Come Join TRR on Facebook
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
The Paris Reporter: More Maine Citizens Taking on the Establishment
by Duke Harrington
PARIS - Problems that have plagued Paris for more than a year have made their way to the internet, with two opposing websites leveling accusations at town government, and at each other.
Both sites claim Steve McAllister, of Norway, who served as Paris town manager from 1998 until resigning in 2004, is interested in resuming his old duties.
The Paris Reporter (TPR) was launched on the Blogger networking site in June. Its first post appeared July 5, barely a fortnight after the firing of Sharon Jackson, McAllister's successor to Paris' top job.
Since then, TPR has played watchdog to Paris politics, questioning the motivations and actions of what it terms "the current majority" - i.e. the three selectmen who voted to terminate Jackson's contract.
The site is rife with references to what it claims are "hidden agendas," "reckless administrative move[s]," "poorly- thought-through decision[s]," "unnecessary legal costs" and "personal-agendas."
For the remainder of this article, please click here.
PARIS - Problems that have plagued Paris for more than a year have made their way to the internet, with two opposing websites leveling accusations at town government, and at each other.
Both sites claim Steve McAllister, of Norway, who served as Paris town manager from 1998 until resigning in 2004, is interested in resuming his old duties.
The Paris Reporter (TPR) was launched on the Blogger networking site in June. Its first post appeared July 5, barely a fortnight after the firing of Sharon Jackson, McAllister's successor to Paris' top job.
Since then, TPR has played watchdog to Paris politics, questioning the motivations and actions of what it terms "the current majority" - i.e. the three selectmen who voted to terminate Jackson's contract.
The site is rife with references to what it claims are "hidden agendas," "reckless administrative move[s]," "poorly- thought-through decision[s]," "unnecessary legal costs" and "personal-agendas."
For the remainder of this article, please click here.
A CITIZEN WHO QUESTIONS WITH BOLDNESS IS NOT A CITIZEN EXERCISING THEIR CIVIC DUTY BUT A "TROUBLEMAKER" IN TODAY'S DAY AND AGE. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK PARIS REPORTER. YOU MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!
Levesque Calls on Michaud to Oppose Pelosi Health Bill
Contact: Vic Berardelli, Communications Director
(207) 234-4549
(207) 949-2438 (cell)
Release: 12:15 p.m. Thurs Oct 29, 2009
Jason J. Levesque, candidate in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, issued the following statement today in response to the new House health bill released this morning by Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
I call on Mike Michaud to side with Maine families and oppose the Pelosi health care bill.
A government-run health care program is the wrong approach. In order to truly reform health care we need to lower the costs so that more Americans can afford coverage. This 1,992-page Pelosi bill does not do this; instead, it grows the size of government at an alarming rate.
The ten year $1-trillion health bill price tag is way too costly. That’s more than four times the total amount spent on the entire Federal budget over the past ten fiscal years. We cannot afford this and it will make health care more expensive.
Maine middle class families will face an even higher tax burden to cover these costs when they’re having a hard enough time making ends meet. And small businesses will bear the burden to the point that many might not be able to stay open or they will have to cut jobs. Mike Michaud already represents a District with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and this would just be another nail on the coffin of Maine working people.
The Pelosi plan will hurt our Maine senior citizens. It cuts $162-billion from Medicare, which will cause many seniors to lose health care options and specialized coverage. It will also diminish payments to doctors, causing more to leave practice stranding many seniors without a health care provider.
Mike Michaud should show courage and tell Nancy Pelosi “no deal” on this bad health bill. Politics aside, Mike Michaud should do this for the benefit of Mainers.
(207) 234-4549
(207) 949-2438 (cell)
Release: 12:15 p.m. Thurs Oct 29, 2009
Jason J. Levesque, candidate in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, issued the following statement today in response to the new House health bill released this morning by Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
I call on Mike Michaud to side with Maine families and oppose the Pelosi health care bill.
A government-run health care program is the wrong approach. In order to truly reform health care we need to lower the costs so that more Americans can afford coverage. This 1,992-page Pelosi bill does not do this; instead, it grows the size of government at an alarming rate.
The ten year $1-trillion health bill price tag is way too costly. That’s more than four times the total amount spent on the entire Federal budget over the past ten fiscal years. We cannot afford this and it will make health care more expensive.
Maine middle class families will face an even higher tax burden to cover these costs when they’re having a hard enough time making ends meet. And small businesses will bear the burden to the point that many might not be able to stay open or they will have to cut jobs. Mike Michaud already represents a District with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and this would just be another nail on the coffin of Maine working people.
