Company Name - CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
TRUE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Here We Go Again

It has been two years since I produced the report on the proposed revised platform for 2012. We were able to prove it was written by the rhino republicans. Because of this we were able to maintain the original platform of 2010. The newly proposed revised platform for 2014  is not that different from the one proposed this year so I am leaving this report until 2014 Maine State Convention.

2012 Maine Republican plarform exposed

Take America Back
TAB
Spokesperson Phil Merletti
Takeamericabackofmaine.vpweb.com
 
04/30/12
 
ALERT
 
We are six days out from the Republican Convention in Augusta. On the 5 of May, the delegates will be voting for the Republican Platform that will be representing the Republican Principles and beliefs that will lead and direct the way for all Republicans for the next two years.
 
The current Republican Platform was unanimously voted in by the delegates May 08, 2010 at the last convention. Those apposing the platform called the platform radical because it held those who took the Oath of the United States & Maine Constitution to faithfully represent and stand for the people and for the good of Maine.
 
The most humbling quote of that platform states: We the citizens of Maine united by free association as Republicans, dedicated to seeing the principles which brought forth the birth and ascendance of this State and these United States once again made dominant and pledge our unwavering allegiance, not to a political party, but to the Constitution of Maine and the Constitution of the United States of America.”
 
The new Republican draft proposal was obviously created by those who thought the current platform would not allow the present leaders to, control the Republican Party, with an iron fist, as the way that they have in the past. If we, “who covet the current Republican Principals which are the same Principles that were religiously sought after by our founding fathers, do not retain the current Republican Platform,” we willfully lower ourselves to just a party, by name only.
 
With the help of dedicated believers of the Maine and US Constitutions, we have compared the proposed platform to the current 2010 platform and we systematically scrutinized every line by line, every word by word and we were transfixed with panic by the obvious attempt to destroy the Principles, freedoms and liberty that allowed a nation to exist for 235 years!
 
I beg all Republicans to share and place this alert into the hands of all of those who could have an affect on this outcome and those delegates that will be voting at the May 6 Convention.
 
If you are reading this information on line, please forward this to everyone on your e-mail list, this must go viral in order to be successful!
 
                                                       Phil Merletti, Spokesperson
 
EXPLANATION OF THE COMPARISON STUDY OF THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORMS
2010 & 2012
 
What follows bellow, is my findings of the comparison study:
 
REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
 
I began with the current 2010 Republican Platform and the 2012 draft platform because they are the easiest to actually ‘rule out first’. What I say next is not because of a political bias, but because after reading both platforms three times, I could not find anything that would drastically contrast the State & Federal Constitutions. However, only one of the two platforms stands out as purely constitutional. For your information, I compare the current platform with the draft platform, because you will be voting for one of them at the 2012 convention to represent the Republican Party for the next two years.
 
The current Republican Platform (adopted May 8, 2010) reads like the State and Federal Constitutions, which are the true “Law of the State” & “Law of the Land”. To me, I personally believe, GOD was guiding the hands of those who crafted this ‘one of a kind’ piece of work in 2010! You are of course, free to form your own opinion, but only after you personally and compare these two documents and only after you take them apart piece by piece. If you do, make this comparison, I am sure that you will see that the 2010 Republican Platform will stand on its own merits.
 
First of all, the approach to change the current platform is an insult to patriotic Republicans; it is no different than trying to feebly change the original U.S. Constitution as the Democrats have done since the sixties. When comparing the 2012 proposed draft platform, it is mild and is weakly written in quality, even with the good new additions that apply to recent issues, since 2010. The Republican Party Platform Committee made a drastic mistake with their plan to destroy the 2010 platform in its entirety and to replace it with a wishy-washy watered down version that is but a shadow of the current platform that was voted in by a landslide at the convention of 2010. By replacing the current platform instead of amending it, much of the structure and strength the Republican Party Principles were replaced with soft and weak language. Also, not only were the conservative Republican Principles weakened or rewritten, many important principles were willfully rejected or ignored; those significant principles that were removed and not considered are now recorded at the end of this Republican Comparison Study.
 
Many of our researchers believe that that this was not done by accident; we cannot prove it, but it is painfully obvious considering the 2010 platform was remove from the Maine Republican Party website and replaced with the proposed draft platform in early March. I believe that this blatant act was done to prevent the party members from scrutinizing both platforms to ensure a shoe-in at the Republican Convention in May (and once again, “voter fraud”)! There are many ways of looking at this allegation:
 
·       Either one or more of the platform committee was taking orders from the upper GOP and they knew what they were doing by weakening the current Republican Platform Principles of the GOP,
 
·       Or they were ill-equipped to revise it and should have dropped out of the platform committee (there is no third choice).
Also, it is no secret to those who have read or heard that the Party Chairman Charles Webster believed that only radicals supported the 2010 platform!
 
My fear is, that many of the delegates for the 2012 Convention have not read the current platform. When the Delegates are introduced to the proposed draft platform, they will not have the time to read or understand it, nor will they have time to compare it to the current platform. To prevent this planned and despicable situation from happening, I have made the comparison in advance and have made the study available to all.
 
Lastly I encourage all delegates to obtain both the current 2010 & proposed draft 2012 Republican platforms before you make you own study. And, secondly I challenge any Republican Party delegate or registered Republican to dispute my findings in a public forum.
 
 
Comparison of the current 2010 Republican Platform and the proposed draft platform of 2012
 
We all know that the preamble sets the stage, it gives us a focal point and steers us down a steady path, our current platform is vibrant and alive; its gives true “hope and change” that we demand and are all personally responsible for. The current platform’s preamble admirably admits the prior faults, but yet it gives us instruction, guidance, direction and encouragement, all overseen by principles that were passed on down by our founding fathers.
 
On its own, the new draft is good and passable when compared to the Democrat platform, but in comparison to the preamble of 2010, the new preamble is lifeless & boring and does not have the punch that is needed to keep us ahead of the coming crisis. It does give identification of the corrupt government that was replaced in 2010 and it does not admit to the inadequacies of the present Legislature. The proposed preamble recognizes that “a new generation is needed to rise up to put the nation back on track,” but it fails to mention the recognition of the “T” Party and how “it helped to put Maine on the right track”. Why were all references removed from history and why did someone or group hide the goal of the “T” Party, which was written in the 2010 preamble’s version: the “reclamation of our heritage and principles that are vital to the survival of the republic”. It fails to mention that it was the Republicans that squashed the efforts that  “T” Party played before the 2010 election and that the Republicans embarrassingly and selfishly took the credit that was due to the “T” Party. Was all of this information naively overlooked or was it systematically and obviously re-written to keep it from the 2012 Republican Party Convention Delegates?
 
