|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Welcome to the 2005 Editorial Archives of Martin T. Ingham Read Martin T. Ingham's Current Column Here! |
| Read Martin T Ingham's Colums for 2006 here! |
| Martin Ingham's 2004 Archives. |
Greetings, once more, my reading audience. It has been several long months since last I wrote an editorial, and so much has happened. President George W. Bush was re-elected, Iraqis have taken part in a free election, and Hillary Clinton is pretending to be pro-life. Oh, what wonderful times in which we live.
This year, I will bring you my insight on a number of important issues, as before. There’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to crank out a column every other week.
Getting back into the swing of things, I would like to momentarily talk to you about Drunk Driving. I was listening to Howie Carr the other night, and he was discussing this very important issue, and shared my view that penalties for Drunk Drivers are not high enough. In many states, people can get busted for driving under the influence dozens of times, and merely get slapped on the wrist each time. The reason for such low penalties is perhaps due to the fact that so many prominent members of society are themselves drunkards. Just look at Ted Kennedy. Also, Howie pointed out that there are many alcoholic Judges sitting on the bench, deciding these cases, and feeling very sympathetic to a fellow drunk.
As some of you may know, my parents were both alcoholics during my upbringing, but not once were they arrested for drunken activities. They had the bare minimum of common sense not to zoom around wasted, smashing into other drivers. I have no problem with people who drink, if they do so responsibly, but those who violate the law and endanger us all should have the book thrown at them.
More Americans are killed accidentally by drunk drivers in a week than are accidentally shot in a year. However, it would appear law-abiding gun owners are under more scrutiny than drunk drivers who are breaking the law and a legitimate threat to public safety.
I believe if a drunk driver kills someone while under the influence, they should be eligible for the death penalty. I understand they may not have “intentionally” killed anyone, but they surely intended to down that booze and hop into their car. It is obvious that slapping them on the wrist and giving them a year or two in jail for vehicular manslaughter isn’t going to cure them, because how many drunk drivers are yet again busted for driving under the influence, even after their license is revoked?
Drunk driving is a plague upon America, and it needs to be snuffed out. The only way you’re going to stop it is to impose more permanent conclusions to the problem. Drunk Drivers must be locked up if it is proven they cannot or will not sober up, and if someone loses their life in the process, then the drunkard needs to be put down, to make sure they don’t kill anyone ever again. It may be radical, it may be beyond the country’s current ability to accept, but that is the only solution to the problem.
This article is written primarily for the people of rural Maine, but is applicable to other rural land holders across America, as well.
Today in certain parts of rural America, there is a clear and present threat to our very way of life. There are a number of ecological extremists out there, who are slowly and methodically enacting an agenda that would see those of us living in the wild driven from our homes, relocated into urban slums, or just plain exterminated. It isn’t that obvious to those who don’t pay close attention to rural land matters and politics, but it is an insidious movement, which hides in plain sight.
Six years ago, at an EPA conference in Boston, their agenda was clearly exposed for Suburban land owners to see. A group of left-wing ecological extremists, headed by the likes of Daniel Varin of Rhode Island’s Water Resources Board, and Burlington Vermont Mayor, Peter Clavelle, proposed hiking up suburban property taxes to the point where the middle and lower income people living there could not afford to pay them, thereby driving them from their homes and forcing them to sell their land off to the state. It was all proposed in the name of stopping Suburban sprawl. A full account can be found on Page B5 of the Bangor Daily News for February 3rd, 1999.
But Suburban Sprawl is only 1 small part of their agenda. They have their eyes clearly planted on rural land owners as well, and are willing to wait decades if need be to steal that which is rightfully ours; the homes we live in, and the very land we own.
Their agenda has various goals. One, is to destroy rural infrastructure, through over-regulation of business, shutting down industrial production capabilities, and making people dependent on government subsidies, that cannot last for ever, and will be cut off once the economy is sufficiently deflated to prevent a recovery. Another is excessive taxation, to make it first uncomfortable, and eventually impossible for people to pay their property taxes. This also works toward deflating the economy and destroying rural business. Another factor that works into their scheme is the hefty evaluation of property values. Many wealthy ecologists pay exorbitant prices for land, thereby driving up the price, and causing otherwise cheap land to suddenly be assessed at well more than it is worth, based on economic factors, location, and usability. It also increases the local tax burden on other land owners when these ecologists “donate” their property to the state, ala Roxanne Quimby.
When there are no jobs, and property taxes are so high, and the very value of land is driven up beyond its practical value, most people will leave the area for an easier life elsewhere. Sure, there will always be a few hold-outs, but those of us who last that long through the plan will likely find the government taking our stray parcels of land by eminent domain, should our property lie inside the borders of the eco-extremist fantasy park. I doubt many people would truly be willing to put their lives on the line to fight for what little was left by then, and that’s what the eco-extremists are counting on with their plan. It is slow and steady; a multi-generational scheme, that may take a hundred years to pan out, but they’re willing to wait that long. They are nothing if not patient.
There are various groups at work, but they all have the same agenda; make it impossible for people to remain living in rural parts of the country where the ecological extremists want to establish pristine wilderness parks, and untouched nature preserves, where humans are not allowed, except for certain wealthy elitists on a camping trip. This also centralizes the population and makes it easier to control, which is the ultimate Socialist scheme.
Do not think for one second that Maine’s Governor, John Baldacci, is not part of this plot. He has spent his short reign in office attempting to undermine Maine’s economy through social welfare programs beyond what is economically feasible, has made sure to grant large government contracts to out of state companies, to shut down local Maine businesses, and continues to fight for tighter regulation of business and discreet increases in taxes. But that is all another column altogether.
Now you must be asking, “What can we do to stop these ecological extremists?” Well, there is no easy answer. First, we need to fire the Maine Legislature, most of whom are assisting, if not full-fledged members of the eco-conspiracy. Vote out of office all of the bureaucrats who support the eco-agenda, and also get rid of those do-nothings who sit back quietly, collect a paycheck, and let the eco-extremists advance their agenda.
Now firing the legislature is a tough thing to do, I admit. It is something that seems almost impossible to do, for the roots of these weeds have dug themselves so deep in government it is hard to dig them out. But it is possible. We must start by getting the message out about what these bureaucrats are doing to us, and who they’re supporting. We must also form a solid plan to show people that we have a real plan to fix things, and do know better how to lead than those corrupt leftists. We need a true message that is solid and firmly against the Socialist agenda, and not the regular, moderate, “can’t we all just follow the status quo and bend over for the left?” attitude that is far too prevalent in Maine.
Am I the one to come up with this “message?” I am just one man, and despite my interest in politics and my steadfast devotion to keeping myself informed of what’s going on around me, there are still others that are even more well-versed in these affairs than I am. Therefore, I am not the only person to work on the message, but one who seeks to contribute to it, and will gladly advance it.
My part of the message is that which I have written here, and I ask that others take my advice and, “Pull No Punches!” Hammer the Eco-Socialists with the absolute truth; the plan to steal our homes and starve our children off the land. We must not be afraid to lay it all out, and scare people. The Eco-Freaks are not in the least afraid to scare everyone into doing what they want. That is how they operate, and that is how they have been put into power. The only way to defeat them is with their own tactics. We must scare people with the truth about their lies, clearly show them what will happen to their children if the Socialist plan is allowed to continue, and don’t let up for even a second.
This Sunday night, I just watched the most disappointing episode of the Simpsons I have ever had the displeasure of watching. This episode highlighted the Gay Marriage hysteria that is plaguing our society today, and overall it felt like one giant push for the watchers to feel sympathy and total acceptance for homosexuals, not simply tolerance. It is just another in a long line of episodes that have not been funny, and merely expressed a political opinion under the guise of satire.
Of course, liberalism in the Simpsons is nothing new, and is to be expected. Still, their political bias has become much more prevalent now, and has become wholly unbalanced. Last year, it seemed like every episode had some cut in about Bush and the Republicans, whereas in the earlier years you might have seen 1 or 2 episodes a season that chose to mock Republicans, and there used to be equal time given to making fun of Democrats. The creators have now chosen to be true to their Socialist beliefs and inflict them upon the viewing audience. Simpsons’ creator, Matt Groening, is himself a very proud leftist, and couldn’t be happier.
I must admit, that although I once enjoyed this legendary series, it is obvious that this show has become cursed by its own success. The series has grown so popular that the creators feel they can do anything, say anything, and nothing can stop them, and they may well be right. The Simpsons has virtually become a part of American culture, and nobody, not even the FCC, dares to challenge them, for fear of public reprisals.
A lot of people ask, “How can a Conservative network like Fox let them get away with Liberal bias?” Well, first of all, Fox is not Conservative. They are a business without a political agenda. Their agenda is to make money, and I’m sure there are as many Liberals working for them as Conservatives. The only reason Fox has allowed themselves to be painted as politically right-wing is because of market opportunity. All the other television networks/studios are predominantly left-wing, and with at least half of the American public being politically right-wing, Fox saw a new cash venue. Poof! The Fox News Network is born, to be unbiased, and feature both sides, rather than just the left’s opinion. It was not done out of a desire to bring forth a Conservative perspective, it was done to make money, pure and simple.
Keeping all that in mind, then one can truly understand why Fox will never drop the Simpsons, and will not risk pushing them away to another network by complaining about the content of their episodes. The Simpsons is Fox’s #1 hit. It is the cash cow, the goose that lays the golden egg, so long as we, the viewers, keep tuning in, and since it’s been on for the better part of 2 decades, people are going to keep tuning in for no other reason than it’s there, no matter how stupid, or politically biased it gets.
Despite what anyone else is going to do, after the pathetic overall showing of this last season, and the totally disgusting portrayal of homosexuality in this latest episode, I am hereby turning the Simpsons off. I may just be one man, and my decision to read a good book for half an hour on Sunday nights rather than watch a childish Cartoon may not change much, but it will be one less television show that will rot my mind.
Only when viewers start to speak with their remotes will Fox consider changing anything.
So, the Supreme Court of the United States has now decided US Constitutional law based on what they claim is “overwhelming international opinion." In striking down the right of the States to execute murderers who committed their crimes prior to their 18th birthdays, Justice Kennedy spoke for himself and 4 other Supreme Court Judges, by saying that the United States "now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty." Apparently, to him, World Opinion was more important than that of United States citizens.