The Pelosi plan will hurt our Maine senior citizens. It cuts $162-billion from Medicare, which will cause many seniors to lose health care options and specialized coverage. It will also diminish payments to doctors, causing more to leave practice stranding many seniors without a health care provider.
Mike Michaud should show courage and tell Nancy Pelosi “no deal” on this bad health bill. Politics aside, Mike Michaud should do this for the benefit of Mainers.
www.levesqueforcongress.com
And Yet Another Candidate for Governor: Paul LePage
Paul LePage, mayor of Waterville, and general manager of Marden's, will offer Maine's voters an unusual opportunity next year - the opportunity to elect a chief executive with an actual lifetime of executive experience. This may sound strange, but it is true that most governors come to office after a lifetime almost entirely devoted to chasing votes. This is one reason that forty-five out of fifty American states face a financial crisis this year.
Paul is no business bureaucrat who worked his way up the corporate ladder by following the rules, working the angles or playing office politics. He has spent most of his life tackling one challenge after another, the kinds of challenges that defeat most people.
The oldest son of eighteen children in an impoverished, dysfunctional family, Paul left home at the age of eleven and lived on the streets of Lewiston for two years, making a meager living shining shoes.
At age thirteen, two families jointly "adopted" Paul. Eddy and Pauline Collins kept him busy washing dishes at the Theriault's Cafe. Bruce and Joan Myrick kept him busy hauling boxes. Bruce was a Pepsi-Cola truck driver. Later Paul worked at the Antoine Rubber Company and at a meat packing company.While attending Husson, he supported himself as a short order cook and bartender, while making time to be the editor of the college newspaper.
Getting into Husson presented a challenge in itself. Paul was brought up speaking French. Although his S.A.T. scores in math were excellent, his verbal performance was so poor that no college would accept him. It was only because Sen. Olympia Snowe's first husband Peter persuaded Husson to administer the exam in French that Paul was admitted at all. After that, his mastery of the English language and his academic achievements soared and he graduated with a BS in Business Administration in Finance/Accounting. He subsequently earned an MBA from the University Of Maine.
Paul continues his education to the present day, taking courses, teaching courses as an adjunct professor, conducting business seminars, and as an avid collector and reader of books.
Mickey Marden hired Paul as his company's general manager in 1996. Paul's achievements as general manager of Maine's best known retail institution fits into a career which equips him with a broad base of experience and knowledge, starting with an executive position with Arthurette Lumber in Canada. He has made a specialty of growing private businesses in unique markets, exactly the kind of talent that Maine needs.
As head of LePage and Kasevich, a private consultancy, he has provided chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer services and advice to banks, law firms, client companies, insurance companies, bankruptcy courts and trustees. Paul has acquired knowledge and experience of the manufacturing, wood products, forestry, power, furniture, food and beverage, building supply and construction industries in Maine and Canada. There is no one in politics, goverment or academia who has a broader or deeper practical knowledge of what makes Maine work.
Next to escaping a life of poverty in Lewiston, Paul's greatest success has been as Mayor of Waterville. As a Republican in a solidly Democrat town, working with a Democrat council he set himself a goal of reducing taxes every year of his tenure and succeeded.
He did not accomplish this by gimmicks like mindless "cross the board cuts", but by the same methods he brought to business time and time again throughout his career. That is, by attention to detail combined with a constant view of the big picture and a zeal for efficiency.
Get involved in Paul's campaign.
Connect with Paul.
Paul needs your support. Donate to the campaign.
Paul is no business bureaucrat who worked his way up the corporate ladder by following the rules, working the angles or playing office politics. He has spent most of his life tackling one challenge after another, the kinds of challenges that defeat most people.
The oldest son of eighteen children in an impoverished, dysfunctional family, Paul left home at the age of eleven and lived on the streets of Lewiston for two years, making a meager living shining shoes.
At age thirteen, two families jointly "adopted" Paul. Eddy and Pauline Collins kept him busy washing dishes at the Theriault's Cafe. Bruce and Joan Myrick kept him busy hauling boxes. Bruce was a Pepsi-Cola truck driver. Later Paul worked at the Antoine Rubber Company and at a meat packing company.While attending Husson, he supported himself as a short order cook and bartender, while making time to be the editor of the college newspaper.
Getting into Husson presented a challenge in itself. Paul was brought up speaking French. Although his S.A.T. scores in math were excellent, his verbal performance was so poor that no college would accept him. It was only because Sen. Olympia Snowe's first husband Peter persuaded Husson to administer the exam in French that Paul was admitted at all. After that, his mastery of the English language and his academic achievements soared and he graduated with a BS in Business Administration in Finance/Accounting. He subsequently earned an MBA from the University Of Maine.
