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, January 27, 2014

Boothbay, Maine Needs To Reconsider Town Ordinances With Common Sense!



Tweet This http://goo.gl/9oImOU

Boothbay Town Ordinances grant power to the planning board to regulate ANY activity done in the privacy of one’s own home for pecuniary gain which have minimal or no impact on the neighborhood.
Protect Boothbay’s micro-economy.
Real these ordinances at the Town Meeting First Monday in May

Town Meeting In May!
Annual Town Meeting is held on the first Monday of May of each year at a time and place specified in the Annual Town Meeting
. The Annual Town Meeting is the legislative authority for the all actions of the municipal government. Town Meeting gives the final authority to appropriate funds for the budget, approved changes to ordinances, and allow the Board of Selectmen authority to proceed with the annual business of the town.

I consider myself fortunate to live in East Boothbay. Maine and part of the reason is because of the neighborly atmosphere of our small village,  but if we wanted to start a ceramic business in our location today the Town Planning Board would not allow it. In fact upon reading the ordinances, one realizes that the Town Planning board even prohibits yard sales in East Boothbay, being that "flea market/tentsale" are items on the very long list of prohibited activities. a list that also includes "manufacturing" and "wholesling" and "exploring"- Good God! I can't even imagine what "exploring" is intended to include! But apparently it is allowed as long as there is no earned income involved.

The ordinance also says that if an activity is not listed and the Planning Board decides that it is similar to an activity included on the list, it shall be regulated in the same manner as the listed item. To my knowledge, there are no guidelines for how the planning board is to arrive at their opinions- and if there are guidelines they are to be found somewhere separate from where this declaration is to be found.

Yard sales are a frequent occurrence in East Boothbay. I doubt that those conducting them applied for a permit  to conduct "an activity performed for pecuniary gain"  three weeks in advance of a planning board meeting, which they then attended so that the planning board  could decide if  they would grant them permission to conduct a yard sale on their property.If the law is to be followed as written, this is what every person conducting a yard sale would have to do!

The application for a permit to conduct "ANY activity preformed for pecuniary gain" ( in one's home or on one's property) is long and technical and includes all kinds of questions that have little relevance to the intent of the resident seeking to make some additional  income through an activity conducted in the privacy of his own home. The ordinance makes it clear by its own words that it is meant to regulate activities which " have minimal customer traffic and use no process or equipment that could alter the residential character of the property or adversely affect neighboring property owners. " That intent is stated in those exact words within the ordinance !

The questions one must answer on the application seem relevant only to a business activity that has a significant impact on the neighbor hood and asks for unnecessary personal information of a person wanting to conduct an income producing activity in the privacy of their own home.

Many specifically targeted subjects  of the ordinance are the smallest of micro economy businesses, which includes many of the artists in our community who might occasionally make a sale of their art, perhaps through the Boothbay Art Foundation, conjuring up visions of a future when The Boothbay Art Foundation and other similar venues are raided by inspectors demanding to see the business permits of  the Boothbay artists whose work is on display !

Many of the targeted activities of  are of a nature, that if it were it not for the intent to earn an income, they would just be normal activities that one does in the home, such as knitting, sewing and baking, painting and engaging on the internet. The words of the town ordinance are "ANY  activity performed for pecuniary gain" and since the word "pecuniary" means anything to do with money, even baking for a Church bake sale requires filling out a lengthy and technical application and being present at the Town Planning Board meeting, where in one's life is decided by the governing board of the town.

Now conjure up an image of inspectors raiding your church bake sale and confiscating the apple pies, perhaps leaving the cakes alone, since the interpretation and execution of this ordinance is left entirely up to the arbitrary discretion of the planning board. The conjured images may sound ludicrously extreme but nothing sounds more extreme than the use of the full force of the federal government to go after The Little Sister Of The Poor and threatening to destroy them financially, because the nuns refused, on religious grounds, to be part of the distribution of contraceptives, and that it would take a federal government Supreme Court ruling to resolve the dispute in favor of the Little Sister of The Poor ! A few years ago the suggestion that this could ever happen in the United States would sound straight up ludicrous!

Town Of Boothbay Ordinances That Target The Micro Economy (underlined words are my own emphasis- bold words are emphasized by the town clerk)

Home Occupation: Any activity performed for pecuniary gain in a dwelling unit, or other structure accessory to a dwelling unit, or directed from a dwelling unit by one or more residents of that dwelling unit that conforms to all requirements of this Ordinance.

