The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Monday, December 26, 2011

RE Scott Lansley's article in the Sun Journal- Dig A Little Deeper!

The latest in my letter writing binge ! 

Dear Mr. Lansley,

I read your article in the Sun Journal, It may hurt, but it's time to suck it up and deal.
As suggested, I am sending you my own thoughts on the matter, and I am not going to mince my words. Since you are a former member of the legislature, you may have helped to create what I see as the source of Maine's economic problems, which is it's government manipulated economy, which has grown to the scale of a full fledged corporate state without anybody saying BOO about it, despite the blatant unconstitutionality of the current entrenched economic system.

This system has been constructed by the legislature over the course of at least thirty years. It is designed to "benefit " the "targeted sector"- those businesses that will fulfill the ideological vision of a small elite sector of Maine, which is marketed as "socially beneficial" as a form of self-justification.

The legislature seeks to attract capital to the state and using this as justification it uses the taxpayer money extracted from the many to finance their world view of the way Maine should be and to provide "the targeted sector" with "quality jobs" which is code for high paid jobs with all the best benefits, often paid for by the general taxpayer, in one form or another.

This effectively functions to deplete the "untargeted sector" of capital to develop jobs for those not so favored by Maine's effective House of Lords. The House of Lords has no understanding for or of the "lower classes" , which they have effectively created by default with such arrogant terms for their favored ones , such as "the creative economy" ( primarily non-profit, which is useful as a channel for re-distributing wealth) and the innovative economy( the brave new high tech of which the House of Lords is exclusively enamored). By default the "untargeted sector"- or that sector which is taxed without being represented , is relegated to "the uncreative" and "un-innovative" according to the House of Lord's narrow world view.

The House of Lords justifies the theft of the working capital of the untargeted sector by the rhetoric that they are working for "social benefit" and so they devise entitlement programs for lower classes whereby they give back some of the stolen wealth with heavy dictates concerning how the returned loot is to be spent by the lower classes and including schemes for ultimately acquiring the estates of those who fall victim to this scheme.

Meanwhile much of the high paid salaries, including paid vacations, and the best benefit packages are paid for by the many to the benefit of the "targeted sector" for which there is seldom a pay back plan- least of all when it comes to corporate welfare.

No one ever talks about this. It is hidden in the dark as the lower classes who have fallen victim to the entitlement schemes become the target of blame for Maine's over spending. The entitlement programs become the last resort for the untargeted sector for whom the House of Lords sees little need to create jobs. in fact the House of Lords robs that sector of it's operating capital which might create jobs as an option to entitlements for the "lower classes". It is better not to provide jobs for the lower classes because if one fails to do so, it will be all the easier to continue to siphon off the wealth of the many into the hands of the few - those beneficiaries of the "quality jobs', which are the only jobs that our House of Lords concerns their pretty little heads about.

Once one starts reading the legislation, as I have, that has been passed over the last thirty years, one realizes that the unconstitutional corporate state is heavily entrenched and that accounting for how much money it is devouring from the general economy is like trying to unravel a tangled knot. Further more it seems as if the next new statute is worst than the last one, as the corporate state grows and grows to the benefit of the chosen ones.

And so every one focuses on the easy target- those poor individuals who are to be faulted, for obvious reasons, but who are the victims of this scheme in a way that is not in the least obvious and is never mentioned.

I agree that entitlement programs need to be cut back but that does not get to the root of the problem. One has to look at the entire system that has created the entitlement programs and that view has to include the privileged sector, that is called the "targeted sector" by our legislature- and that has to include the high cost of corporate welfare, and it has to include an investigation into how much of the taxpayer money and operating capital has been extracted from the general economy to the benefit of a privileged subset- for whom there is no plan to lay claim to their estates.


Note added on December 27 
News about business tax breaks being considered in the budget shortfall is encouraging, although it is too early to know what it actually means
 Business tax breaks in budget panel's sight.


The tax breaks offered to businesses in the newly transformed Pine tree Zone are overly generous with clear hints that the targeted sector will be prioritized as usual but using the tax payer's money as investment funds or promised-in-advance bail out funds for high risks investors is not clearly covered by the term "tax breaks".

 

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Transparency and the Quasi-Public Corporation.


TWEET THIS ! http://goo.gl/YgfpJ1


I have been again looking  for information on the amount of taxpayer money invested in government chartered private non-profit organizations, such as the SEGF (since 2014 known as The Maine Venture Fund), and once again I have come up with nothing.

These organizations are so dispersed and intertwined with one another that even if one can find mention of an occasional sum of money invested it is as if finding one little piece of a jig saw puzzle.

A few years ago I read The Non-Profit Economy by Burton Weisbrod. Weisbrod discussed three distinct economic sectors- government, private and non-profit. but I do not recall a mention of non-profit corporations which are charted by government legislatures. However there was a lengthy discussion about  entities that have a for-profit part and a non-profit part, with instances found where all expenses would be allocated to the for-profit part of the entity, thereby reducing the tax burden of the for-profit part of the entity by attributing non-profit expenses to it.

In my attempts to discover where one might gain access to the amount of tax payer money invested in government chartered private non-profit organizations ( which appears to conflate all three sectors) , It occurred to me that by chartering the corporation as a private -non-profit corporation, it may be a way around the Freedom of Access to Information Act applicable to the government sector.

I looked up the Maine Freedom of Access To Information Act

Your Right to Know: The Maine Freedom of Access Act

The public’s right to information about government activities lies at the heart of a democratic government.  The Maine Freedom of Access Act (“FOAA”) grants the people of this state a broad right of access to public records while protecting legitimate governmental interests and the privacy rights of individual citizens.  The act also ensures the accountability of the government to the citizens of the state by requiring public access to the meetings of public bodies.  Transparency and open decision-making are fundamental principles of the Maine Freedom of Access Act, and they are essential to ensuring continued trust and confidence in our government.
http://www.maine.gov/foaa/request/index.shtml
  


This act clearly applies to government agencies and so when the legislature charters a corporation by special act of legislation, in making that corporation a private corporation, it can conceivably protect it from the Freedom of Access to Information Act. The culture in Augusta seems to have established many ions ago that the constitution no longer governs its authority to charter corporations, for which the constitution makes no distinction between a for profit and non-profit corporation. It is often found that although the legislature charters corporations as private, they also maintain that management, or some aspect there of is to be appointed by the government. None of this makes snes to me but one has to view it from the perspective that the constitution has been willfully ignored from the get go and so the expectation of integrity from that point forward is incongruous. So my conclusion is that the quasi public, quasi, private, quasi non-profit, quasi profit, corporation is protected from transparency of operations by its designation as a private corporation, even as it is authorized to utilize tax payer funds for its own purposes.

I was first introduced to the SEGF when I un-characteristicly attended a pitch session for a small business investment opportunity at a JUICE conference. It was there I learned of the 10% taxpayer "roll-over" investment in the Small Enterprise Growth Fund(since 2014 known as The Maine Venture Fund) , which was repeated several times by the panel as if it were a stroke of sheer genius. Even as I was in my mode of mind that attempted to be open-minded about the event, I couldn't silence a loud bell in the back of my mind that went off at the mention of this. Later , when I looked for mention of the 10% investment in the charter for the SEGF, I did not locate it, but it was stated often enough at this event and also likely is in the ensuing email follow up conversation as well.