Paul continues his education to the present day, taking courses, teaching courses as an adjunct professor, conducting business seminars, and as an avid collector and reader of books.
Mickey Marden hired Paul as his company's general manager in 1996. Paul's achievements as general manager of Maine's best known retail institution fits into a career which equips him with a broad base of experience and knowledge, starting with an executive position with Arthurette Lumber in Canada. He has made a specialty of growing private businesses in unique markets, exactly the kind of talent that Maine needs.
As head of LePage and Kasevich, a private consultancy, he has provided chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer services and advice to banks, law firms, client companies, insurance companies, bankruptcy courts and trustees. Paul has acquired knowledge and experience of the manufacturing, wood products, forestry, power, furniture, food and beverage, building supply and construction industries in Maine and Canada. There is no one in politics, goverment or academia who has a broader or deeper practical knowledge of what makes Maine work.
Next to escaping a life of poverty in Lewiston, Paul's greatest success has been as Mayor of Waterville. As a Republican in a solidly Democrat town, working with a Democrat council he set himself a goal of reducing taxes every year of his tenure and succeeded.
He did not accomplish this by gimmicks like mindless "cross the board cuts", but by the same methods he brought to business time and time again throughout his career. That is, by attention to detail combined with a constant view of the big picture and a zeal for efficiency.
Get involved in Paul's campaign.
Connect with Paul.
Paul needs your support. Donate to the campaign.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Jason Levesque for Congress, Time for CHANGE
ABOUT/BIOGRAPHY
Jason Levesque grew up in Maine and comes from a family with five generations of Maine roots. His grandfather, the late-Willard Levesque, came with his family from Canada and grew up in Madawaska and Grand Isle, laboring in the potato fields and forests which sustained the local economy. After service in World War II, with several decorations for valor under fire in the European campaign, he moved his family to Androscoggin County for better employment opportunities. He worked many years in the Auburn Highway Department, retiring as chief mechanic.
His grandmother, Arlene Duprey Levesque grew up in Machias, the daughter of a lumberman. Her family moved to Androscoggin County during the Great Depression to seek opportunity in the mills. She labored in area orchards and factories. She is still active in local senior citizen organizations.
Jason's mother, Patricia, grew up in the Lewiston-Auburn area but left the state for job prospects when the area hit hard times with high unemployment in the late 1960s. She met Jason's father, a Greek immigrant, in Baltimore, where Jason was born in 1974. When he was four, she brought him back to her Maine roots. She still works for L.L. Bean in Lewiston.
Jason Levesque graduated from Edward Little High School in Auburn, where he was active in Key Club, Interact and other community service organizations. He served on the state governing board of DeMolay. An accomplished athlete, he played soccer and ran track.
Levesque started college at West Virginia Wesleyan University but left after several semesters to enlist in the United States Army. He served in the First Infantry Division and earned the highly-prized Expert Infantry designation. His leadership abilities were first noticed by superior officers who elevated him in rank and responsibilities as an Infantry Team Leader. Upon discharge, he served six years in the U.S. Army Reserves, including several extended tours of duty as a Drill Sergeant at Fort Leonard Woods, MO.
Levesque continued college at the University of Southern Maine, working to pay his tuition. His jobs included swimming instructor for the Portland School System and Lewiston YWCA. He also took a part-time telemarketing job, where his leadership abilities were noticed and he advanced to training and management assignments, eventually as Director of Sales with a staff of 150 employees.
Levesque is married to the former Tracey Bilodeau, who grew up in Augusta and attended Cony High School . She is a graduate of New England Culinary Institute. She has a successful career as a chef and restaurant manager, which she has put on hold to raise a young family.
Levesque has three children: Alexandra (Ali), 11; Ethan, 3, and one year old Sarah.
www.levesqueforcongress.com
US Chamber Challenges House Representative Mike Michaud
John Murphy, Vice President of International Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, posted an article on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's journal web site Friday, Oct. 2, writing of the dire economic consequences of U.S. protectionism.
Midway, he singled-out Mike Michaud by name:
"Labor's recent endorsement of the so-called TRADE Act of Congressman Mike Michaud is also telling. The act would generate additional reporting requirements relating to international trade agreements on top of those that already exist. It would call into question America's existing trade agreements with countries around the globe, even though those agreements provide guaranteed access to markets that purchase more than 40% of U.S. exports. It lays out sweeping objectives for future trade agreements, but never contemplates giving President Obama the authority Congress has granted every president since FDR to actually negotiate such agreements. It might as well be called the "STOP TRADE" Act.
