes that the EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion and failed to properly exercise its judgment by relying almost exclusively on reports from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an arm of the United Nations] in attributing climate change to [human-caused] greenhouse gas emissions," the AG's office explains. "The IPCC is an international body that is not subject to U.S. data quality and transparency standards and the IPCC prepared their reports in total disregard to U.S. Standards."

Since the EPA finding was issued, the IPPC's reports have become subject to scandal on multiple fronts. Those scandals reached a crescendo when a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, reported Feb. 14 that "The academic at the center of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information. ... And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming."

Obviously, if the EPA were relying on bad data like all of the other climate-change fanatics, it ought to reconsider its plans to further strangle our struggling economy with more unnecessary red tape.  Mr. Cuccinelli argues that the EPA failed to meet its responsibility to conduct appropriate cost-benefit analysis, and that the economic harm to American citizens - including Virginians - would outweigh any purported benefits of the new regulations. As the AG put it, "We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground."

We agree with this challenge to the EPA.  States must challenge the federal government in order to restore fiscal responsibility and policies that are good for the nation since Congress is self-centered on their political careers.

Balance of Power---Democrat Style....

Chris Van Hollen and other Democrats do not belief in the balance of power between the three branches of government.  They also believe that voters do not have the right to run ads against career politicans.  They try to rig elections any way they can--from legislation, using ACORN, CASA de Maryland, unions or the Black Panthers, to redistricting, or any other means to stay in power.  They do not believe in individual rights or the power of the people to voice their opinion.

Top Democrats said Thursday they will try to undercut last month's Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling by forcing corporations and unions that want to run political ads to register separate spending accounts, make them disclose how they got money for the ads and guarantee politicians low rates to respond with their own broadcast ads.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, also said they're working on a tight deadline and want a bill passed in time to prevent free-wheeling spending from swamping this year's congressional elections.

"Unlike most bills that are introduced in Congress, this one has a deadline for action," said Mr. Schumer, who party leaders tasked to write a bill with Mr. Van Hollen. "If we don't act quickly, the court's ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections."

What does this statement mean?  By disastrous impact, does Van Hollen mean that Democrats will lose elections because the American citizens can publish ads telling the truth?

The two lawmakers said corporations, unions and nonprofit groups that want to pay for broadcast political ads should have to register a separate account with the Federal Election Commission to receive funds and pay for ads. All contributions and expenditures to and from the funds would have to be reported.

Some corporations would be banned outright from running ads, including ones in which foreigners have 20 percent ownership or are otherwise demonstrably in control, and any corporations that are taking Wall Street bailout money or receive government contracts. That ban would cover many major technology, defense, communications and scientific research firms.

Is Van Hollen and other Democrats resorting to Soviet and Iranian style politics?

Cleta Mitchell, a campaign-finance lawyer active in conservative causes, said there are problems with the direction the Democrats are headed. She said the Supreme Court has already struck down campaign-finance laws that granted politicians lower ad rates, and she said a blanket ban on federal contractors could run afoul of free-speech protections. "I don't think they could keep somebody from using their own separate money," she said.

In last month's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that corporations and unions were entitled to First Amendment protections for political speech. The court held that corporations and unions should not have to form political action committees subject to strict rules, but instead should be free to run political ads paid for from their own general funds. They are still banned from contributing directly to political campaigns.

We need free speech and transparency--not career and corrupt politicians telling us what to do.

We in the DC and Mid-Atlantic region are looking for Al Gore and his global warming.  We have so much snow that the snow equipment in our area is not able to keep up with demand.  There are snow drifts three to six feet in height and everyone is stranded, either at home or work.

Politicians should realize that they do not control the weather, but nature and God control the weather.  We are on this earth a small fraction of time and need to do our part as to conservation of our natural resources.  Higher taxes and golbal policies do not work.  We need government to be smaller and focus on its responsibilities such as snow removal from the streets and providing essential services for the public.

I am ready for Spring and Summer and saying good bye to Winter.