Home Occupation, Homemaker/Office: Occupations including, but not limited to, computer/fax/typewriter worker, investor advice and service, tele-communicator, and dressmaker, that are conducted solely by occupants of the dwelling, have minimal customer traffic and use no process or equipment that could alter the residential character of the property or adversely affect neighboring property owners
Home Occupation, Other: All occupations, including Day Care not included in Home Occupation, Homemaker/Office.
The above three lines are clearly intended to target micro-economy activities. The inclusion of the word "solely" in the second paragraph, by contrast excludes "occupations" that are not solely done through the activities of the occupants of the home and so a lot hinges on the interpretation of the word "occupation" relative to the interpretation of the word "solely" and unless the ordinance is challenged through the courts, that interpretation is left solely up to the discretion of the planning board. What is the reason for the curious inclusion of the qualifier "solely" in an ordinance that is otherwise attempting to include every possible activity that could result in "pecuniary gain" ? Ironically Day Care is named but a baby sitter would be exempt since a baby sitter usually engages in their occupation in someone else's home!

Imagine if all of the residents in Boothbay complied with these ordinances! The Town Planning Board would have to meet at least twice a week and of course raise the fees!


The danger of these ordinances is in the fact that they are designed to be arbitrarily enforced and regulated  by the Planning Board. The ordinance is filled with obvious but vague sentences such as "The Planning Board will normally approve, approve with conditions or deny Use Applications the first time it considers an application" This states the obvious but defines no measurable parameters. On the other hand general compliance is not expected as is evident in the fact that the Planning Board meets only once a month. The Planning Board could not possibly deal with general compliance to these ordinances on such a sparse schedule and yet these ordinances are on the books and potentially can be arbitrarily used against almost anyone.

These ordinances say that if you want to make an income from your computer, already occupying space in your home, you have to fill our a lengthy application and appear before Planning Board and pay a fee- but if you want to spend your entire day playing video games on your computer- that's copacetic as long as you are not making an income!  What's that we hear about video games causing mass shootings? Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to use their computer in an income producing activity instead ?

The town does not need to regulate activities taking place in the privacy of one's home that "have minimal customer traffic and use no process or equipment that could alter the residential character of the property or adversely affect neighboring property owners" That very category needs to be stricken from the Town Ordinances. What is the justification  for doing so? Is not such an ordinance a violation of the fundamental guarantee in the United States Constituion- the right to the pursuit of happiness? Is not one's work and the ability to earn an income a major factor in the pursuit of happiness? These ordinates make it a violation for a author to use his own home to write a novel that might potentially earn an income without first getting permission from the town planning board. Where is a budding  author supposed to write- at the town library? Perhaps on his mobile computer as long as that computer is not in his own home!

The United States and the State of Maine are founded on the principal of the separation of powers. The legislative branch writes the laws. The administrative branch administers the law, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. If the legislature writes the law in such a way as to give the administrative branch free hand to interpret the law, then the separation of powers is lost. Laws -including town ordinances- need to be written with clarity and applied generally. If a statute or an ordinance is poorly written and the administrative branch tries to correct the poorly written law through administrative policy that does not reflect the written law, and once again the separation of powers is lost. We see this at the national level with Obama attempting to single highhandedly rewrite the Affordable Care Act by telling the insurance companies that they can reinstate policies that the Affordable Care Act has made illegal. The insurance companies responded by saying that they cannot do so, and rightfully so because the law as written and passed by congress prohibits them from re-instating those policy. Administrators do not write laws. It is the job of administration to carry out the law.

There is no reasonable justification for the Town Planning Board regulating activities taking place within the privacy of the home and having no impact on the neighbor hood and yet there are town ordinances providing the Planning Board with just this kind of authority over the lives of Americans residing in the Town of Boothbay Maine. And even if that power is granted to the Planning Board, it makes no sense to then hand those applying for permission to conduct an activity that has no or minimal impact on the neighbor hood to fill out an application suited to an activity that does have an impact on the neighbor hood. Why should it make a difference, for instance, that someone baking a pie, or knitting a hat, or working on a computer is doing so on a waterfront property or on a property completely enclosed by land? Why should an applicant have to provide their tax returns and prove that they do not own the town money just to be able to conduct ANY activity within the privacy of their home that can produce an income? If the applicant owes the town money,
should not the town want to encourage the applicant to develop an income? Is not the demand for one's tax return an unessesary invasion of privacy- as are these ordinances?   

And what ever happened to Yankee individualism- which is a large part of what micro economy businesses taking place in the privacy of one's home is all about? The life style of living and working in the same place is one of the great  individualist American dreams.

It's time for the people of Boothbay to bring some common sense into their town ordinances! Please join the discussion HERE.