"Several questions arise: Do we want to open foreign markets to U.S. workers? Do we have confidence in the ability of American workers to compete abroad? Are we prepared to act rather than see American workers put at a disadvantage by the spreading network of FTAs being negotiated by our competitors?
"Labor's answer can be summarized, in practice, in three words: no, no, and no."
Midway, he singled-out Mike Michaud by name:
"Labor's recent endorsement of the so-called TRADE Act of Congressman Mike Michaud is also telling. The act would generate additional reporting requirements relating to international trade agreements on top of those that already exist. It would call into question America's existing trade agreements with countries around the globe, even though those agreements provide guaranteed access to markets that purchase more than 40% of U.S. exports. It lays out sweeping objectives for future trade agreements, but never contemplates giving President Obama the authority Congress has granted every president since FDR to actually negotiate such agreements. It might as well be called the "STOP TRADE" Act.
"Several questions arise: Do we want to open foreign markets to U.S. workers? Do we have confidence in the ability of American workers to compete abroad? Are we prepared to act rather than see American workers put at a disadvantage by the spreading network of FTAs being negotiated by our competitors?
"Labor's answer can be summarized, in practice, in three words: no, no, and no."
FMI: www.chamberpost.com
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
A Statement from the Christian Civic League of Maine
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Christian Civic League of Maine issues this statement on the success of the same- sex marriage law People’s Veto:
The Christian Civic League of Maine welcomes the news of the win on Question 1. Shortly before the election, the League predicted that homosexual marriage would eventually be decisively and finally defeated. The League saw that the common sense of the people of Maine, combined with the Biblical truth about homosexuality would win out over any cynical manipulation of the political process.
The homosexual marriage forces were defeated despite the enormous advantage in spending and the support of a compliant media they enjoyed. Nor did a last minute appeal by Maine’s Governor and Attorney General succeed in swaying voters.
There will be much post-election analysis of why the vote went in favor of traditional marriage. The homosexual marriage supporting No on 1 side will say their defeat was a result of bigotry and discrimination. The Yes on 1 side will say their victory was the result of a skillful campaign. The unstated and very obvious truth is that the greatest disadvantage of the No on 1 side was the appalling absurdity of homosexual ‘marriage.’ There is simply no effective way of marketing such an obviously bad product to the people of Maine.
Supporters of traditional marriage are now feeling a mixture of joy and relief, the kind of elation one feels after a narrow escape from disaster. For the League and her supporters, this is a welcome feeling after years of hard work and sacrifice.
But we remind the people of Maine that our society is not out of danger yet. One factor in this election victory is the glaring double-standard employed by the homosexual marriage side. Even as radical homosexual rights activists appealed to the public for tolerance, they were working to deprive Donald Mendel, a local guidance counselor and traditional marriage supporter, of his right to earn a living. Despite the victory on Question 1, this intimidation is sure to intensify.
Victory over the radical homosexual lobby and its agenda does not consist in a temporary rejection of the concept of homosexual marriage. It means faithfulness to God's laws pertaining to marriage and the family, and a return to Biblical truth about homosexuality. Victory will only be realized when the public returns to an awareness that homosexuality is a sin.
The Christian Civic League of Maine pledges to continue to work towards this goal, and to remain faithful to its century-long mission of being a moral force in Maine.
Mike Hein, Administrator
Christian Civic League of Maine
www.cclmaine.org
The Christian Civic League of Maine issues this statement on the success of the same- sex marriage law People’s Veto:
The Christian Civic League of Maine welcomes the news of the win on Question 1. Shortly before the election, the League predicted that homosexual marriage would eventually be decisively and finally defeated. The League saw that the common sense of the people of Maine, combined with the Biblical truth about homosexuality would win out over any cynical manipulation of the political process.
The homosexual marriage forces were defeated despite the enormous advantage in spending and the support of a compliant media they enjoyed. Nor did a last minute appeal by Maine’s Governor and Attorney General succeed in swaying voters.
There will be much post-election analysis of why the vote went in favor of traditional marriage. The homosexual marriage supporting No on 1 side will say their defeat was a result of bigotry and discrimination. The Yes on 1 side will say their victory was the result of a skillful campaign. The unstated and very obvious truth is that the greatest disadvantage of the No on 1 side was the appalling absurdity of homosexual ‘marriage.’ There is simply no effective way of marketing such an obviously bad product to the people of Maine.
Supporters of traditional marriage are now feeling a mixture of joy and relief, the kind of elation one feels after a narrow escape from disaster. For the League and her supporters, this is a welcome feeling after years of hard work and sacrifice.