Now that the precedent has been set, let’s all get ready for the annihilation of United States opinion, and be prepared to be ruled by “international ideals.” Let’s go over a few ideals held by the majority of other nations:
Communism: There are over a billion Red Chinese alone, not to mention all the millions of other “world citizens” who reside in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and all sorts of other little tin-pot dictatorships. Since our country is now basing its laws on international opinion, I guess all private property shall now be confiscated by the state, and redistributed to those it deems fit, as it is in other countries of the world. Additionally, all public protests are now illegal. Those engaging in them will hereby be machine gunned, imprisoned, or run over with tanks. It’s what the rest of the world thinks is appropriate, so who are we to go against World Opinion?
Religious Fanaticism: On the exact opposite, there are many countries that believe in strict religious laws. We must obey their International outcry, and mandate that everyone attend religious services. Furthermore, our laws are now to be based upon religious dictates, and accept fundamentalist rule in our society. Polygamy shall now be legal, thieves will have their hands chopped off, and those who fornicate or commit adultery will be stoned to death. Women shall become property, and homosexuals will be persecuted, all according to the laws of numerous middle-eastern and African countries.
Let’s not stop there. Most countries in the world have legalized prostitution, and in Germany, a woman was even kicked off welfare because she refused to take a job as a prostitute. We’d better not offend “World Opinion” and legalize whoring right away. Also, age of consent laws in the US are much higher than in most countries. Many “enlightened” European nations have age of consent laws as low as 9, so we should do the same. So many other nations have no age of consent laws at all, such as in Thailand, or most African countries. We must do away with age of consent altogether, and legalize child prostitution, because it’s what the World wants.
I think I’ve made my point. It is just plain stupid for the American Supreme Court to try to justify their actions based on “World Opinion.” World Opinion, in many cases, is wrong, and contrary to everything America stands for. It all depends on what part of the world you’re looking at, but none have the right to dictate Domestic US policy. The members of the Supreme court who based their decision on International Opinion should be impeached and removed from our judicial branch of government forever, for they have betrayed their nation, and spit on our sovereignty. If they like World Opinion so much, they can move to one of those other countries they love so much. Leave America to me and Justice Scalia.
I will conclude by pointing out that the "Juvenile" death penalty has never once executed someone under 18. Those executed merely committed henious crimes prior to their 18th birthday, but are all in their 20's before they are executed. There is no Juvenile death penalty, only Juvenile sentencing.
Every time there is some kind of horrible crime committed with a gun, I hear much debate as to how it could have been prevented. The general response from the ill-informed, anti-gun activists is to impose tighter restrictions on the law abiding gun owners, to “shrink” the number of guns available for crimes. It is of course a foolhardy notion that one can do away with gun crime by punishing gun owners, yet still the gun-banners are often listened to and believed to be right.
I can honestly tell you, as can anyone with common sense, that tighter restrictions on guns would not have prevented the Georgia courtroom massacre, or the Columbine school shooting, nor would it do anything to reduce crime. The fact that someone is willing to commit a crime with a gun tells you that they have no respect for the law, and if they’re actually willing to murder people with a gun, I don’t see how another law saying it’s a crime to possess the gun will deter them in the least.
Imposing tighter restrictions, and decreasing the number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens is not going to prevent criminals from getting guns, either. We can’t even slow the import of illegal drugs into America, and that same black market could easily supply affordable firearms illegally. Unless we do away with the Constitution, and impose a fascist police state on America, criminals will still be able to get firearms.
The Georgia Courthouse shootings should have nothing to do with firearm ownership, as the perpetrator, Brian Nichols, stole the gun from a Deputy, who would be allowed to own a gun regardless of any restrictions on civilians, as it’s part of law-enforcement’s job. Now, because of that, I hear people calling for the disarmament of all people in court, even deputies and other law-enforcement officers. If you think this is the answer, I am sorry to disappoint or offend you, but this is truly a knee-jerk reaction, not the answer you are looking for.
The true answer to how a crime such as the Georgia massacre could be prevented would be to allow guns to be carried into court by everyday citizens. If Judge Barnes or his stenographer had been armed, they could have dropped Nichols in his tracks, before he could kill them. I am not aware of Georgia law, but I’m pretty sure Judges are equally restricted by the gun prohibitions in court, and barred from carrying.
If law-abiding citizens are allowed to practice their 2nd Amendment rights in courthouses, there would not be crazy bloodbath conditions. On the contrary, few criminals would dream of committing a crime, or trying to steal a gun from a court officer. Those who would commit such a crime would promptly be stopped by a law-abiding citizen defending himself and his fellow courtroom attendees. Of course, there would still have to be some restrictions, such as barring a plaintiff from carrying a gun into court, but there is no reason that a law abiding citizen, especially one with a Concealed Firearms Permit, should not be allowed to carry into court for the protection of himself, the jurors, the judge, and everyone else present.
I am no lawyer, and I don’t have the laws of Georgia right in front of me, so I am not aware if there is any kind of provision that allows for what I am advocating. However, I would advise that the State Legislatures of every state in America work toward allowing law-abiding citizens to bear arms in court, for the court’s protection, just as I would advocate that teachers and parents be allowed to bear arms in school, to protect the children from those who would do them harm. How many “school shootings” could have been prevented, had 1 teacher been armed and able to drop a gunman before he murdered numerous students?
How many citizens would still be alive in the world trade towers had law-abiding gun owners been allowed to carry on airplanes?
Restrictions on gun carrying rights cripple the law-abiding citizen, and leaves people in those restricted places at the mercy of those who care nothing for the law. Whether you exercise your right to keep and bear arms or not, you should be in favor of law-abiding citizens being armed for your protection. Without armed citizens, you are at the mercy of people like Brian Nichols, who care nothing for life, and simply decide to shoot a few people because they are upset. Do not become a victim. Empower the people with their Constitutional rights, and allow common sense to defend our nation from those who would do us harm.
It’s once again time to stand up and say something so few dare to say, for what reason I cannot fathom. Perhaps, they feel it is somehow “radical” today, or that it is insensitive, or otherwise unpopular. Whatever the reason, it is a poor excuse that they have, and I hope that I can rectify that, and help bring my readers a greater understanding of why they should be as much an advocate as I am.
I must say, I am wholly disappointed, disgusted, and feeling just a bit insulted that Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has not yet been arrested for treason. This is a man who does not talk quietly in confidence about his hatred for America, nor does he only oppose the current administration. This is a man who makes public speeches, calling for the total extermination of the American people, and wiping America off the face of the Earth. He speaks treason proudly, and according to current American law, that is punishable by death.
Now, let me make it very clear that Ward Churchill has, indeed, committed treason. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution clearly states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Does Ward Churchill match the standards for Treason? I dare say yes. He has personally levied war against America, saying our nation needs to be taken “off the planet.” He has provided Aid and Comfort to our enemies, by praising their bombing of the World Trade Center, and saying everyone who died in the towers deserved it, calling them “Little Eichmanns.” There are more than two witnesses to his treasonous acts. There are thousands who have, in person, heard him speak his treason, and countless millions have heard unaltered recordings, or read transcripts of his words. I am sure he’d be happy to confess his treason in open Court, seeing how proud he is to hate America.
There is no question in my mind that Ward Churchill has committed Treason under the Constitutional standard. Whether he truly deserves the death penalty is ultimately up to the courts to decide, but if he is not arrested and prosecuted for his treason, then the courts are spitting on the Constitution yet again, and shirking their duty. How dare they not stand up for America? Are they afraid of making Churchill a martyr? I don’t think that’s a problem. Anyone who hates America as much as he does is not in need of any martyr, and cannot possibly hate our nation any more than they do already. Punishing Churchill will only assure that they think twice before declaring war against our nation.
It may seem radical to some, for me to advocate the arrest and execution of Ward Churchill, but there are some crimes that I will not forgive. Someone advocating the Extermination of my family, myself, and every other American Citizen, deserves to die. I would prefer a public hanging, but so long as Churchill is tried in a court of law, and punished according to his crime, I will be satisfied.
Ah, tax season; that special time of year when the Government so graciously bestows upon us all the chance to glorify them with a percentage of our earnings. We simple peasant folk should all be so grateful that they give us the opportunity to hand over our money, so we might honor their divine glory. My, oh, my, think what would happen to us if we didn’t pay homage through tax dollars. Mass chaos would ensue. The earth would break open and swallow us up, for daring to defy our government masters. Why, even the sun might run out of hydrogen and turn into a black hole, sucking the entire planet into oblivion, all because our tax dollars didn’t make it to government. Our lords in government are so truly benevolent to let us live, aren’t they?
Okay, enough with the cynicism. I just mailed in my annual taxes, and forked out a sizeable wad of cash to Uncle Scam. Now, my petty earnings are hardly what most people make, and I won’t go into detail about what I make (Hey, if Teresa Heinz Kerry doesn’t have to, why should I?), but I would like to just rant a little bit about taxation, and what the government steals from us all.
For many, many years, there has been a special item which I have dreamed of owning; an 1886 Winchester lever action rifle, a very historic and much desired firearm. Theodore Roosevelt owned one of these, as did thousands of other great Americans. To purchase one in decent shape, you’re likely to pay well over a thousand dollars. Now, not disclosing how much I’ve paid in taxes this year, I will say that my Self-Employment tax alone could buy me a very nice 1886 Winchester, and I’d have a chunk of change left over. However, due to the government’s desire to tax everyone, even those who earn under the poverty level, my dreams of owning this fine rifle will have to wait for another day, when my meager earnings are more than they are today.
Is it right that the government tax people who earn near and underneath the poverty level? Isn’t it insane that they still take almost 15% of your pay, even if you’re just a self-employed contractor, barely getting by? If the liberal politicians, who are always complaining about tax cuts for the rich, truly cared about lower income families, they would exempt those who make under the poverty level from paying taxes altogether. Why don’t they? Do those of us earning under the poverty level really supply that much income to the IRS that they must bleed off what little we have?
It is part monetary desire, and desire of power which leads Washington to steal from the impoverished. There are many people who earn insignificant amounts of money (insignificant in the eyes of government, that is), but put them together and you do get quite a stream of revenue. Also, it is the sense of power government gets to have over these people, the “peasantry” as the elitists see them.
