Saturday, May 05, 2007

Origin

The Treaty of Paris (1783) left the United States independent and at peace but with an unsettled governmental structure. The Second Continental Congress had drawn up Articles of Confederation in 1777, describing a permanent confederation but granting to the Congress—the only federal institution—little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced. In part this reflected the anti-monarchy view of the Revolutionary period, and the new American system was explicitly designed to prevent the rise of an American tyrant to replace the British King.

However, during the economic depression that followed the Revolutionary War the viability of the American government was threatened by political unrest in several States, efforts by debtors to use popular government to erase their debts, and the apparent inability of the Continental Congress to redeem the public obligations incurred during the war. The Congress also appeared unable to become a forum for productive cooperation among the States encouraging commerce and economic development. In response a Constitutional Convention was convened, ostensibly to reform the Articles of Confederation but that subsequently began to draft a new system of government that would include greater executive power while retaining the checks and balances thought to be essential restraints on any imperial tendency in the office of the president.

Before the 1788 ratification of the Constitution, there was no comparable figure with executive authority. Individuals who presided over the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary period and under the Articles of Confederation had the title "President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled", often shortened to "President of the United States". They had no important executive power. The president's executive authority under the Constitution, tempered by the checks and balances of the Judicial and Legislative branches of the Federal Government, was designed to solve several political problems faced by the young nation and to anticipate future challenges, while still preventing the rise of an autocrat over a nation wary of royal authority.

Posted by Mar at 11:09:41 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

RONALD WILSON REAGAN, 1911 - 2004

 

"And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for young people -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here. May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill." --Ronald Reagan (1992)

The death of President Ronald Reagan is bittersweet for all American Patriots, especially those of us who knew him and were honored to be mentored by him. Somehow just knowing that President Reagan was still breathing the same air we breathe was a comfort, though we are greatly relieved that his suffering, and that of his dear wife, Nancy, who watched him languish during the last decade, is over.

I first met President Reagan in 1983, a few years after completing undergraduate studies and, in the words of one of my favorite Founders, Samuel Adams, engaged in "the animating contest of freedom." Like many others who had personal contact with Ronald Reagan, I was awestruck that a man who had risen to such heights could be so genuine and humble -- so faithful. I was inspired. In all the years since that first meeting, my admiration for Ronald Reagan, both as President and Patriot, had nary a moment's waver; rather it has only deepened. No man, other than perhaps my own father, has had greater influence on my life.

Overlooking the desk from which I write these words, as it has been since the inception of The Federalist Patriot, is a wonderful image of Ronald Reagan by Don Adair, evocative of his appearance when I first met him. As I leave the office each day, I honor him, through that image, with a snap salute and a "Goodnight, Sir." A bit clichй, some might suggest. And I might agree -- had I not known the man.

The Patriot's staff join me in placing atop our beloved mentor's expanse of accomplishments two broad themes: He tore down a towering and threatening international wall, while at the same time restoring the foundations on which our nation was built.

 

The Revitalization of Federalism

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies...."

Of all his accomplishments, perhaps the most profound part of the Reagan legacy -- and we hope the most enduring -- was President Reagan's commitment to our nation's Constitution and its explication of federalism, though that foundation had been neglected for most of the 20th century. With the constitutional aberrations of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society well-embedded in the nation's collective consciousness, Reagan's commitment to constitutionally limited government and the pre-eminence of the states in the American system envisioned by the Founders came as a much-needed shock to the system.

Issued on 26 October 1987, President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 on federalism [http://reagan2020.com/federalism.asp] speaks directly to the point. Indicating federalism's "fundamental principles," Reagan wrote as crisply and cogently as Madison, Hamilton or Jay ever did: "Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government. ... The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. ... All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people."

Unlike many of his political contemporaries, Reagan understood that the fundamental premise of American society, and that society's greatness, did not reside in, nor was it regulated by, Washington. Instead, he understood that "The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives."

Likewise, the President wrote, "In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly." Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Reagan added that the States are "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies."

Never known for his subtlety, Reagan concluded, "Acts of the national government -- whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature -- that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers."

Never known for his integrity, constitutional or otherwise, Bill Clinton revoked EO 12612 in 1998 and replaced it with EO 13083, which largely re-justified the excessive unconstitutional role the federal government has assumed since the time of Franklin Roosevelt.

Reagan's EO was re-established under the current administration, and it is this publication's ardent hope -- and calculated expectation -- that the principles of that Order will be seen to bear fruit in a second Bush term.

Economic Liberty

"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people, and they knew that when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."

In some ways, Reagan's economic legacy is so great, so influential, that it is easily overlooked. Today, it is largely assumed by most everyone (with the exception of Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and a few American university professors) that the free market is the best way known to man to produce wealth freely and, in the long term, to distribute it widely.