It was in that follow up dialogue that I learned that the reason I was rejected was because I didn't have a clear "exit strategy", which was needed to satisfy the other 90% investors who demanded such so that they can make a profit. The amount of the investment was so meager that it struck me as perposterous that it should include a plan to sell the business to realize a "pay out" in fact in that year of the stimulus funding I had taken the amount to be a grant, as the small amount involved makes sense only as a grant or a loan, and as it was billed as being given by an "anonymous" investor. Who in their right mind would go into an agreement based upon selling one's business for a pittance of an investment from someone who one knows nothing about? The entire process made no sense to me but that is a story for another day.

However it seems clear to me that there is something wrong with this picture and something wrong with the fact that information about what is really going on with an enterprise that has access to tax payer funding is so un-forth-coming. If the tax payer investment always rolls over, then, under usual expectaions, one might expect that that investment has grown- provided that the taxpayer shares in the profits as does the other 90%. If the investment always rolls over , then each time it rolls over, the amount of investment should have increased- with the exception of losing investments which might occasionally occur. In theory, that might mean that there would be only one initial taxpayer investment that would be growing as an investment as investments are expected to do. But there is no easily accessible information to support that theory. The other theory is that the tax payer keeps on investing in the SEGF every year. One even has to wonder if the legislature negotiates a sub-standard deal for the tax payer in order to make a juicier deal for the other 90%.

Does the tax payer cover all the overhead and salaries of the SEGF, - a private corporation? In that case, why isn't this a government agency? Or better yet , if the legislature wanted to support the existence of a private investment company in Maine, why not do so in the conventional manner of facilitating a start up loan?

If the taxpayer were to withdraw its investment today, would the taxpayer show a profit on the investment made?

These are all questions for which it is difficult to find answers .

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Can De-constructing Maine's Corporate Welfare System Cover Maine's DHHS Budget Deficit ?

I have my head in the sand working our redesigning our website- which now comes up three times on the first page of a google search of "ceramic birds" with similar results for other related terms (thanks to my own SEO efforts) . We are getting a lot of phone calls as a result and so the need to get this job completed is all the more important. As long as my energy is focused there, I am not wanting to change that. I feel a bit remis about not attending to this blog but the vise versa is true when my attention is focused here.

However- when I recieved an email with this report  from Sam Adolpsen of The Maine Heritage Society about the DHHS deficit in which he advocates cutting welfare and "progressive special interests" .
I responded with the following:

Dear Mr Adolphsen,
Is "Progressive Special Interests" equitable with corporate welfare?
How about eliminating the 10% annual investment in the government chartered Small Enterprise Growth Fund, which makes the Maine tax-payers a captive investor in our legislature's designs to transform Maine from God's country to the brave new world envisioned by a class of people that our effective House of Lords has deemed superior to others -using such arrogant language as "the creative class" and "the innovative economy"? This sort of language robs the sector that is being taxed without being represented of its dignity as well as its capital. The legislation is actually a massive re-distribution of wealth scheme but instead of redistributing the wealth to "the people", at least in ideology, it redistributes wealth to a small wealthy elite, that the narrow framework concocted by our House of Lords deems superior to the rest of the economy.

We cannot know what government chartered SEGF is costing the taxpayer because when the legislature chartered the SEGF it stated that the annual report would be submitted to the legislature, even as the Maine taxpayer was signed up to invest 10% of the funds which would always "roll over" to re-invest in "the fund"- contrary to other 90% private "high growth" investor, which demands an exit strategy so that class can make a profit.

I submit that this is a reason why corporations chartered by special legislation are prohibited by Article IV , Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution. The taxpayer is being forced to invest in the schemes of our legislature and in return all the taxpayer gets is rhetoric about the government "creating jobs".

It is time for the people to demand to know how much taxpayer funds are being invested in the SEGF and the multitude of other government chartered investment corporations which are so well entrenched in our corporate state.

This is WELFARE as well and I would not be surprised to discover that it costs the taxpayer much more than general welfare- but the public is generally unaware of how their tax payer dollars are being spent on corporate welfare to the profit of the few- and many of those few are not even Maine residents.

The corporate state of Maine has become unconstitutionally entrenched over at least thirty years, using the tax payer dollars , signing the taxpayer up as bail out funds for the monied investor, and giving back only rhetoric about creating jobs- and even those jobs are in the service of our legislature's vision of a brave new world designed by them- NOT GOD!- in other words- Godless!


The taxpayer of Maine deserves to know how much of our hard earned money is going to fund corporate welfare. General welfare is set up to acquire personal property from the participants estate but corporate welfare seldom pays the people back.

We can see how well these schemes are creating Jobs from our last place rating on the Forbes list.
Mackenzie Andersen
NOTE
At the time the blog post below was written just a couple of weeks after being signed into law by Governor Baldacci. the law as published  later mysteriously became "the original paper taxt"

I maintained a link to the law as published on my blog but when I clicked on it in Novemebr the entire text had been changed. When I inquired of the legislature's librarian when it had been amended, I was told that it was amended before it was passed into law and signed by the governor. -yet another new defintion of the English language created by our legislature!

The version that existed on line shortly after Governor Baldaccir signed this charter into law gave the Small Enterprise Growth Fund the authority to issue "refundable tax credits" to investors. In the "amended version" that authority goes to FAME.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Constitutional Questions in theNews

I've been busy redesigning the website for andersenstudio.com, our family business and so I have long been putting off writing a post that compares the original version of Maine's Pine Tree Zone, passed in 2004, amid protests that it would be expanded statewide, to the transformed version, expanded statewide with "little fanfare" in 2009, while the public was focused on the last election season.  This projectedpost will also provide a comparison to Cain's "empowerment zones" which has already been  repackaged as "opportunity zones" and which sounds like the original version of the Pine Tree Zone, except that the the Pine tree Zone was then targeted at areas of "low income and high unemployment", while Cain talks in terms of "inner cities".

Being that I still need to keep my focus where it is, that is left brewing on the back burner and in the meantime I am posting some issues that impact preserving the American political philosophy and the current election season.

First I recently saw this blog about Purpura v , Sebelius Supreme Court docket  case number 11-7275
This claim is docketed with the supreme court and is more thorough than the others citing provisions in the law that clearly violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16. Also identified are violations of various provisions of Articles 1, 2, 4, and 6., making it the most complete of all the law suits against Obama Care. If the Supreme Court leads with this claim, they will be required to adjudicate on all counts  and so it could be very instrumental in realigning  our nation with our constitutional roots. The article urges the reader to contact our representatives or any one known to be influential in getting this case to be the lead case. I have written to all of my congressional representatives and Governor LePage. I do not know who has the power to influence what case leads in the Supreme Court, but since Obama Care directly impacts state sovereignty, it seems that if anyone can have such an influence, state governors might be in that group.

This blog from Reason.com relates that in California there is a fight brewing over dismantling all government economic redevelopment agencies ,which our state legislatures love so much ( as In The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority). Here is a switch- at least in name only- It is the Republicans who want to keep the corporate state in tact and the Democrats want to dismantle it.