If those who earn under the poverty level got to keep their few hundred or thousand tax dollars each year, they would be able to stimulate the economy so much more. They would have the opportunity to invest their money in stocks, bonds, or small businesses, and pave the way toward raising themselves up above the poverty line. They would be able to purchase more items, which would generate greater sales revenue for businesses, and therefore higher tax base potential for government. And with that little extra money, a lot of people right at the edge of the poverty line would not need government assistance programs.
Ah, but there’s the rub. The government wants people to be dependent; at least, the left-wing of government does. If people are dependent on government, then it is all as my first cynical paragraph says. People will kneel before the glory of government, and worship them as their providers. They will fear change, and go along with whatever their masters in government say is right, not wanting to disturb their stream of welfare money, which in many cases is simply the government returning to them what they paid in.
Shifting to a different area of taxation, I must say the most evil and fraudulent practice imposed on the American people today is Withholding. It fools a lot of people into thinking the government is giving them something free, when it is really the fact that the government has taken more money than their own laws allow. Anyone who gets a refund at tax time is really being given their own money back, money the government took in excess, and on which you receive no interest. It is money you earned, that the government summarily took, prior to calculating taxes. Employees are truly cursed, not to have to save their own tax dollars. If millions of employee Americans suddenly had to write a check for thousands of dollars every April, rather than have the government simply steal it every week in small increments, people would all be calling for lower taxes!
Taxation has become an industry in America, and it is corrupt and in need of serious reform. Not the kind of feel good reform that our layabout Congressmen talk about, but a major overhaul. We need to stop taxing people who cannot afford it, and stop looking to government as a wetnurse. Government is not the driving force behind the economy, they are just another welfare bum, stealing money from all of us who pay taxes. The government is a drain on all financial institutions, but it was not designed to be, and it can still be of benefit to us all, if we are willing to pay attention, get involved, and work hard to fix the simple problems that are making it a bane on our wallets.
“A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s a direct quote from the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, despite the fact that it clearly says that the citizenry of America have the right to keep and bear arms, this has been in dispute for over a hundred years, because there are people who do not wish to see law abiding American citizens owning and carrying firearms. As obvious as the intentions of those anti-gunners can be, I do find it hard to understand how some who, in fact, support the right to keep and bear arms do not believe that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to carry a concealed weapon.
I have heard many argue against concealed carry’s Constitutionality based on Judicial precedents laid down by anti-gun judges as far back as 1840, however, it is clear to me that any and all rulings against the right of the people to carry concealed weapons are unconstitutional.
In many cases, anti-gun Judges of the past have claimed that the founding fathers never specified Concealed Carry in their writings, and therefore they must not have intended Americans to have the right to carry concealed. On the contrary, I feel that the founders did not specify Concealed Carry in the constitution, not because they were against it, but because they never considered it a separate right from the right to keep and bear arms openly. It should also be noted that all of the anti-gun judgements in courts started happening after the founders had died, and they were not present to object.
The courts have been spitting on the Constitution for over a hundred years, and just because some appointed Justice a hundred years ago said something does not mean we should keep upholding their bad rulings. The founders specified keeping and bearing arms, and allowing the 2nd Amendment to apply to Concealed Carry is no different than allowing the 1st Amendment to cover pictures. There is no mention of Pictures or photographs in the 1st Amendment, but visual items are now protected by freedom of speech, as a form of expression. How one expresses themselves via the 1st Amendment is protected, just as the way someone chooses to bear arms should be equally protected by the 2nd Amendment. They are exactly the same thing. Neither is specified, but both are implied, and would have been included had the founders had any idea that people would be arguing against them.
I will also point out that it is a slippery slope that we tread, when we start saying the government has a right to decide how we keep and bear arms. Since there is no specifications in the 2nd Amendment as to how one is allowed to carry their weapon, someone could just as easily argue that the government could demand that all firearms have trigger locks on them at all times while carried. It is no different than saying you’re not allowed to carry a weapon under a coat. It is simply the manner in which one is bearing arms, and any government restriction on how we are allowed to carry should be deemed “infringing” on our right to keep and bear arms, and clearly prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. What part of “Shall not be infringed” is unclear?
There is a fine line between a rock-solid Constitution and the "living document" many scholars debate about today, but I do not see classifying concealed carry as a 2nd Amendment right to have anything to do with altering the Constitution. It is a reaffirmation of a right that we were supposed to have from the start, and only defeats certain efforts to turn the Constitution into that living document, and erase our 2nd Amendment rights.
Anti-Gunners are nothing new, and there have been elitists in our Courts, Legislatures, and Congress trying to disarm our citizenry since its founding. As such, laws based on the corrupt precedents set down by anti-gunning legislatures or courts are tainted and no more in the spirit of the Constitution than the original rulings upon which they were founded. There will come a day when we have to concretely define the 2nd Amendment in modern terms, with absolute clarity and provisions to prevent judges from overruling it through Judicial activism. When that day comes, I fully intend to see Concealed Carry specified as covered by the 2nd Amendment.
There have been quite a few rumors running around lately, some dating back to last fall regarding a possible Liquified Natural Gas Terminal getting built in my home town of Robbinston, Maine. Whatever’s being planned is being planned behind closed doors, and has not yet been revealed officially to the general public, so I do not claim to know exactly what is planned, but we will all know in short order, as any such plan will have to come out.
The bits and pieces I have heard from several residents claim that the town of Robbiston currently owns a piece of land in the vicinity of Mill Cove, and there they plan to build a large, underground holding tank for the LNG. Wilder rumors speak of the LNG bringing in a town police force, a larger school, and a larger fire department, but none of that is anything more than stray whispers in the wind at the moment.
I bring this up to examine the different sides of this, and similar industrial proposals. Among the general populace, there are 3 typical sides which determine whether a community is for or against an industrial improvement in their area. Not considering those inside the deal, or any possible corrupt officials getting kick-backs, these are three typical attitudes of normal residents.
First, there is the pro-industrial side, who will assume that any and all industrial improvement is good, and we must approve of it in the name of progress, and to enhance future industrial growth. They do not care if the town benefits from this particular improvement, they believe that by simply being there it will invite other industrial projects which might be of benefit in the future.
Secondly, there is the anti-industrial side that will not care what kind of benefits such industry could provide to the town. They don’t want it anywhere near them. Industrial improvement would be an “eye-sore” for their elitist, ecology-minded friends, and all industry is evil, and should be kept away from their sleepy little corner of the world. They would rather we open Antique stores that sell rusty farm tools, or pottery barns that make malformed bowls than have any form of practical industry in the area.
The third and most common viewpoint is the “what do I get out of it” attitude. Most residents of most towns want to get a sweetheart deal to make up for any inconvenience that an industrial improvement will cause. They want to know their property taxes are going to go down, or simply go away. They want to get some of the product the industry makes, and they want to know that life is not going to become wholly inconvenient because of the presence of an industry.
I must say, I fall into the third category of people. I am not blindly pro-industry, and I am by no means an obstructionist who wants to shut all industry out of the area. I want some industry, but don’t want industry to destroy the peace and comfort of my home. I do not want to have an LNG plant built in my town and get nothing out of it other than a big terrorist target.
If the LNG is coming to Robbinston, and if I and the voting residents of the town have any say in the matter, as we should, I would make some demands before approving of such a construct being placed in my town. I would demand that the LNG pay for any and all “upgrades” to local municipalities it causes. If we need an extra fire truck and a full-time fire department, they’d better pay every cent of it.
Secondly, I do not expect to see my property tax hiked in the least. If this “improvement” in any way hikes up the price of real estate, I expect the tax rate to be lowered so I don’t pay anything more than I do at present.
Third, and possibly most important, I don’t want to see a bunch of out of state laborers building something on our soil. There are plenty of locals in need of good jobs, and I expect to see local people employed to build the LNG.
Additionally, I do not expect a bunch of new ordnances, stealing our current rights and privileges. I don’t want some state goon coming in and telling me I’m no longer allowed to discharge a firearm on my own property because of Homeland Security or some such crap. We shouldn’t need to have town cops, either, roaming around our streets, hassling the local residents. There is no need for a police force in our tiny town, as there is no crime, and I don’t see than an LNG terminal will change that.
It is not too much to expect that our way of life be preserved as much as possible. I do not want my rural Maine town turned into a municipal clone of Portland, Bangor, Eastport, or any other over-taxed hellhole. I expect to pay no additional taxes, have no additional restrictions on my personal conduct, and see to it that local people benefit now and in the long term from any industrial improvement built in their community. If this is too much to ask, then keep your LNG out of my back yard!
I’ll end with a comment on our local Selectmen. I must say, they have served our town well in the past, and that is why they have run unopposed for several terms. However, I would advise that they not cut any deal without allowing the people of our town a say in the matter. If there is an LNG plan in the works, I expect a vote at a special town meeting prior to anything going forward. If the voters don’t get their say on the LNG, then they’ll get their say at the polls next spring, and we’ll have different selectmen in office, that is if we don’t call a special election and recall them. However, I currently have faith in our selectmen, and expect they’d not do something so underhanded as to cut the voters out of the process.
Daring to step up to the plate and take a more active role in fighting excessive government, and assuring greater control over it by the citizens, I have taken it upon myself to collect signatures for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights petition. All information on this bill can be found at www.taxpayerbillofrights.com, but I would like to explain some of the key points about the bill in my own words, and explain why I am 100% behind it.
The Taxpayer Bill Of Rights gives the people control over their own government, and prevents corrupt bureaucrats from bankrupting the state through over-taxation. It requires that the legislature get a two-thirds vote in order to create or increase a tax or fee, abolish a tax exemption, or extend a tax or fee that is expiring. Following the two-thirds vote approval of the legislature on a tax/fee increase, the voters will then have to give it a majority approval at the general election. If we the people don’t want our taxes to go up to fund “Program X” then we will have the right to vote against it. If we think that “Program X” is a good thing, we will have the right to give the go ahead with a majority vote, and know beforehand how we’ll be affected by approving the tax increases ourselves.
This is the kind of system we have in small, rural towns, where we still have town meeting every year. We vote on the budget, and must approve any increase in spending. This will give all Mainers “Town Meeting” rights on the Statewide level, and bring back true Democracy. The people will once again run the government, rather than the government running the people.
The current state budget will be frozen at its current level, plus the rate of inflation and population growth. This will keep government efficient, and limit the need for higher taxation. It will make the bureaucrats in Augusta have to balance the State’s checkbook, just like every one of us has to with our own. Their spending cannot be extravagant and outlandish, but practical and responsible. This will slow spending growth to a reasonable rate.