However this was not always the case -- and how easily we forget. There was a time, not so long ago, when the Soviet Union was a real competitor with the United States. There was a time when many weren't quite sure whether a free market or totalitarian economic control was the best way to go. And even more disturbing, there was a time when that largely economic dispute found its expression in nuclear warheads aimed at nearly every major urban center in the world.

It was President Reagan who had the vision to see that Communist Socialism was doomed to failure, and it was Reagan who had the leadership ability necessary to instill that vision in others. At a time when Communism was competing for economic dominance, Reagan inherited an American economy in disarray -- an economy suffering from high inflation and unemployment. In the political climate of the day, many were clamoring for greater government involvement in the economy. But instead of capitulating to the principles of Socialism in the short term, Reagan resolutely stood against artificial inflation and higher taxes. Anticipating the inevitable self-destruction of Communism, he pursued greater economic productivity in America. He lowered taxes, encouraging work and investment, and he worked to get the government out of the economy in general. Free trade, deregulation, and less government restrictions on businesses all contributed to greater production of goods and services.

Ultimately, it was the superior productivity of the market economy -- productivity helped along by Reagan's economic policies -- that ushered Communism down the path toward resounding defeat. Under Reagan, America proved to the world that the free market is unparalleled in its ability to encourage the production of wealth and widespread prosperity.

The Evil Empire

"In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis -- a crisis where the demands of the economic order are colliding directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union.... [Communism will be] left on the ash heap of history."

Given his passion and vision for liberty, Ronald Reagan understood two key facts about the Communist threat facing our world, and he encapsulated them in that magnificent conflation of "The Evil Empire." Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was evil -- corrupt and rotten in its tyrannical foundations and utterly destined to fail. But he further understood that it was also an empire that harnessed enough power and resources to destroy the West before its own predictable demise.

To assure the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal would not be unleashed against us, Ronald Reagan well knew that our best course was to take down the Iron Curtain as quickly and decisively as we could. He intended that we should do so, and he set out with determination to construct a deliberate plan to bring this about. He gathered allies -- Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher chief among them -- and he collected a close circle of trusted aides -- led by CIA Director William Casey -- to carry out this visionary endeavor.

The plan was to bring manifold pressures to bear against the Soviet Union from multiple quarters. A sampler of actions from the plan: The flow of money was West to East was slowed, with Saudi allies agreeing to flood the international oil market to drive down Soviet earnings from their natural resources. The transfer of technological innovations was disrupted, with international agreements limiting sales of militarily sensitive technology, and even with intentionally facilitated Soviet espionage of faulty designs. Our nation built up its own military resources, leaving the Soviets little choice but to spend at a pace that it couldn't sustain. We supported freedom fighters and liberty-minded peoples behind the Iron Curtain, with special efforts in the Solidarity movement in Poland. And Ronald Reagan spoke at every occasion about his desire to expand freedom everywhere.

Some have quibbled with this analysis, suggesting that Ronald Reagan was merely in the right place when the inevitable collapse of Communism began. But the Soviet Union didn't just collapse -- it was actively crushed. As tersely noted by Gennady Gerasimov, senior spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry in the 1980s, "Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal."

President Reagan himself was unperturbed by the commotion over his record. "I'm more than willing to submit my actions to the judgment of time," he said. "Let history decide. It usually does."

Indeed, in a letter to Mrs. Reagan this week from Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet President wrote, "Ronald traveled his life journey with dignity.... I shall always remember the years of working together with President Reagan, putting an end to confrontation between our two countries, and equally, our friendly rapport, which revealed Ronald's human qualities. ... Your husband has earned his place in history, and in the people's hearts."

In the final analysis, the most fitting monument to Ronald Reagan's legacy is not the Ronald Reagan Building or Ronald Reagan Airport in D.C. Nor would it be the addition of his image on Mt. Rushmore. Perhaps the most fitting monument to Ronald Reagan is one that was torn down -- the Berlin Wall.

Posted by Mar at 10:27:32 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Friday, May 04, 2007