Section 1, A. We proclaim allegiance not to the party, but to the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Maine
 
This section only proclaims allegiance to the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. The definition of the word proclaim only means: affirmation or announcement.
 
Whereas the current platform language pledges our unwavering allegiance to the Maine & U.S. Constitutions. The definition of the word pledge is from the heart, it means: to insure, a guarantee, and a solemn –sincere – sober promise. The definition of the word unwavering means: determined, resolute, unshakable, unwavering, un-wandering, loyal, firm, steadfast, unfaltering.
 
Section 1, C.  As it is the duty of all elected officials taking the oath/affirmation of office to uphold both the Maine and Federal Constitutions; it is incumbent upon them to read these documents in their entirety and reflect upon what is required of them to adequately fulfill their oath.
 
This section only asks officials that take an “oath of Office” to uphold, read, reflect and be required to uphold and adequately fulfill their Oath.  The definition of the word adequate only means: fair to midland, tolerable, passable, just enough, about average, acceptable, or sufficient.
 
Whereas the current 2010 platform languages demands our elected representatives abide. This means that we demand and expect those who make the bills and laws to abide to fulfill their responsibilities. The word demand means: Immediate activity, must happen, forcefully, need to, summon, forcefully, urgently request, proclaim. The definition of the word abide means: to stick it out, stand up to, to put up with something or someone.
 
Section 2. A, B, C & D. Governor LePage, the Attorney General the State Treasurer, the Secretary of State, and the Republican led 125 Legislature have made significant progress toward achieving the goals laid out in the platform adopted by the 2010 Republican State Convention.
 
It is nice to see that the introduction for this section recognizes “the significant progress toward achieving the goals laid out in the platform adopted by the 2010 Republican State Convention”.  The question that I propose is if there was significant progress toward achieving the goals laid out in the platform of 2010, why not stay with the platform or amend it and not abolish it? The second question that begs an answer is: Why are these successful goals laid out in this new platform as accomplishments. Although true, my first reaction was this entire section was braggadocio at its best, written to boastfully rub the nose of the Democrat Party, the RINO’s and the progressives concerning the achievements of the Republican Party (even though they deserve it). However, fair play would have dictated that being humble would have trumped this section. It would have been an act of modesty to place this information as an addendum at the end of the 2010 platform, to show what a good platform could achieve when used properly!
 
Section 3.in order to define the specific polices encompassed by said constitutional principles, and to build on the previous stated accomplishments, be it resolved:
 
Written in this introduction: the word resolved is soft and weak and a cop-out at best.
 
Whereas the current 2010 platform when addressing the pursuit of Constitutional Principles is very “clearly strong” because its defining words are we endorse and shall promote.
 
To establish the difference, the definition of the word resolve means: determine, decided or concluded; this is a soft-weak word when used to support Constitutional Principles.
 
Whereas the original word endorse in the 2010 platform means: guarantee of a standard to certify, legally condone, corroborate, defend, back up, abide by, support, sanction, judge or approve. Any political scholar, legislator, lawyer, judge or contract writer would tell you that the word shall has power over all other words that directs people towards an action. The definition of the word shall means: a demand, a command or assertion, something that is called for, or necessary or required. Also the definition of the word promote in the 2010 platform means: true progress and advancement, to upgrade, elevate or push hard to achieve.
 
Section 3, A. The government of Maine exists to preserve and protect certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights endowed by our Creator for the benefit, protection and security of all citizens and future generations. To maintain the doctrine the U.S. and Maine Constitutions are the framework to which all legislation must conform:
 
This section should have been introduced as an amendment and placed in the current platform in the latter part of preamble # 1. It would read: The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere and “The government of Maine exists to preserve and protect certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights endowed by our Creator for the benefit, protection and security of all citizens and future generations. To maintain the doctrine the U.S. and Maine Constitutions is the framework to which all legislation must conform.”
 
Section 3, A, 1.Oppose any law that contradicts the 10Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
 
For the record, it is the 10 Amendment that gives credence to the Sovereignty of the state and in turn gives the individual states, its state rights. The latter part of the 10 Amendment implies that the people have the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, the people are sovereign and have the power of sovereignty over the States and the Federal Government according to privileges as read in Article IV, sections 2 & 4 and Amendments 10 & 14.
 
The resolve in this section is to oppose any law that contradicts the U.S Constitution’s 10 Amendment. The definition of the word oppose is another soft-weak word that means: to express (verbal) opposition and dispute or contradict. It also means: to resist or to act against.
 
Whereas the language in the current 2010 platform “the Principles upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:”
 
This calls attention to the fact that the Republican Party has “founding principles” that demand that our elected representatives abide, protect and recognize that State Sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the states by the Constitution. The reason for this language in the 2010 platform was, before this current administration: the Maine Legislature and its Governors had given away the sovereignty of this state and its people and they have allowed United Nation’s “soft-laws” to permeate into our Maine laws. As a result state laws were created that fulfill the U.N.’s directive to incorporate “Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 into Maine law. Several laws were created in Maine that strengthened the U.N.’s mandate and schedule; laws such as LURC, the DEP and the Department of Education are just a few. Since the acceptance of Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) by George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton (1991), the United Nations continued to remove the GOD given rights and the protection guaranteed by our Maine and U.S. Constitutions.
 
When the 2010 Republican Convention voted to accept the current platform, the freedom & liberty minded people in this state believed that we would regain and retain our Constitutional rights. However, both the Republicans & Democrats willfully decided not to fight for the constitutional rights of Maine people when they voted against the repeal of LURC.
 
To ignore the repeal of LURC and to only reform LURC now sends a clear signal to the United Nations at the next U.N meeting in Rio De Genaro, that the State of Maine will be in compliance with U.N. International Law.
 
When the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUNC) and the International Council for Environmental Law (ICEL) releases their forth draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development and this  exposed to the light of day, each state in the U.S. will have to decide to go with the United Nations or go it alone or find other states that will stay together under our present United States Constitution. No one can predict the outcome of what will happen, during or after this meeting. Will the Maine officials have the stomach to aggressively side with its people and demand that our elected representatives abide to their Maine and U.S. Constitutions? Or will they only oppose “any law that contradicts the 10 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!”
 
Section 3, A, 2.Defend the individuals right to keep and bear arms as enumerated by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Maine Constitution.
 
This resolve falls short because when the Maine Constitution is mentioned, it does not acknowledge Article l, section 16 of the Maine Constitution, which is stronger and supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Maybe oversight is the reason, but I think not. Three thoughts come to mind:
  • The 2010 platform Section 1, c. does not just feebly oppose the 2 Amendment, it insist on strict adherence to our 2 Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
  • The Maine Constitution’s Article l, section 16 reads identical to the U.S. Constitution, however, the Article l, section 16 continues to read: and this shall not be questioned. Many Republicans and Rino’s side with the democrats on the rights of freedom & liberty and to have full rights of gun ownership and they are aware that the Maine Constitution trumps the U.S. Constitution, especially when engaging the 10 Amendment.
 