RELATED

This is a link to an article on occupational licensing in the USA
Licensing can become a powerful tool to limit innovation and competition and act to limit upward mobility........

Occupational licensing has grown significantly since the 1950s, when roughly one out of every 20 workers were required to obtain a government license. Economists Morris Kleiner and Alan Krueger estimate that an astounding one out of every three US workers needs government permission before they are legally allowed to work today. Many of these occupations have traditionally provided low-income Americans with a path to self-sufficiency and upward mobility. By erecting barriers to entry to these occupations, we erect barriers to entry to achieving the American dream.

The article discusses a study of how low-to moderate income jobs are being licensed in the USA- combine that with the trend among states such as Maine of transferring taxpayer dollars to private corporations and capitalists in the "targeted sector" defined as producing "higher than average income" and you have a portrait of an intentionally widened gap between the wealthiest and the rest of the poplulation.



Friday, January 24, 2014

Candidate Richard P Murphy's Guaranty Agreement to the Voters of The First Congressional District of Maine

Richard P Murphy Oath to the Voters of Maine

This Guaranty Agreement (this "Guaranty") is made effective as of January 01, 2015 and upon the election of Richard P. Murphy from Springvale, Maine to the U.S. House of Representatives. This Guaranty is being given to the voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine. This Guaranty is being given for the benefit of the voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine.

 I. OBLIGATIONS. This Guaranty is given by Richard P. Murphy to enter into a binding contract with the voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine for the purpose of assurance of the following;
• Richard Murphy will adhere to all his Oath of Office

• While in office Richard Murphy will vote according to all positions, principles, and stances laid out to the voters during his campaign.

• Richard Murphy will not hold more than three (3) terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He will impose term limits upon himself. Richard Paul Murphy further acknowledging that the voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine intend to rely on this Guaranty. Richard Murphy guarantees prompt and satisfactory performance of this contract in accordance with the terms and obligations under the contract according to the terms and conditions. If Richard Paul Murphy fails to adhere to his obligations to the voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine, he shall be liable to repay all salary received and benefits paid while in office. This includes all expenses, costs, and damages that the voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine insure in attempting to realize upon this Guaranty.
II.LIMITATION OF AMOUNT. The liability of Richard P. Murphy pursuant to this Guaranty (exclusive of any costs and expenses incurred by the voters of CD-1 to realize upon this Guaranty) shall not, at any time, exceed the sum of the total salary and benefits paid to Richard P. Murphy for the position elected.

 III. DURATION. This is a continuing Guaranty and shall not be revoked by Richard P. Murphy. This Guaranty will remain effective for the entire term of office. IV. NOTICE OF DEFAULT. The voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine are required to notify Richard Paul Murphy of a default to commitments to the voters before proceeding against Richard Paul Murphy under this Guaranty. To prevent fraudulent claims of default, the following conditions must be met.
• A notice of default may not be filed against Richard P. Murphy until the he has actually performed the duties of the office to which elected for a period of six (6) months during the current term of that office.

• A notice of default may not be filed against Richard P. Murphy during the last six (6) months of the term of office.

• A notice of default to Richard P. Murphy must be signed by a number of voters from the 1st Congressional District of Maine only, equal to not less than 10% of the number of votes cast for candidates for that office at the last preceding election in the electoral district of Richard P. Murphy.
V. PROVISIONS. Richard P. Murphy shall answer publicly to any Notice of Default filed that adheres to the conditions given within 35 days after the filing. He shall make an official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the notice from the voters of the 1st Congressional District. Immediately upon determining pursuant to the conditions that a Notice of Default is sufficient, but not later than 35 days after the date of filing the notice, Richard P. Murphy shall publicly announce his immediate resignation from office. This provision is intended to provide the voters of the 1st Congressional District the additional protection to recall Richard P. Murphy if he violates any of the stated obligations. The voters of the 1st Congressional District of Maine must exercise reasonable diligence to recover salary and benefits for performance owed by Richard P. Murphy before seeking to enforce this Guaranty and collect against Richard P. Murphy. This Guaranty is given with the understanding that funds readily available to Richard P. Murphy would be attached first and exhausted before any claim is asserted for the collection of any debt under this contract.

 VI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Guaranty contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Guaranty and there are no other promises or conditions in any other agreement, whether oral or written.  

VII. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Guaranty shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court finds that any provision of this Guaranty is invalid or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it would become valid or enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so limited.

VIII. WAVIER OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHT. The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Guaranty shall not be construed as a waiver or limitation of that party's right to subsequently enforce and compel strict compliance with every provision of this Guaranty.