But we remind the people of Maine that our society is not out of danger yet. One factor in this election victory is the glaring double-standard employed by the homosexual marriage side. Even as radical homosexual rights activists appealed to the public for tolerance, they were working to deprive Donald Mendel, a local guidance counselor and traditional marriage supporter, of his right to earn a living. Despite the victory on Question 1, this intimidation is sure to intensify.
Victory over the radical homosexual lobby and its agenda does not consist in a temporary rejection of the concept of homosexual marriage. It means faithfulness to God's laws pertaining to marriage and the family, and a return to Biblical truth about homosexuality. Victory will only be realized when the public returns to an awareness that homosexuality is a sin.
The Christian Civic League of Maine pledges to continue to work towards this goal, and to remain faithful to its century-long mission of being a moral force in Maine.
Mike Hein, Administrator
Christian Civic League of Maine
www.cclmaine.org
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Referendum Election, November 3, 2009
People's Veto
Question 1: Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages? YES (53%)
Question 2: Do you want to cut the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax? NO (74%)
Question 3: Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect? NO (59%)
Question 4: Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes? NO (60%)
Question 5: Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and create a regulated system of distribution. YES (59%)
Bond Issue
Question 6: Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvement to roads and highways, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds? YES (65%)
Constitutional AmendmentQuestion 7: Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions? NO (52%)
Monday, November 02, 2009
Teen Dating Bill of Rights
Sponsored by Love is Respect dot Org
I have the right:
To always be treated with respect – In a respectful relationship, you should be treated as an equal.
To be in a healthy relationship – A healthy relationship is not controlling, manipulative, or jealous. A healthy relationship involves honesty, trust, and communication.
To not be hurt physically or emotionally – You should feel safe in your relationship at all times.
Abuse is never deserved and is never your fault – Conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful and rational way.
To refuse sex or affection at anytime – A healthy relationship involves making consensual sexual decisions.
You have the right to not have sex – Even if you have had sex before, you have the right to refuse sex for any reason.
To have friends and activities apart from my boyfriend or girlfriend – Spending time by yourself, with male or female friends, or with family is normal and healthy.
To end a relationship – You should not be harassed, threatened, or made to feel guilty for ending an unhealthy or healthy relationship. You have the right to end a relationship for any reason you choose.
I pledge to:
Always treat my boyfriend or girlfriend with respect.
Never hurt my boyfriend or girlfriend physically, verbally, or emotionally.
Respect my girlfriend’s or boyfriend’s decisions concerning sex and affection.
Not be controlling or manipulative in my relationship.
Accept responsibility for myself and my actions.
For more information about this Department of Justice sponsored site, please click here.
To always be treated with respect – In a respectful relationship, you should be treated as an equal.
To be in a healthy relationship – A healthy relationship is not controlling, manipulative, or jealous. A healthy relationship involves honesty, trust, and communication.
To not be hurt physically or emotionally – You should feel safe in your relationship at all times.
Abuse is never deserved and is never your fault – Conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful and rational way.
To refuse sex or affection at anytime – A healthy relationship involves making consensual sexual decisions.
You have the right to not have sex – Even if you have had sex before, you have the right to refuse sex for any reason.
To have friends and activities apart from my boyfriend or girlfriend – Spending time by yourself, with male or female friends, or with family is normal and healthy.
To end a relationship – You should not be harassed, threatened, or made to feel guilty for ending an unhealthy or healthy relationship. You have the right to end a relationship for any reason you choose.
I pledge to:
Always treat my boyfriend or girlfriend with respect.
Never hurt my boyfriend or girlfriend physically, verbally, or emotionally.
Respect my girlfriend’s or boyfriend’s decisions concerning sex and affection.
Not be controlling or manipulative in my relationship.
Accept responsibility for myself and my actions.
For more information about this Department of Justice sponsored site, please click here.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
An Introduction to the Pine Tree Politics Website
What Is Pine Tree Politics?
Pine Tree Politics is a political news and opinion website, focusing on the political intrigue in the state of Maine.
It is run primarily from the Washington DC area by former residents of Maine who have maintained an interest in the political happenings “back home”.
Is this a news site?
No. The content of Pine Tree Politics should never be taken as an antiseptic news source. We try to frame political news with “our take”, providing a light amount of analysis and opinion to help bring the stories to life a little bit.
In the opinion section of our site, you will find much more “one sided” articles which take overt stances on issues, candidates and political news.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should all be able to read the commentary without throwing things at the screen – but none the less, the articles are not news, and definitely come form a specific point of view.
What is the party affiliation of Pine Tree Politics?