 
·       In the year 2010, the Supreme Court decided on the case Heller Vs. MacDonald, the court confirmed the individuals right to keep and bear arms. This case was narrowly passed with 5 Justices in favor and 4 against. In the event of a 5 socialist being placed on the court, the Heller & MacDonald can be struck down as fast as it was sanctioned. The State of Maine and any other state that believed in the 10 Amendment would have to rely on their own Constitutions and its language. Once again, the Maine Constitution, Amendment 16 reads: and this shall not be questioned.
 
  • This year, once again the U.N is gearing-up to establish soft-laws and universal laws that will affect the United States by establishing treaties that contradict our Constitutional laws. These treaties are at present time coming up for signature by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This may be their last effort to create anti-gun laws that will be forest on to us Citizens that believe in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment and Maine’s Article 1, Section 16.
 
If any treaty is signed by Hillary Clinton, it will be sanctioned by the President, and with the advice and approval the US Senate, which is controlled by Harry Reed’s anti-gun, anti-constitution Senate.
 
 
Because this Platform is for the Maine Republicans, the 16 Amendment of the Maine Constitution should have been written out completely to let the people know that the 16 Amendment is stronger and why!
 
Section 3, A, 3.Oppose any and all treaties with any country or organization which would surrender any US sovereignty.
 
See explanation to Section 3, A 1. and Section 3,A, 2. for reference.
 
The language in this section is very week and it fails to mention our greatest enemy, the United Nations; who just happens to be the most dangerous if there is collusion between our president and the Senate body.
 
 In the current platform after the Preamble, it is written: The principles upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:
 
3. National Sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.
 
Also in the current platform, Section 1, “To Form a More perfect Union” Segment h. it clearly reads and targets three important Unconstitutional U.N. treaties that are being forced down on the American people. Our present platform directs us to take direct action: Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other country which surrenders US sovereignty, specifically;
  • Section 1, h, i.  Reject the U.N. treaty on Rights of the Child.
  • Section 1, h, ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty.
  • Section 1, h, iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.
 
Why was the United Nations or any of the  treaties not mentioned in the 2012 proposed Republican draft platform?
 
If any treaty is signed by Hillary Clinton, it will be sanctioned by the President, and with the advice and approval the US Senate, which is controlled by Harry Reed’s anti-gun, anti-constitution Senate. Are we to understand that if the proposed UN draft treaties are accepted, do we than forget to fight to reject these three U.N. treaties that can affect us all? (Foe reference, see us Constitution, Article ll, section 2, paragraph 2 on treaties).
 
 
Section 3, A, 4. Protect the American legal system from Sharia Law.
 
This is a new section. I believe that this important section should have been introduced as an amendment to the 2010 platform. I believe that all U.S. Citizens would agree to this statement because, if we did agree to allow Sharia Law, all of our Constitutional Freedoms and Liberty would be in conflict with secular Islamist law. It is impossible to maintain two laws that are in conflict and polarized; many women, children and some men would automatically lose their unalienable GOD given and natural rights.
 
Written in the 2010 platform, Section “To Establish Justice”,Sectiona, expresses clearly: Restore “Constitutional Law” as the basis for the Judiciary.  This proposed language would have fit properly after this section.
 
The proposed language could have also fit properly following the current section in the current platform “To Provide for the Common Defense” Section a, Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (jihad), made against the US on Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
 
 
Section 3, B, 1. The expression of religious faith must not be excluded from the public forum.
 
This is a similar section that is found in the current platform. I believe that that this important section should have been introduced as an amendment to the current platform. I believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to this statement because there should be “Freedom of Religion” in the public forum.
 
The proposed language could have strengthened and fit properly following the current section in the current platform Section “To establish Justice” Segment b, Reassert the principle that “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “freedom from religion”.
 
Section 3, B, 2. We appreciate and honor the service of active duty military and veterans, fire fighters, police officers, sheriffs, and emt’s, and all those who serve our states and nation.
 
This is a new section. I believe that that this important section should have been introduced as an amendment to the 2010 platform. I believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to this statement because this is a strong and an extremely favorable statement. However, they left out our Cost Guard, Army, Navy & Marine Reserves and National Guard units of the Army & Air Force. The recognition of these military units may have been to be intended to be in the latter part “all of those who serve”, but to be respectful, these units should have been spelled out right after “active duty military”!
 
 
Section 3, B, 3. The citizens of Maine are best capable of deciding how to live their lives, the fruits of their labor and private property belong to the laborer.
 
This is similar to a section that is found in the current platform. I believe that that this important section should have been introduced as an amendment to the current platform. I believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to this statement.
 
The proposed language could have strengthened and fit properly following the current section in the current platform Section “To Promote the General Welfare” Section k, Espouse and follow the principle: it is immoral to steal the property rightly earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits.
 
Section 3, B, 4. Enforce currant law regarding the assimilation of legal immigrants into Maine society.
 
Even though this is a strong and favorable statement, compared to the 2010 platform, it falls short in many areas. Whether this was done to not address issues that are confrontational or to appear politically correct or was it foolishly ignored, I will leave you to make the choice.
 
Whereas the current platform, under the section “To from a More Perfect Union” Segment i.  It is written: Restore the process of assimilation of immigrants to preserve the benefits of an advanced educated and prosperous society. Rescind Maine’s sanctuary state status. No amnesty, no benefits, no citizenship-ever-for anyone in the country illegally. Arrest and detain, for a specific period of time, anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.
 
Section 3, B, 5. Ensure the integrity of the election process.
 
This is similar to a section that is found in the current platform. However it could never replace the original language, nor can it be amended to the original language. Once again, it is all in the language. The definition of the word ensure means: make certain, control, check, see to it, secure.
 
Whereas the current platform, under the section “To from a More Perfect Union” Section g, i, ii, iii.  It is written:
Section g, Restore integrity to the electoral process. This section was written because the electoral process was broken and it needed to be restored not just ensured. The definition of the word restore means: To fix, repair, reestablish, reconstruct, regenerate, reinstate. The system is still broken and all they want is to ensure?
Section i, prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN, no matter what it or its affiliate organizations rename themselves: New York Communities for change, New England United for Justice; Conduct through investigation of their activities and voter fraud and prosecute violators.
Section ii, eliminate motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms, institute secure voter registration and identification systems.
Section iii, reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity.
 