In addition, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights will create the “Maine Budget Stabilization Fund.” This fund will be established to cover future deficits, to prevent tax increases in years when tax revenue does not manage to cover all budget needs. In years when tax revenue increases above and beyond what is needed to pay for what the budget currently funds, some of that excess will be deposited in this fund, which will not be touched unless there is a budget shortfall in a future year. The excess deposited in this fund will not exceed 10% of the last year’s budget.
Simple Mathematical example: Say the state budget expenses were 100 million last year. (a mythically low figure, I know). This year, taxes have brought in 120 million, but they only need 100 million dollars to fund programs. Since last year’s budget was only 100 million, a maximum of 10%, or 10 million dollars, can be saved in the Budget Stabilization Fund. The other 10 million dollars in extra revenue must be returned to the taxpayers (you and me!).
Additionally, the “Maine Highway Budget Stabilization Fund” will be created, and work near-identical to the regular “Budget Stabilization Fund,” only with the funds allocated to the Maine Highway fund. This will assure that highway funding is solvent during poor years, without tax increases.
Extra tax revenue taken by the government will be returned to the taxpayers. All tax money received above and beyond what is needed to fund the current State budget will be put into the Tax Relief Reserve Fund. Beyond the amount put into the Budget Stabilization Fund to prevent the need for future tax increases to cover deficits, the excess put in the Tax Relief Reserve Fund will be returned to the taxpayers in the form of temporary or permanent broad-based tax credits, rebates, or rate reductions.
Should we manage to get our Taxpayer Bill Of Rights, Maine State Government will no longer be allowed to take from us more than it needs. This “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” is exactly what Maine needs to prevent economic collapse, and I urge everyone to support it. The only people I forsee opposing this are those who don’t know much about TABOR and have bought into negative lies, Socialist spenders who believe in government owning everything, and those greedy bureaucrats who don’t want to be held accountable, while desiring free reign to do whatever they want with other people’s money.
I’ll start out by saying that there is nothing liberal about many of today’s “liberals.” The first key to distinguishing a true liberal from today’s batch of what I prefer to call “neo-liberals,” is whenever you confront a NeoLiberal with the fact that their Socialist philosophy is restrictive, oppressive, and unjust, they will commonly quote you the dictionary definition of liberal, saying that because they call themselves “liberal,” that means they must be what the dictionary says. They will commonly follow up with a textbook definition of Conservative, to defend their own prejudgement against you.
Let me now quote from my Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary: liberal, adjective, 1: Favoring progress or reform as in politics or religion. 2: Not intolerant or prejudiced. 3: Generous; lavish in giving. 4: Given freely or in large quantity; ample. 5: Not literal or strict. Noun; One having liberal opinions or convictions, especially in politics or religion.
Now, let us compare that textbook definition to modern NeoLiberal philosophies.
Number 1 may apply, as NeoLiberals are definitely interested in what they consider “progress and/or reform,” however that progress is toward Socialism, and non-liberals do not consider this to be positive.
Number 2 does not apply to most NeoLibs today. They are very intolerant and prejudiced against anyone who does not follow their Socialist beliefs. They in fact consider anyone “Conservative” to be intolerant, racist, facist and prejudiced, without any justification. Thus, the NeoLiberals are intolerant and prejudiced.
Number 3 applies in some respect. NeoLiberals are very generous, with other people’s money. Most of the wealthier liberals will never part with their family fortunes, but are more than eager to volunteer our tax dollars to the “less fortunate,” and even pillage funds from the less fortunate to fund other groups of less fortune whom they deem more deserving.
I must say that many who today call themselves “liberal” in a political sense are almost the antithesis of what the dictionary calls a liberal. Modern liberals are very limited in their belief structure, and demand that everyone and everything in the world around them conform to their set of beliefs. Anyone who does not live by their set of rules is generally a bigot, small-minded, or a fascist, and should be forced to believe what liberals believe. Quite a contradiction in their beliefs, isn’t there? Absolute intolerance for anyone who is “Conservative” is certainly a small-minded, bigoted, fascist belief, is it not? Hating people simply for having a different belief structure and not wanting to be forced to think or act according to someone else’s mandates is what the neolibs are doing when they blindly hate all Conservatives.
I have heard and read all sorts of excuses from neolibs about why they’re “allowed” to hate Conservatives. Most often, they will accuse Conservatives of the exact things they are guilty of; saying all Conservatives want to make liberals think and act like them, and exterminate those who don’t think the same way. A classic follow-up to that is “I have a right to be intolerant of the intolerant,” saying anyone who doesn’t think like them is being intolerant.
This philosophy of hating Conservatives for being haters only shows how poorly educated the typical neoliberal is. There is nothing “Conservative” about hatred. Very few Conservatives hate anybody. We are not driven by emotions of anger or dislike for others. I, for one, have better things to do than hate everybody who is different from me, and I am very politically Conservative.
One problem neoliberals have is differentiating “tolerance” from “acceptance.” Many liberals demand that everyone have acceptance of things that they believe, and think anyone not promoting what they desire is in opposition to it, and since they themselves hate anything they are against, they believe that a tolerant Conservative, who is not fully accepting of that which liberals believe, is full of hatred toward those who do believe.
The difference between tolerance and acceptance: Tolerance is being willing to put up with other people’s differences that you do not share, nor do you believe to be right, whereas acceptance is celebrating someone’s difference, and seeking to promote it, and encourage others to adopt that difference. Intolerance, on the other hand, is the desire to totally stomp out and destroy those who are different, however, to a neo-liberal, anyone who does not promote something such as Gay Marriage, or tax increases on the wealthy, is intolerant. Somehow, I don’t see the connection.
In a world of text-book definitions, the neoliberal is nothing at all liberal, whereas conservatives are quite liberal, and tolerant of differences and other opinions.
I have found that most everyone has times when their opinions or beliefs change in some way. For some people, it can be a drastic change, such as a hedonistic rocker who finally finds God. For others, it is a slow and methodical change, such as a liberal who slowly comes more in line with Conservative beliefs with age. Either way, even I on occasion find that my former beliefs evolve, though rarely in any drastic way. Since my beliefs are based on practicality, common sense, and an unwavering belief in individual liberty, I am solidly grounded.
However, I must admit, I was not always so grounded. There were times in my youth when my opinions were not as they are today, and I shall share a few with you.
I was once apathetic when it came to the subject of abortion. It’s true; I once sat in a high school class, listening to liberal teachers, thinking nothing could be wrong with aborting a pregnancy. There were very few issues on which I could agree with my liberal teachers, even then, but Abortion was one on which we could agree.
Once I went out into the real world, I began to see things differently. I slowly came to realize how precious life really is, and met a few children who had almost become abortions, themselves; children with unique personalities, that you could not ignore. I also looked at our nation, and saw that our native born workforce has shrunken, and the reason we import so many aliens is because there are millions of Americans who were not born to do the jobs these immigrants now perform. Overall, I have come to recognize that abortion simply for the personal convenience of the would-be parents is wrong.
When it comes to recreational drug use, my attitude has shifted a couple of times. When I was quite young, about nine or ten, I hated all drugs, though that opinion was one imparted upon me by my school teachers, and therefore not a valid belief. In my teenage years, I saw nothing particularly wrong with drugs, though I never personally sampled them, other than alcohol, which I tried and gave up on at 14. My attitude about drugs shifted once I saw firsthand the effect they were having on my friends and peers. I watched as my once close friends grew distant, and no longer gave a damn about much of anything. I lost too much to drugs, by not even using them, and became a fervent foe of narcotics.
Earlier this year, I advocated the execution of those who kill while driving drunk. I must admit that this was a short term shift in beliefs, brought on by anger after hearing about a particularly brutal accident in which a drunk driver wiped out an entire family, and got off with a virtual slap on the wrist. The currently weak drunk driving laws I still recognize as insufficient, but my advocating execution was a rare emotional outburst, and helped to illustrate the other extreme, since we are currently running a system at the opposite end of the spectrum, where drunken drivers are hardly punished at all in many cases. Drunk Driving laws need to be harsher, but execution should be held for those who murder or rape intentionally.
It just goes to show that everyone, even those stubbornly set in their beliefs, can change now and then. However, there are some things that will never change with me. First and foremost, I will never change my opinion on firearms freedom. The right to keep and bear arms should be absolute, and I will never, ever support gun control on the State or Federal level. We have more than enough gun laws on the books already.
Looking at the war on terror and the current situation going on in Iraq, if one sits back and observes it objectively, they can gain various perspectives on it. One which few people seem to perceive is the logical idea that Iraq has become a “Mosquito Magnet” for terrorists. It works much like that nifty little device. It draws in the terrorists, and there they are disposed of. It congregates them all into one spot, where they can be dealt with.
I must admit, it is not my analogy, but one created by my father, though I fully support his conclusion that Iraq really is a big death trap for terrorists, designed to keep our enemies busy there, and distracted so they do not attempt another 9/11.
With the recent base closure recommendations regarding Portsmouth Naval shipyard, Brunswick Naval Air Station, and so many other important military bases in the Northeastern United States, it is clear that this will create another “magnet” of sorts.
It is clear that the base closures suggested would leave the New England states virtually defenseless against a foreign invasion. One might consider it a practical impossibility to invade the United States from New England, since it is surrounded by Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, with no obvious enemy nearby. However, needless to say, leave a chunk of the United States undefended, and you are inviting invaders.
I am not one for conspiracy theories or off the wall accusations, however I must say it has crossed my mind that if the suggested base closures go through, and New England has the vast majority of the military forces relocated, it is setting the stage for turning this region into yet another Iraq-style Magnet. This could be the unintentional consequence of the base closures.
People may say it’s insane, but there is a not-so-slim possibility that China will attack the United States sometime in the next two decades. It wouldn’t be difficult for China to take over Canada, especially not with their Socialist open borders policy and tiny, inefficient military. Following a march across Canada, or a transport ship convoy to the Atlantic Canadian provinces, the Chinese could easily swarm into New England, and here would be where they would stay, bottled up; trapped in an all American Mosquito Magnet.