 Gov. Jerry Brown isn’t often right, but he was on target when he proposed shutting down these central planning agencies that primarily dispense corporate welfare to big businesses and drive small property owners off their land so that big-box stores can prosper. quoted from Corporate Welfare and the California GOP

Sound familiar? The charter for the Midcoast Regional Development Authority grants this city state the right to seize adjacent property by eminent domain.

As Bloomberg reported, “The governor and supporters of the law said the redevelopment agencies have become little more than slush funds for private developers, and they want the tax money generated by new developments to be diverted from the agencies to local schools, law enforcement agencies and other services.” quoted from Corporate Welfare and the California GOP

And finally in today's Portland Press Herald Snowe and Collins, who made it possible to pass that first Obama stimulus plan with lightening speed are going to vote against the GOP budget plan. Snowe doesn't like that the Senate is asked for a straight up or down vote on the Ryan plan and thinks there should be time for a bi-partisan compromise on Medicaid and Medicare. She is opposed to having the control and management of  Medicaid transferred to the states, which she envisions in resulting in a "rush to the bottom"

I am waiting to see if the Maine main stream media provides quotes from Maine's Republican primary challengers to Snowe, Scott D'Amboise and Andrew Iain Dodge on what they think of Snowe's decision to oppose the Ryan Budget Plan and to oppose state management of medicaid. The latter impacts how one interprets the Tenth Amendment. Will the Maine main stream media bring the Tenth Amendment into the discussion- or will that be left up to Maine's alternate press? I guess that's my cue! See you next time with those results.


Saturday, November 12, 2011

Hermain Cain, The United States Constitution, and The Elephant's New Clothes.

It seems that racial politics has descended like a fog over the national mind set with few willing to take to task the policies of the Republicans black candidate, Herman Cain. Meanwhile the left up the ante with pretenses that portray the right but are even more blatantly ugly expression of racism than giving a pass to Cain on his policies and his response to a character challenge which would never be granted by the right to a white candidate.

I thank John K W for being the lone voice in the over crowed scene willing to say that the emperor has no clothes. John's view is well researched and based in true constitutional conservatism and so with John's permission, I am re-posting this comment found on As Maine Goes, with a few minor edits of parts that do not pertain to a more general audience. These are questions and arguments that should be part of our national debate:



Does Herman Cain propose to have the federal government enter a State, declare a geographical area or areas to be “opportunity zones”, and then allow the people and businesses within these zones to be free of taxes which people and businesses a block outside the zone will be forced to pay? 

If the answer is yes, would Herman Cain’s proposal not violate the very intentions of our  founding fathers written into Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 of our Constitution and be granting preferential regulations of commerce?
       
How about that part of our Constitution which requires direct taxes to be apportioned and indirect taxes to be uniform “throughout the United States”? Does Mr. Cain not know these provisions were put into the Constitution to forbid the federal government from picking winners and losers via taxation? Is it not a fact that Herman’s “opportunity zone” tax policy would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment and rule of uniformity was put into our Constitution?

And how about Herman Cain even suggesting to have the federal government enter a State and use its power to meddle in a State’s internal affairs and commerce? Is his proposal not in direct defiance of our Founding Father’s intentions which are summarized in Federalist No. 45?

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And if the above is not clear enough that our founders intentions were to forbid the federal government from entering the States and interfering with their internal affairs and commerce, what part of the Tenth Amendment does Mr. Cain not understand which was specifically adopted to protect federalism and a free market system?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Finally, if the above parts of our Constitution are not clear that Mr. Cain’s proposal is sugar coated tyranny wrapped in Orwellian Newspeak as being "opportunity zones", let us recall what our very own Supreme Court stated shortly after the Tenth Amendment was adopted:

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

So, once again I ask the questions, why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or any media personality on FoxNews] avoid taking Herman Cain to task for proposing to allow the federal government to enter a State, designate a geographical area an “opportunity zone”, and then allow people and business inside that zone to be free of taxes which people and businesses a block away will be forced to pay by the federal government. Why are our “conservative” talk show hosts not siding with our founding father’s rejection to allow Herman Cain to pick winners and losers or grant preferential regulations to a State or individual? Why do our “conservative” talk show hosts not defend our founding fathers and our Constitution, intended to create and protect a free market system, and preclude Herman Cain from picking winners and losers?
JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Friday, November 4, 2011

Herman Cain's Empowerment Zones and the United States Constitution

Quote of The Day:

Herman Cain’s “opportunity zones” would have the federal government granting preferential regulations of commerce among the States which would violate our founding father’s very intentions expressed in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 of our Constitution which states: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.


John W K

Monday, October 24, 2011

Tech Maine Closes as The Maine Institute of Technology Thrives

Recently in the news is the closure of TechMaine


Tech Maine lobbied back in 1998 to bring about the legislative charter of the Maine Technology Institute, a non-profit corporation,which channels funds from the taxpayers and other funds available to non-profits to private sector technology companies. I am not sure why the legislature had to create the L3C to enable small businesses like MOO Milk to get in on foundation money while the same legislature created a non profit corporation to channel tax payer and non-profit funding to private high-tech companies.

MTI's recent annual report shows that it is abundantly financed, and while participating in and lending "support" to the legislaures "targeted sector" and supported network, TechMaine,is not included among those receiving benefits from MTI. One wonders why MTI  does not  give needed support to the lobbying group that contributed so much to it's birth. Speculations arise of political in fighting among the legislatures favored  special interest sector. Did Tech Maine get on the wrong side of the power elite of the power elite? While MTI thrives as per its latest annual report perhaps MTI believes it no longer needs a lobbying group to push forward legislation to benefit the high tech industry. A list of organizations that MTI participates in or "supports"is found in the latest annual report.

The Latest Annual Report for The Maine Technology Institute



The L3C is designed to allow small businesses to get in on foundation grants and so requires that they state that they do not intend to make an "income", but since the legislation also allows that one can change classifications from an L3C at any time, that seems blatantly corrupt from the onset, inviting those who will say what ever they have to say to gain access to foundation capital- which is one reason I find it incredible to believe this new statute would pass muster with the IRS, it's an open invitation to lie in order to gain access to funds and thus morally questionable. If a business doesn't intend to make a "profit" ( the meaning likely intended, when the legislature used the word "income"), it would be structured as a non-profit in the first place, If a business chooses the L3C classification, then there must be an intent to make a profit, which they can make legal at the drop of a hat by switching to an LLC.

Meanwhile the reason for all the interest in high tech, aside from being the obvious direction in which society is headed, is that it seductively promises that big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow- unabashedly motivated by profit and so designed to channel capital to the high profit sector. The two schemes are equally dishonest and each in their own way is structured to claim an intention not to make a profit in order to obtain non-profit funding for the profit sector. The Maine Technology Institute also receives capital funds from the legislature, which of course is funded by the tax payer. I don't know if the promised "pay back" has kicked in yet, but until it has, the only thing the general economy gets for underwriting the special interest economy as mandated by the legislature is the promise that the legislature is "creating jobs" and even those jobs are the ones the legislature wants the people to preform in the service of realizing the vision of the way Maine should be into which the legislature is attempting to transform a once free and independent state.