The majority of what you will find at Pine Tree Politics comes from a center-right point of view. The site itself is not affiliated with any political party (nor will it ever be), but does approach issues from a right leaning perspective.
However, we are open to opposing viewpoints, and regularly publish guest op-eds from left of center authors (including public officials) to help contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.
Is Pine Tree Politics affiliated with any campaign, or political organization?
Pine Tree Politics, nor any of its authors are paid staff for any political candidate or political organization of any party. Our authors do have preferences in certain candidates, positions, etc – however we do not have any formal relationship with anyone. If that ever changes (which we don’t expect it will), we will make it public and be completely transparent about it.
Pine Tree Politics is also on Facebook. Check it out.
Pine Tree Politics is a political news and opinion website, focusing on the political intrigue in the state of Maine.
It is run primarily from the Washington DC area by former residents of Maine who have maintained an interest in the political happenings “back home”.
Is this a news site?
No. The content of Pine Tree Politics should never be taken as an antiseptic news source. We try to frame political news with “our take”, providing a light amount of analysis and opinion to help bring the stories to life a little bit.
In the opinion section of our site, you will find much more “one sided” articles which take overt stances on issues, candidates and political news.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should all be able to read the commentary without throwing things at the screen – but none the less, the articles are not news, and definitely come form a specific point of view.
What is the party affiliation of Pine Tree Politics?
The majority of what you will find at Pine Tree Politics comes from a center-right point of view. The site itself is not affiliated with any political party (nor will it ever be), but does approach issues from a right leaning perspective.
However, we are open to opposing viewpoints, and regularly publish guest op-eds from left of center authors (including public officials) to help contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.
Is Pine Tree Politics affiliated with any campaign, or political organization?
Pine Tree Politics, nor any of its authors are paid staff for any political candidate or political organization of any party. Our authors do have preferences in certain candidates, positions, etc – however we do not have any formal relationship with anyone. If that ever changes (which we don’t expect it will), we will make it public and be completely transparent about it.
Pine Tree Politics is also on Facebook. Check it out.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
About Global Climate Scam Dot Com
Mankind has a moral obligation to be a responsible steward of God’s creation for the good of future generations. Protecting and preserving our earth’s ecosystems must remain a high priority for citizens of every nation.
However, we oppose the alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.” In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change. They claim the “science is settled” when, in fact, it is not. Scientists do not agree on the cause of climate change, the role of carbon dioxide (CO2), the degree to which man contributes to atmospheric CO2, and whether global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Global climate changes have been occurring for centuries. Global warming is most likely occurring today. But there is much evidence to suggest that temperature fluctuations are part of a natural cycle of climate change, not man-made causes. To conclude that man bears the brunt of the blame for rising temperatures is morally irresponsible and politically reckless. Nature itself produces the greatest contributions to climate change.
The unproven ”solutions” being proposed by global warming advocates would ultimately cost billions of dollars to implement and there’s absolutely no scientific proof that these changes would have a material impact on the earth’s climate. Most of the proposed ”solutions” are based upon massive government bureaucratic programs that will ultimately reduce personal freedoms and impose additional costs upon the citizens of all nations, especially those who can least afford it. While man can take positive steps to improve some aspects of his natural environment, we must be wary of today’s grandiose claims that appear to be nothing more than a smokescreen for the intrusion of government on private property rights and the exploitation by special interests that stand to financially gain from government largess.
There’s a better approach to addressing the issue of global climate change rather than the campaign of mass hysteria being promoted by most of the media, much of academia, and many of the special interest groups that stand to profit from their “doom and gloom” pandemonium. The best solutions for preserving our environment will come from private enterprise that truly drives innovation and new technology. The usual expansion of government bureaucracies and their inherent gross inefficiencies is not the answer rather than more litigation and more government regulation. If government is to have a role, it should be to reward businesses and consumers that take positive steps to cut pollution and improve energy efficiency. Internationally there is a role for statesmen to reach out to foreign countries and encourage them to employ the best practices known for reducing air and water pollution.
At the root of the global climate change debate is an intractable claim on the part of those who would readily cripple our economy with new regulations and attack our personal freedoms with intrusion into our homes, automobiles and offices. The claim is simply that the debate about the causes of global warming is over. Any advocacy that restricts our first Amendment rights to freely speak to the issue should cause alarm for the defenders of freedom everywhere. The debate is not over. It is our duty to see that the debate begins in earnest on a solid footing of civility and real scientific investigation.
