Republicans of Cecil County: Detailed Analysis: Why 3 Patriot Act Provisions Must Not Be Extended!

From the Republicans of Cecil County . . .

Please see the below article from the Cato Institute.  This is probably one of the best articles I have seen that succinctly explains in a logical fashion why the Patriot Act, including these three provisions that Rep. Harris will be voting on next week, should not be extended.

article continues on Republicans of Cecil County

About these ads

44 responses to “Republicans of Cecil County: Detailed Analysis: Why 3 Patriot Act Provisions Must Not Be Extended!

  1. Im afraid why I’ve done much work with the CCYR which I’m proud with I’m going to have to distance myself 100% from the post as it is not and become the group 100% it was when I joined and I have been let down by parts of it though I will not name who out of respect for everyone, though anyone who has not openly called for the destruction of the PATRIOT ACT and those who ramble on about American empires have been enough for me. It really is a shame, because I love this group. Though I love the 1,172 twitters conservative/libertarian followers across the US/UK/Australia/New Zealand, and even other European countries. I’ve moved onto international and US political races.

    Why I feel like it hasnt been wrong to introduce parts of the Paul on same cases, but I dont think Trump is electable as much as Spiro Agnew’s ghost is, he is more than Paul. I’ve been attacked more on Facebook, less so on Twitter.

    Facebook, seems where it be student activism why not necessarily all wrong as I’ve learned in my interperation and Twitter are two different things. CPAC2011 when Paul supporters will another useless straw poll but loss another election, they are going to be in for a shock.

    So either we as Young Republicans can subvert and destroy Andy Harris on this issue and gets a less desireable which you will tell us I rather vote for a guy who cant get %1 of the vote even if Frank Kratovil returns to MD-01. Then the paleo-conservatives and libertarians would say we want 400 or the majority of every Senate seat too because of that matter too. Then we would have Ron Paul and his Campaign for Liberty which their mailers are already dictating who is and who isnt a conservative, its quite sickening if we vote Yes on PATRIOT ACT.

    Finally, the fear mongering and doom and scare of Ted who wrong this PATRIOT ACT article, my freedom honesly im not scared of if they want to tap my phone and read my e-mails do so, because I have nothing to hide. Quite honestly if the C4L wants to beat taken seriously they will have to act better than hooligans and not boo people in mass numbers like Cheney and Rumsfeld regarldess of their opinion. If they claim they are smarter then they should be able to argue on facts, not screaming out criminals and shouts. Thats my two cents, I’m know I’m going to insult a lot of people that were I have helped and be seen as a sellout by my opposition. I have always rambled on Paul since 08 when working for Jim Mullin not door to door, but in private.

  2. Before having a knee-jerk reaction to this issue, I hope everyone will take the time to critically read the Cato article as well as the Heritage article which was not posted: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/02/Letting-PATRIOT-Act-Provisions-Expire-Would-Be-Irresponsible .
    The Patriot Act is a mixed bag, and hopefully some amendments will be offered to allay the concerns in the Cato article. In general, I personally found the Cato article unconvincing in comparison to the case presented by the Heritage Foundation. In the TEA party we naturally get nervous about the government passing laws which may be used in corrupt ways by corrupt people. That is why we have the Constitution, and defend it so adamantly. Cato feels that the 3 measures which will expire on Feb. 28 are a violation of the 4th amendment; Heritage argues that they are not, given the restrictions that govern their use. Cato’s downplaying of the number of terror plots that have been foiled since 9/11 is troubling, given that even one significant successful attack would be extremely detrimental to people’s lives and our overall economy. The other point, that it is unknown to what degree the first two provisions have been used in the cases where plots have been foiled, is again, not a very sound argument. The Cato article suggests that the gov’t will not need roving wiretaps because terrorists are too stupid to switch communication devices in an attempt to evade the authorities. Those are arguments that just don’t hold water with me. Let’s stick to the issue, is it Constitutional or not? Honestly, I tend to be somewhat skeptical about our federal government’s seriousness in protecting our security, since virtually nothing of significance has been done since 9/11 to protect our borders. Any real security policy should include securing our borders. But Cato also is against increasing border security and supports giving illegals amnesty. I believe that one of the government’s primary roles is to protect its own sovereignty and its citizens’ security within the boundaries of the Constitution. Seeing Michelle Bachman side with Andy Harris on this issue makes me believe that Cato may be wrong on this one, just as I believe they have been on the border issue. I respect the work Cato does, but I don’t think they are right on everything. I encourage people to read the actual bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hres79rh/pdf/BILLS-112hres79rh.pdf); read the 4th amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4) ; read both the Cato and Heritage articles; make your own decision; then contact Congressman Harris’ office with your opinion. This will likely be brought up again before the expiration date of Feb. 28th. It is our duty to examine this issue carefully, and push for amendments when needed to protect our Constitution.

  3. Jackie,
    Thank you for your comprehensive post. I for one want everything possible done in the name of national security. That includes securing the borders and not with some porous fence. We need armed security with the use of deadly force authorized on the border. I recently received first hand information from someone living in Mexico that there is a growing Muslim presence in southern Mexico. Make no doubt that they are massing their forces for the ultimate invasion. People who are sticking their head in the sand are only fooling their selves. We are at war and we must take every able step to protect our way of life.

    • Please remember Benjamin Franklin’s warning: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

      Upon review of the 3 provisions up for a vote today I think most people will find that at the very least these provisions should be vetted and debated fully and that amendments should be considered–this is not what the House is going to do today. They are limiting debate to 1 hour and are not allowing any amendments to the bill. They plan to ram this through the Congress as fast as they can. I think it is clear that at the very least these provisions sit right on the line of Constitutionality. The 4th Amendment must be upheld and I believe without major changes to these provisions they currently violate our 4th Amendment rights.

    • Joe, come on now. You say you recently received “first hand information from someone living in Mexico” they they “are massing their forces” on the border “for the ultimate invasion.”

      I hope this first-hand info you received was passed along to the appropriate authorites so they can investigate a developing threat massing on the border.

      For me, I always like to evaluate my sources, especially things I find on the Net or hear on on the AM talk radio side of the dial, though I never hear Glen Beck and most of that crowd. Do the same for print too.

      When we disagreed on the sprinkler debate as to whether they were effective and reliable, I could go to sources for valid data, such as independent testing laboratories. But I’m not sure how to look into what’s an important national security matter like this as the masses build.

      Do you think the New York Times would have something? Perhaps Atlantic Montly, the New Yorker, Foreign Affairs, or Mother Jones. Or I could go to the library and check the New Republic. I’ll keep thinking about this one Joe.

    • Joe, that’s just crap! Even if that was so, the 7th Cavalry would be sent out to take care of it. In fact, we have a plan! Now we haven’t tried this on the Indians yet, but it sure did work on the Rebels during the War Between the States, we’re gonna SURROUND THEM! That’ll show them yessir!

  4. “Republicans of Cecil” should use their real name: RonPaulians of Cecil. They are a Campaign for Liberty group that succeeded in a hostile takeover of the Cecil County Republican Central Committee, gaining sven of nine seats. State Sen. EJ Pipkin funded that effort and now they are going after Cong. Andy Harris, who defeated Pipkin in the primary, thereby bruising his massive ego. Look for these attacks on Harris to continue as Lord Pipkin decides on a run for Congress.

    • Use your real name RED833–stand by your views with your name attached to them.

      As a member of the Republicans of Cecil I would submit that I support Rep. Harris’s positions on repealing Obamacare, cutting the federal budget, and fighting against excessive regulation on business. I think Mr. Harris will do a great job on those issues and many others. Although I disagree with Harris’s vote on the Patriot Act recently, I still will support him on other issues. If Mr. Harris votes against the Patriot Act provisions today I will be the first to congratulate him and thank him for his vote. We must remember that politicians serve us, we are not supposed to be a lost flock of sheep following their commands and direction every which way, this goes for Mr. Pipkin just as it does for Harris as they are both politicians. I did not get involved in politics to placate politicians, but to instead change how government works. I’m not interested in giving certain politicians a pass just because of a certain letter that sits next to their name.

      • Ted Patterson (S) S for Smipkin
        You use the Ron Paul tactic of trying to hijack the Republican Party in order to advance your far-right agenda. Will you support Congressman Harris if he votes FOR the Patriot Act provisions you oppose? Or will you attack him as you did the Republican Commissioners who did not vote your way on taxes. You need to choose between the Republican Party and the Campaign for Liberty.

        • RED833 (aka [edit by someone noticed] who will not give his/her name because he/she is ashamed to put their name to their absurd statements)

          The fact is Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas. He is not hijacking the Party–he is a part of the Republican leadership as an elected official. Ron Paul is growing the Republican Party by bringing in a new generation of conservative-liberty minded activists. The Campaign for Liberty inspired thousands of new activists to attend CPAC this past weekend–many who are interested in Ron Paul, Governor Gary Johnson, and Senator Rand Paul. We should embrace new people and welcome new people to the Republican Party. Debate and discussion within an organization is a good thing, the more you try to create a “group think” atmosphere in the GOP where nobody can say anything counter to the official Party line is when your Party loses its energy and its credibility.

          My views and philosophy about politics are my own. I am a registered Republican because I believe that GOP most closely matches my belief system. I do not mold my beliefs or opinions to match the Party, I know what I believe and I am not going to give certain politicians a pass just because they have an R next to their name. I believe that is hypocritical and ultimately a factor that weakens our Party’s ability to be successful. I will be the first to applaud Rep. Harris or any other politician when they do what is right and the first to say something when I think they are doing something wrong. I encourage everyone else to make their opinions known as well–that’s what this American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people is all about.

  5. Ted Patterson (aka [word removed by Someone Noticed] who has posted under various aliases along with his fellow Smipkins while attacking Republican incumbents and candidates). Ron Paul is a Libertarian who slid into the Republican Party for instant credibility and to take advantage of a ready-made national organization. The plan was to “remake” the Republican Party into his Campaign for Liberty. Aren’t you the guy who promoted the”no tax pledge” as a litmus test? Talk about group think. BTW Delegate Smigiel claims that state bond requests are earmarks and therefore a tax increase. Senator Pipkin has sponsored a handful of earmarks this session. Are state bond requests tax increases? Which person do you think should be applauded?

    • Ron Paul has been repeatedly elected as a Republican. Ron Paul was registered as a Libertarian at one time, but then again Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. Countless other Republicans had been registered as one thing or another throughout their lives–I don’t get what your real point is. Don’t you think being registered as a Libertarian is a lot closer to being a Republican than being registered a Democrat? Yes of course Ron Paul wants to remake the Republican Party–I am glad you finally figured that out. So do I and millions of other Republican voters. So what? I am sure you do not agree, but many people believe that the Republican Party over the years has strayed away from its roots–we want to bring it back to what it initially stood for which was strict adherence to the Constitution, keeping government small and taxes low, promoting capitalism and free enterprise, fostering a foreign policy that reflected the views of our Founding Fathers and so forth. Additionally, the Campaign for Liberty is an excellent organization. I think that the Republican Party could be strengthened by learning from CFL.

      I do not believe that earmarks are necessarily wrong in all situations. If an earmark was submitted for a specific road project of some sort that might be something that would have more credibility than say a request for a token lighthouse structure that one of our Eastern Shore Republicans recently submitted. I think roads are more important than a token lighthouse structure that would not contribute at all to the transportation system.

      If Senator Pipkin or any other representative submitted earmarks that I thought were wasteful I would say so.

      • Mr. Patterson,

        I’m glad to see you publicly state that “if Senator Pipkin or any other representative submitted earmarks” that you thought were wasteful, you would say so. I look forward to you following through with your word.

        Senator Pipkin has submitted $925,000.00 of those earmarks. (Note: these are “bond bills, which mean the State would not be paying for them out of the General Fund, but would be bonding for them and paying principal and interest over a specified period of time. End result – these projects will cost the Maryland taxpayers FAR more than the amounts listed below*):

        SB105 QA $ 25,000 Hospice of QA

        SB106 Caroline $400,000 Caroline HS Culinary Center

        SB405 QA $150,000 Kennard High School Renovation

        SB461 Kent $300,000 Camp Fairlee Manor

        SB525 QA $ 50,000 Centre for the Arts Renovation

        Noteworthy here are several things.

        First – that there is nothing requested here for Cecil County. Kudos to Cecil County for recognizing this is not the time to ask for special appropriations.

        The second of which is that Senator Pipkin has stated himself that this will be the year that legislators have “the talk” (Cecil Whig, February 3, 2011):

        “I think we’re going to talk about the size and scope of government. There is some trickery in the budget but all-in-all we’re going to have this debate as to how much government spending there should be at the state level and clearly we’ll have some discussions about taxes,” Pipkin said.

        Is Senator Pipkin speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Even though I’m sure each of these funding proposals have merit I’m shocked that Pipkin would introduce another nearly $1 MILLION (*plus) dollars of spending. During these tough economic times, I can’t believe he’s proposing the taxpayers pay for non-essential projects, like are part of this list.

        • Ditto!!!

        • I agree with your point. I do not think our legislators should be submitting all of these earmarks, especially if they will incur debt. I will talk with Senator Pipkin about it as should you. I would point you to some other Republicans down south that are submitting earmarks on lighthouses which I think is also inappropriate especially when our Republican lawmakers are trying to show a contrast between what Republicans believe and what the Dems believe down in Annapolis. As I said before I do not believe all earmarks are necessarily bad, but I do think that most all of them, especially submitted now, should be reviewed and legislators should think long and hard before submitting any.

  6. Please get your facts straight, as I understand the vote it is for a Temporary extension of the Patriot Act, not a permanent one. I believe that Congressman Harris just wants to allow for adequate time to fully vet the issue. Give him some breathing room and go find some other drum to beat. Make sure you call the mother ship before you start pounding on the drum though! BTW I think Red 833 has hit the nail on the head.

    • Joe,

      If Rep. Harris was serious about allowing for adequate time to fully vet the issue he would not have voted to limit debate on this bill to 1 hour and not allow any amendments to be submitted. He voted with the majority of the House to pass special rules that allowed for this bill to be rammed through Congress without much debate or any opportunity to modify the bill. That shows no interest in “allowing for adequate time to fully vet the issue.”

  7. Ted,
    Maybe there was other more pressing issues on the table, like a budget or spending issues, so give him some room. You are suppose to be supporting Republicans candidates in your position on the Central Committee, not attacking them for every vote they make before the final chapter is written. Please concentrate on your elected duties and leave the midnight attacks up to MSLSD (MSN).

  8. Ted Patterson Apparently your position on taxes has changed. Now the tax increases required to pay for some earmarks are OK.

  9. RED833 (who is too embarrassed to use his/her real name): This might blow your mind, but sometimes you can make priorities and spend money on projects without raising taxes, its called effective budgeting.

    Joe: We will all support Andy on health care, spending, taxes, and other issues, but I just did not agree with his votes on the Patriot Act. How did Roscoe Bartlett figure it out but Andy didn’t?

  10. Joe,
    Ted is doing his duty. I know a progressive like yourself does not understand that. You want more government and less freedom so you and the rest of your progressive freinds can try to control us. Well Joe your not going to control us. The people spoke in the last election and you just baerly made it back onto the central committee. That should tell you something going from committee chair to just barely making it back on. You have not done one thing to help us raise money or support us in any way. I understand that you are worried that your job may be at risk, due to the people wanting less government and budget cuts. So instead of calling people out for questioning their leaders, maybe you should take your own advice and concentrate on your tax payer funded job! Because we the people work hard so that you can sit around blogging all day. As for Red833 if you have a problem with liberty or Ron Paul maybe you should ask yourself if that red in your name stands for Communist, or at the very least you could just change you name to commrad Red833 so we’d know you are honest.

  11. Ted Patterson Your Friend Ben Franklin used noms de plume all the time. BTW say hello to Concerned Citizen, Dixie Bear and all the other Bears.

  12. Chris Zeauskas So anyone who does not support the Ron Paul version of liberty is a Communist? Maybe you should change your name to Chris “Joe McCarthy” Smipkin.

  13. Chris,
    [Someone noticed edit & note the author strongly disagrees with earlier posts by Chris]. First, I received more votes than your pen pal Ted,who was running for a state wide office with signs throughout the county. I spent almost no money and did zero mailings. How many mailings did you do? Chris, and who paid for all your mailings? You certainly did not, you had “Daddy Warbucks” pay for it and what he did not pay for your buddy Mully pitched in! Oh, I almost forgot about the money you fangled from the women’s club and then passed some($450) to a Democratic candidate. You sound like a budding Republican star! You want to imply that I am sucking off the system, but it is you that appears to be sucking off your puppet handlers. The votes I received I earned and no one else had to pay for them,unlike you. Secondly, I blog in the early morning or late at night and not while I am working at 11am in the morning like yourself. Now that is the pot calling the kettle black! Thirdly, it is not a central committee member’s job to attack any siting Republican, like Ted is doing. If you have a comment to make to Congressman Harris, you call him up and make it man to man, not backdooring him on some blog. Now, as far as fund raising, if you were so concerned why did you cancel last month’s meeting? Did you have other events to go to or was your posse not available? You are the leader now, you need to propose fund raising events, not me. I have not seen one fund raising event on the agenda, not that we get them in advance of the meeting. That right call Ted now and add it to the agenda for tomorrow night. Sounds like a total lack of leadership on your part. [sentences removed] Chris, start doing the job you were elected to do and don’t worry about my job. Beside, it is one of the few government jobs that is authorized by the constitution! By the way I am not a progressive but I know you will continue to launch attacks on anyone who disagrees with your position. I am really glad Tari Moore got elected commissioner because she respects others opinions.

  14. I just have to jump in here, finding this entire thread hilarious! Both John and Jackie have hit the nail on the head. Red 833 is calling it as most people see it. Ted and Chris continue to embarrass themselves publically with their crazy rantings giving both the CCYR and Republican Central Committee bad reputations. Ted, are you actually scolding Red 833 for using an alias? If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is. And you actually had the nerve to say “We should embrace new people and welcome new people to the Republican Party” after directly targeting Republican Commissioners Moore and Broomell? Here, I’ll quote one of your Libertarian heros: “Give me a break!”

  15. Let’s have a cup of tea.

  16. Jacque, I have never used an alias on this site or any other site. Commissioner Broomell and Commissioner Moore have both expressed interests in excise taxes and impact taxes. They have expressed interest in finding new revenue streams for county government. I do not support this, I do not support higher taxes or exploring new taxes or fees. I think all five Commissioners should be proposing cuts to the budget not trying to find new revenue streams. Raising taxes at any level of government is unacceptable and not what the people want during this time of economic hardship. The best way to kick-start the economy is to put more money and economic freedom in the hands of individuals and small businesses, not for government to continue taking.

    After Jim Mullin took office in 2008 he voted to raise taxes and I spoke out against that as well. I will not give someone a pass just because they have an (R) next to their name. The issues facing our country are too great and too serious to let Party politics get in the way. If that makes me a bad Central Committee member so be it.

    • “I do not believe that earmarks are necessarily wrong in all situations”. Ted Patterson on Someone Noticed 02/14/2011 @ 11:57 AM

  17. HEY ANDY ANDY
    WHILE YOU ARE BUSY LIVING THE GOOD LIFE IN DC NOW, WHAT’S UP WITH THIS VOTE. ROSCOE FIGURED IT OUT. COULDN’T YOU. LITTLE BAIT AND SWITCH?_

  18. Maybe Roscoe’s date night with Pelosi during the SOTU really impacted him. A few Dove chocolates shared with the former speaker, a compliment about how attractive she is, and the nest thing you know, they’re voting together. Maybe there was more to that “date night” than I thought!
    BTW Ted, new revenue streams can include good things such as growing businesses in Cecil County. I remember when Commissioner Moore was taken out of context on this previously after our CCP debate, when the question she was asked was prefaced with, “OTHER THAN RAISING TAXES, what other ways can you suggest…”. Then she went on to talk about job creation, business recruitment, etc. A few days later, she was smeared by Chris Zeaskus, who had no idea what she actually said, since he wasn’t present at the debate, and he obviously didn’t take the time to listen to the tape.
    Impact fees were discussed before, and my suggestion is that you come up with another solution for offsetting the cost of developing. You can’t keep growing the infrastructure needed and cutting the budget without someone paying for the new infrastructure. What solution can you offer? If you don’t have one, I recommend you research it first, and then rejoin the debate. Maybe then we can get somewhere instead of talking in circles.

  19. Jackie, Roscoe Bartlett is a great legislator and I think it is juvenile to put forth some type of innuendo about his vote–he is against the Patriot Act on constitutional grounds. If you disagree with that then debate the Patriot Act, but don’t make some type of assertion that he is in with Pelosi. Bartlett is a very conservative, liberty-minded Congressman.

    New government revenue streams are not going to create new businesses in Cecil County. The people that pay those fee increases are either businesses or individuals–and taking more money out of their pockets right now is the wrong thing to do if you want to improve the economy in Cecil County. Specifically, implementing an impact fee would do nothing to direct growth to the growth corridor or better manage development. It would not hurt developers either–because they would simply apply the tax to new home buyers. The Impact Fee should be called what it really is–a Homebuyer’s Tax. We are saying that we want to tax potential new residents out of the county before they get here.

    What is the most hurting industry right now? The housing industry. Houses are not moving and they are not being built. Putting in place a Homebuyer’s Tax would hurt homebuyers, renters, developers, builders, and other associated businesses.

    Plus, why do you want to give government more revenue? I don’t want to grow government or give them more revenue.

    What is the solution? Commissioners should work to modify our ordinances related to zoning, density, and design regulations to incentivize development in our growth corridor to give developers and builders more incentive to build there. Red tape associated with development should be eliminated and projects should be fast-tracked in the growth corridor. Commissioners should bring developers and builders in to talk about how regulations can be more pro-business. We also need a predictable and low tax environment in this county. To help preserve agricultural land in the north and south Commissioners should bring in farmers to evaluate how ordinances can be more supportive of agricultural uses and needs. Any way that we can help the farmer to keep his land and business as an ag. operation we help to preserve our rural character without taking away a farmer’s property rights.

    An Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would also be infinitely better than an impact fee because an APFO forces through ordinance for developers to pay for and install whatever infrastructure enhancements needed for the project, they are not slapped with a flat fee per house or building like with a Homebuyer’s Tax. An APFO would be far more equitable to developers & consumers, although passage of such an ordinance would take a bit of time for the Commissioners to ensure they craft a good ordinance. An APFO written poorly could be a disaster.

  20. Ted Patterson Have surrogates posted under aliases in order to defend your positions, with your knowledge and/ or consent ?

  21. I do not know what to do. Has anyone seen my Smipkin bible?

  22. This is getting crazy, how the Paul supporters are scared of the big bogeyman. Or they create one to be scared of. Maybe Ted, who I do happen to respect, would like to answer to us, how Paul who calls himself a Republican, basically sat there and attacked numerous positions of Ronald Reagan 1988 POTUS run? As for if Paul is going to take an earmark for his district, and I dont want to hear him talk about his Constitution, he’s as bad as the rest he condemns. Paul runs for what is good for Ron Paul, he does not care about anything except Ron Paul.

    This is as I said before is basically the Paul supporters have picked an issue, the PATRIOT Act which quite frankly I’m not going to sleep worrying about, some people might, but are using that to destroy Andy Harris as they want Frank Kratovil back, who guess what? Is going to vote for the PATRIOT Act. Also, the Paul supporters, have really got a little belligerent on the web, you can see it anywhere RedState(where they got sick of there useless babbling its a ban on sight for spamming, Youtube where they dance in circles, spam forums, a CPAC poll is not realistic of the 2012 Presidental election anymore than when Romney and Giulani won it, or some of the disturbing things Ted wrote on Mike Esteve’s Facebook page which really.

    I quite frankly am disgusted to see people who call themselves fellow Republicans attack Andy Harris, one of the best gains in all of the country. Maybe they are not really worthwhile of the term afterall to attack someone like Harris, who has served the state of Maryland for a long time in Annapolis and now in Washington. I got me 3 signs for Harris, and still have another darn Ehrlich/Harris sign in my house and got ones Harris bumper one for my best friend, and my grandmother.

  23. Ted, Don’t get your panties in a wad. Bartlett was mentioned so I was merely making a joke about his “date:” with Pelosi, which Cantor, Harris, and many others participated in. I didn’t expect my comment to be taken so seriously, although I thought date night was a ridiculous, meaningless spectactle, and Bartlett’s comments about being so lucky to sit next to such an attractive woman, and the fact he brought her Dove chocolates accented that. Even more laughable is that Pelosi turned down Eric Cantor’s request to share “date night” on the Hill with him, because of her previous committment to Bartlett. Since it was supposed to be an exercise in bipartisanship, I found a little ironic our two Republican congressman siding with their respective dates in the Patriot Act vote. Besides the fact it was ridiculous, I have deeper objections to date night relating to the motivation behind it, but any interpretation of my comment besides that is looking too deeply into it. I doubt Bartlett and Pelosi will find much common ground on big issues beyond this vote.
    I am surprised that you would be so sensitive to my jest about Bartlett’s “date” with Pelosi after you sent out an email claiming that Andy Harris betrayed the TEA party when there is clearly a split among conservatives about the three provisions that were voted on last week. Michelle Bachmann, Jim Demint, the ACLJ, and the Heritage Foundation all sided with Harris on this vote. Before we label any of them as betrayers of or traitors to the TEA party, I think that we need to examine both sides more closely and offer solutions based upon what is or is not in the provisions.
    You seem to think that increasing taxes are the only revenue streams available to government. Business friendly practices increase government revenue, because as jobs move in, there is a greater tax base and lower unemployment. That increases government revenue by having more people pay into the system, rather than increasing the rates on people who are already paying. It would also save residents money if more could work close to home rather than traveling to Delaware or another county to work. Our question at the debate in which Commissioner Moore was later smeared by Chris Zeauskas, asked for ideas commissioners had for raising revenue other than raising taxes, which of course, we are opposed to.
    I am so glad you bring up APFOs, because if you look at statements Commissioner Broomell has made, you will see that is exactly what she supports. So the assertion that she supports anything different, I think is misrepresenting what she has said publicly. We must first begin our discussions in the world of facts if we are going to arrive at any solutions.

  24. Jackie, APFOs and impact fees are two very different things. One is a flat fee on development and one is a pretty big ordinance that covers various infrastructure sectors. Impact fees can be tiered and also attached to APFOs, but nonetheless, they are not the same thing.

    Impact fees in my view are not the best solution to our land use problems or to county budget problems. Impact fees do not manage growth or keep growth in certain areas. They simply tax growth inequitably. APFOs can be better solutions that are more equitable, but overall ordinance changes to zoning regulations and subdivision regulations could go a long way to avoiding having to implement either ordinance change. Cecil County needs 21st century land use regulations that incentivize good kinds of growth in priority areas. Currently, we do not have that. I would suggest talking with Patrick McGrady over in Harford to understand how the Impact Fee has been implemented there. Many Harford conservatives wish they could get rid of the impact fee over there.

    The Patriot Act is unconstitutional on many levels. The 4th Amendment is very clear. I just simply disagree with you on that point. Over the next year we will be working to modify or get rid of this Act. Too often people make this issue emotional thinking that if we don’t have the Patriot Act we will have another 9/11, but that is not the case. If you look at why 9/11 happened there are a variety of things that could have been done differently by our security, intelligence, and foreign policy experts that would have been completely constitutional. We don’t need to sacrifice our liberties under the Constitution just to be safe.

  25. Ted,
    Get real about the Patriot Act! We are at war with radical muslims and must take every step to win or your wife will be running around with a veil and you will be facing east five times a day! These people are crazy and we may have take steps that where never invisioned by our forefathers. The days of protection from two vast oceans are long gone. As we just saw the people of Eygpt were able to overthrow their government. We must keep a watchful eye on radical muslims and we may even have to inflitrate their mosques because that is were they are radicalized. This is a long global war that will test some of the bonds of our constitution in order for us to survive. Bye the way, all 911 terrorist were muslims, they were not from Iowa! We should strengthen the Act by really securing the border with the Army with orders to shoot on sight anyone not crossing at an authorized crossing.

  26. Are we sure we really want the state troopers having more tools at their disposal to track down your local drug dealer than our security agencies do in stopping terrorism? I agree that there have been concerns with the Patriot Act over the years, but equipping the FBI and NSA with power on par with law enforcement is only reasonable.
    And I’ll admit, I’m interested in knowing the specifics of what Mr. Patterson thinks our intelligence agencies should have done differently.

  27. Ted, Ted, Ted. Impact and excise fees ARE the funding mechanism of APFO’s! Please, stop splitting hairs and being so darn critical of fellow conservatives and get about the business of a successful central committee already. Man alive…..

  28. I found this comment by Josue on the YRs Cecil County Spending website in regards to the new county website asking for citizen input and suggestions “I cannot help but wonder if this is yet another tactic used by politicians to deflect blame and escape responsibility. I mean do they really have no idea how to cut spending? We elected Commissioners to do a job. We did not elect them just so that they could come back to us to ask us how to do their job all over again.” A few things come to mind when I read this: First sheer hypocrisy. The whole purpose of Josue’s website is to ask for citizen input and suggestions on the budget. So my question is, why are you asking for citizen input on your website, and in the same breath claiming that the commissioners are shirking their duty when the government creates a website that does the same thing except it is easily accessible to all citizens, and the suggestions submitted anonymously by citizens go to the commissioners directly? If you get citizen input on your website and give it to the commissioners aren’t you encouraging them in your own words to “deflect blame and escape responsibility.” The second thing that comes to mind is how contrary this suggestion is to TEA party principles. The TEA party was formed because people decided to be engaged in their government beyond just voting. We were done with voting and going back to our own lives and then trusting the government to make decisions without the consent of the governed. So we have done everything possible since the TEA party movement began to involve ourselves, become informed, and to educate and involve our fellow citizens. Apparently, this makes some members of the local GOP squeamish, that they may not have a monopoly on party politics as more average people become involved. That is the only way to explain the ongoing hypocrisy.

  29. Jackie,
    Thank you for your spot on post…The CCRCC has been a “blazing” success so far, let’s see…three illegal meetings, one cancelled meeting, one meeting whose location was changed at the last minute, after it was displayed on the website for a month. I feel sorry for anyone who attempted to go there and found an empty room. Oh, yes, an attempt by the chairman to block a legal proxy vote at the state convention… This is the Simpkin success story…Can’t wait for the next election cycle……

  30. Joe Carabetta

    Welcome back George Custer! The information about Muslims moving into southern Mexico is true, the information was obtained first hand from a person, a military man like yourself who flies a small plane around the countryside of Mexico. It was my opinion that they will mass and invade and inflitrate from our southern porous border. I would go to Texas and I would advise staying out of the Montana Territory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s