Or, in the not so distant future, when the corrupt dictators who run the United Nations finally decide America is a “Rogue Nation” and seek to send in troops to impose international law upon us, New England would be the first stop on their invasion plan. Yet again, they would be held at bay here, and their forces would be weakened significantly enough to prevent their conquest.
I have no desire to see my homeland of Maine turned into a battleground, specifically set up to drain enemy resources so the rest of the country can survive. No part of our nation should be left vulnerable to foreign invasion. Regardless of intention, it is a stupid plan to shut down military bases in New England. There will come a day that we need our soldiers in the vicinity of our northern border, and there is absolutely no excuse for leaving any sizable chunk of our nation open to invaders.
Note: I am currently working on an article concerning the various LNG facilities planned for Robbinston, but my work schedule at present is strenuous and tight. Therefore, I must submit this regularly scheduled article, but assure you my overview of the Downeast LNG proposal, as well as the new Quoddy Bay LLC proposal, should appear in the next 2 weeks.
I was listening to a liberal radio person the other day, and was not in the least surprised to hear her “concerns” about President Bush’s plan for limited privatization of social security. She had the typical liberal talking point, about people “not being smart enough” to know where to invest their money, and if people were allowed access to their own tax dollars they would lose all their investment, starve to death, etc… Thankfully, a caller soon countered her claims, explaining the relatively small percentage of SS funds that would be privatized, that it was an optional program that taxpayers could choose not to use, and that the kind of investments that taxpayers would be allowed to buy would be very low risk, and currently provide 10% positive return, as opposed to the less than 2% return one gets from a savings account, or the negative return that the current Social Security plan provides when the money is diverted to Washington and thrown into the general fund, to be spent on programs other than Social Security.
This kind of pessimism is not an isolated viewpoint. I hear it constantly from liberals across America, and in my own state. They constantly complain about proposals that would give people more control over their own lives, and limit the range and scope of government bureaucracy. Anything that gives people a choice over their own finances is evil and risky, whereas redistribution of people’s wealth by government is great and wise. The attitude is that only elected bureaucrats have the foresight and wisdom to know what to do with the money that we earn, and therefore they must take it from us to make sure we can’t waste it.
When I hear this kind of liberal reasoning, I am not struck with any kind of respect for those preaching it. In fact, I feel insulted, for it is arrogant, elitist reasoning. It says that people are too stupid to do anything on their own, that we average citizens are idiot children who need the government to babysit us, and make our decisions for us. This is the attitude espoused by the vast majority of Democrats in Washington, and by many people in intellectual fields, such as colleges or universities.
Thanks to the reasoning that people are incapable of governing their own affairs and looking after their own money, America has devolved into a welfare state, and it gets worse every year, as more “entitlements” are invented by the elected politicians, and more money is taken from the pocket of working Americans to pay for these entitlements. A lot of people these days think they deserve these entitlements, simply because they are alive. I have to tell you that in America nobody is supposed to be entitled to anything except that which is detailed in the Constitution, which is summarized as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All that we are guaranteed is that which we can earn, or that which we can convince others to give us out of the kindness of their hearts.
Despite its size, the government of the United States is still “of the people.” Each and every one of us who pays taxes is a part of it, and those who don’t work and receive government checks are being supported by the good will of the tax payers. Now, we as taxpayers today don’t have a say about how much we wish to give to this charity that is government, and our choice on how our charity (tax) funds are spent is limited by those we elect to represent us, but it is still purely charity, which taxpayers each give to government. Mind you, we are basically giving it out at the barrel of a gun, but we still choose to give it up freely, rather than face the consequences of not being charitable.
It is totally unreasonable to think that the people of America are incapable of making decisions on their own, and it is further unreasonable to think that a select few Americans who happen to be elected bureaucrats, are capable of making all decisions for all Americans. This nation was founded on the principle that all men were created equal, and that everyone is free to run their life without excessive government restriction or control. It’s about time we worked toward getting back to that sort of government, where it does not make choices for us, but we make choices for it, and charity is once again a choice, not a mandate.
I must say, when I first heard of a proposed Liquified Natural Gas terminal to be built in my home town of Robbinston, I was skeptical and suspicious. My previous column about the rumors that had been circulating explained many of my concerns. However, now that the project is a very possible reality, and the facts and offers have been laid out on the table for us all to see, I am able to solidify my position on the LNG.
First, some praise for Downeast LNG. I must say that these guys have offered even more than I would have asked for to tolerate an LNG in Robbinston. They have agreed to offer jobs for local residents, offered to pay to upgrade our fire department, and will be contributing a massive amount of property tax revenue, which will help keep our taxes down. They’ve also offered to build a new school, if people are concerned about the proximity of the facility to Robbinston Grade School, which is half a mile from the proposed site. They’ve also offered to pay for whatever other little costs may be incurred because of their terminal, and compensate landowners who may be adversely affected.
There are a few additional things I’d like to get out of this project, and there are also a few things I’d like to not get out of it.
First, there has been talk of a proposed town Police force. Robbinston is a small town, and just because we build an LNG facility does not mean we need a bunch of town cops. The terminal will have its own security personnel, and any local Police would be very bored, and have nothing better to do than spy on the residents and hassle us. I do not break the law, and do not plan to, but that does not mean I want more government goons keeping tabs on me to be assured that I am as law-abiding as I claim to be. Our town does not need its own Police force, and I will fight any attempt to ruin our town with such a squad.
Secondly, I would still like to see the residents of Robbinston receive some of this gas. They’re going to build a 400 million dollar terminal, so what would it take for them to put in a few distribution lines and let us have some gas for our homes. We would be buying it from them, after all. The least they could do is set it up so we would have access to the LNG, as opposed to it just being sent through our town to a pipeline, to be used by people elsewhere in New England.
My third concern is that the people of Robbinston will suddenly go wild with the increased tax revenue this facility will produce. Instead of allowing the LNG facility to cover our current tax needs, they will jack up spending on everything, making us wholly dependent on the terminal, which is initially planned to be a 30 year facility. When it is dismantled in 30 years, we will be stuck with extremely high tax bills and no services. The people must be fiscally responsible for the LNG tax revenue to be of benefit.
There are a number of people in Robbinston who are opposed to the LNG facility, and the reason of their opposition varies greatly, based on their personal interests. One particular group is opposed to any economic development here, unless it involves some artsy-craftsy project, like weaving baskets or making stained glass. Many of these people are not native to this land, and most are financially well off. In other words, they already have money, and don’t care about the commoners who are lucky to have enough to eat, and have to bust their rumps to make a living. I only hope that this faction does not prevail in their attempts to sink our town’s one chance at economic prosperity.
My final concern regards the proposal from Quoddy Bay LLC. These goons from Oklaholma only announced a project in Robbinston after Downeast LNG came to us and gave our town a square deal. Downeast came to the people first, and told us about everything they planned to do, and offered the town the right to vote on the project. Quoddy bay simply showed up at a Planning Board meeting, said they’ll be applying for permits when they feel like it, and the voters wouldn’t ultimately have a say in the matter. Quoddy Bay spit in the face of our town, and basically said they’re going to build whatever they want, and to hell with the locals. Mind you, Quoddy Bay’s proposal is pretty far-fetched and ill-planned, so it likely just an attempt to shut down Downeast LNG’s plans, which only pisses me off more!
Now, all of a sudden, after insulting our town and playing around with corporate strong-arm tactics, Quoddy Bay is getting friendly, inviting the people of Robbinston to a meeting, like the one Downeast LNG had in the first place, to present their official proposal and offer us goodies. I say it’s too little too late. They didn’t talk to the townspeople first. They didn’t even talk to our town’s Selectmen first. Their disrespect for our town has soured any dealings they have planned between us. If they knew what was good for them, they’d move on to another town, and start negotiations the right way, without the big corporate attitude.
I will report back with more as things develop.
I am not afraid to admit that I can come off as offensive at times. When talking about serious matters, I can be blunt, and do not sugar-coat or tiptoe around what I know and believe. In my writings, I am notorious for “shooting straight from the hip.”
One thing that greatly disturbs me these days is that these very qualities that make me an honest, straight shooter seem to disqualify me from political office in the eyes of many. These days, it would seem that in order to be considered a viable candidate for an elected office, you must be a mealy-mouthed snake, who tells everyone one thing, means another, and plays to both sides of every issue. I see it from the vast majority of politicians, and I must say it is not pleasing.
Some people would claim that these politicians have to be phony in order to get elected, that they are only this way because it’s required of them. I do not believe that. In my recent journeys amongst the people, I have not found anyone who is particularly happy with any of our elected officials, and the main reason is because of the phony games they play to get elected. When a politician says something to get elected, they are not really being elected. The lies they’re spouting are being elected, and if they do not follow through on their promises, or at least try to follow through, then they are voiding the votes that put them into office.
I do not believe that you have to be phony and two-faced to get elected. I believe the only reason we have so many bad bureaucrats winning elections is because so many people think that’s how you get elected. There is no “honest, straight shooter” candidate on the ballot. Sure, there are some who claim to be honest, but that is just another lie; a part of their campaign.
This illusion that you have to be a fraud and a liar, promising every side everything, even if things contradict each other, is keeping a lot of honest, qualified citizens from running for office, because they don’t want to become corrupt bureaucrats, and they don’t think they can win without selling out. This has to change if we wish our nation to remain strong, and wish for our children to remain citizens of a free country.
There must be a way to prove that an honest man can win a serious political race. I know it will come to me in time…
I will be attending the Penobscot County Conservation Club Annual Gun Show, at the Bangor Auditorium on September 10th. I may be found there early in the day, likely before noon, and will as usual be on the lookout for fine firearms to add to my collection. I am particularly fond of lever action rifles, and will be in the market for a decent 1892 Winchester, possibly something in .32-20 (.32 WCF).
I know there are many anti-gunning fanatics out there who would like nothing better than to shut down gun shows such as this, where Americans congregate in significant numbers to buy and sell firearms. However, today I do not wish to go into detail about them, or head into my usual hard-hitting opinions. For once, I’m just going to have a little fun, and talk about the Gun Show.
My earliest memory of the Bangor gun show is when I was 10, and my father took me on his then annual excursion. We looked around a lot, though he didn’t find anything that particularly interested him. However, he did buy me my first firearm, a .38 special Colt Police Positive revolver, which I still have to this day.