Section 3, B, 6. Secure the U.S. borders in accordance with the current Federal Law.
 
This is similar to a section that is found in the current platform. However it could never replace the original language, nor can it be amended to the original language. Once again, it is all in the language.
 
Whereas the current platform, under the section “To Provide for the Common Defense” Section b.  It is written: Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government. There is not much difference between secure or sealing the boarders and both sections recognize the need for border protecting, but this is where the proposed language ends. The language in the current platform continues with the protection of the citizens along the border and everywhere. The current platform also continues to recognize that this protection is the “Prime Directive of the Federal Government.”
 
Whether this was done to not address issues that are confrontational or to appear politically correct or was it foolishly ignored, I will leave you to make the choice.
 
 
Section 3, B, 7. Affirm English as the official language of the State of Maine.
 
This is a new section. I believe that that this section should have been introduced as an amendment to the current 2010 platform. I also believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to this statement.
 
This language should have been an amendment and could have been placed under Section 3. “To insure Domestic tranquility”, Segment a, iv.
 
 
Section 3, C, 1 & 2. Economic Prosperity is achieved by passing pro-business laws that encourage investment, stability, and a positive business climate; freedom to work laws secure the right of the employee to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union.
 
This is similar to a section that is found in the current platform. I believe that that this important section should have been introduced as an amendment to the current platform. I believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to this statement.
 
This language could have been dovetailed into the current platform. Because this new language is strong and descriptive it could have been placed as a foreword to the current platform language in the section “To form a more perfect Union”, section f, reject the Employee free-choice Elimination-act, as an unconscionable effort to the right to a secret vote.
 
 
Section 3, C, 3. Health care is a concern to all Maine citizens and should be affordable through free market solutions.
 
This is similar to a section that is found in the current platform. This statement could never replace the original language, nor can it be amended to the original language. Once again, it is all in the language. Health care is more than just a concern. Nor can it weakly or softly say that health care should be affordable. This statement is a useless effort if it is not demanded or an intelligent effort is not spelled out to follow.
 
The current platform fulfills this need and direction under the section “To Promote the General Welfare” Section l, I, 1, a-b-c- & d.  It is written:
Sectionl, Clarify that healthcare is not a right. It is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However, the government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but detrimental to the entire healthcare system. Only market solutions will solve the problems.
Section l, i, in the State of Maine:
1.     Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire) to increase competition, drive down the cost, and increase the options available.
a.      Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
b.     Allow purchase of insurance across state lines. LD 290.
c.      Enact tort reform as exemplified by Texas.
d.     Eliminate Dirigo.
 
To ignore this current language/information was an obvious and dubious action (or inaction). I believe that this was done to not address issues that are confrontational and to not appear politically incorrect. I will leave you to make the choice.
 
 
Section 3, C, 4. Private ownership of Maine land is fundamental to liberty;
a.     Is consistent with our economic system.
b.     Provides Limited government control.
c.      Ensures good land stewardship.
d.     Affords property owners the right to develop the Maine Woods in a responsible and lawful manner.
 
For further information, seeSection 3, B, 3.
 
This is section is somewhat similar to a segment that is found in the current platform. I believe that that this important section should have been introduced as an amendment to the current platform. I believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to these true statements. However, these are only statements without directions to protect land ownership from State or Federal Government plunder and confiscation in the form of “Eminent Domain” or “Condemnation of Property”.
 
The proposed 2012 language could have strengthened and fit properly following the current section in the current platform Section “To Promote the General Welfare” Section k, Espouse and follow the principle: it is immoral to steal the property rightly earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits.
 
First of all, “Private ownership of Maine land” is an oxymoron, either it is private ownership or it is Maine land. It is illegal to have private and state ownership of any parcel of property; this is socialism.
 
Secondly, private ownership of land is fundamental to libertyand “freedom”! For those who understand the United Nations “Sustainable Development and Sustainable America (Agenda 21)”, the U.N. does not believe in private property or rights to the landowner(s).
 
The reason why I mention “Sustainable Development and Sustainable America (Agenda 21)”, the Republican Legislators members who were on the Committee of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry literally took their turn raping the only bill (1798) which would have removed the threat of Agenda 21 from those who work or have private property in the Unorganized Territories. What is unbelievable is that there was a majority of seven Republican members and five Democrats. Jeff Gifford who co-sponsored the original repeal bill, agreed with the Democrats to reform his own bill. He not only seconded fosters motion to approve the socialist bill, but he also seconded an amendment that added a 5 year sunset that will stop a future repeal bill. Essentially, if the original repeal bill had not been scrapped, it would have stopped “Sustainable Development and Sustainable America (Agenda 21)”. The Republicans (Sen. Roger Sherman of Hodgton, Sen. Michael Thibadeu of Waldo, Rep. Jeffery Gifford of Lincoln, Rep. Dean Cray of Palmira, Rep. Russel Black of Wilton, Rep. Karen Foster of Augusta, Rep. Jeffery Timberlake of Turnor) that sat on the Committee of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry understood completely what they did when they released a socialistic reform bill instead of the Constitution bill to repeal LURC! Maybe they never read the current platform or maybe they want to conform to Agenda 21?
 
Section 3, C, 5. Oppose all attempts to establish a Maine Wood National Park and open spaces through public and private initiatives is foundational to our way of life.
 
This is a new section. I believe that that this section should have been introduced as an amendment to the current 2010 platform. I also believe that all Maine Citizens would agree to this statement if they knew that the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21 was behind the “North Maine Woods Nation Park and Preserve”, “Restore” and “Quimby’s Give Away”. Unfortunately, if any type of National Park were designated by the Obama administration, just opposing it would not stop it from being sited.Our legislature has already made a resolution, but we know that resolutions do not mean very much, which means the people will have to take over and the Maine people would have to engage our states rights or we would have to use the 10 amendment.
Many Maine people and the Legislature do not understand what they did when they moved bill #1978 from the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. Because of their ignorance and stupidity, the people of Maine will continue to lose their voice in the Unorganized Territories. It is the Unorganized Territories that are the targets for National Parks and Preserves. Please reread Sections 3, C 3 & 3, C. 4.
 
 
Section 3, C, 6. A comprehensive energy policy includes aggressively promoting removal of government obstacles restricting private development of energy recourses, increasing supply, decreasing demand and encouraging alternative sources to help reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, thus ensuring affordable energy costs.
 
Once again, it’s all in the language; the current platform language Section “To promote the General Welfare” segment i. Promote energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil coal and nuclear power.
 
Both statements seem similar on the surface, and they are. However, when you look deeper, the proposed statement suggests “A comprehensive energy policy includes aggressively promoting removal of government obstacles”. This is only a statement,whereas the current platformrequires action: “Promote(s) energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government”.
 