Hello

Hello
Gopnews.blog Supporting Tom Tancredo for President 2008 We at Gopnews.blog have decided to offer our support for Congressman Tom Tancredo for his run to win the White House. There are many good Republican candidates in this race, but only Tom Tancredo is completely deserving of our support as his position on important issues are in line with the strong conservative base of this blog. More importantly he is the best choice for America. Though we admire and respect the other candidates we feel that the best man for the job, at this time, is someone that truly recognizes the incredible threat that illegal immigration brings to America . Tom Tancredo has been the most outspoken on the subject and promises to deliver strong enforcement of the borders as well as deportation of those illegal immigrants that threaten our society. Congressman Tom Tancredo is not a single issue candidate. Tom feels we also need strong tax policy changes that support relief for the middle class and working folks of this nation. His position is that we may possibly be better served by a flat tax or national sales tax. Tom believes that education is hurting and needs help with the support of the parents a must. Tom believes that farm subsidies are the wrong medicine for our agricultural industry and we need to head in the opposite direction, saving billions of dollars a year that go to the largest farms in America . Tom supports a constitutional amendment that would make marriage the union of one man and one woman. Everyday we delay on the marriage issue we grow one day closer to a court order mandating the revised definition of marriage. Lastly, Tom believes we need health care reform that does not involve adding more government to the mix, but less government instead. Tom is a true believer in the free market system that drove the United States economy to the front of the industrial world. He wants to take government in the opposite direction of the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons of the world. Tom Tancredo is a true conservative and a person that puts God and country ahead of his own aspirations. A native of Colorado , Tom is a teacher by trade. He served in the Colorado state legislature and in the Department of Education under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Just prior to being elected to Congress he headed up the independent think tank known as The Independence Institute. His accomplishments in Congress include important legislation enforcing immigration, homeland security and border patrol policy. He is also the author of the book: In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America ’s border and security. As both Republicans and Democrats continue to sell out our borders for the sake of votes and profits Tom Tancredo has stayed faithful to the American voters and taxpayers. He is just what this country needs now and over the coming years. Please take the time to visit his campaign website, his congressional website, his personal blog and the Massachusetts 4 Tancredo blog, which is brand new and just getting up and running. Tags: Tancredo 2008 Posted by Author at 20:23 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) Virginia Tech - Who is to blame? Millions of Americans are in shock over the senseless slaying of 32 students at Virginia Tech yesterday. The gunman walked aimlessly through the hallways shooting at unsuspecting victims and then finally taking his own life. This is not the first time this has happened and it will not be the last time. Why does it happen and what can we do to stop it in the future? Many have already made up their minds. Some are saying it is proof that we need more stringent gun laws or that we need to outlaw guns altogether. Some will have the exact opposite reaction and suggest that we need more guns in society so that people are capable of defending themselves when the police are not present. Others will say that these schools need additional police personnel and tighter security at all points across campus. Still others will say that colleges and universities need to put less pressure on young students. These explanations, and/or suggestions do not begin to address the true cause of the problem. This is a coping problem. I believe this is a coping problem and one, in part, brought on by the lack of fundamental religious training in America and the continuing problem of poor parenting. The young man that committed this heinous act will be discovered to have recently broken up with his girlfriend, or possibly realized his grades were lower than he hoped, or didn’t get the job he wanted. We will find after very short investigation that this man had recently been through some heartbreaking incident. His reaction to this type of emotional distress was to attack violently anyone he felt should pay. “Why should I have to suffer, or why should I suffer alone?” would have been his thoughts during this deadly attack. Where do our children learn to cope with difficult and unfair life circumstances? From whom do they learn these coping skills? Where do young people learn that life is unfair and sometimes just down-right terrible, but never is it acceptable to lash out at innocent people because you feel bad for yourself? It should come from the parents, but sadly too many parents are willing to protect their children from criticism, judgment and failure because of their own lack of solid parenting skills. How many times have you heard of a parent assaulting a teacher because the teacher criticizes the student? A quick Google search might bring up hundreds of examples. Too many parents protect and insulate their children so that the child never learns the valuable lesson of how to cope with life’s occasional troubles. Children need to learn that they can fail, and though it hurts life is still worth living. Children need to learn that throughout their lives they will occasionally suffer great failures and losses, but likewise enjoy great successes as well. Parents are so overprotective today. They force children to wear helmets while sledding, get schools to remove the honor roll listing from the paper, regulate fluffernutter sandwiches in our schools, and withhold driver’s licenses an additional year. Parents refuse to let children experience the feeling of failure. Yet, failure is one of the most constructive experiences a child can have. It teaches them to strive harder to improve themselves. It teaches them that anything good is worth working for. It teaches them to dedicate their efforts to a cause and work hard for it. It makes them grow. The less painful way to learn to cope with failure in life is to learn religion. The bible is full of stories about people who have suffered. Take Job for instance, who found his life utterly decimated. His family taken, wealth lost, health weakened and hope gone. With nothing left to live for he cries out to God in frustration and anger. God rebukes him and reminds him that God alone is in charge and Job is deserving of only what He allows. Harsh words, but ultimately what Job needs to hear in order to rebuild his broken life. Job not only survives his ordeal, but goes on to flourish once again in God’s grace. Our children need to hear stories like the one about Job so they can understand that heartbreak and hopelessness can be overcome with faith. They need to hear that other people have failed, but still find happiness. They need to hear that the struggles they will encounter