However, we oppose the alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.” In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change. They claim the “science is settled” when, in fact, it is not. Scientists do not agree on the cause of climate change, the role of carbon dioxide (CO2), the degree to which man contributes to atmospheric CO2, and whether global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Global climate changes have been occurring for centuries. Global warming is most likely occurring today. But there is much evidence to suggest that temperature fluctuations are part of a natural cycle of climate change, not man-made causes. To conclude that man bears the brunt of the blame for rising temperatures is morally irresponsible and politically reckless. Nature itself produces the greatest contributions to climate change.
The unproven ”solutions” being proposed by global warming advocates would ultimately cost billions of dollars to implement and there’s absolutely no scientific proof that these changes would have a material impact on the earth’s climate. Most of the proposed ”solutions” are based upon massive government bureaucratic programs that will ultimately reduce personal freedoms and impose additional costs upon the citizens of all nations, especially those who can least afford it. While man can take positive steps to improve some aspects of his natural environment, we must be wary of today’s grandiose claims that appear to be nothing more than a smokescreen for the intrusion of government on private property rights and the exploitation by special interests that stand to financially gain from government largess.
There’s a better approach to addressing the issue of global climate change rather than the campaign of mass hysteria being promoted by most of the media, much of academia, and many of the special interest groups that stand to profit from their “doom and gloom” pandemonium. The best solutions for preserving our environment will come from private enterprise that truly drives innovation and new technology. The usual expansion of government bureaucracies and their inherent gross inefficiencies is not the answer rather than more litigation and more government regulation. If government is to have a role, it should be to reward businesses and consumers that take positive steps to cut pollution and improve energy efficiency. Internationally there is a role for statesmen to reach out to foreign countries and encourage them to employ the best practices known for reducing air and water pollution.
At the root of the global climate change debate is an intractable claim on the part of those who would readily cripple our economy with new regulations and attack our personal freedoms with intrusion into our homes, automobiles and offices. The claim is simply that the debate about the causes of global warming is over. Any advocacy that restricts our first Amendment rights to freely speak to the issue should cause alarm for the defenders of freedom everywhere. The debate is not over. It is our duty to see that the debate begins in earnest on a solid footing of civility and real scientific investigation.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Change the Congress in 2010 Website
Executive Director – Catherine Welborn
(Cwelborn @ChangetheCongressin2010.com)
I’ve been struggling with how to tell you “About Us” and finally just decided to start at the beginning. I tried to find a web site where our members would fit in – but you know what? These thousands of groups and web sites mostly were single issue: Pro-Life; Pro-Choice; Democrat; Republican; candidates had to swear on stacks of Bibles that they would do this or that … I mean, let’s get real, people. We have to fix our country first – that’s THE most important thing that we’re doing here.
We here in Change the Congress in 2010 want our Representatives and Senators to pay attention to us – the voters who put them in office. Instead they totally fail to represent us – rather they represent themselves, lobbyists, special interests, or worse … a political party. If members of Congress don’t start paying attention to us – you know, we the people – we’re going to try our best to get rid of them. Change the attitude of Congress or change the members of Congress.
So CTC2010 stumbled along looking for a home … and decided to make our own home! Why couldn’t we be the ones who offered all the thousands of web sites and groups a home to make their voices heard? Until we consolidate all these groups into one large umbrella group, our voices won’t be heard.
When you read statistics like 57% of registered voters (that’s 83 million, give or take a couple of hundred thousand) want to throw out every member of Congress, us wanting to get 40 million Americans willing to stand together and say we’re taking back our country doesn’t sound quite so unlikely! That is the only way to change what’s going on in our country. We have to do it ourselves – you and me and our friends and neighbors. We must stay focused on our goals – not become bogged down in daily stuff … our goals are larger. And this is how we’re going to do it – with my vote and your vote. At the ballot box. Legally. Completely. Americans are scared of what’s going on … and they want to stop being scared! I want to stop being scared!
So here we are in our new home. We invite you to join us here – this is a ‘we’ group. We all have to participate – we all have to invite one new member every week – we all have to do our homework and find potential candidates to run against the career politicians in DC. But we want to be a fun group too. We had a virtual 1-month birthday party with over a hundred guests! Silly? Sure, but we have to stop and take time to laugh … otherwise, we’ll cry all the time about what’s happening within our government.
Our future plans are to have a “Members Only” section within our site. That’s where registered members only can go into a chat room with other members, discuss issues on the forum page and then vote, look at and talk about the “Keepers” page. That’s where we plan to put all of your comments about why you believe we should keep “John Q. Public” in office. All of us only get 1 vote – and when we start voting on issues, we’ll only have 1 vote here too. How would you like to vote for President? 1 person, 1 vote = 40 million of us discussing why and how and then – VOTE! The reason we’re collecting zip codes is for state races. I don’t live in California so why should I get to vote on a California issue – even here within our own home? When we discuss issues and vote, our plan is to publish those numbers – to the media, to Congress, even to the White House. This won’t be a sample polling – these numbers will be 40 million actual Americans voting on issues.