The remainder of the proposed language remains as a statement: “restricting private development of energy recourses, increasing supply, decreasing demand and encouraging alternative sources to help reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, thus ensuring affordable energy costs.” The last portion is a hope for a future endeavor and it still only encourages “alternative sources to help reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, thus ensuring affordable energy costs.”
 
Whereas the remainder of the current platform: “to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil coal and nuclear power.” Even though this is only a statement, it is still part of the original action. It also spells out the development of our natural resources that are available and is just waiting to be tapped and utilized (natural gas, oil coal and nuclear power). If this action where to take place it would automatically “reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, thus ensuring affordable energy costs.”
 
Once again, either we side with a statement, or we demand action. I leave it up to you to decide which language you support.
 
 
Section 3, C, 7. The Internet as it applies to our economy;
a. Must be free from government taxation and unreasonable regulation;
b. Should promote innovation, economic growth, investment, job creation and opportunity.
 
This is a good section, it starts of as a statement, but it has good direction and action in segments a & b. However it should have been introduced as an amendment and placed in the current platform section 5 “To Promote the General Welfare” Segment m.
 
Section 3, D. the most effective, responsive and responsible government is that which is closest to the people and the least intrusive;
 
This is a good statement, but once again it is just a statement. It does not demand nor hold allegiance to the Maine and U.S. Constitutions, nor does it give reference to the fact that we are a republic and we do not create laws that are intrusive to us or any other citizens. Had the author(s) of this section taken in consideration of these conditions, this statement would have been written to have more strength and legitimacy.
 
As it is written, It should have been introduced as an amendment in the current platform under the Section “to Secure the Blessings of Liberty” segment c.
 
However, the language in the current platform covers this proposed statement completely. Section “To Form A more Perfect Union” Segment b, reads: Direct the State of Maine to Join with other states in asserting our 10 Amendment sovereignty rights which protect us from unconstitutional federal government intrusions
 
The reason why this Segment is stronger is because the last portion of the 10 Amendment gives the power to the people: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 
 
Section 3, D, 1. Municipal Home Rule is to be encouraged and respected.
 
Once again, it is in the language. First of all, “Municipal Home Rule” should be fondly cherished, protected not just encouraged. Most people do not know, nor do they under stand that “Municipal Home Rule” almost holds the same position as the Maine Constitution. Some scholars believe that “Municipal Home Rule” holds more power than Both the Maine & US Constitutions. In the United States, it is the people, the Citizens that have the real power and it is bottom up, not top down. Once again, “Municipal Home Rule” must be fondly cherished and protected, not just encouraged!
 
 
Section 3, D, 2. Maine’s college and university classrooms should be market place of ideas where all individuals’ political and religious beliefs are expressed and respected.
 
Once again, this is another weak statement that does nothing to stop the misuse of Maine’s college and university classrooms from using unlawful brain washing techniques to convince the students that Marxism, socialism, fascism and communism is better than Capitalism. Also this statement does nothing to stop the misuse of Maine’s college and university classrooms from using unlawful brain washing techniques to convince the students that witchery, Satanist, atheist, agnostic or radical Islam is better then traditional non-violent religions.
 
Section 3, D, 3. The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not equal results.
 
Once again, this is only a statement. A statement that is only a small part of what the US and Maine Constitutions are mandated to do. Even though this is a strong and correct recognition and reminder of what equal rights are, this would not have a place in either platforms because to list this definition, would only require the need to list hundreds of states of mandates and definitions!
 
Section 3, D, 4. Welfare reform is an on-going requirement to ensure it does not become a life style at the taxpayer’s expense.
 
Once again, this is another weak statement that does nothing to stop the misuse of Maine’s broken welfare system or how to effectively restore it for the benefit of the people of Maine.
 
The current Platform in Section “To promote the General Welfare” segment f, reads: Restore the provisions of welfare reform removed with the stimulus bill.And segment l, states:
Clarify that healthcare is not a right, it is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However the government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but a detriment to the entire healthcare system. Only market based solutions will solve the problems.
i.       In the state of Maine:
1.             Remove the restrictions on health providers (as was done in New Hampshire), to increase competition, drive down the cost and increase the options available.
a.     Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
b.     Allow purchase of insurance across state lines. LD 290.
c.      Enact tort reform as exemplified by Texas.
d.     Eliminate Derigo. (this is currently in process).
 
Was the reason to not include this information ignorance or was it well calculated?
 
Section 3, D, 5. Children must have access to the best educational opportunities possible through fiscal and academic  accountability and educational choice.
 
This sentence is only a statement, it is ineffectual and is only a portion of what is already expressed and embraced in the current platform. This statement suggests that students must have access to the best educational opportunities, but it fails to refer to the fact that the Maine Constitution gives the communities control, not the schools. The system failure rests plainly on the Department of Education because they have taken the community away from the school systems. So it is they who have failed to gives access to the best educational opportunities possible through fiscal and academic  accountability and educational choice, not the parents or the community
 
 Whereas the current platform states that the Department of Education needs to be eliminated before true local control can be instituted.
 
Section 6, “To Secure the Blessings of Liberty” Segment a, I; it reads: Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the Constitution.
 
If local schools systems were controlled by the parents and community,the best educational opportunities (would be) possible through (the town’s) fiscal and academic accountability and educational choice.
 
 
Section 3, D, 6 Parents have the right to educate their children in their own homes or private schools and should be given tax relief if this is their choice.
 
This is a true statement, but once again, there are no parental or community rights as long as there is a Department of Education that is in violation of the Maine Constitution.
 
The current platform has two sections that address this section.
 
Section 3, “To insure Domestic Tranquility” Segment a, ii; Parents not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, education, or medical.
 
 
Section 6, “To Secure the Blessings of Liberty” Segment a, I; it reads: Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the Constitution.
 
 
 
Section 3, D, 7. Support the restoration of local control in education as specified in the constitution.
 
This sentence is only a statement, it is ineffectual and is only a portion of what is already expressed and embraced in the current platform. This statement only asks to support the restoration of local control. Whereas the current platform states that the Department of Education needs to be eliminated before true local control can be instituted. For more information on this subject, please see the following sections for more information in the current platform.
 
Section 3, “To insure Domestic Tranquility” Segment a, ii; Parents not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, education, or medical.
 
Section 6, “To Secure the Blessings of Liberty” Segmenti, reads: Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the Constitution.
 
Section 3, D, 8. Preserve the right of Maine citizens to grow their own food for personal consumption and/or sale within the state.
 