are never reason enough to hurt others. The bible is one of the precious few places they can hear those words. It is okay to fail in school and relationships. The challenge is to overcome and be strong in the face of adversity. With every passing day religion is attacked and persecuted for its failures, and there have been many. But with the attacks on the church come the weakening of its promises. The church has been a servant of the people for countless generations and now for some reason, people think they can go it alone. “I don’t need God’s help” they say. “What good has God done for me lately” they ask. Maybe they should turn the question around and ask what evil has God prevented? I will venture to say that many parents of students at Virginia Tech are thankful for God’s protection this very morning. Every parent learns to watch their children tumble. With all three of my children I remember vividly the moment they let go of the couch in hopes of talking their first steps across the room without something to hold on to. I cringed at those moments, but knew that if they fell they would sit for a moment, think about their situation, get up and wipe their knees and move forward. Little failures like this need to be learned. We need to stop protecting our children from every one of life’s little challenges and allow them to grow. Religion teaches us that things are never as bad as they seem. Never is it so hopeless that we must resort to gunfire and killing. Remember this the next time someone wants to stop prayer at a football game. Remember this the next time someone wants to remove the nativity scene from the town common. Remember this the next time someone wants to call Easter the spring holiday. Remember this the next time a young man opens fire in a public school. Tags: Church & State Posted by Author at 17:53 | Permanent Link | Comments (5) April 13, 2007 Deval Patrick’s new show: Who wants to be a Governor? Deval: “Regis, I would like to call a friend”. Casey Ross at The Boston Herald reports today that our nation’s first black President (that would be Bill Clinton believe it or not) offered up a 911 call to our commonwealth’s first black Governor. During the turmoil of Deval Patrick’s first 100 days in office Bubba Clinton called to lend a helping hand. I guess you could equate this to the television show “Who wants to be a millionaire“, when the contestant is in trouble and asks to call a friend. To be perfectly honest the call was not solicited. Bill Clinton called Deval Patrick and not the other way around, which raises a couple very legitimate questions. First, why would a former President of the United States call a sitting Governor to offer advice on how to do his job? Secondly, why would a sitting Governor ADMIT he received a call from a former President offering advice on how to do the job? I bet I know. First things first, Bill Clinton wasn’t really keen on Deval Patrick during his days as Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights. At one point Clinton had to reign in Patrick from making some horribly foolish mistakes regarding the Sharon Taxman case in which Deval Patrick claimed a person, namely Sharon Taxman, could be terminated due to her skin color. Clinton , not wanting to lose a reverse discrimination case before the Supreme Court, forced Patrick to drop the case. Deval Patrick had a reputation for being a person on a mission, regardless of common sense and what other players were involved. I think we are seeing that now with the struggle over the budget becoming heated between Sal DiMasi and Deval Patrick. I am quite sure that Bill Clinton called Deval Patrick and is supporting him because he sees Massachusetts as a state that is important to Hillary Clinton in her run for President. It has nothing to do with Deval other than Bubba needs help delivering Massachusetts to Hillary in 2008. That is why Bill Clinton called Deval Patrick. Secondly, Deval Patrick has admitting getting help because Bubba is still one of the most powerful Democrats around. Deval needs to remind people that he had been a player at one time. Recent polls are showing that Deval is not nearly as popular as he once was. Worse yet, he is not deemed as competent as he once was and that troubles Deval Patrick. In order to shore up his support Deval needed to throw around a big name to remind people that he was once at the highest levels of government. As Governor Patrick begins his push for acceptance on his reckless budget he will need to get some support. Clearly the legislature he thought would be behind him has decided instead to keep a watchful eye out for new taxes, especially on businesses. Knowing that he can’t win over the elected oficials even in his own party he has decided to circumvent the power players in the legislature and go directly to the people. This explains why he has been pushing the www.devalpatrick.com website and has started to bring in big guns like Clinton . Today we also hear from the Boston Globe that another shuffle of personnel has occurred in the Patrick administration. Doug Rubin will replace Joan Wallace-Benjamin as Patrick’s Chief of Staff. This is an administration in distress. Deval Patrick is looking for something to save his life. Now that we are a hundred days into this mess Deval is realizing he still doesn’t have the right mix of people on his staff. He won’t have the support of the legislature even though they are a supermajority democrat and he is quickly losing the support of his core constituents. So for now he spends time lambasting Don Imus as a racist and making symbolic gestures regarding the marriages of gay couples and doing so in the name of civil rights. That is his safe zone. If things don’t turn around for Deval very soon people will start asking him to resign. If I were Tim Murray I would start tossing the ball around the bullpen. Regis: “Is that your final answer Gopnews.blog?” Gopnews.blog: “That is my final answer”. Tags: Deval Patrick Posted by Author at 14:18 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) April 12, 2007 Deval Patrick, like Don Imus, should shut his mouth. As America continues its public lynching of Don Imus for his joke-gone-bad our own Governor Patrick has decided to weigh in on the issue. Hey, better late than never. I once referred to Deval Patrick as Reverend Al Sharpton with a $10 haircut, but I guess I overestimated him as Sharpton has been on this rally for five days now. Hey Deval, what took you so long? Casey Ross in today’s Boston Herald detailed Governor Deval Patrick’s fury over the statement made by Imus. What struck me was Deval Patrick’s comment that he will continue to use his office to denounce intolerance. A noble statement, but he should have shut up right then and there. Instead he followed up with “positive change will only come when all political leaders do so, not just those who are black”. Whoa, whoa, whoa, Deval. Hold on right there. Why would you say that only black people, specifically political leaders, are actively trying to end racial intolerance? Is this what black people think about the struggle for equality in America – that only black people are working toward that end? I absolutely disagree and find it offensive that you would make such a statement. That is absolutely ludicrous. For two hundred years white people have been working towards the full equality and integration of African Americans into established communities, workplaces, schools and