Following that, I did not have the opportunity to visit the gun show until I was 21. It was then that I first went with my future wife, Jenna. It wasn’t the greatest year for the gun show, as I had little money, and everything I saw seemed over-priced, but I did manage to find a clunky, bolt action 16 gauge shotgun for $75. It has been dubbed “the shredder” for its effect on red squirrels and other small nuisance animals.
The following year, I was married, had a little more cash on hand, and scored a couple of nice rifles. One in particular will be sticking with me for as long as I live, a Marlin 336 Sporting Carbine in .32 Winchester Special. I got it for $175 (tax included) because the finish was all but gone, and there were a few spots of rust on the outside, but the bore was perfect. As soon as I got it home, I also learned that the firing pin was broken, but that was easily replaced for $15, and now it’s the best lever action I’ve got.
At that same gun show, I also picked up a decent Model 8 Remington in .32 Rem caliber, which was something my father had always wanted.
I missed the gunshow in 2003, but in 2004 I was raring to go, and while there I bought a costly mistake. A 1907 Winchester autoloader for $200. It was a cheap oddity, but not cheap to shoot. $60 a box for the odd .351 WSL ammo it takes, plus $65 for a set of reloading dies, and $80 for a custom made bullet mold. I must say, the thing is neat to shoot, but it is ugly, heavy, and it just isn’t something you want to shoot everyday.
This year will hopefully be better than the last few years. As I said, I’m in the market for a decent ’92 Winchester, but if I don’t see one that is both satisfying to the eye and to my wallet, I will also be looking for a nice magnum revolver, preferably a Ruger Redhawk in .44 magnum. I’m also after a ’94 Winchester in .25-35, a Marlin 1893 in .32-40, a Winchester Model 54 in .22 hornet or .270, a Remington Model 14 pump rifle, a Remington Model 25 pump, and many other odds and ends, including Ammo to feed what I already have, and anything I might pick up.
See you in Bangor on September 10th!
One thing that troubles me now and then is the general public’s feelings regarding our elected officials. It seems that in many cases, people hold the opinion that those we have elected, be they a local legislator or a Congressional Senator in Washington, are somehow better than those of us who do not sit in political office. I find it equally frustrating to see these individuals held up like monarchy by some, who are interested in creating a new class system in America.
The elected offices of government were originally set up and designed to be filled by normal people, with everyday jobs, and everyday educations. They were not set up to be positions of stature, or a career. Being elected to a Legislature or Congress does not make you a better person, nor should it change the way people see you. As a representative of the people, one should be no more than a civil servant, not a member of some elite ruler sub-class.
Getting elected does change people, however, and it is not always for the better. On the contrary, many elected officials become far worse people when they are influenced by the power they suddenly hold, and by their fellows who wish to utilize their power. Once elected officials hit Washington or a State Capital, the others who’ve been there a while pull them aside and tell them “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” or “I know your dirty secret, now do what I say or everyone will know about it!” This is one reason I say we should demand full disclosure from our elected officials, because if we don’t know their secrets, those who do can use them against us.
It is important that people across America start realizing that their elected officials are nothing special. It does not take any true talent to get elected to most offices. It only requires one to be a better craftsman of words, a debater of the inane, or someone with a gripe that others can relate to. This does not make them heroes, or monarchs, or above any one of us who does not sit in their office. They are not above us, and we should not treat them as if they are.
I must admit, I, myself, waste more time than I should. Games, hobbies, entertainment; it all adds up to a lot of time I’m doing nothing of any practical value. Mind you, I would never seek a joyless life of pure work, physical or intellectual, but there are times when you have to sit back and wonder, “Why do we do it?”
Better than most, I know the value of hard labor, of creating something, building something, fixing something; performing a task necessary for the stability of human civilization. I also understand the importance of intellectual works, of scientific computation, monetary accounting, or theoretical formulation.
Seeking the answers to existence, as most anyone with a brain has done, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that humanity’s current goal is to advance, physically and technologically. It is the only thing that makes sense to a logical mind, as there is little else mankind is capable of doing at its present state of advancement. Our goal is to progress, and better ourselves. How one defines “bettering oneself” can vary, though.
It is quite clear we are born with the desire to better ourselves. I don’t think anyone is born wanting to become evil, to destroy society, or to be contrary to human nature. Mind you, some learn to become contrary through upbringing or bad experiences with life, and even in these circumstances, the vast majority of “evil-doers” still consider themselves the heroes. They feel they are bettering themselves, though in most cases they don’t understand that you cannot better yourself by hurting others, with the possible exception of punishing wrongdoers.
In us is an innate sense of purpose; though completely non-specific and undefined. We feel the sense that we must do something of value, but don’t know what that is, or have any set formula for determining that value. Therefore, throughout life, we try to find activities to satisfy ourselves.
For most of us, accruing useless information through movies or television can sometimes satisfy the desire for intellectual advancement. It gives a false satisfaction of learning new things, and advancing one’s intellect. However, in most cases, it is a waste of time and teaches you nothing. Even watching history or science programs is not as effective as reading the same material in print. At least, it isn’t for me.
Games, likewise, can give you a satisfaction of accomplishing something. Playing a board game, or video game, you are challenged mentally in various aspects, and various parts of your mind are stimulated and heightened during the gameplay. Therefore, we get the sense that we are solving problems, or learning something new, when it really has no meaning at all.
Hobbies in some cases can be a positive advancement, but for the most part they are likewise of little meaning. Constructive hobbies, such as building models, furniture, or even writing creates something in the process, though in many cases it is only a distraction from reality. Some hobbies, like collecting sports cards or coins, can have a monetary significance if you’re investing, or an historical significance, if you study their background, but collecting just for accumulation sake is only entertainment, and serves no greater purpose. But it feels like you’re accomplishing something, and that is what matters.
Despite all the time wasted, and why we feel the need to fiddle, it does all work to satisfy our need for something more in our lives. Many of us cannot be part of the grand advancement of mankind. Our skills or natural abilities do not permit us to work in the most prestigious of fields, advancing the world’s understanding of existence, or making scientific discoveries. However, we each do our little part to prop-up the world around us, and make it possible for those who are in important positions to do their jobs, and make the discoveries for us.
The little distractions we create for ourselves, that we waste our time on, are all important to keeping us sane, and giving us the feeling of satisfaction we must create to stay sane. Therefore, there are no wastes of time, after all; only different uses.
There is little that confounds me more than people who actually believe that higher taxation will somehow encourage economic growth. However, there are plenty of them out there who truly believe that higher taxes will make people want to work harder, and encourage them to make more money for the government.
Let’s just go over a few common sense aspects of taxes.
My first point today concerns the emotional impact taxation has on those who work and earn money. When a tax is increased, or new taxes are imposed, those who work and pay those taxes are not going to be happy, to say the least. Sure, some who earn significant amounts of money and can afford to pay the tax may be more inclined to apathy regarding the tax, but anyone who cares about their financial well-being and aren’t well off cannot afford such a luxury as apathy, and notice when more money is being taken from their paycheck to fund the government bureaucracy.
If you know you will have more money taken from you for working harder, why work harder? What is the incentive to generate greater revenue if you are not going to be earning more for your effort? When more money is taken from the working man, he is inclined to work less hard, and earn less money, since the more he earns the larger the percentage he will pay in taxes.
Second in today’s taxation equation; the circulation factor. I’ve gone over this point before. If you earn a dollar, and the government takes fifty cents for taxes, then that fifty cents taken for taxes is virtually dead, and produces no future tax revenue. However, if the government only takes ten cents, then there will be ninety cents, rather than fifty cents, being spent again and again, generating more tax revenue through circulation. More people earn more money, so more tax money will be collected from more people, and the individual burden is less. If all the money just gets grabbed from the first earner, then they cannot employ or patronize others, and those others do not generate that extra revenue, and therefore less tax revenue is generated. It is simple math, for anyone with a grade school education.
My third point ties in with my second; the employment factor. If people are able to keep more of their money, then they will hire more people to do jobs. If someone keeps an extra thousand dollars, instead of paying a higher tax rate, then they will feel more inclined to pay a laborer to fix their cellar wall, or paint their house. This will, in turn, allow other people to earn a living and pay taxes, rather than find themselves in need of government welfare or charity to survive. If more people are able to work, then need for taxes to fund welfare will plummet, thereby saving tax revenue for more constructive public projects, such as highway repair.
Overall, it is a very ignorant thing to believe that higher taxes are a good thing for the citizens of America. Limited taxation may be required for the smooth functioning of modern society, but there seems to be nothing “limited” about taxes these days. It’s time bureaucrats both in Washington and in state legislatures and local municipalities stopped mismanaging the tax revenue they are getting and demanding more to make up for their corrupt handling of it. There is more than enough money going to every governing body across the nation today. The only problem with monetary shortfalls comes from their poor financial planning and lack of common sense, and in some cases plain, old fashioned greed is to blame. They desire more money, more power, and more control for the rising social class of career politicians. It’s time people stopped falling for their lies.
Today, I received a lovely piece of paper in the mailbox; State Representative Anne Perry’s Legislative Update. It’s always nice when politicians take time out of their busy schedules to print out a mass mailing to tell their constituents what they’ve been up to. However, in the case of Anne Perry, it’s more of a “damage control” propagandist rag. There is so much spin that it makes you dizzy trying to read it, so I feel overwhelmed to tell the truth and “translate” her claims, so everyone can understand what she’s been up to.
Part 1: Making Healthcare Affordable.
As someone who works in the medical fields, it’s no surprise that Anne Perry would be interested in providing affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, that is not what she’s done. Here’s what she claims:
“Strengthened Dirigo Health –Maine’s first-in-the-nation low-cost health care plan for small businesses and working families; the new plan is now the fastest growing in the state of Maine.”
First of all, it’s the fastest growing because government is ramming it down our throats, and forcing a lot of people to take it, and the truth is Baldacci’s Socialist Medicine brainchild is nothing short of a disaster. I have spoken to citizens who actually pay more for the Dirigo Health plan than they did for their private insurance. Dirigo is a hoax, costing the taxpayers of Maine millions upon millions of dollars for “universal” coverage, which is nothing more than the government becoming an insurance broker, giving kick-backs to a handful of insurance companies. Sorry, Anne, but I don’t see that you’ve done anything but increase the bureaucracy and try to put band-aids on the Dirigo Cancer!