I am imprested with this statement, this is an action statement and it strongly supports the US and Maine’s Constitutional right to grow and sell their property within the state. However it does not mention the right to sell out of state, as is their US Constitutional right under the “Commerce Clause”. It also gives direction to defy the USDA’s hold on the farmer’s rights and the chemicals companies despicable push to grow and sell seeds that are detrimental hybrids.
 
I would place this clause under Section 5, “To Promote the General Welfare.” Segment n.
 
Section 3, E. The family is the foundation and strength of a stable society; therefore the government should not interfere, but rather support and protect the integrity and rights of the family.
 
This proposed section is well written, but again it is only a statement and not a directive, action or demand. By all intent and purpose, it should have followed Section 3, E, 1, because the language “Promote Family Values” is a directive, action and demand. Please see Section 3, E, 1 for reference.
 
To solve where to place this proposed section, it should be an amendment to the current platform, it should be placed under Section 3, “to Insure Domestic tranquility” Segment a, i and move the current segments to ii, iii, iv respectively
 
Section 3, E, 1. Promote Family Values.
 
This is a strong and needed value to promote in the proposed platform, however it is at present time in the current platform Section 3, “to Insure Domestic tranquility” which is already labeled Segment a.Promote Family Values
 
Section 3, E, 2. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.
 
This is a strong and needed value to promote in the proposed platform, however it is at present time in the current platform section labeled “Promote Family Values” Segment i, it states: “Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”
 
Section 3, E, 3. Parents – not government – are most capable and responsible to make decisions in the best interest of their minor children, including medical, disciplinary and educational decisions.
 
This is a strong and needed value to promote in the proposed platform, however it is already similarly written in the current platform section labeled “Promote Family Values” segment a, ii; it states: “Parents, not government, are responsible to make decisions in the best interest of their minor children, whether disciplinary, educational or medical.”
 
Section 3, E, 4. We believe in the sanctity of human life – from conception to natural death.
 
This is a strong and needed value to promote in the proposed platform, however it is already similarly written in the current platform. Also this proposed section just happens to leave out the langhage that the current platform has addressed and that is the protection of the unborn (NO BABY MURDER). Section 3,  “To Insure Domestic Tranquility” segment a, ii, it states: “We recognize the sanctity of life which includes the unborn.”
 
Section 3, E, 5. Discontinue using state taxes to fund Family Planning of Maine (FMA) and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE).
 
Section 3, F. Fiscal restraint and accountability for all levels of Government is paramount.
 
This sentence is only a statement, it does not give direction, action or a plan and it is useless without either.
 
Section 3, F, 1. Control spending at all levels of government, state, county and local to endure fiscal stability and minimal dept for future generations.
 
Please see Section 3, F, 2 for an explanation for this section.
 
Section 3, F, 2. All levels of government must cut spending, and institute a plan for reducing our debt.
 
This sentence is ineffectual and is only a portion of what is already expressed and embraced in the current platform. For more information on this subject, please see the following section in the current platform for more information.
 
 “To promote the general welfare”
            b. Cut spending, balance the budget, and institute a plan for paying down debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconstitutional  and will not be tolerated.
 
Section 3, F, 3. through sound fiscal management reduce the Maine tax burden; including fees.
 
Once again this is only a statement and means absolutely nothing if it does not demand a direction for sound fiscal management.
 
Many people are not aware that private property in the eyes of our founding fathers was also money and private possessions. Money was identified as private property long after the 14 amendment was adopted and after the civil war. Somewhere after the 20 century, the ownership of land was mistakenly identified only as private property and earned money became plundered (taxed) by president Wilson and successive Presidents followed this theft.
 
Under progressive Presidents, the progressive tax system was adopted under the disguise of a “fair tax’ because the rich person could afford to pay more because it is fair. Sound fiscal management would be a flat tax not progressive. Until someone in this state understands flat tax, sound fiscal management (to) reduce the Maine tax burden would remain unfair.
 
Section 3, F, 4. Institute zero based budgeting in all programs and require the government and all agencies adhere to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GSA).
 
 
The first part of this section is identical to the current platform, however the last part has an excellent requirement that “the government and all agencies adhere to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GSA).”This latter part should have been offered as an amendment and added to Section “To Promote the General Welfare” segment j.The new section in the current platform would read: Institute zero based budgeting in all programs and require the government and all agencies adhere to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GSA).
 
Section 3, F, 5. Support the Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability (OPEGA), Maine’s government oversight agency, and its mission to achieve and efficient state government.
 
During the Baldachi administration the Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability (OPEGA), was literally gutted and financially ruined. Since than, under the LePage administration, (OPEGA) is on the mend, but there is still room for growth and financial backing. This section should definitely and placed as an amendment, however the word support should be replaced with defend, aid and assist and then placed in the current platform under Section 4, “To Promote the General Welfare” Segment n. It would than read: Defend, aid and assistthe Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability (OPEGA), Maine’s government oversight agency, and its mission to achieve and efficient state government.
 
Section 3, F, 6. All state quasi-independent government authorities must be held accountable, by law, to their board of directors, or the state legislature, or the governor to ensure prudent spending accountability and administrative transparency.
 
This section should definitely be accepted and placed as an amendment in the current platform under Section “To Promote the General Welfare” Segment o.
 
Section 3, G, 1. We urge all Republican candidates to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and, if elected, to vote against any and all efforts to increase action taxes and fees.
 
This section should definitely be excepted and placed as an amendment in the current platform under Section “To Promote the General Welfare” Segment o.
 
 
Section 3, G, 2. Reform the regulations and regulatory process having a negative impact and undue burden on private enterprise.
 
This sentence is what is really needed to take Maine’s economy out of the depression that previous administrations have done to its business climate, especially in the north and along the coast on the South Eastern side of Maine. However this section is only a portion of what is already expressed and embraced in the current platform. For more information on this subject, please see the following section for more information.
 
(Note: to save time and space, a short definition of “Austrian Economics” is essentially a basic similar system as Capitalism without unfair regulations from state or Federal government)
 
“To promote the general welfare”
            a. Return to the principles of “Austrian Economics”, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest.
 
Section 3, G, 3. Ensure regulations recognize the value of Maine’s outdoor heritage and promote responsible stewardship of the environment which is based on sound science.
 
Please reread Sections 3, C 3 & 3, C. 4.
 
 
Section 3, G, 4. Conform the state tax code to the federal tax code.
 
This sections language is strong and agreeable to some uninformed people. The current Federal progressive tax code is unconstitutional in nature, because it is progressive and not fair. So this section should not be introduced as an amendment and it has no place in the current platform.
 
 
Section 3, G, 5. Promote competition in the health care system to lower costs for all Maine citizens by reducing regulations.
 
This sentence is useless and is only a portion of what is already expressed and embraced in the current platform. For more information on this subject, please see the following section for more information.
 