The legislature sees its job as obtaining and redirecting capital. Capital is the means of production. When the state controls the means of production, its either called Marxism or fascism. If some of the private companies start to make a profit on the people's dime and the people respond by demanding their "fair share", then the fundamental transformation of the Maine and American political philosophy will be a done deal. The state will own and control the means of production and it is unlikely that the profits made by the companies into which the legislature invested the people's money will ever go into the pockets of the people, if there is a "payback" it will go to government just as we see in the Small Enterprise Growth Fund, a state government chartered investment corporation in which the legislature mandates that the public invest 10% of the funds and the public investment always "rolls over" to re-invest in the fund, while the other 90% demand that investments include an "exit strategy" so that the privately invested 90% has a means to realizing a profit- and of course that 90% gets to negotiate its own terms, unlike the people who are collectively represented by the legislature and since the legislature included in the charter that the SEGF would submit its annual report to the legislature, the individual tax payer is going to have to jump through some hoops to find out what deals are being negotiated with the other 90%. and how that compares with the deal being given to the people. And of course the SEGF must invest in companies that serves the "public benefit" as defined in the legislature's "targeted sector", which serves Agenda 21, and that is part and parcel of the federal funds that the corporate state covets from the federal government. So much for state sovereignty and individual rights.

The moral code that condones saying whatever one has to say in order to procure capital funds (or whatever one covets) is mirrored in the Mid-Coast Regional Redevelopment Corporation, which the legislature chartered as a municipal corporation, for no explicable reason other than to get a round Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution. while simultaneously defining the MRRA as an "instrumentality of the state" which is the true intention. The two terms are legally mutually exclusive. The legislature is constitutionally prohibited from forming corporations by special acts of legislation with an exception for municipal corporations which are locally governed and cannot charter themselves as they need to have a seat of government to achieve that end and so there has to be an exception for municipal corporations in the constitution - but once chartered the constitution grants the right to amend the charter to "the inhabitants of the municipality".
Also recently in the news is that  Kesrel may not create those 300 jobs at the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment center after all. The federal money is not materializing for the project. Could it be that the legally challenged charter that the Maine state legislature concocted in order to manifest their brave new city state is finally catching up to reality?


This page links to notes that I compiled on The Maine Institute of technology a while back and contains substantiation for claims made herein.


The Latest Annual Report for The Maine Technology Institute

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

A Question For Herman Cain- Would the 999 plan work better as a 99 Plan ?

I like Herman Cain but I have some questions that I would like to see him answer.

The 999 plan is not about numbers- it is about percentages- which result in numbers and so if you take one of the percentages out of the equation,it does not necessarily result in a lower federal revenue number- and so I raise the question- why do we need three elements to this equation?

Is there a point to the national federal sales tax other than to tax those who are not making an income- the unemployed, the disabled, and those living on a fixed retirement amount - and to "tax the rich" more than others. Other than that, the sales tax is levied on the same sectors as those taxed by the other 2 nines.

The sales tax lowers the value of the dollar as the cost of consumer goods is increased by 9%. The sales tax 9% will potentially lower business profits by raising costs of wholesale purchases resulting from an increase in the cost of freight- and by decreasing consumer spending power. Business profits generate the number on which the 9% business tax is calculated. If the business pays the employee more to compensate for the inflated cost of almost everything caused by 9% sales tax- the number used to calculate personal income tax increases by the same amount that that number used to calculate business tax decreases. This is true with or without the 9% sales tax.

Without the 9% sales tax, all dollars retain their spending value. Since business no longer have to pay a tax calculated on the number of employees and wages paid to those employees, businesses have more capital for hiring new employees and that decreases the number of unemployed who then increase the number who pay a 9% tax personal income tax. It still leaves other unemployed people not paying a tax but a good portion of those people are retired or disabled. What is the reason for taxing the resources of these people especially when it might slow down job creation by reducing the spending power of those individuals and thus keep more people in the unemployed segment?

The "999" slogan rings like equality for all, but the federal sales tax conceals a "tax the rich" ideology when the guiding ideology should be job creation. The federal sales tax could potentially result in less consumer spending and therefore fewer jobs.

While the 9% business tax eliminates the unfair advantage of businesses that hire under the table- the federal sales tax re-introduces the unfair advantage for system beaters with the likelihood that a non-taxable under ground market for consumer goods will develop or expand under this system and compete with consumer goods that are sold by businesses that play by the rules. This will create the need for a government bureaucracy designed to catch the cheaters and funded by the taxpayer.

A national federal sales tax creates competition between the federal government and the states. Will some states have to lower their state sales tax in order to compete? If the federal government decides to raise or lower the federal sales tax- that impacts the sales taxing policies of all the state governments. I do not think that is a good thing for state sovereignty.

A 99 plan combined with a more specific federal plan for reducing federal spending than Cain has thus far offered could be streamlined for job creation without a hidden class warfare ideology.

This still leaves other questions unanswered such as the financing of social security and for constitutional purists there still remains the issue of the constitutionality of income tax. In this election candidates should have a long term plan for realigning this nation with the constitutional model created by our framers- or to say why they do not believe in that model.

Friday, October 7, 2011

The Advent of The Occupiers.

The occupiers have arrived in Maine, complete with their tent city which has all the markings of having been manufactured by corporations with productions abroad and distributors that sell to other corporations located in this country.

The Occupiers have their own legal adviser, John H. Branson, who has negotiated a one week permit to occupy a space in the city of Portland for a week. This makes the Occupiers markedly more professional than the Tea Party who would most likely use a Tea Party volunteer to obtain any necessary permits. Does the Occupier’s legal adviser work on a volunteer basis? If not who pays for John H. Branson's services?

The occupiers identify their actions as inspired by the protestors in the "Arab Spring" with "Arab Spring" being yet another media concoction that suggests the motivations and outcome of events in the Middle East are the subject of media fairy tales. The one thing that we do know about the events in the Middle East is that the end game of the protestors was clearly defined- the ousting of the dictators in the various nations. Who knows what "democracy" means after that? In Palestine it meant electing Hamas as the controlling political power.

The occupiers repeat media generated lexicon, such as "the Arab Spring" and channel politically generated mantras such as "fair share", both of which, like "hope and change" are murky terms that are wide open for interpretation by anyone anywhere.

The occupiers are here for an indefinite time until the indefinite goal of "change" is achieved. Well buddies you can leave now because change is the only constant. Other than "change" there does not seem to be any specific measure to signal that the occupiers have achieved their goals. They don't seem to get that the ones they emulate, the Arab protestors had a specific and measurable goal- to over throw a dictator. If the Arab spring is romanticized as a "democratic" revolution, once the dictator has been disposed the great challenge of forming a constitutional democracy becomes the new goal. If it is a pure democracy, it can mean the tyranny of the majority and if that majority is the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn't make for a good fairy tale ending.