So we hope that you feel comfortable in our new home and do decide to join us. Be part of the 40 million Americans willing to stand together and say we’re taking back our country, one Congressional seat at the time!
For more information, please click here.
We here in Change the Congress in 2010 want our Representatives and Senators to pay attention to us – the voters who put them in office. Instead they totally fail to represent us – rather they represent themselves, lobbyists, special interests, or worse … a political party. If members of Congress don’t start paying attention to us – you know, we the people – we’re going to try our best to get rid of them. Change the attitude of Congress or change the members of Congress.
So CTC2010 stumbled along looking for a home … and decided to make our own home! Why couldn’t we be the ones who offered all the thousands of web sites and groups a home to make their voices heard? Until we consolidate all these groups into one large umbrella group, our voices won’t be heard.
When you read statistics like 57% of registered voters (that’s 83 million, give or take a couple of hundred thousand) want to throw out every member of Congress, us wanting to get 40 million Americans willing to stand together and say we’re taking back our country doesn’t sound quite so unlikely! That is the only way to change what’s going on in our country. We have to do it ourselves – you and me and our friends and neighbors. We must stay focused on our goals – not become bogged down in daily stuff … our goals are larger. And this is how we’re going to do it – with my vote and your vote. At the ballot box. Legally. Completely. Americans are scared of what’s going on … and they want to stop being scared! I want to stop being scared!
So here we are in our new home. We invite you to join us here – this is a ‘we’ group. We all have to participate – we all have to invite one new member every week – we all have to do our homework and find potential candidates to run against the career politicians in DC. But we want to be a fun group too. We had a virtual 1-month birthday party with over a hundred guests! Silly? Sure, but we have to stop and take time to laugh … otherwise, we’ll cry all the time about what’s happening within our government.
Our future plans are to have a “Members Only” section within our site. That’s where registered members only can go into a chat room with other members, discuss issues on the forum page and then vote, look at and talk about the “Keepers” page. That’s where we plan to put all of your comments about why you believe we should keep “John Q. Public” in office. All of us only get 1 vote – and when we start voting on issues, we’ll only have 1 vote here too. How would you like to vote for President? 1 person, 1 vote = 40 million of us discussing why and how and then – VOTE! The reason we’re collecting zip codes is for state races. I don’t live in California so why should I get to vote on a California issue – even here within our own home? When we discuss issues and vote, our plan is to publish those numbers – to the media, to Congress, even to the White House. This won’t be a sample polling – these numbers will be 40 million actual Americans voting on issues.
So we hope that you feel comfortable in our new home and do decide to join us. Be part of the 40 million Americans willing to stand together and say we’re taking back our country, one Congressional seat at the time!
For more information, please click here.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Government Garnishes Our Wages; Unconstitutional and Wrong?
Child Support Myths
I. “Child Support is about taking care of children.”---Ideally, a child should spend equal time with each parent and each parent should take care of the child during their time with the child. Child support basically replaced WELFARE for the mothers.
II. “Child Support guidelines are based on a fair determination of what it takes to raise a child.”---Child support guidelines were created decades ago by the same company that was hired to collect it. Guidelines were set arbitrarily high because the more the company collected, the more it got paid.
III. “Child Support orders are calculated accurately.”---Most orders are calculated incorrectly. Custodial Parents are not required to document their income, and there is no penalty if they lie about it. While all CS workers have access to State and Federal pay records, they do not verify their income. Furthermore, judges often “impute” income for the Noncustodial Parents. They calculate support based on how much they “think” the Parent should be earning rather than what he actually earns. They almost never impute income on the Custodial Parent.
IV. “Child Support obligations are based strictly on the needs of the child.”---States receive federal funding based on how much support they collect so the orders are set arbitrarily high to collect more funding.
V. “Child Support has to be spent on the child’s health, well-being and care.”---Recipients of child support are not required to prove that the amounts received are 1) necessary to meet the children's needs or 2) are actually spent on the children.
VI. “Both parents are responsible for financially supporting his children.”---If the mother refuses to work, the government provides her with welfare, food stamps, medical assistance, housing assistance, educational; assistance and daycare, but if dad can’t pay--even due to a disability, he can be imprisoned and forfeit all his assets.
VII. “A Non-Custodial Parent is responsible for financially supporting his children.”---A child needs two active parents in his life, not a child support check.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