IX. APPLICABLE LAW. This Guaranty shall be governed by the laws of the State of Maine. Guarantor Richard Paul Murphy

Thursday, January 23, 2014

A Challenge To Maine's Main Stream Media- Read The State Constitution!

The sage of the hacking continues and now I am not promoting the website or continuing to work on it until I get to the root of the problem.

This reproduction of a page introducing a discussion topic on my new website provides foundation to my previous paragraph:



How dare you defile our state constitution with your disingenuous words !   


Language As A Method Of Fundamental Transformation

This is a most disturbing subject ! Maine is a state where few read the constitution and fewer read the statutes, where the media is in bed with the power elite and the legislature does what ever it pleases because nobody is looking.
Compare the two statements below- the one written by the Maine legislature in the year 1981: The other was added to the Maine Constitution in the year 1876- around a quarter of a century after Max and Engels publish The Communist Manifesto ( a political ideology based in state capitalism)
RULES FOR NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS begins with a list of what is to be excluded from the definition of a corporation for the purposes of the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act:

Definitions A. Corporation. Title 13-B Section 102(4) defines the term "Corporation" as used in the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act. Certain entities are excluded from the definition. Among the exclusions are "an instrumentality, agency, political subdivision or body politic and corporate of the State." The Secretary of State interprets that phrase to mean an administrative unit or corporate outgrowth of State, county or local government created by statute, order, resolution, ordinance or articles of incorporation to perform functions traditionally associated with government activities. By way of example, entities, which will be considered excluded from the definition of corporation, include, but are not limited to: .....(emphasis on The Secretary of State is mine- the point being that the Secretary of State is of the administrative branch of government- it is the judicial branch of government that interprets the law)

The Maine State Constitution Article IV. Part Third. Legislative Power.
Section 13. Special legislation. The Legislature shall, from time to time, provide, as far as practicable, by general laws, for all matters usually appertaining to special or private legislation.

Section 14. Corporations, formed under general laws. Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State.

Section 15. Constitutional conventions. The Legislature shall, by a 2/3 concurrent vote of both branches, have the power to call constitutional conventions, for the purpose of amending this Constitution.

The First Observation Part One:
What reason does the legislature have for defining what is or is not a corporation except for evading the prohibition against chartering corporations by special act of legislation found in Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution?

Part Two: What reason is there for Article IV Part Third Section 13 & 14 to be part of the Maine Constitution except to prohibit the state from chartering corporations for state purposes? Private sector corporations are incorporated under general laws. Article IV Part Third Section 14 provides an exception for "municipal purposes". The purpose of Article IV Part Third Sections 14 is to prohibit the legislature from chartering corporations for state purposes- or in other words, to prohibit the legislature from chartering corporations as "instrumentalities of the state", which means for the purposes of the state.

Part Three: Article IV Part Third Section 14 provides an exception for "cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained".

THE RULES FOR NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS, are tailor made to accommodate the charter of The Maine Development Foundation, a non-profit corporation chartered by special act of legislation to serve the purpose of managing the entire economy of the state, by the state. The object of the Maine Economic Development Foundation ,and a plethora of state chartered corporations that followed, is "economic development". Economic development CAN be done another way- ie in the private sector! Therefore "cases where the OBJECT of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained does not apply unless one uses absurd constructs such as defining "the object “ as “state management of the whole economy of the state” but then that raises the question; “For what purpose is Article IV part Third sections 13 and 14 included in the Maine State Constitution?

Second Observation Part One: "an instrumentality, agency, political subdivision or body politic and corporate of the State." constitutes a state purpose.

Part Two: “body politic and corporate of” is just another linguistic signifier for “corporation” –in this case, it means a corporate state.

Conclusions: Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution provides an exception to the prohibition mentioned above for municipal purposes- with clear intent, in plain spoken English, to prohibit chartering corporations for state purposes.

The Maine State Legislature in the year 1981 was inventing definitions for words and things out of thin air for the explicit purpose of evading a prohibition placed upon it by the Maine State Constitution. The legislature defined ” what is not a corporation” as that which has the attributes and purposes synonymous with that which Article IV Part Third Section 14 prohibits- ie- the chartering of corporations to serve state purposes. In so doing the legislature of Maine is fundamentally transforming the constitutional governing philosophy of the state of Maine without going through a constitutional process. Being that the constitution prohibits the chartering of corporations to serve as instrumentalities of the state, the legislature responds by concocting a statute that says that a corporation is not a corporation if it serves as an instrumentality of the state.