government. Now you tell us that we have done nothing. That only the blacks are pulling the load in this fight against racial intolerance. Wow, I learn something every day from Deval Patrick – today I learned that Abraham Lincoln was an African American. What Don Imus said last week on the radio was ignorant, hurtful and just down-right unfunny. But, he is not a microcosm of the white world at-large. Most white Americans work hard to welcome black men and women into their world. Most whites find racial intolerance sickening and disgusting. Most white Americans are saddened by the thought that slavery was once the law of the land. For Deval Patrick to say outright that only blacks are vested in this cause is a disgrace to the millions of white Americans that have fought for, and in many cases died for, the rights of African Americans. The Civil War, America ’s bloodiest war, was in large part based on the premise that black men and women deserved freedom equal to their white counterparts. How many white men died on civil war battlefields because they believed the end to racial intolerance was worth dying for? How many white men took up arms against their own countrymen, and brethren, in order to fight for a black man’s right to live without the shackles of inequality. According to Governor Deval Patrick – not a single damned one. I think he is wrong and he should apologize to the millions of white men and women that have worked tirelessly toward the end of racial intolerance. Today, I learned from Deval Patrick that the good folks helping with the Underground Railroad were only black. I learned the scores of marchers across the country during the civil rights movement were only black. Not a single white person got involved and not a single white politician made known his/her disgust with racial intolerance. Is this what I am to believe or was what Deval Patrick said just a simple misunderstanding, you know, like Don Imus. Tags: Deval Patrick Posted by Author at 16:26 | Permanent Link | Comments (5) April 11, 2007 Isn't universal health insurance supposed to be universal? Today’s Boston Globe reveals that the panel overseeing the implementation of the new state universal health insurance program will allow approximately 20 percent of the uninsured adults of Massachusetts to be exempt from having to get coverage. This in large part because even the lowest cost program the panel can agree on is far too expensive for low income families and individuals. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t universal health insurance, by definition, mean that everyone has to have health insurance? If 20 percent of the people they were targeting are going to be exempt from coverage, because they are too poor no less, it isn’t universal. Hell, it ain’t even close for crying out loud. Take note people - this is what you get when government tries to muster a bit of brain power and focus it on resolving problems of the free market system. This is not universal health insurance; it is government regulated medical care – a.k.a. socialism. Thanks in no small part to Mitt Romney that thinks he is going to flaunt this idea as successful government leadership in his run for President. Now that Deval Patrick has his arms around it he won’t let go. If I were Governor I would file this program in the old circular file and push the handle of progress twice to make sure it gets where it belongs. Tags: Boston Foolishness Posted by Author at 18:43 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) April 10, 2007 Should Marty Meehan pay for special election to fill his seat? Read the Eagle Tribune story here... House Republican Leader Bradley Jones Jr wants to push the issue in the Massachusetts legislature. He also believes the portion of unused salary from Meehan's Congressional salary of $165,000 should help defray the costs of what will likely be a very expensive election. Estimates put the cost of the special election at close to $850,000 with the state paying $627,000, Lawrence paying $200,000 and Andover with $24,000. Jones stated that Meehan should bear some of the costs as it was his decision to quit the post. Meehan rejected the idea as foolish even though his campaign war chest tops $5.1 million, largest of any Massachusetts Congressman. Tags: Democrats Posted by Author at 20:51 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) April 09, 2007 The Massachusetts Tax Burden – What is the real tax burden? There has been a great deal of talk lately about the Massachusetts tax burden. Several studies and reports show contradictory findings. Though I will not offer links here I will say that I have recently seen studies that show Massachusetts with a very low tax burden (compared to other states) and another with a modest/average tax burden and still another with a high tax burden. The difference of course, is how the study is conducted and what factors were considered. Some studies include only income tax, while others include property tax and excise tax, and then others define the tax burden as a percent of income. I guess you would have to say that the studies, and their corresponding results, will say pretty much whatever you want them to say. You will see lots these studies at this time of year because a state budget is being readied and the opposing sides are setting the stage to support their arguments for, or against, tax increases. Families will get to vote on some of these tax increases, specifically the local taxes, but others will be determined by the state legislature. Regardless, they all affect each and every one of us and how we save and spend our own hard-earned money. Since the issue seems to have been fogged over, let me offer one simple and practical solution for deciding whether to support or oppose these tax changes. Ask yourself a very simple question “Am I getting my money’s worth?” That is really the only answer you need to come up with. If you feel as though your community, or state government, is providing a reasonable value for the amount of tax levied then you will likely support any tax increase proposals. If you feel as though you are not getting your money’s worth then you will oppose the idea of tax increases. It is a lot like having dinner out. If the “Chef’s surprise” costs $20 it may or may not be a good deal. The answer lies in what you are being served and how it is being served. If you end up with lobster and steak tips that melt in your mouth served by an attentive waitress, then the $20 cost is a bargain. On the other hand, if you end up with a grilled cheese sandwich and lousy service then $20 is far too much. Ask yourself if the taxes you paid to your local government and state government have been wisely spent and an overall good value. One determinant we should never allow to cloud our judgment is our personal feelings toward the person or group providing the goods and services. Example; imagine you are shopping for a new wide screen television and you find a model you like, but it is hundreds of dollars above your budgeted amount. The Sales Manager tells you that unless you buy now he will be forced to lay off someone from his sales team or the store renovation he has planned will not be able to happen on time. What do you do? Do you spend more than you budgeted to protect his employee’s job and/or store renovations, or do you walk away? I think I know the answer to this. Most likely you walk away resentful that the Sales Manager tried to make you feel guilty