Meanwhile we already have a constitutional democratic republic. We already have a system, which like all systems works as well as the character of the people. Our system was designed, with the vast range of human character in mind, as a system of checks and balances. It is the fact that we already have a constitutional system that protects the rights of assembly and freedom of speech which makes the occupiers right to be heard a fact. What the occupiers don't like is that our constitutional system is based in a political philosophy that protects property rights and the right to the fruits of ones own labor.

Whenever I hear "fair share" I wonder why it isn't applied to government? Why does government sector have a right to spend the wealth that others create? I think government is well over its "fair share" already. But the concept that 'fair share" can be applied to the government sector is completely occluded from the meaning of this politically generated mantra straight from the Obama team, trying to repeat the great success of the "hope and change" mantra.

Now that the unions have joined with the occupiers in NYC, it just won't be complete until the government employees embrace it as well. More and better government pension plans!

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Math of "Fair Share" as defined in The United States Constitution

There is another excellent discussion started by John w k on As Maine Goes. This one is about what the United States constitution says about "fair share" and points out that the math is provided for with in the constitution.

Here is a quote from the first post by John w k

But let our founding fathers speak for themselves with regard to the importance of applying the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion3 Elliot’s 41

You can follow or join this discussion HERE on As Maine Goes.

This discussion is also relevant to the formation of the House of Representatives, which is a structure followed by the state of Maine in forming its own constitution. There is talk today of eliminating the House from the Maine government.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Obama's "Jobs" Bill ends state sovereignity

If you love America- DEFEAT THIS BILL!

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.

(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph, the term `program or activity’ has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).”

Complete story over at Noisy Room

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Maine Economic Development Foundation

As I started out to tell the story of how I became involved in researching Maine's economic development legislation,on the Page titled , The Turning Point, I was stalled by trying to locate the legislation that created The Maine Economic Development Foundation, which is to be found all over the "innovative economy", often stating that it was created by the legislature but falling short of providing a link to that legislation.

I contacted Elaine Apostola, Reference Librarian, at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library. Elaine provided a PDF file of the original text. I then searched for the statute online, was unable to find it with the information that I had and so wrote to Elaine again and she provided. This a link to the statute as it is written today

The first thing that attracts attention is that the original purpose Title 10, Chapter 107: §917 is REPEALED , with no further information about what the original purpose stated, and replaced with Title 10, Chapter 107: §917-A. written in 2007

I cross referenced the PFD docs and located the original purpose, which is here in presented:

§ 917. Purpose
The Maine Development Foundation is authorized and directed to provide services to the State and to quasi-public, public and private entities, and to foster, assist and participate in efforts for economic growth and revitalization, including, but not limited to, providing for or stimulating the provision of:

1. Management and technical assistance. Management and technical assistance to businesses and to communities for economic growth and revitalization, with a particular concern for assistance to the state's existing small and medium size businesses; (emphasis mine)

2. Debt and equity capital. Debt and equity capital, with a particular concern for assistance to the state's small and medium size businesses;

3. New product development and marketing. New product development and marketing, with a particular concern for the most productive use of the state's human and natural resources;

4. Industrial land and buildings. The development of industrial land and buildings;

5. Economic opportunities. Identification and development of specific economic opportunities in the State;

6. Climate for economic development. Promotion of an improved climate for economic development in the State; and

7. Coordination of development efforts. Coordination of development efforts for more successful project development through serving as a broad liaison with diverse groups and parties in all sectors and bringing together needed resources for particular projects.



It is important to note that the original legislation was premised on a forecast in which the role of government would decrease over the years as the role of the private sector increased. - Note added later-This is the way I read first read the sentence- upon re-reading the original statement- I realize that the word "solitary" implies that the state had already assumed in 1997, that it is the role of government to manage the economy, - it is the "solitary" nature of that role that the state forecasts decreasing, as if without a partnership with government, the private sector plays no role in creating the economy. How ever when government partners with selected factions of the private sector to become an expanded management sector- it is not government that is decreased- it is the nature of government that is transformed into special interest policy makers that together manage the economy as an elite privileged class that is granted special access to power and concentrated wealth and of course the tax payer's money.

§ 915. Legislative findings and intent
The State of Maine has long had serious conditions of unemployment, underemployment, low per capital income and resource under utilization which cause substantial hardships to many individuals and families, impede the economic and physical development of various regions of the State, and adversely affect the general welfare and prosperity of the State.

There is a need to establish a new basis for a creative partnership of the private and public sectors for economic development, a partnership which can capitalize on the interests, resources and efforts of each sector, but which does not compromise the public interest or the profit motive. The state's solitary burden to provide for development should lessen through involving the private sector in a leadership role
. ( emphasis mine)

The role of government and its extended network of quasi public corporations and non-profit organizations has grown every year since.

Here is the growing list of government economic management legislation that I have thus far accumulated. All except the Maine Public Employees Retirement Fund (1947) have come into being since the above words were written.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Curious Repeal of TITLE 13-A: MAINE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT

I was recently browsing the internet when I came upon a list of Maine statutes, which included TITLE 13-A: MAINE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT

I was most surprised when I clicked on the link to find that the act has been repealed in its entirety with no further information - such as a replacement for the act and the date that it was repealed. Most links to the Act found on the Internet report only this meager information.

This appears to leave Maine incorporated business without a rule of law to govern them and yet I cannot find any news written about this mysterious occurrence. A search on Maine Biz comes up with nothing.

Is not this business news? Does it not create major business uncertainty in Maine when the entire act that governs Maine business incorporation repealed?

The only timeline I have been able to locate is this cache page on Google which says all data was extracted in February of this year. Was it extracted by Google? -or another party?

What is going on and why am I the only person asking?


Here is a rare link I found to the content of this repealed statute. I am wondering why it would be repealed in its entirety rather than simple revised with strikeouts as is the common practice.

UPDATE:

I have received PFD documents provided by the Legislative Librarian which reveals that the change was around 2001.

This amendment replaces the bill, which was a concept draft.
1. It repeals the Maine Revised Statutes, Title l3-A and replaces it with a new Title 13-C,entitled the "Maine Business Corporation Act." The language of Title l3-C was developed by the Corporate Law Revision Committee of the Business Law Section of the Maine State Bar Association, in association with the Office of the Secretary of State, collectively referred to in this summary as "the revision committee."

The revision committee also submitted a comprehensive report to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, dated November 14, 2001, that reviewed the reasons for the revision, why the Model 42 Business Corporation Act was chosen, the drafting principles that guided the revision committee and the highlights of principal differences between the proposed legislation and current Maine law. The report was placed on the web site of the Office of the Secretary of State and was widely disseminated by the Maine State Bar Association.

This is a link to the current Law.

It is beyond the capabilities of my informed background to draw any conclusions other than that it is very poor policy for the legislature to provide the information that the law has been repealed, while omitting all information pertaining to the statute that replaces it and the date when this occurred.It is a very simple matter to include this information in the former statute, which is floating around in cyber space- so - especially being that this change was explained by MaineBiz as a simple change made to accommodate electronic communication. If it were not for electronic communication I would not come across the unexplained repealed law.