The legislature cannot define the function which they are excluding from a definition of "corporation" without using the word "corporation" or a derivative there of- and a plethora of "instrumentalities of the state” that proceed from this statute, are chartered as corporations in the statutes where by they are established, even though this statutes says that they are not corporations because they are "instrumentalities of the state" This is pure Marxist double speak. Marx railed against capitalism as he developed a theory of state capitalism. It is the same with the Maine legislature as it is with Karl Marx- whether of not capitalism is capitalism or a corporation is a corporation is defined not by the process, the form, or the function; but by the agent involved- ie private sector or public sector. Not only the rules are different for each but also the signified meaning of words.

Related Blog: HOW MAINE''S HOME RULE AMENDMENT WAS SUPERSEDED BY STATUTORY LAW


Thursday, January 16, 2014

Common Core, The Decline of Education in Maine and More.


Things are back to normal at The Preserving The American Politcal Philosophy blog, without making any changes myself, the function for uploading images has been returned to this blog and the other list of options is no longer displayed.

However, all menu links on my new website now produce a 500 Internal Error message including the log in function on both the front and back end so that at this time I am blocked from continuing to develop that site and the public is blocked from access any of the menu items. ( Dec 17 update- links leading to 505 pages on wordpress finally taken seriously by Dotster after contacting by phone and revealing an error that only displayed on their end by looking at the megapproxy- but the saga continues on blogger as images are now missing again and a link to the Wordpress site from this blogger blog, leads to a 505 error page. The timing of and similarity to the Wordpress dysfunctional links and blogger dysfunctional links is of course purely co-incidental !)

I have contacted the server and am waiting for their response.Of course my mind immediatly goes to the malicious hacker who has been plaguing this blog but it is not out of the realms of possibility that a recently installed app might have caused the problem.

In the meantime, I will use this opportunity to promote a video showing on the Dangers of Common Core which will take place Wednesday, January 22 at River Arts in Damariscotta.

Also to let all know that Bob Stone, a former regular at the now defunct As Maine Goes has started a new Maine political forum called The Maine Citizen. most of the former participants of As Maine Goes seem to have become members.

Related to both those topics, I contacted Woodcanoe on The Maine Citizen about using his well informed post about the history of education in Maine as an OP-Ed on The Preserving The American Politcal Philsophy website. Due to the technical issues described above, I cannot currently publish the Op-Ed on the web site- so here it is:


Common Core......And The Decliine of Public Education in Maine  

by Woodcanoe

My dad was a Maine high school principal, and math teacher for 30 yrs. He believed that "teaching" was one of the most honorable professions there was. He was held in high regard by his peers all over Maine. In 1960 he served as president of the "Maine Teachers Association" (forerunner of todays MEA) when, as he said, it was an organization that was "devoted to the professionalism of teaching".

He always spoke of being deeply grateful that he had nothing to do with it in later years, when it became a local version of the United Auto Workers Union mainly devoted to the accumulation of political power, and the public's money.....ie, it became the "education empire" of today Most people are not aware of the fact that there is a very strong ADVERSERIAL relationship between the needs of the teachers association.....and the needs of the students, parents and community.

Just like in any situation where there is a union, this chasm has grown deeper as the teachers unions, just like any other union, are interested in THEIR needs first, and this comes ahead of the needs of the students and community, always!

I served as a school district board member for nearly 10 yrs, most of it as chairman, in the 70's, and was deeply interested in trying to improve what the schools did, and how they did it. I also chaired the negotiating committee that worked out new master teacher contracts every three years, so was in a position to see all of this start to happen as the union gained power.

 I served once more, around 1993-95, and could not believe the difference since I had been on the board before. The Superintendent controlled the school board, as they mostly do today, and it was obvious. The board was NOT to bring up anything that was NOT on the agenda, and the agenda was created by the Superintendent, and the meetings were highly scripted.

I brought up an issue one night, and everybody looked down their nose at the "instigator". After the meeting, only the high school Principal and I were left in the building. He lit into me vehemently stating "why do you bring stuff like that up in front of the press?". He went on a tirade where he cussed me, many times, right in the high school lobby. I had never seen anything like it! I finally got a break and said to him "Howard, who do you think this school belongs to, you....or the people of this community"...and walked out leaving him still swearing.

This man was up for a three year contract shortly after. The supt told me he was going to recommend him. I, being a bit politically savvy, went and talked to the other board members and found out how they felt on the matter. I went to the Supt and told him: "Bob, I know you can count, and the fact is that I have 4 votes....and you only have 2". Howard's resignation was in the office the next afternoon.