 
Section 3, G, 6. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and all initiated components.
 
This sections language is strong and agreeable to most people that believe in the Constitution. It also follows the intent of 26 states that are bringing this issue before the Supreme Court. This section should have been introduced as an amendment and placed in the current platform language under the section written bellow.
 
“To Promote the General Welfare” Section l, I, 1, a-b-c- & d.  It is written:
Sectionl, Clarify that healthcare is not a right. It is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However, the government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but detrimental to the entire healthcare system. Only market solutions will solve the problems.
Section i, in the State of Maine:
1       Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire) to increase competition, drive down the cost, and increase the options available.
e.     Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
f.       Allow purchase of insurance across state lines. LD 290.
g.     Enact tort reform as exemplified by Texas.
h.     Eliminate Dirigo.
i.        Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and all initiated components.
 
To ignore the current language/information was an obvious and dubious action (or inaction). I believe that this was done to not address issues that are confrontational and to not appear politically incorrect. I will leave you to make the choice.
 
Section 3, G, 7. We support legislation that requires photo identification to vote in the State of Maine.
 
This sections language is strong and agreeable to most people that believe in the Constitution. This section should have been introduced as an amendment and placed in the current platform language under the section bellow, Segment iv.
 
Section “To from a More Perfect Union”
Segment i, prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN, no matter what it or its affiliate organizations rename themselves: New York Communities for change, New England United for Justice; Conduct through investigation of their activities and voter fraud and prosecute violators.
Segment ii, eliminate motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms, institute secure voter registration and identification systems.
Segment iii, reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity.
Segment iv,We support legislation that requires photo identification to vote in the State of Maine.
 
IMPORTANT SECTIONS AND SEGMENTS LEFT OUT OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE 2012 REPLUBLICAN PLATFORM THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED, IGNORED OR WILFULLY OMITTED.
 
Note: Before you read this section, I will point out that you will recognize some of the language that was written in this report. This is because I have used sections and segments from the current 2010 Republican Platform to compare them to the week and soft language of the 2012 proposed Draft.
 
Also note that most of the language in the current 2010 Republican Platform either demands, requires or calls for an action to submit Republicans to GOD’s natural laws, GOD’s unalienable rights, morals, ethics or virtuous beliefs that are recognized by U.S. and Maine People. There are however many sections and segments in the 2012 that support the Maine and United States Constitutions, but the language is weak, soft and the sentences are only non-committed feel good statements and do not demand action to be taken.
 
Lastly, you will also see below that most of the 2010 Republican Platform is rewritten. That is because, the 2012 platform committee, systematically scrutinized every line by line, every word by word, which as a result, they softened and weakened each section and segment and then after revising it their way, they rewrote their politically correct version of the draft platform.
 
 
PREAMBLE:
 
In the course of a nations history it is natural that political philosophies will evolve which run contrary to the original principles evidence of the time of that nation’s founding. A nation founded in tyranny will by its nature spawn sentiment in direct opposing to that tyranny. Conversely, a nation which is dedicated to protecting the rights of its people, and it seeks to bind the excesses of power, which naturally accrue to governments, is subject to the evolution of factions which strive to throw off the shackles of restraint and gather power and influence over the people. Freedom is not a preexisting condition into which every one is delivered. Freedom and personal liberty are conditions of existence, which are hard fought for and once won, must be maintained. Each generation must be taught anew the importance of eternal vigilance against those who would disregard the limits imposed on government, and usurp powers not granted to them by the people.
 
Today this state and the nation are in crisis precisely because we as a people have failed to maintain that vigilance. We have failed to pass down from one generation to another the critical knowledge and lessons that history provides. We have let rot from within, the foundation upon which freedom and prosperity must be built for it to survive.
 
This election cycle is unique in the history of both this state and our nation. We are presented with a situation in which WE THE PEOPLE, must re-educate our selves and our neighbors, and put the knowledge of liberty to work in the elections this November. Years of neglect have allowed factions detrimental the core principles of this nation, to entrench themselves in both political parties, and undermine the education of Constitutional Principles vital to the survival of the republic.
 
The Tea Party movement is reminiscent of the principle revolt that led to the birth of the Republican Party in 1854. In June of that year, Horace Greeley referred to the newly reformed Republicans as “…united to restore the union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of liberty…”. This year it is incumbent upon those Republicans who strive to protect and defend our Constitution, to reclaim that heritage.
 
It is within this context that WE, THE CITIZENS OF MAINE UNITED BY FREE ASSOCIATION AS REPUBLICANS, dedicated to seeing the principles which brought forth the birth and ascendance of this State and these United States once again made dominant and pledge our unwavering allegiance, not to a political party, but to the Constitution of the State of Maine and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Republican Party is the vehicle through which we seek better unify and promote those in pursuit of these goals.
 
 
 
 
The principle upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:
 
1. The Constitutions of both state and Federal are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere.
 
2.States sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the state by the Constitution.
 
3.National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international.
 
4.It is the responsibility and duty, “We the People”, to educate ourselves and others; to demand honest elections free of corruptions and to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and loyalty to the Constitution.
 
 
 
In pursuit of these principles we endorse and shall promote the following initiatives
 
Section 1 “To Form a More Perfect Union”
 
a. All legislation must adhere to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution to protect the individual from intrusive government.
 
b. Direct the State of Maine to join with other states in asserting or 10 Amendment sovereignty rights which protect us from unconstitutional federal government intrusions.
 
c. Insist on strict adherence to our 2 amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
d. Pass a “Read the Bill” act, to insure clarity, and eliminate the corruption with side issues, earmarks, pork or riders.
 
e. Oppose “Localism and Diversity, the fairness Doctrine or whatever else such attempted restrictions are labeled. Any restriction on speech is by definition NOT free speech.
 
f. Reject the Employee free-choice Elimination-act as an unconstitutional affront to a secret vote.
 
g. Restore integrity to the electoral process:
 
          i. Prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN, no matter what it or its affiliate organizations rename themselves; New York Communities for Change, New England United for Justice etc.; Conduct thorough investigation of their activities and voter fraud and prosecute violations.
 
          ii. Eliminate motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms; institute secure voter registration and identification systems.
 
          iii. Reject any effort to give the right to voter in the US in any situation or capacity.
 
h. Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country, which surrenders US sovereignty. Especially:
 
i. Reject the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child.
 
ii. Reject “LOST” the law of The Sea Treaty.
 
iii. Reject any agreement, which seeks to confiscate our firearms.
 
i. Restore the process of assimilating of immigrants to preserve the benefits of an advanced educated and prosperous society. Rescind Maine’s sanctuary State Status. No amnesty, no benefits, no citizenship – ever – for anyone in the country illegally. Arrest and detain, for a specified period of time, anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.
 
j. Pass a Congressional reform act, which includes the following provisions:
 
Term limits: 12 years only in any capacity.
 