Next she claims to have “Worked to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for Mainers by creating a plan to purchase lower cost prescription drugs from other states and countries like Canada.” This would seem like a good idea, but it’s not. Firstly, the reason drugs are priced lower in Canada is because their government pays for a percentage of the cost, so we’re just working to jack up the taxes of Canadians. You may say “who cares about the Canadian tax-payers, I want my drugs!” True enough, you should look out for your own interests first, but what happens when Canada suddenly decides to bar us from buying their prescription drugs when they fear shortages, or their government gets tired of subsidizing American sales? I do not see anything here but a short term fix, which does not address the true problem of high-cost prescription drugs in America.
“Protected the health care coverage of nearly 40,000 Mainers, ensuring the cost of their care is not passed on to other Mainers through higher insurance premiums.” I am not sure which legislation she’s referring to with this, but I assume she just helped increase the number of Mainers on public assistance healthcare, which in turn does push the cost onto other Mainers.
Part 2: Growing Small Business.
I would like to know exactly how she can claim to have helped small business, when all she’s done is drive nails into the coffins of entrepreneurships across our state since day one of this session. I am further stunned at how politicians can take credit for “making jobs.” Let’s have a look at her claims:
“Submitted over 15 bills to create opportunities for small businesses and streamline paperwork.” Bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. In other words, she submitted bills to jack up taxes to pay for more government handouts to select businesses. As a small business owner, myself, all I’ve seen is more taxes on everything, more regulation, and more bureaucracy, making it more difficult for small businesses to meet government demands. I don’t see that the legislature has done anything to “streamline paperwork.” If anything, the state government now demands you file more papers for them!
“Strengthened Dirigo Health…” Oh, we’re back on this crap again. It shows how weak her arguments are if she has to recycle Dirigo Health into “helping” small business.
“Created the Office of Small Business and Entrepreneurship to focus on the needs of small business.” In other words, she helped invent a new government office to pay some of Baldacci’s buddies a hundred grand a year in taxpayer dollars to sit on their fat rumps and do nothing of value. More Big Government Bureaucracy! This doesn’t help small business.
“Required state agencies to encourage and assist small business in applying for state contracts.” So, instead of simply taking a lower bid from a bigger company, State Government agencies are asked to help “small” businesses apply, wasting time and resources, with no guarantee that the small business will get the contract. These state employees "assisting" small businesses are paid by the taxpayers, you must realize. This will just result in higher taxation to pay more government workers, and will cause the death of more small businesses!
Considering Maine was just ranked 49th for small business survival among the 50 States, I dare say her “help” hasn’t done much good!
Part 3: A Stronger Economy:
She starts off bragging that she’ll have helped create forty six hundred new jobs by ramming through an 83 million dollar bond package (deficit spending by another name). She doesn’t tell you that you, your children, and your grandchildren will be paying millions upon millions of dollars in interest on this borrowed money, in addition to the initial 83 million dollars borrowed. More tax hikes in the future for short term gains. It doesn’t strengthen the economy one bit!
“$33 million for transportation projects, including road and bridge repairs, ferry upgrades, and pedestrian and bike trails.” If the government was financially responsible, and wasn’t so intent on wasting money on stupid programs like Dirigo Health, we wouldn’t need to borrow money to fix our roads. Also, until the state can manage its affairs properly, and actually fix the potholes on the highways, I think we can live without more “bike trails.”
“$12 million for the Land for Maine’s Future program, conserving public access to natural landscapes and initiating a pilot program to protect working waterfronts.” In other words, $12 million dollars to buy up private land and give it to the government, to move one step closer to their North-Woods park! More land off the tax rolls, and a higher property tax burden on the rest of us; less land for economic development, and more for yuppies from Massachusetts to play in. It’s another scheme to increase the size and scope of government. We can’t manage the parks we have now. Why are we blowing more money to increase the burden on our forestry service workers and the Maine taxpayers?!?
“$20 million for economic development initiatives, including career centers, research and development, and venture capital for small business.” Hey, instead of creating more bureaucracy, why don’t you stop taxing the crap out of Mainers, and let us make our own venture capital? We don’t need “nanny government” to push economic development. We need government to get the hell out of our way and let us make our own jobs!
“$9 million for higher education, including campus building renovations.” More pork for “big education.” Considering most of our “higher education” graduates are forced to leave the state to find work, I don’t see why we need to keep jacking up taxes to fund more education programs that don’t help our economy, but drain it.
“8.9 million for environmental projects, including upgrades to public sewer and water systems.” Great, those of us in rural Maine get to pay for cities like Portland to have cleaner sewers and water. This is really something the local municipalities are supposed to handle themselves, but their local bureaucracy mismanages its funds, so it needs to beg the State to do it for them. Sorry, but we shouldn’t be borrowing money to pay for such a localized project.
Needless to say, I will be voting against the Bond Package this November 8th!
I’d like to note here that Anne Perry voted against Maine’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) when it was before the legislature. She opposed the people having any say in their taxes, and against reasonable growth limits to government spending. To assure that Mainers could decide this on their own, people such as myself had to circulate petitions to put it on the 2006 ballot. She doesn’t think Maine voters should have a say in their taxes, and will likely lobby against this with terror tactics and lies!
Part 4: Safeguarding Maine Families: (This catch phrase generally means more nuisance laws and bureaucratic red tape to restrict the freedoms of Maine citizens and businesses.)
“Required drug companies to make public the results of all clinical trial results –good and bad –for new prescription drugs.” Okay, you actually did something I agree with, Anne. I don’t see anything wrong with this. Good job!
“Established a Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund to help educate parents and prevent lead poisoning of Maine children, and required landlords to disclose lead-paint risks.” More government bureaucracy! Apparently, there are parents who have recently emigrated from Planet Mars who don’t know that lead isn’t good for you! She also omits the fact that this is funded by a new tax on every gallon of paint sold in Maine. More tax penalties on everyone!
“Protected Mainers from identity theft by requiring businesses to let you know if your personal and financial information has been stolen.” Again, another good idea. Thanks for signing on to this common sense, Anne.
“Made our communities safer by extending the sex offender registry back an additional 10 years.” This is a good idea, but I don’t think it goes far enough. We need to increase penalties on sex offenders, and stop giving them slaps on the wrist for their crimes. I do not see that she has sponsored anything that would inflict harsher penalties on perverts. This is really just bureaucratic “fluff” to appease the apathetic voter.
“Passed new laws to curb the production of methamphetamines.” What, by putting cough syrup behind the counter at drug stores? Truly a minor step, which does nothing to address Maine’s drug problem. Again, we need harsher penalties for these drug pushers and their junkie clientele. More political fluff is not going to fix anything.
Part 5: Guarantee fairness, civil rights.
Now, she brags about ramming the special Gay Rights law on the people of Maine. She omits the fact that she fought to deny the citizens a say in the matter, and individuals had to collect 57,000 signatures to force a referendum vote. Apparently, since Mainers voted against this same kind of special rights law in 1998 and 2000, she doesn’t feel confident that Mainers share her desire to make Homosexuals and other sexual deviants a “protected class.” I certainly hope she’s right and Maine voters veto her “hard work” on November 8th by voting YES on #1, to repeal these special rights!
Part 6: Enjoying The Outdoors:
“Allow crossbow hunting for bear and November deer hunting.” This is all very good, though she had little to do with it.
“Create an ATV Council to promote and finance a trail system, curb misuse, and help protect landowner rights.” AKA: Invented more government bureaucracy and oversight. I’m sure there are some nice, high paying government desk jobs for Baldacci’s cronies on this new council.
“Start an open season for turkey hunting, eliminating the lottery.” Again, all very good, but what did Anne Perry have to do with it? I’d also add that there aren’t any Turkeys to hunt in her district, so it has no effect on us!
“Create a sportsmen’s license plate to help fund the initiatives of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.” Created another optional tax for people to help fund a special government agency.
“Lower license fees for resident sportsmen.” What, after you jacked the price up last year? In other words, people complained that their hunting licenses had gone up an obscene amount, so the fee had to come down a little. It’s still not where it was before Anne Perry and Baldacci’s buddies in the legislature hiked it up.
In conclusion, I would like to say that Anne Perry has done very little for the people of legislative District #31. She has simply voted the way John E. Baldacci has told her to vote on the major issues, including whether we, the voters, should decide about having a Casino, about TABOR, about special Gay Rights, about taxes, about Dirigo Health, and about virtually everything else. I dare you to find a single law that she has approved that Baldacci has opposed, and vise versa. She is a party loyalist, and at the moment her party is owned by Baldacci’s bureaucratic machine, which is staunchly opposed to any kind of economic growth in Washington County.
I would also like to say how thoroughly disappointed (though not surprised) I am that she didn’t include any LD numbers, or any reference to the actual legislation she helped pass that did these miraculous things she claims. It implies that she doesn’t want anyone to easily reference those laws, and see that her claims are a pack of lies!
Rural Mainers deserve better than Anne C. Perry!
Attention readers in District #31: Feel free to print out this article and show it to friends. The truth must be known and circulated.
So, Tuesday’s election is yet another blow against the maine taxpayer and to common sense. Yet again, a slim majority of voters have worked to make life a little worse in the future, with lack of insight and uneducated fantasies.
Question 1: Now, after the third time at the ballot box with this same kind of legislation, Maine has finally failed to repeal a “Gay Rights” amendment, and this one is by far the worst of the 3. This law is so weakly worded that it holds many consequences normal people aren’t even considering. This legislation is not specifically about “Gay Rights.” It is about denying “discrimination” based on “Sexual Orientation,” and Sexual Orientation can mean just about anything.
A Pedophile is someone who is “sexually oriented” toward prepubescent children. A “zoophile” is someone whose “sexual orientation” attracts them to animals. With the weak wording of the law, it will not be long before these very disgusting groups of people begin to fight for their right to be “added” to the “orientation” clause, and this law easily makes their case for them in court!
Be prepared to see male cross-dressers teaching school classes in full drag. Their “transgendered” orientation is specifically protected by this law, so a 3rd grade teacher would be able to sue to stay on the staff and teach our 9 year olds about “dressing up,” and suggesting to them that they might be Gay, and want to seek same sex relations.
And Gay Marriage is just a stone’s throw away now, thanks to this law. It will not be long before gay rights groups start suing our state, saying that denying someone the right to marry another of the same sex is “discrimination” and therefore prohibited by this law.