It is nothing short of tragic that it has gotten to this point! Now the unions, and the special interest groups have all found that the "power of the state" can be used to make the public education system into "progressive indoctrination centers" and they have done just that. The last two decades of my dad's life, he rejected public education completely and totally, saying often that the system needed to be torn completely down and totally rebuilt, to the point where the community again, decided what kind of school they wanted. He became totally devoted to private education as between that, and homeschooling, that was the only way he felt that most kids could get a good education today.

 We homeschooled our three sons through high school, for the most part, one of them from the middle of the seventh grade on. And they are as conservative as their parents are, and have the same value system, thankfully, because of our efforts. They all know that they are ultimately responsible for themselves, and that there is no free lunch, if you want something, you have to work for it.

My dad felt that there still are some good people, and good teachers, in public schools, but the unions, the apathy of many parents, and the "power of the state" make it very difficult to do a really good job today. It is much easier to teach in a private school where the educational atmosphere is everything.

 Common Core, Education Without Representation ......"The story of Common Core and data mining begins as most stories do, with a huge, unmet need.....Self-appointed “stakeholder” know-it-alls at the federal level (also at state, corporate, and even university levels) determined that they had the right, and the need, for open access to personal student data– more so than they already had".......

 Six Sneaky Things the USDOE Did to Deprive Your Child of Privacy:


 1) It bribed the states with ARRA Stimulus monies to build 50 linkable, twin-like State Longitudinal Database Systems (SLDS). This act created a virtual national database.

2) It altered the (previously privacy-protective) federal FERPA (Family Educational Rights Privacy Act) law to make access to personally identifiable student data –including biological and behavioral data– “legal.

 3) The US Department of Education partnered with private groups, including the CCSSO (that’s the Council of Chief State School Officers –copyright holders on Common Core–) to collect student data nationally.

4) It used private-public partnerships to promote data linking among agencies. Thttp://www.ccsso.org/ is one example. The National Data Collection Model is another example. The Common Educational Data Standards is another example.

5) The Department of Ed created grants for Common Core testing and then mandated that those testing groups synchronize their tests, report fully and often to the U.S. Department of Education, share student-level data, and produce “all student-level data in a manner consistent with an industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is approved by the Department”.

 6) The Department of Education directly lied to the American Society of News Editors. In a June 2013 speech given to the American Society of News Editors, Secretary Duncan mocked the concerns of parents and educators who are fighting Common Core and its related student data mining See Common Core Education Without Representation 

It is easy to see that "Common Core" has been brought to us from the highest levels of DC. I believe this is appalling, and totally out of place in our schools. The local schools should serve to meet the needs of "local students, their parents and their community, first and foremost, and dictates from "upon high" should be promptly rejected. But states and local school systems are hooked by the carrot on a stick philosophy. Much money comes from state and federal governments to run those local schools. Offer somebody a bribe, get him dependent upon that money.......then you control him!

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Launching New Website, As Cross-Site Scripting attack Delivers a Letter by Governor Lepage!


CHECK OUT 

THE PRESERVING THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WEBSITE

Featuring The Round Table of the states Discussion Forum focusing on State Constitutions, State Statues and State Policies- Also featuring Alternative News and Open Source Research Project .


 If You Don’t Read Your State Constitution & Statutes, You Don’t Know What’s In Them!


I notice the links going from this blog to my new website http://preservingtheamericanpoliticalphilosophy.com

produce this page

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

But if I copy the exact same link and enter it into Google it works.

To get to where clicking image is supposed to take you, paste the address in  your browser:
Temporarily removing link but it should be back soon.

I have been going through a tug of war all day with who ever does not want this letter made publicly accessible BUT_ as you can now see I have developed a work around the cross-site scripting attack which also enables the display of the logo of the new Preserving The American Political Philosophy Website. We shall see if both images remain visible.


Greetings.

This post is to announce the launch of The Preserving The American Politcal Philsophy Website. I intended to include an image of the sites logo but when I accessed the file upload function, it is missing and replaced by a list of files that I had never seen before.


No- Script says it has filtered a potential cross-site scripting attempt from another blogger at blogger,com- as I have suspected for some time- since I posted that someone is messing with my code. My research in response to that had arrived at the conclusion that there might be a cross-site scripting attack involved. Since it seemed to correspond with certain events at AMG,I arrived at a suspect, whom I will not name, but sufficce it to say he has connections with the Paul Lepage campaign and also has a background in computer technology. and has a blog published on blogger.

The only place I have ever seen a similar app as the one that now loads was on As Maine Goes when I attempted to insert an image. A similar app displayed at AMG and I could not figure out how to load an image, which I at fist took to be due to my own shortcomings but later concluded, due to a series of correlated events , during which for a brief time I was able to load an image normally, that there was a connection between AMG and certain links that went missing from this blog.