or burdened about his situation. Yet we allow this to happen every year with our government. Both local and state government tell us of the horrible layoffs and cuts they will be forced to make unless we take money out of our pockets and hand it to them. They say - your children’s education will suffer because of fewer teachers; your elderly parents will suffer, your streets won’t be safe because of fewer cops, your roads won’t be drivable, crime will run rampant, you have heard this all before, haven’t you? Of course, it never occurs to the politicians to cut expenses from the other end of the spectrum where the high priced do-nothing consultants and political hacks hang out. Nope, when a budget shortfall comes around it always affects the highest priority programs that leave needy people most vulnerable. You say “But wait a minute Gopnews.blog, local and state government is operating on bare bones staff as it is.” Get real folks, how bare bones are we running when Marty Meehan steps into a job for which he has NO experience for $280K with a car and driver? Or, how about Billy Bulger and his $900K severance package and $200K annual pension? Have any of you heard about the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority lately and how much a toll collector gets paid? Yup, anywhere from $55K to $80K for a guy to stick his hand out the window and take your money – not exactly rocket science! Show me a person that thinks we are running on bare bones and I will show you a fool, a hack or a liar. Over 50 local communities will have to vote on proposition 2.5 overrides this year. Many of them have seen their property taxes double over the last five to seven years. Do you think the town offers twice as much service as before? I would guess that they are getting less. In my town the property taxes have doubled in the last six years and the town is now providing fewer services than they did before, and they still want more money. How can that be? Why do we allow this? So, are you getting your money’s worth from the people on Beacon Hill ? Are they listening to you? Are they spending your money responsibly and wisely? Did they cut out all the fat before they came to you for more money? Have they tried new, more efficient ways of getting their goods and services to you? Is state government operating as well as you would like? Are your taxes a value? Or, are you getting grilled cheese and lousy service? Right now would be a good time to send a message, loud and clear, to the tax and spend liberals that - we have had enough! We have sucked it up long enough and now we expect them to find ways to provide goods and services at a “reasonable” price. We can no longer afford to have our taxes double every six years. If some teachers, toll collectors and hacks need to lose a job along the way then too bad, because there are a lot of taxpayers losing jobs as well. We can no longer be held hostage to government’s threats of piss-poor education, unsafe streets and crumbling roadways if we don’t pay. It is criminal and it needs to stop. Tags: Taxes Posted by Author at 15:24 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) April 06, 2007 Global Warming = Fear Mongering Fear Mongering: The act of using fear to leverage the opinions and actions of others toward some end. The object of fear is exaggerated; those the fear is directed toward are kept aware of it on a constant basis. – According to Wikipedia. Here are a few quotes from well respected people that feel otherwise about global warming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "… those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." - Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Centre " Montreal — tens of thousands of people ignored frigid temperatures Saturday to lead a worldwide day of protest against global warming." - Canadian Press, December 2005 "There is a significant minority of genuine experts in the field who believe that the Armageddon scenario is grossly oversold, especially by climatologists in pursuit of government funding and research grants. Such dissidents are treated as if they were heretics within an established religion." - Dominic Lawson, The Independent "I consider the concept of a global mean temperature to be somewhat dubious. A single number cannot adequately capture climate change. This number, as I see it, is aimed mostly at politicians and journalists." - Craig Bohren, Professor Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University "Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down… In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy." - Nigel Lawson, Prospect Magazine, November 2005 "The Earth's climate has always shown natural variation … There is nothing to suggest that any warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle. Every generation has had an apocalyptic myth. The language of climate change is becoming … religious." - Professor Richard Lindzen, Sunday Times "The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now." - Louis Proyect, Columbia University "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." - Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC " We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado) "Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that 'liberals' will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly." - John Ray, Greenie Watch "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970 "There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate." - Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over 17,000 international scientists including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists and planetary / atmospheric scientists "Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple." - Kary Mullis, Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry "'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature." - J. H. Robbins "The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming." - Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken ". . . Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one — even the staunchest supporters of science and technology — had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER! — for the next one hundred years...." - George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." - Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation "Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded." - William Gray, Sept. 12, 2005 "None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology’. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can’t do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. “Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen. “And it’s not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don’t see any disasters occuring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes." - Ray Kurzweil "The majority of humankind does not accept this system, despite claims of worldwide support. Even with Russia's ratification, 75% of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68% of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89% of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto 's restrictions. Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated." - Andrey Illarionov, Financial Times "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it." - James M. Inhofe, speech in U.S. Senate, July 28, 2003 "Ideology on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism. We had doubts about the Kyoto Protocol, we wanted reasoning from our partners in the European Union, in the IPCC. Formal requests had been sent to these organizations. But we have not received responses yet, which suggests that no coherent answers can be offered. What we hear is ‘it is not comprehensive responses that matter, we will not give them anyway; what is important is whether you believe us or not’.” “We have received no single argument in favour of this document except political pressure. No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. No other objective facts have been presented in recent time. The IPCC's reports in 1990 and 1995 show it clearly.” “We are close to a consensus that the Kyoto Protocol does huge economic, political, social and ecological damage to the Russian Federation . In addition, it certainly violates the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens, and well as the rights and freedoms of citizens in those countries which signed and ratified it." - Andrey Illarionov, Economic Adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin "Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not." - David Bellamy, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004 "The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity." - Piers Corbyn, Weather Action bulletin, December 2000 "There is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming of the past century. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science." - Statement of Principle, signed by 55 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, issued prior to the Rio Summit 1992 "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister Tags: Global Warming Posted by Author at 16:13 | Permanent Link | Comments (3) April 05, 2007 Deval Patrick tries spending his way out of deficit. Big Dig II – Return of the hacks. “Damn the deficits, full spend ahead!” seems to be the call to allegiance on Beacon Hill these days. In true Democrat style Deval has decided not to let a paltry billion dollar deficit stop him from spending money. As we speak, our state budget is being dragged through the legislature with no apparent way to finance all the pork-barrel increases that have been added since the “Mitt and Muffy Show” left town. Given Deval’s view of things we are going to run up against a shortage of $1.3 billion, but that is without the fresh new ideas straight off the Governor’s desk to add millions for Menino's street crime package and Deval’s own version of the “Big Dig”. That’s right, not to be outdone by Dukakis, Deval has proposed a $1.4 billion commuter rail line to New Bedford . I guess he wants the illegal immigrants to have a way to get to Boston. This is the kind of thing I love to see Deval Patrick and the Democrats do. It makes the case for Independents to return to the Republican Party far more clearly and concisely than I ever could. While many towns (estimates as high as 50) are faced with proposition 2.5 overrides, the Governor is proposing new spending programs reminiscent of the single worst example of public waste in U.S. history – The Big Dig. Deval Patrick did exactly what I would hope – he walks into a room and presents a pork-laden spending program filled with opportunities for waste and fraud, and does so with absolutely no idea how to finance it. Thank you, Lord, for this little Easter gift. I remember the many conversations about the Big Dig project and how it would bring economic prosperity to the hub. The idea that it would ease traffic congestion was secondary. They didn’t know then that there would eventually be fewer people living in Boston due to the mass Exodus, and therefore the big dig would be unnecessary. The real gain from the Big Dig project was the fact that thousands of unions Joes were going to get work digging holes; running pipe, working details, landscaping, sweeping, and welding and so on. It was not the result of the project, but rather the project itself that would bring economic gains. If you don’t think that is true quickly name a single new company that came to Boston primarily because of the Big Dig. (cricket noises) I didn’t think you could. Well, that is what Deval has planned for us again. Let’s call it “Big Dig II – return of the hacks” shall we? We don’t really need a commuter rail line from New Bedford to Boston at all. Yes, there is traffic on route 24 heading north in the morning, but many of those cars are going to turn west and head to Waltham when they get to 128/95. Others will stay in the expanding Canton industrial base. If you really want to relieve traffic try fixing the route 2 rotary at MCI-Concord. There are evenings when cars will sit for twenty minutes to travel the one mile west from Emerson Hospital to the rotary. How much gas does that waste? How big is that carbon footprint you hypocritical liberal bastards? Here is the catch, we have a commuter rail that runs parallel to route 2 and it isn’t helping. I hope you realize that the very same thing could happen to this grand scheme to bring commuter rail lines to New Bedford . With all of the other economic woes that Massachusetts is currently suffering why would Deval suggest a new commuter rail? I now, it's because he wants to look like a leader - a visionary. He wants people to think he is planning big things for this state. He wants to have a project that can’t possibly become another short-term helicopter-gate, Caddy-gate or drapes-gate. I think he should get the state into some fiscally safe water before he goes proposing new spending programs that could add up to many billions more than he foresees right now. He should try making good on his most important promise of giving property tax relief to the towns that have been overlooked for so many years. Read the Boston Globe story here: Tags: Deval Patrick Posted by Author at 17:57 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) April 04, 2007 Girly-Man Marty Meehan gets a driver and a limo – Take that Deval Patrick! Professional hack bureaucrat and one-time supporter of term limits, Marty “$200 haircut” Meehan, gets a deal almost as sweet as the Governor himself. Marty’s new job as Chancellor of UMASS Lowell comes with a car and driver. I bet scumbag Deval can give him a tip on where to get a good Caddy. The Lowell Sun commented that it would have been a nice gesture to do without the car and driver seeing that Marty lives within walking distance of the school. Nope, can’t ask a sissy like Marty to walk to work and save some poor struggling student a few dollars from his/her tuition. You see, once you have your fingers in the public cookie jar as deep as Marty-Boy you just take all you can get and F*ck the rest of the folks. That’s politics in Massachusetts . Thanks for nothing Jack Wilson you dirty A-Hole. Never again will Marty Meehan earn a single dollar that didn’t pass through the hands of some hard working family. Marty is one more pathetic example of some dirty political rat planting the pot of gold at the end of his own rainbow. He is just like Finneran, Travaglini and Bulger. Think about this when all of you UMASS Lowell students go to pay your bills next year. And don’t think it won’t come back on the students and the families that are financing their education. Soon enough the UMASS system will announce that tuition rates will go up 5, 6, 7 or maybe 8 percent due to uncontrollable healthcare costs.
Posted by Mar at 19:48:10 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