1.Two six-year Senate terms
 
2. Six two-year House terms
 
3. One six year Senate term and three-year House terms
 
ii. No Pension
 
iii. Congress participates in Social Security under the same rules of the general public.
 
iv. Congress can no longer vote themselves a raise.
 
v. Congress participates in the same health care plan as the general public. No preferential plans or treatment.
 
vi. Congress is subject to and must abide by all the laws they impose on the general public.
 
 
Section 2. To Establish Justice.
 
a. Restore “Constitutional law” as the base for the Judiciary.
 
b. Reassert the principle that “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “freedom from religion”.
 
 
Section 3. To Insure Domestic Tranquility.
 
a. Promote Family Values.
 
i. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
 
ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, education, or medical.
 
iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.
 
Section 4. To Provide for the Common Defense.
 
a. Discard political correctness; make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the US on Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
 
b. Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government.
 
 
Section 5. To Promote the General Welfare.
 
a. Return to the principles of Austrian Economics, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest.
 
b. Cut spending, balance the budget; institute a plan for paying down the debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconscionable and will not be tolerated.
 
c. Pass and implement Fed bill # 1207 (introduced by Ron Paul), to audit the Federal Reserve, as the first step Ending the Fed.
 
d. Return to transparent and honest reporting of economic statistics free of gimmicks and distortions.
 
e. Require the government and all its agencies adhere to the same GAAP accounting rules that business must follow.
 
f. Restore the provisions of welfare reform removed with the stimulus bill.
 
g. Defeat Cap and Trade, investigate collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth, and prosecute any legal collusion.
 
h. Freeze current stimulus funds, prohibit any further stimulus bills and apply all spent funds towards the debt they created.
 
i. Promote energy reliance aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; and natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power.
 
J. Institute Zero base budgeting on all programs.
 
k. Expose and follow the principle: it is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim of right to its benefit.
 
l. Clarify that health care is not a right, it is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However, the government takeover our health care is not only unconstitutional, but also detrimental to the entire health care system. Only market care solutions will solve the problems.
 
i. In the State of Maine;
 
1. Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire), to increase competition, drive down the costs, and increase the options available.
 
a. Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
 
b. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines LD 290.
 
c. Enact tort reform a exemplified by Texas.
 
 
Section 6. To secure Blessings of Liberty:
 
a. Restore a vigorous grounding in the history and precepts of liberty, freedom, and the constitution to the educational process. As Thomas Jefferson said, “if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
 
i. Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the Constitution.
 
b. Repeal and prohibit any participation in efforts to create a one world government.
 
 
v

LURC Change To Risky ?

This will a non-traditorial blog. It will contain the latest Op-Eds and letters to the editor,both local and state of Maine  newspapers,I would appreciate comments both for and against the content of my posts.
 
TAKE AMERICA BACK
(TAB)
Spokesperson Phil Merletti
    
                                                                                             03/16/12
 
This editorial is in response to an editorial found on the opinion page of the BDN, March 8, 2012, labeled “LURC Change Too Risky”. As a spokesperson and a fellow researcher for “Take America Back”, this OP-Ed immediately got our attention. Our research group has been on the front line on this issue, so to speak, so we felt that this opinion needed a response based on research that the average Maine citizen could do on their own to find the truth. Unfortunately, most people do not take the time to research, so they trust other people for their opinion.
 
First of all, the “Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC) Act” was passed in 1971. The State of Maine was the first and only state in the union that removed the voters private property rights away. It also affected those that worked or lived in the “Unorganized Territories”. Since than, Farms that grew livestock and fruits and vegetables, Timber Companies that raised and cut lumber for building and paper, fishing industries that harvested for local and export, became over regulated and overly taxed. As a result, the majority of farms are only found on the pages of history books, paper industries gave up the expensive fight to run their mills and they sold all of their land, and fishing industries are a small percentage of what they were! All of these unfair regulations came slowly over the past 40 years from the (LURC) and from the Legislators in Augusta, and of course we know all know who raised the taxes.
 
When things happen slowly, generations of people do not realize what had willfully and systematically happened to them, this is why research is needed to target what has gone wrong! With the new present legislature, we felt that it was time to join forces with those who also wished to reverse the destruction of our working farms, timberland and fishing industry. We personally met with all County Commissioners to see if they wanted back their responsibility and also to see if they were all right with giving the people their Constitutional rights back.
 
We use the Constitution as a reference because the mandate of the U.S. and the Maine Governments are to protect the unalienable rights of all people, not just a small group of people who have an agenda or those national “Non-Government Organizations” that lobby and control our naïve legislature. We have placed in front of us a standard using the words of Fredric Bastiat who wrote THE LAW- The Classic Blueprint for a Free Society. He is quoted to say: “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong, then this is legal plunder.”  He urgently asks that the readers to “abolish this law without delay, for it is evil itself”. He goes on to say “If such a law, is not abolish immediately, it will spread, multiply and develop into a system”. This evil system has gone on since the onset of the LURC Act and many of those affected by LURC have labeled LURC as “The Beast”!
 
What is now being debated in the Legislative Halls is no longer a Constitutional rights bill that would repeal the LURC act, but now the legislators are deciding how to strengthen the existing law and to prevent any changes for another 5 years. This new bill will dash the hope of those who believe in private property rights. Instead of the County Commissioners direct ability to regulate their own counties for the people, this new stronger more regulated LURC will have 9 new appointed board members that are beholding to no one! To add insult to injury, the same staff will maintain the same positions and they will be sent to classes and taught how to speak to those that they regulate.
 
The Governor made a promise to the Maine people that he would work to shut down LURC, where is he now? Many of the new legislators ran on the repeal of LURC and many of the incumbent legislators also knew the truth too. Where are they now, what are they afraid of and why are all they hiding? The committee that has given the green light (sorry for the pun) to this reform bill was lobbied heavily and even those legislators that understood the need to repeal LURC have fallen in line with those who support the agenda of the national “Non-Government Organizations” that want to lock out jobs and industry in the Unorganized Territories. If this bill is not voted down, there will be less local control and less of local voices and there will be more red tape. Do not let anyone tell you differently, do not let them distract you from researching this on your own. The truth is at your fingertips.
 
Lastly, the final quote from Fredric Bastiat, a quote that personally drives me: “if this (information) is true, it is serious fact; and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it”!
 
 
Phil Merletti is an accredited environmentalist and spokesperson for the research groups “Take America Back” and  “Take Maine Back”
 
 
 
 
 
Website provided by  Vistaprint
Website
provided by Vistaprint