After some detective work I was able to open all of the images in the app that displays when I want to upload an image from my own computer.

One of those images appears to be an auto responder from Paul LePage to be sent to those seeking bond money. The letter is not addressed to anyone but I am guessing, based on the content, that it is intended for members of the Maine State legislature. To Governor Lepage's credit, it is a letter of refusal and reveals some interesting data about  $40 million dollars in unauthorized debt the $100 million dollar yearly cost to the taxpayer financing the then current bond debt:

Here is that Letter. My logo is more of an instant attention grabber- but this letter also relates to the focus of my website and so I decided to take the bold step of posting this image, which came to me via a cross-site sripting attack on my own blog. Unfortunately It will take some research to figure out how to get back access to my own files.

So to announce the launch of Preserving The American Political Philsophy.co, presenting this interesting auto-repsonder from Governor Lepage's office: If  image does not display, since it has a propensity to dissapear, Try THIS

You can also see image HERE

Cross Site Scripting Delivers Letter from Governor Paul Lepage
In this letter, LePage letter admits to 40 million in unauthorized debt and a cost to the tax payer of $100 million in financing current bonds, NOT including hospital debt and bonds generated by the Government Facilities Authority.
Note that financing the bond debt cost's Mainers 100 million a year and that the 2006 OPEGA report identified that the cost of the bureaucracy which I have nicknamed "Maine State Inc" was then 200 million a year, making the total amount of the last known accounting of bureaucracy costs and the cost of debt financing at $300 million a year- and please observe that it does not account for any of the bonds expenses generated by The Maine Governmental Facility Authority, which is that matter about which Beth O'Conner testified as presented in the previous post.

An other interesting co-incidence. A while back I noticed that all links were missing from this Portland Press Article by Steve Mistler

Maine tax panel will release suggestions for savings Monday


This is the headline:

Lawmakers must cut $40 million to meet the state’s balanced budget requirement and it won’t be easy.

Hmm... $40 million- isn't that the same amount as the unauthorized debt?

At the time of the missing links I contacted  Mr Mistler to ask why they were not functional.
This was his response:

Hmm. Not sure. The links were working Saturday when it first published, but you're right that they're broken now. I'll see if our online team can resurrect them.
Thanks for pointing it out.

 Mr. Misters links have remained resurrected. Why can't I  do that?

Anther observation take goes back to year 2006 when the Opega Report was last published. In that report the size of the hole of the budget was said to be equal to the cost of Maine's economic development programs Hmmm- was that then "unauthorized debt" as well ? Today the hole in our budget is the exact same amount as the unauthorized debt identified in Lepage's letter. In today's media such terms become interchangeable "hole in the budget'? just code for "unauthorized debt" !  Got it? In a state where the legislature concocts statutes to supersede the constitution-, that's not unusual!


Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Beth O'Conner's Testimony Before the Maine Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee

Testimony by 
Beth O'Connor
Before the Maine Congressional Committee
January 8th 2014

Thank you Senator Hill , Representative Rotundo, ladies and gentlemen of the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee for taking my testimony on "An Act to Repeal Bonding Authority of the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority."

My name is Beth O'Connor. I am the Chairman for Maine Taxpayers United and am here as a representative for our board of directors and members in favor of supporting LD # 790 Sponsored by Representative Sirocki.

Every day in the newspapers, magazines, social media, etc. we see that the Maine legislative body is struggling to find solutions to pay current debt and all of our mandatory obligations, not to mention our moral obligations. We are all aware that all debt incurred by us today, will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. It is up to all of us to ensure the obligations placed on the future are not only prudent, but just.

A few years ago I was made aware of a piece written by the Honorable Peter Mills regarding the Government Facilities Authority, I was most intrigued by this statement;

"Government Facilities Authority (the "GFA"). In 1998 the money was used to build new prisons and to renovate the State House complex. The record surplus of that year was spent on other things" he went on to say "GFA bonds are technically unenforceable in the sense that no subsequent legislature is legally required to pay them off. Because they are not passed by a 2/3 vote of the legislature and are not approved by voters, they do not carry the "full faith and credit" of the state."

That does not make me, or many others feel very comfortable knowing one legislative and executive body can have a field day spending other people's money on pet projects that they can take credit for today and pass the buck down the road for the next body to determine how this debt is to be paid. The GFA gives each legislature the power to make the next five (2 year sessions) legislatures pay off the debts that it creates.

As of 2012 debt for the GFA was 187 million by tax dollar supported agency budgets.

As of 2012 our moral obligation debt was over four billion in promise of payment, but it is not legally enforceable.