MaineBiz's source is MaineCapitalNews, which, I am surmising, is likely the accepted source of most of the Maine media on legislation that is passed or pending.
MaineCapitalNews wrote this in an email which was forwarded to me via MaineBiz

It was billed as an omnibus modernization bill. I only did a radio story on it focusing on bringing the corporation act into modern times by allowing electronic communications among stockholders and management and use of e-signatures for various corporate documents. It sailed through with no roll calls. Did the reader raise some issue?
"

The comment does not appear to be about the change made in 2001 replacing 13-A with 13-C. It seems that MaineCapitalNews is referring to the 2006 Amendment , which was what MaineBiz first said was the replacement for the fourteen chapter bill.

The legislative explanations refers to changes made in the relationship between the board, the directors and the share holders. It also removes the former requirement for a minimum number of directors. The explanation is written in generalized statements. To understand the impact and implication of the changes one needs a greater knowledge of the historical context than I process.

The Good News- Maine Incorporated Businesses are still governed by the Rule of Law.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Governor Rick Perry's Most Significant Phrase was "Unconstitutional"

I was amazed during the debate that Governor Rick Perry exhibited the emotional courage to state that the social security system is unconstitutional. Governor Perry then went on to say that social security is a "ponzi cheme", which is a point that goes to statutorily law, which is governed by the constitution.

Thus far, from my limited viewing of the media, the focus has been on the "political" advisability of using the phrase "ponzi scheme" while the words "unconstitutional" are largely ignored.

However there is a discussion taking place on As Maine Goes which takes a well examined look at the constitutional issue. I recommend reading at least the first post, if not further for an excellent examination of what the Supreme Court did wrong when it ruled social security was "constitutional" and what our framers actually said about the powers of the Federal Government in the Federalist Papers and beyond. John w k, the author of this thread has an impressive knowledge of constitutional law and history. Please click and read this excellent discussion and if you are so motivated- join it as well.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Foukara's Hope and Change Speech at the General Knox Museum


TWEET THIS: http://goo.gl/IhBDL7

I recently listened to the Maine Public Radio’s broadcast of Foukara, the Washington Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera’s speech at The General Henry Knox Museum. During the introduction moderator Matt Dafour thanked Act For America for transforming the anticipated low attendance for the Foukara speech to a sold out event. Dafour then goes for a cheap laugh by recommending that The General Henry Knox Museum seek another speaker that Act For America will disapprove next year- begging the question as to why The General Henry Knox Museum does not simply invite someone from Act For America to speak next year? To answer this question one needs only examine the list of previous honorees who all share a common identification with the left wing of the American political media. The “open minded” board of the museum is not so open minded as to give a pulpit or an honor to American conservatism, although conservatives are grounded in the intent to preserve the American political system that was founded during General Henry Knox’s life time, and resulted from the successful Revolution in which General Henry Knox fought.


Al Jazeera may be the mid east's most listened to news media but Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of Act for America, is a frequent pundit on America’s most listened to news media, Fox News, where she weighs in on the middle east and the threat to America from creeping Shariah. Ms Gabriel’s resume includes not only addresses to media but also addresses to the American and British Governments and their agencies.

Upon listening to the entire tape, I have found that the prepared speech has the earmarks of calculated propaganda but when Abderrahim Foukara answers question spontaneously , he comes across as speaking his own mind and so that becomes the most valuable portion of the presentation. Foukara comes across as a possibly unwitting puppet of forces that he does not understand and into which he projects his own dreams and aspirations. He does not seem like a bad sort but neither does he seem particularly acute or disciplined. Throughout the speech Abderrahim Foukara, like Obama makes reference to “change” leaving the interpretation of that term up to the beholder. Foukara indicates that the change the people are demanding is “democracy” and identifies the United States as having “democratic capital” but does not show any sign of understanding what took place during the times of General Knox when our founding fathers created our constitution and recorded the creative process in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper #10 , Madison makes a clear case as to why the founders rejected pure democracy, with its historical record of failure, and opted instead for a “democratic republic”. Madison goes on to discuss the dangers of a “tyranny of the majority “inherent within a pure democracy.

Contemporary language usage conflates the democratic republic of the United States with “democracy”, there by erasing the fundamental distinctions made by our founding fathers. Institutions such as the General Henry Knox Museum, whose mission is to further understanding of period of history when the United States was founded are where we should find this crucial distinction preserved, however the current governance of the General Henry Knox Museum shows little evidence of understanding the essential thinking that formulated the American constitution, a constitution about which their 2011 gala fundraising honoree also admits to lacking an in depth understanding, when, at about 23 minutes into the speech, Foukara states:

The American Constitution or at least how it sounds to my layman ears, for I am not a constitutional expert, is not just piece of paper where a bunch of middle-aged rich white guys hurriedly scribbled squiggles on a piece of paper for a crowd happy to see the back of the British Red Coats. “The American Constitution to me is a live meaningful political philosophy, which guarantees, at least, that life in America will be a constant state of revisions and amendments to meet new and rejuvenating aspirations to change and regress – that is how I would recommend Arabs to read it at this crucial point in their history- regardless of how they feel about US Foreign Policy ……… That is where it becomes very important to take a very close look at how a constitution such as America’s deals with protecting both majorities and minorities from each other’s tyranny
This would be the natural point at which to reference the American Federalist papers and in particular Federalist Paper #10 but instead Foukara lapses into generalized ideals about ”good governance accountability, dignity and citizenship”, entirely skipping over any mention of the detailed examination found in the American Federalist papers- but then Foukara has already admitted that he is just a layman when it comes to the American constitution and has not offered any indication about how far his layman understanding has delved into actually reading our constitution- or if his ideas are formed merely by generalized understandings- the same sort of generalized understanding that never thinks to distinguish between a “democracy” and a “democratic republic”.

Foukara’s confession is astounding. Foukara is the Washington Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera. This is comparable to the head of Fox News, the most widely viewed American media, confessing to know nothing about Shariah Law. If Foukara believes his own words then why has he himself not engaged in taking a “very close look” at the United States Constitution- and more importantly the Federalist Papers which record for prosperity the thinking process that resulted in our constitution? Foukara praises the United States Constitution for its adaptability to change but fails to understand that the amendment process needs to be clarified within the broader scope of the whole constitution and the political philosophy that formed it as recorded in the Federalist Papers. Since Foukara is the head of a mid-east media, which he claims attempts to represent both sides of the issues, why has he not educated himself on the very constitution which he claims the world should be examining closely? As influential a position that Foukara holds in Arab media, how can he serve the cause of closely examining the American constitution unless he himself does so? In his question and answer segment Foukara makes a reasonable argument for broadcasting Bin Laden’s message, which goes to taking away the mythical power of mystery- but why then does he further the mythical representation of the American constitution by leaving The Federalist Papers veiled in obscurity?

“Progressivism” – believes that the United States is a “living constitution” constantly subject to revision and change and often refers to the original version as a “dusty old document” that is “out dated” in the contemporary (rejuvenated) world. Progressivism has transformed the American educational system into one in which the works of Marx are more widely read than the Federalist Papers. In fact the Federalist papers have only recently been re-introduced into the American dialogue through the efforts of the Tea Party. By emphasizing the American constitution as a document that was designed to be constantly revised, Foukara has identified his progressive political colors. He later re-enforces this when he quotes from George Soros in a generic statement which could have been said by countless others, but Soros is Foukara’s man of choice. Soros is identified as a native of Hungary, but Soro’s youthful history as a Nazi collaborator against his own people is left unmentioned, instead Soros is portrayed through the chosen quote as a champion of “democracy”. Like Obama , Foukara delivers the message of “hope and change” and like Obama, Foukara associates himself with George Soros, and in so doing- Foukara plays the same role in mid-eastern media that the American liberal media- those same stations whose pundits have been past honorees of The General Henry Knox Museum, played for Obama. Foukara gently white-washed George Soros, painting him as a champion of hope and change, leaving out the dark facts of Soros’s past and present, just as the liberal media would not discuss Obamas activities at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge or the disastrous economic policies that Obama either sponsored or supported as an Illinois senator- or any of Obama’s other sordid associations. It seems this is just one area where the Arab and Western worlds “merge together” as Foukara would say.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

As in Qatar - So in Maine, Free Speech - As long as you support "The Party".

The Bangor Daily News continues to report on the General Henry Knox Museum honoring the Washington Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera exclusively as a "free speech issue"- not really surprising since  "free speech" in the Maine media has so much in common with "free speech' in Qatar, where journalists who question the administration are hauled away without explanation. In Maine free speech is for those that support the far left power elite that has been over running this state for far too long. Just as the Maine main stream media functions as the PR firm for the state legislature reporting the pretty word packages that wrap up the legislation that can not stand the light of day, they like wise will do the same for the far left agenda that hides behind the established reputation of the General Henry Knox Museum.

The Bangor Daily News grants a public forum to Foukara's spin about how much better and freer Al Jazeera is than our news media- No mention of the fact that Al Jazeera is the news media of Qatar where there is no freedom of the press. But of course not- The Bangor Daily News supports "freedom of speech" NOT "freedom of speech for all" . Don't be silly !They like Foukara and Beth Dyer but no so much the treasurer of the Knox Lodge - whose outrage received no voice in Maine’s “freedom of speech “ press. But of course! Criticism of Foukara does not compute as freedom of speech in the far far left state of Maine.

Now the Bangor Daily News reports that Foukara compared "the Arab Spring" to the American Revolution- As I predicted would be the case when I brought up the qualifications for tax exempt non-profit income on As Maine Goes. Never once before in the media has Beth Dyer made mention of Foukars's special knowledge of the American Revolution without which he cannot draw comparisons beyond the statements based on superficial knowledge of our history as reflected in what is quoted in Maine's public media. Does Ms Dyer know that the United States is a Democratic Republic and not a "pure democracy"- She being in charge of a museum whose non-profit function should be to educate us on the founding of our own country? Why, in all the words that Beth Dyer has published, has there been no mention of our the American Revolution prior to pushing the question about the tax exempt status of the Foukara fund raising event? (As Maine Goes discussion)? Did Foukara compare what is going on in the Middle East to any thing that General Henry Knox did during the Revolutionary War ? Did he "honor" any of the heroes of our Revolution?

The Village Soup  gives press to Foukara's snarky comment that he thanks Act For America for publicizing the event in which he is honored and then focuses on showing that Foukara superficially talks about the history of our revolution- which is based on what he sees in the contemporary news and not on actual knowledge of the politcal philosophy that founded this great country. In the mushy world view of Ms Dyer and our liberal power elite- any revolution what so ever is "directly" related to the function of the General Henry Knox Museum, which begs the question- how well educated is Ms Dyer about the founding of this country?

For all the spin that blatantly attempts to align this fund raising event directly to the non-profit function of the General Henry Knox Museum, I have not found the actual text of the speech in any of the stories thus far. It seems curious in this day when anyone can record events with their cell phone. I wonder if cell phone recordings were dis-allowed at the speech? Did not even the Museum record this speech? Why is the actual text missing in action?

Also so interesting in the "freedom of the speech" press in Maine- the story of the reaction of Brad Smith, the treasurer of the General Henry Knox Lodge is no where to be found. That’s the way freedom of speech works in Maine’s main stream media- and why this story was driven by a discussion on the internet.

Brad Chase explained to Cliff Kincaid of Acuuracy in Media, “I telephoned the museum, talking to a woman, and told her I want to ask the following questions: Why are you having the Al-Jazeera Washington bureau chief as your speaker? Don’t you know that it is funded by the Emir of Qatar, and is a propaganda arm of the Islamists? Have you ever heard of the Muslim Brotherhood? Why don’t you have an American General for a speaker?”

The Major General Knox Lodge, a Masonic lodge  meets in Boston, Massachusetts,. It is a paid member and sponsor of the Knox Museum. Annually, around July 25th (Knox’s birthday), about 40 members spend a three-day weekend in Thomaston, Maine, and have a graveyard service, placing a wreath on Knox’s gravesite. Someone from the Knox Museum usually appears and takes part in the ceremony.

Also as noted in the on going discussion on As Maine Goes, while the Maine media dutifully reported how much money the Museum made from this event- they did not even mention the likely loss of funds that will inevitably result from this open disregard for the original and intended function of the General Henry Knox Museum - Once again that portion of the story doesn't compute as "free speech" in the state of Maine- nor would it calculate as such in Qatar.- though I am not sure that "free speech" is even an issue there. America' enemies are so adept at turning our own freedoms against us as they blatantly deny those freedoms on their own turf. as is the case with "freedom of the press" in Qatar. But don't hold your breath waiting for anyone in Maine's main stream media to ask Ms Dyer why she chose to honor the bureau chief of the media in a country where there is no freedom of the press.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Ld 204 Dies - General Henry Knox Museum Honors Wahington Bureau Cheif of Al Jazeera


Tweet This ! http://goo.gl/CTHLzU


Up date on LD204 for which the full correspondence it found HERE
Around April 5 I heard that there was to be a vote on LD 204 and that it was expected to pass
Subsequebtly I sent the following letter reminding Honorable Robert Nutting of his former promise:

Dear Senator David Trahan.
Representative Bruce McDonald
Honorable Kevin L. Raye,
Majority Floor Leader: Senator Jon Courtney,
Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Senator Debra D. Plowman,
Honorable Robert W. Nutting ,Speaker of the House
Majority Floor Leader: Philip A. Curtis
Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Andre E. Cushing III

I have heard through the grapevine that LD 204 is expected to pass. I am writing to remind you the the challenge to its constitutionality remains unrefuted. I am also reminding the Honorable Robert W. Nutting ,Speaker of the House, that he has promised to take this challenge into consideration if and when the bill comes to a vote. This is a challenge to the entirety of LD 204- a bill designed to strip local governance from the board of the municipal corporation, The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Corporation, chartered by a special act of legislation.

If this bill is passed with a constitutional challenge remaining unrefuted it then constitutes a willful betrayal of the oath of office- the only justifiable reason that I know of for "re-calling" any elected official.



On July 5th I received the following from Honorable Robert Nutting:

Dear Ms. Anderson,

I am writing to update you on the status of LD 204, "An Act Regarding the Membership of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority Board of Trustees." The House took up this bill on June 14, at which time we voted 76-69 to indefinitely postpone the bill, which would have killed the legislation. A Committee of Conference was subsequently convened, composed of three members from each Chamber. The Committee could not agree on an outcome. On June 28, 2011, the bill was placed in the Legislative Files and is now dead.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nutting
Speaker of the House ~ 2 State House Station ~ Augusta, ME 04333-0002 ~ (207) 287-1300 ~ Fax: (207) 287-1308 ~ RepRobert.Nutting@legislature.maine.gov



On another note, Today is the scheduled sate for The General Henry Knox Museum to honor Foukara, Washington Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera. The General Henry Knox Museum is a non-profit organization formed to honor General Henry Knox, and the period of history of which he is a part, The American Revolutionary War.

 I believe it is an outrageous usurpation of the purpose of the Museum to honor a man who has advocated to Hillary Clinton, that the US should be negotiating with Hamas and to honor a news organization from a country, Qatar, which does not have freedom of the press. I started a tread on As Maine Goes. which lead to being interviewed by Channel Six and the Bangor Daily News. Both news organizations edited what I said leaving only the same two statements-That I believe that Al Jazeera is a front for Jihad recruitment, and after being prompted, I said I supposed there would be protests. I felt that these were the statements for which the media was seeking a mouthpiece, as both news media framed the issue as a freedom of speech issue, which I refuted in both interviews, only to have my view edited out of the story. Subsequently when I was contacted by The Village Soup, The Herald Gazette in Camden, I decided to respond to the interview request but not to say anything about Jihad recruitment but when I explained the issue as I saw it to the writer, I was rudely interrupted and told that others had already expressed the view that I was attempting to put across. If that is the case, then the writer intentionally selected not to publish that view in her news report and so here it is.

The General Henry Knox Museum is a non-profit organization. The Annual Report is not available online, instead there is a description of the annual meeting. The newsletters describe the annual Gala event guest speakers as "honorees". This has been the case for the last several years when the General Henry Knox Museum has chosen to honor contemporary news media, all from the left of the political spectrum, as their honorees for their "Gala" fundraising events. This was the case in regards to Foukara. When an institution honors a speaker it takes it out of the realm of "free speech". "Free speech" is the opportunity to have one's voice heard. To "honor" someone is to endorse them, to place them on a pedestal of respectability- and of course to give them something that they can add to their resume- Foukara can now put on his resume that he has been honored by a Museum that honors the American Revolutionary War.

A non-profit organization must pay taxes on proceeds from activities that are not “directly” related to the reason stated for the non-profit status on their application to the IRS. The word “directly” is found in the IRS tax code governing non-profit tax reporting. It is a stretch by any standard to say that any news personality from contemporary media is directly related to General Henry Knox and the period of history of the American Revolutionary War. - The only exception would be if the news personality were known as an expert on that period of history or the American constitution. This is not the case with Foukara. In numerous interviews, Beth Dyer of the General Henry Knox Museum justified the invitation of Foukara as an opportunity to learn about Foulard’s views on “the Arab Spring”- never once suggesting that Foukara was exceptionally informed about the American constitution.

Why would a museum invite speakers who have no relationship to their non-profit status year after year after year? It is possible that some may have spoken about the Museums dedicated purpose, but it is clear form Ms Dyers own words that this was never the intent in inviting Foukara as an “honoree” guest speaker of the museum. It is clear that this is not a tax-exempt fundraising event for the museum and yet the “gala” events appear to be their most publicized fund raising events of the year. There is currently a flood of books on the market about the founding of the United States of America by well-known authors. who would make appropriate honorees for a Museum whose dedicated purpose relates to the founding of the United States of America. Any of these authors would be directly related to the museum’s tax-exempt status. There is also is Janine Turner, the blond bombshell American actress who has started a website called Constituting America that discusses the Federalist Papers. Not only would Ms Turner make a perfect honoree for a museum that honors our founding, and be a tax-exempt choice for the Museum’s gala fund raising event, But she would be a huge box office draw- being much greater a household name in this country than is Foukara

This begs the question “Why would the Museum choose an honoree for their gala fund raising event that is not directly related to their tax exempt purpose, requiring that taxes be paid on the proceeds of the event? It is possible that the real purpose is to honor Foukara and to confer upon him a veneer of respectability that any organization with a hidden agenda of its own would covet.

Since the 1960s the far left has infiltrated Americans institutions of higher learning, which has now filtered down to the earlier educational years. Recently in Maine, The University of Maine -a standard in our legislature’s “targeted sector”- invited Bill Ayers as a quest speaker. If one searches for “socialism” on the University of Maine, there are 104 results. If one searches for the "Federalist Papers", there are 12 results. If one searches for "Marx", there are 211 results, if one searches for "James Madison" there are 161 results but those at the top of the results refer to James Madison University and so another search for “publics “ results in only 9 listings.

The General Henry Knox Museum should be educating us on our own history and the political philosophy that founded this country. Instead it is having a Gala fund raising event honoring the Washington Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera, which is portrayed by proponents as a “respectable news organization”, a comment frequently followed by a claim that all American media is propaganda. But at least American media exists in a country where freedom of the press is granted by our constitution- unlike Al Jazeera, which is the news media from Qatar, where journalists who question the administration are known to vanish into thin air.

There was a long debate on As Maine Goes, with the occasional intrusion from those who joined it Just to say “Ok- everything has been said that can be said- it is time for your guys to move on! “ but in the end I turned the mind of my detractors much to my own surprise. I think this occurred when I said the following:

”No one knows what the outcome of the Arab Spring will be- if it will result in democracy somewhat related to what we have in our culture, or if it will result in a heavy handed Sharah Law having a grip in the Middle East. The left loves to portray this country as "imperialistic" because we actively further democracy in other nations but now – suddenly- it is copasetic to do so as longs it is allegedly perpetuated by Al Jazeera. Even if the Arab Spring results in democracy, it might be quite different than the breed of democracy that we have in this country, which is not a pure democracy, but a Democratic Republic. If the Middle East had a pure democaacy that could mean a tyranny of a majority that favors Shariah Law since no one really knows what the majority in the Middel East favors. To jump to the conclusion that the Arab Spring has a direct relationship to the founding of the United States of American is to asume far too much.”

After that the general consensus of the thread was that the tax exempt application of the General Henry Knox Museum needs to be located.

I am not actively pursuing this but I hope that others will. The General Henry Knox Museum is not our only cultural constitution whose original purpose is being used as a respectable cover for a left wing agenda. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge also comes to mind.

Footnote about the link to the video in th efirst paragraph, the speaker Jeff Kincaid was one of those who contacted me behind the scenes of the discussion at As Maine Goes. The Maine news media asked both myself and Beth Dyer if we had been contacted behind the scenes but only reported on Beth Dyers answer. Also I brought up the news letter that is posted on the screen in the video to the Maine News media but they persisted in presenting the invitation as a guest speaker until I posted it a second time and then Ms Dyer was forced to admit the truth but she did so in a manner which redefined the significance of "honoree" as meaning "Guest speaker" - Glad to see Cliff Kincaid is not buying it.

Also in the same video -a Russian TV station that is raising campaign funds for Ron Paul.