Many of you fine people out there who voted No on 1 in the name of fairness really aren’t thinking of this kind of stuff happening, and many of you are likely in denial and wholly dubious about these very likely consequences of this newly enacted legislation, but time will prove me right, and I hope you are able to break away from the slow and methodical brainwashing that the sexual deviant lobby is attempting to implant upon society.
Question one also goes to show that if you don’t get what you want the first time, just keep passing the same stupid legislation and shoving it on people with different wording each time, until you finally get the results you want.
The Bond issues: I’ve spoken about bonds before in the past, and am tired of repeating myself. Every time you vote for a bond, you are in effect voting for a tax hike, and for deficit spending. This is exactly what a bond is. It is deficit spending by another means. With at least 4 of the 5 bonds passed (#6 is still too close to call at the time of this writing), government will now borrow those millions of dollars in “bond” money from various financial institutions, and have to pay that money back at a high interest rate over the coming years. This means higher taxes to pay for these bonds plus the interest they incur.
My fellow Mainers, we have been approving every bond issue that comes down the pike for decades now, and what have we gotten out of it? Where’s the prosperity? Where are these mythical jobs that the bonds are supposed to create? If the last hundred bond issues haven’t done a damn thing to help our communities and the state, why the hell are we still voting for the same stupid crap that isn’t doing any good? Sure, it may all sound great, the way the greedy, spendthrift legislators write up the bond questions, but we are getting no results!
The next time you think about supporting a bond, instead of reading the sales pitch the legislature has written for you to read, stop and look in your wallet and ask yourself if you really want to be paying millions upon millions more in taxes to pay off the deficit these bonds create, and think about your children and grandchildren paying off these same debts after you are long gone! Maine is now billions of dollars in debt. How much more can we take before the system finally breaks?
Overall, Tuesday was just a repeat of every election I’ve ever taken part in. I must say, I’m on the right side, but would like that to also be the winning side one of these days.
I have a dream; a dream that there could be a town just for people with my political mindset, a place where Conservative values are dominant, and liberal lunacy is limited. I know there are likely many such places in this great country of ours, and there are even a few in this state of Maine, believe it or not, but it is just by sheer coincidence that such towns exist. None were initially founded as Conservative havens.
It may be a taboo to talk about having a “segregated” community, where a group of like-minded people could live, but even among Conservatives there are large divides. It’s not like everyone would be “the same,” exactly. It would just be a place for similar minds to live in peace and harmony with each other, without those annoying “Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers on the neighbor’s car.
I have long thought of how easy it would be to start your own town here in Maine, if only you had the financial resources to do it. Of course, you’d need to be wealthy to really make it a success, but it would not be a charitable exercise, but a speculative investment. If done properly, you could easily double your money in a few years, while being the founder of a special town for Conservatives. It could be any well-off Conservative, but I would especially love it if Rush Limbaugh could get on board with something like this. That way, we could call the town “Limbaugh, Maine” and that would really burn the rear ends of those lefties in Augusta!
I haven’t looked into all the legal hassles of incorporating a town, but I don’t imagine it would be too hard if you actually had a community set up in unorganized territory and had a lawyer worth his degree to help out.
For a couple of million dollars, one could easily buy a big chunk of an empty township in Washington County. Somewhere off Route 9, perhaps somewhere near Wesley, would be a good place to target. Buying the land would be the easy part; just find the right paper company willing to sell, and you’re in business.
The next step would be to subdivide all the land. Town planning isn’t really that hard when setting up from scratch, and it could be easily done with a map, a ruler, and a bulldozer. Make a “Main Street” and a few side roads, and you’re ready to start cutting up that land into 2 or 3 acre lots (plenty of breathing space for our community homes).
Once you have a few hundred lots, you start building. I have figured the cost of building a basic 30’x 30’ 2 story house, and you could construct some cheap, no frills homes for approximately $50,000. Build a few dozen of these to start, and then advertise them to Conservative-minded clients, interested in joining our community. At the same time, advertise a few hundred bare land house lots, charging twice what you paid for them (which would still be a steal), and the buyers could build whatever they wanted on them (within reason).
We would need jobs for our community, so we’d look for some small industries that could set up shop in our town. Our Conservative residents would also be intelligent and skilled in some business or trade, so no doubt their entrepreneurial spirits will bring about plenty of small businesses.
This is kind of like what some of the hippies were talking about long before I was born, but none of them ever did it, because they were worthless layabouts who were interested in having somebody else do it for them, and they were working with flawed, Marxist principles, which totally sapped incentive. If the same town-founding theories are applied with a Capitalistic Conservative bend, it would be successful!
Overall, it might take a few years to set up, but once you got it going, you’d truly have a Conservative paradise, and the founder would make a tidy profit in the process. Not a bad idea in the least, and a lot less dangerous than speculating on stocks. Will “Limbaugh, Maine” ever exist? One can only dream…
I’m writing this on Wednesday, December 28th, as I’ve just returned home from attending another informative meeting concerning the proposed Liquified Natural Gas terminal by Downeast LNG. In the past I have stated my favorability toward their project, and although it may disappoint some, I stick to that favorable rating. I will attempt to explain why and elaborate on my reasoning in this report.
First of all, the town stands to win out on this proposal. We have been offered substantial tax revenue, which will allow our tax rates to drop significantly, and provide financial stability for the future. We have been assured that local residents will be preferred for any and all jobs concerning the LNG. We have been offered improved municipal services, like an upgraded fire department, and a new school. Overall, the town is to be well paid, should this project go through.
The negatives have been addressed, and are very minor in comparison to the positive impact the facility would produce. The few negatives that some people harp upon would be the noise (equivalent to a couple of chainsaws running in the woods), the lighting, which is still in question (but it can’t be much worse than those ugly lights from the St. Andrews Marina), and the LNG tanker ships, with their exclusion zone. I don’t see the noise or lights being a problem, and the tanker ships shouldn’t cause much more disruption than those Cuban rust-buckets do when they come up the river, headed for Bayside.
I’d like to point out that Dean Girdis and Rob Wyatt (the 2 men principally behind Downeast LNG) have been wholly above board with the town. They have thus far been very open and truthful about their intentions, and have not tried to cut backdoor deals or attend secret cloakroom meetings to get around the will of the townspeople. They have gone out of their way to bend over backwards to work with the residents of Robbinston, and let us know everything that is going on and everything they intend to do.
Now, I am not about to say that they are in any way doing this for purely selfless reasons. They are not here to provide charity or monetary assistance to the locals. They’re here to make money, just like everyone else in America. They want to make a profit, and helping out the locals by providing compensation, tax breaks, and jobs are just some secondary concerns. They have stated, and I believe them when they say, that they’re interested in helping the local economy and people, but it is the secondary objective. Still, unless you’re a Communist who doesn’t believe in monetary wealth, you cannot object to their primary motivation.
Anything and everything that has been claimed by Downeast LNG has been backed up with documentation which is credible and clearly visible to anyone who so desires to see it. They have provided tons of literature, concerning LNG operations, the permitting/regulatory process, construction phases, and all other aspects of the proposed facility. Their “plans” have been clearly laid out, and virtually every major contingency has been addressed. You cannot say the same for their detractors, who have consistently used half-truths, misinformation, and have flat out lied in their negative claims against the LNG. I have read the “claims” and accusations of these ecological extremists known as Save Passamaquoddy Bay, and I don’t see that they have a single, rational point, nor do they have factual evidence of anything they have put forth. They are lying scumbags, and I’m glad that Downeast LNG debunked their lies in their newsletter. It saved me the trouble of exposing their falsehoods.
I can sympathize with the people who oppose the LNG because they live next door to the proposed site. I understand the desire to not have your home disrupted with such a project. If you live close to the site, you will have a tough choice to make, but please try to look beyond your own concerns a little, and ask yourself whether you want to totally destroy the potential good that can come from this facility. Truthfully, all you stand to lose is the view. If you choose to stay where you are, the LNG facility is not liable to be a hazard to your health, according to all factual data available about the safety of LNG terminals. Honestly, LNG is very safe, and the only “hazards” brought up by its detractors are “theoretical,” or happened in different facilities which are in no way like the one proposed by Downeast LNG. The plant will be clean and safe.
Downeast LNG has already laid out some very nice compensation packages for those living near the proposed site, for both those intending to stay put and those wishing to move, and Downeast is willing to work out a separate, customized deal with every single person affected by the project. Their general plans are fair and reasonable, and everyone affected will be fully compensated for any monetary losses, so that should appease those concerned about real estate prices. They’ve still offered to pay you $25,000 if you choose to stay put and don't care about your land value, so it’s a bonus, either way.
Honestly, I can tell you that if they put an LNG facility across the street from me, I would not leave my home, and I wouldn’t care that it was there, based on the data I have received on LNG facilities. You may all say that it’s all so convenient for me to say such a thing, when they’re not proposing to build one across the road from me, but I will point out that one of the 4 initial sites surveyed by Downeast LNG for the terminal was directly across the road from my home, and if they’d chosen that site I would be 100% fine with it. Mind you, I’d gladly accept that compensation bonus, but I wouldn’t mind an LNG facility next door even without the gracious package they’ve offered the affected landowners.
The truth is Robbinston needs something. I have watched my entire life as the spirit has been slowly sapped away from this region. I have watched the decline of everything, seen jobs disappear, seen my peers leave to find work, or turn to drugs out of desperation. And through it all I have seen the people stand by and do nothing to avert their own destruction. Now people have a choice. They have a chance to actually get something that will do a thousand times more good than bad.
Will we vote Yes on January 10th? Will the town of Robbinston say yes to a chance at a better life, or will we just crawl back into our holes, waiting for someone to push dirt over the graves of our children? Watch while a bunch of eco-urbanites from Massachusetts turn Washington County into a northwoods park to play in, where all us “dumb hicks” are driven out due to a lack of jobs and overbearing regulations on every aspect of our lives. If we don’t have a little something, a tiny thing like the LNG facility, then we will truly have nothing in another generation. Personally, I’d like to see a few working families stay in Washington County, and not just a bunch of retired hippies.
You’re welcome to be angry, but if my article has pissed you off, maybe you’d better ask yourself why, because it’s not because I’ve said anything untrue, but the very fact that I’ve hit so close to the mark! You shouldn’t be angry. You should admit I’m right and at least start to question your negative thinking about Downeast LNG.
| NCA Mainpage |