Our total tax supported debt burden in Maine is currently 2.3% of personal income.

All proposed bonding, borrowing, should be able to pass the test of muster and be able to secure, as is Constitutionally required a 2/3rds vote from the legislative body and be further sent out for approval of the taxpayers who ultimately are the ones footing the bill. Supporting this legislation will help attain the fore mentioned.

Thank you for your time and consideration as well as your service to Maine citizens.

Maine TaxPayers United Describes How and When The System to expand Federal Control of Maine Health Care Works !

This was posted on The Maine Taxpayers United FaceBook Page, which is becoming an excellent group doing very relevant work for this state: This is a description of how the system works which you are unlikely to find revealed in our Maine main stream media:
We will need to keep an eye on the Taxation Committee as they have been charged with helping to fill the “structural gaps” created by the budget passed this session. As stated in the last email, they are trying to find revenue by “closing some loopholes” put in place by previous legislatures. They also have floated “temporary tax increases” in several other areas including lodging and recreation services.
The pieces of legislation being considered have been introduced as “Draft Concept” bills. These submissions are offered to have a place for consideration and usually are crafted by the committee. So you won’t know what is going to be included unless you attend the “work sessions” in the committees. This is where the term offered by San Fran Nan, “we have to pass the bill, to find out what is in the bill”. This allows the department of jurisdiction to write the policies of enforcement. This is a dangerous way to do business because there is no legislative over-sight. The department head can change the rules and policy without any oversight!

The first pieces of legislation are:
Health and Human Services Committee – Cross Building, Room 209
Jan 15, 2014, 9:00a

LD 1578 Public Hearing An Act To Increase Health Security by Expanding Federally Funded Health Care for Maine People
LD 1640 Public Hearing An Act To Enhance the Stability and Predictability of Health Care Costs for Returning Veterans and Others by Addressing the Issues Associated with Hospital Char...Sen. Jackson of Aroostook

Jan 15, 2014, 1:00pm
 LD 1582 Public Hearing Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Portions of Chapter 101, MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 32: Allowances for Waiver Services for Childre...
LD 1583 Public Hearing Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Portions of Chapter 101, MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 29: Allowances for Support Services for Adults...
LD 1584 Public Hearing Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Portions of Chapter 101, MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 21: Allowances for Home and Community Benefits...

This is the attempt for the Democrats to expand Medicaid and set up a Health Exchange in Maine. We must communicate with ALL Representatives and Senators to kill this legislation. I am confident the Governor will veto these bills, but we need to continue requesting that our Reps follow through on the will of “We the People”. Encouragement and positive requests that will give them the strength to follow their principles and convictions! “Shine the Light, Shine it Bright” Scott Maine Taxpayers United Political Director slansley2@reagan.com [207] 459-8213

Monday, January 6, 2014

Upcoming Hearing On Bill That Attempts To Bypass Maine State Constitution

If you are wondering why I am missing in action these days, it's because I have been working on launching the Preserving The American Political Philosophy website, which is almost set to go.

But this is another issue too important to miss.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 4 MRSA §1604, sub-§10,  as enacted by PL 1987, c. 438, §1, is amended to read:
10. Provide for financing or refinancing.   To provide financing for any project, projects or part of any project or to provide for refinancing of existing indebtedness, and, for the financing of the project, projects or part of any project and of other necessary and usual attendant facilities, to borrow money and to issue negotiable securities and to provide for the rights of the holders of those securities issued by the authority prior to October 1, 2013. Beginning October 1, 2013, the authority may not issue a bond or negotiable security;
summary
This bill removes the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority’s ability to issue bonds or negotiable securities beginning October 1, 2013.

The following was posted on Facebook by :

Heather W. Sirocki

(R-Scarborough)


Attention Hardworking Taxpayers of Maine: My bill has been scheduled for a public hearing. Why is this bill important? The 113th Maine Legislature violated Maine Constitution by creating an end-run around the Constitution that allows bonding to avoid the requirements of a 2/3 vote and Voter approval through an entity known as the the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority(MGFA) that also extends the bonds to 20 years. This means that governors may borrow today and saddle the collection of taxes to pay for the loans to other future legislatures. Current MGFA liabilities are at almost $200 million. LD 790 "An Act To Repeal the Bonding Authority of the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority" has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:00PM, State House, Room 228.

Glad to see that there still exists a Republican Representative who is an actual Conservative.


I don't know the rules for recording Congressional hearings- but it should be done and I would love to publish the news on the soon to be introduced Preserving The American Politcal Philsophy website.

We need some citizen action here ! In droves!