George H. W. Bush

George Bush brought to the White House a dedication to traditional American values and a determination to direct them toward making the United States "a kinder and gentler nation." In his Inaugural Address he pledged in "a moment rich with promise" to use American strength as "a force for good."

Coming from a family with a tradition of public service, George Herbert Walker Bush felt the responsibility to make his contribution both in time of war and in peace. Born in Milton, Massachusetts, on June 12, 1924, he became a student leader at Phillips Academy in Andover. On his 18th birthday he enlisted in the armed forces. The youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings, he flew 58 combat missions during World War II. On one mission over the Pacific as a torpedo bomber pilot he was shot down by Japanese antiaircraft fire and was rescued from the water by a U. S. submarine. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in action.

Bush next turned his energies toward completing his education and raising a family. In January 1945 he married Barbara Pierce. They had six children-- George, Robin (who died as a child), John (known as Jeb), Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy.

 

At Yale University he excelled both in sports and in his studies; he was captain of the baseball team and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. After graduation Bush embarked on a career in the oil industry of West Texas.

Like his father, Prescott Bush, who was elected a Senator from Connecticut in 1952, George became interested in public service and politics. He served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas. Twice he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. Then he was appointed to a series of high-level positions: Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In 1980 Bush campaigned for the Republican nomination for President. He lost, but was chosen as a running mate by Ronald Reagan. As Vice President, Bush had responsibility in several domestic areas, including Federal deregulation and anti-drug programs, and visited scores of foreign countries. In 1988 Bush won the Republican nomination for President and, with Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana as his running mate, he defeated Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in the general election.

Bush faced a dramatically changing world, as the Cold War ended after 40 bitter years, the Communist empire broke up, and the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union ceased to exist; and reformist President Mikhail Gorbachev, whom Bush had supported, resigned. While Bush hailed the march of democracy, he insisted on restraint in U. S. policy toward the group of new nations.

In other areas of foreign policy, President Bush sent American troops into Panama to overthrow the corrupt regime of General Manuel Noriega, who was threatening the security of the canal and the Americans living there. Noriega was brought to the United States for trial as a drug trafficker.

Bush's greatest test came when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, then threatened to move into Saudi Arabia. Vowing to free Kuwait, Bush rallied the United Nations, the U. S. people, and Congress and sent 425,000 American troops. They were joined by 118,000 troops from allied nations. After weeks of air and missile bombardment, the 100-hour land battle dubbed Desert Storm routed Iraq's million-man army.

Despite unprecedented popularity from this military and diplomatic triumph, Bush was unable to withstand discontent at home from a faltering economy, rising violence in inner cities, and continued high deficit spending. In 1992 he lost his bid for reelection to Democrat William Clinton.

 

Posted by Mar at 11:19:44 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |