Everything Archie
I was happy to find out that Archie Verow is campaigning to represent Brewer in the Maine House of Representatives. I have watched Archie for the past few years as he served on the town council and as mayor. What I have noticed is Archie has an unparalleled ability to listen to all sides of an issue. I think that this makes him an ideal person to represent Brewer in the state Legislature. If the House of Representatives is going to reach manageable solutions, we need reasonable people like Archie that will work hard to find common ground. I hope all Brewer residents will join me in casting their vote for Archie Verow on voting day this coming November.
Kevin O’Connell
Brewer
Working to undermine
I have written several letters and made several phone calls to my representatives both Senate and House at the federal level. My concern was that the U.N. was working to undermine our Constitution and remove our protections as defined under that document, specifically that of the Second Amendment. I don’t feel my communications to my representatives were taken seriously, the exception being Mike Michaud, who did write back even though his response lacked the depth of understanding I thought the question deserved.
On the local TV news they reported that in fact, the U.N. is proposing anti-gun regulations worldwide and that our current administration has openly supported this violation of our Constitutional rights. I don’t care how they dress up this story, I don’t care how it is presented, any attempt to alter my Constitutional rights without the proper authority will be rejected.
I personally will not support anyone in this next election who either votes in support of any measure that would result in lessening our protections under our Constitution or who does not clearly state his or her position in this case prior to the November elections.
All of our elected representatives took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Look to see who is standing up and let them know how you feel about it.
James Landry
Frankfort
Honor veterans
I’m in the Army — heading back to Afghanistan in a few weeks. I’ve followed the news about a former Marine who served in Iraq who has withdrawn his re-election bid to go active in the Navy. Rep. Alex Cornell du Houx is a commissioned officer in the Navy and he deserves more respect, especially since the police dropped the investigation without needing to interview him.
In your first report, you publicized a long list of allegations made by Rep. Erin Herbig. His ex-fiancee’s accusations were the text of the temporary order for abuse she obtained. These temporary orders are designed to give people and the court system time before a hearing where a judge decides about the allegations. Your sensationalized report troubled many veterans, like myself. It made it seem that anyone who fights for our country may have a mental disability. This was totally uncalled for. People said he must have post-traumatic stress disorder.
When Cornell du Houx’s psychological report gave him a clean bill of health, your newspaper did not write anything about this, leaving thousands of readers in the dark. Other news agencies reported on this.
At every point you sensationalized a combat veteran’s life. Honor veterans. They defend our constitutional rights — like freedom of speech news agencies need.
Mark Ludzack
Augusta
Natural capital
I was interested in a Bangor Daily News article “Valuing Maine’s Natural Capital” (June 19). The article features the potential dollar value of Maine’s natural areas beyond the state’s fabled coastline beauty. The study by the consultant Spatial Informatics Group focuses on future economic benefits to rural areas which remain undeveloped by large corporate interests and commercialism. Many residents of central Maine live here because we choose to do so, despite economic hardship; we are keenly aware of the value, and fragility, of our local ecosystem. Many of us have lived elsewhere and witnessed firsthand the degradation of places from industrial development with minimal regard for the long-term effects and benefits to a region.
Many residents are concerned and alarmed by the proposal of a private, for-profit toll road bisecting our state. The east-west highway and utility corridor threatens to disrupt not only the ecosystem of the area, but also to change the way of life here in ways which will devalue the real estate value of our farms, ponds, homes and woodlands.
Who in the long run will benefit from this commercial, private highway project if approved by our Legislature? We in Piscataquis County deserve better than this corporate alternative to our economic problems. We choose not to live near a vast, high-speed corridor made for private gain. This is not the economic development vision many of us endorse. We know the value of the assets we have at the present time; will this enterprise degrade those assets due to unpredictable, negative consequences? Who will profit?
Jamie Gaudion
Dover-Foxcroft
Water quality
In the article “ Nonprofits, DEP clash over beach water bacteria” (July 4), the assumption is that an exceedance of the bacterial water quality standard represents a health risk. However, because the current bacteria test does not distinguish between human and wildlife sources, that assumption is questionable.
To determine the bacterial contribution from wildlife requires the use of ribotyping, also called microbial source tracking. Use of this testing procedure has shown wildlife are often a major source of bacteria (e.g., see page 21 in http://www.kennebunkportme.gov/Public_Documents/KennebunkportME_Water/report/GRB_Final%20Report_%20Page_1.pdf).
The potential for bacteria from wildlife to pose a risk to human health is unknown. However, it is likely to be low. A relevant epidemiologic study regarding bacteria levels was conducted in Mission Bay, Calif., “where nearly 20 percent of the historic routine bacterial samples failed water quality standards but the dominant fecal source appears to be nonhuman” (ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/449_mb_epi.pdf).
One finding from the Mission Bay study was that there was no “correlation between increased risk of illness and increased levels of traditional water quality indicators.” This finding is likely due to the fact that wildlife were the primary contributor of bacteria when the bacteria standard was exceeded.
Implementation of a ribotyping analysis will resolve the clash over water quality results between DEP and the nonprofit Maine Environment, and to ensure a more realistic protection of public health at Maine beaches.
Phil Sandine
Stockton Springs
James Landry – If the UN sends their reps out to confiscate our guns, they’ll have a fight on their hands that they won’t be able to handle. The UN has no authority in the US. We have to keep it that way. And we have to vote out anyone that supports this or any other intrusive UN order.
This is America. And we are citizens of America, not the world.
It is obvious the the Obama admin follows the UN. It also makes sense that this administration is dismantling the constitution, with the 2nd amendment being a prime target (so to speak). Obama would go along with this as he is a follower and not a leader.
If you people bothered to do your homework you would find out that this little piece of urban legend about the UN wanting to seize American guns has been around since the nineties. It would not be possible under our constitution and it would take a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate to approve any international treaties and last but not least, treaties don’t subject one nations’citizens to the laws of other nations. The NRA likes to put out bogus BS like this to scare up membership. President Obama’s only action on guns since he’s been in office is to allow firearms to be carried in National Parks but, not to be outdone , the NRA says this is all a ploy to lull gun owners into a false sense of security and then if Obama gets re-elected he’s really going to come after our guns. Another scare tactic to increase membership. All talk and no proof.
Typical right wingers talk about anything that might scare people, never mind the facts. This probably came from FOX.
The Supremacy clause of the constitution would make this treaty the supreme law of the land, overriding the 2’nd amendment.
The danger is not that we would be subject to the laws of other nations, but that we would be subject to rules and regulations, (laws), created by an international group of bureaucrats created under this treaty.
And if you listen to the words of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg you SHOULD be worried about if we will be subject to the laws of other nations. And should I mention that case in Florida where the man importing Lobster from South America was sent to prison for not following the export laws of the exporting nation.
The danger to our rights guaranteed under the constitution is real.
Google the case, #647:11-03-00, and the details are substantially different from what you are saying. They were convicted of violating Florida’s laws regulating the size of lobsters as well as egg bearing lobsters. They were also convicted of illegally IMPORTING said lobsters into the US, not exporting them from Honduras.
Take a look at justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/November/647enrd.htm
“According to the indictment, from 1995 through May 2000, the defendants conspired to import
into the United States Caribbean spiny lobster tails harvested in Honduras, in violation of Honduran
regulations designed to preserve a sustainable lobster fishery. Once in the United States, the
conspirators sold the illegal lobster tails to U.S. seafood companies.””McNab owns one of the largest fleets of lobster-fishing vessels in Honduras, and the indictment
charged that workers on his vessels harvested lobster that were under the legal size limit set by
Honduras. They also harvested egg-bearing lobsters in violation of Honduran regulations and harvested
lobster and shrimp during the closed seasons set by Honduras. To conceal the catch of egg-bearing
lobsters, the parts of the lobster tails to which the eggs were attached were clipped off.””The lobster tails were primarily imported into the United States through Bayou la Batre in
Alabama, a state that has no significant lobster fishery and therefore no regulations governing the
harvest or possession of lobster. On occasion, undersized lobsters were transported through from
Alabama into Florida, which has laws prohibiting the harvest and possession of undersized and
eggbearing lobster.”So most of the actual “crimes” were breaking Honduran laws and the only Florida law involved would have been the possession one. Reminds me of the Gibson Guitar case as well where the only “crime” is that not a high enough percentage of finishing work on the imported wood was done in the country of origin as per laws and regulations of the country of origin. And have you read details about these raids? Including the numbers of Federal Law enforcement agents from multiple agencies with automatic weapons invading the work places.
Note the title; “convicted of illegal import”. They were convicted of violating Florida laws as well as illegal import into the US. They were also convicted of tax evasion based on something like failing to pay taxes on $4 million in sales of these lobster tails. Whether or not the US sent them to Honduras for trial on violation of Honduran law is not mentioned. The essential point is that they were not convicted in the US of violating Honduran law, but of US and Florida laws.
They were convicted of illegal import under the Lacy Act. Read the details of the Lacy Act. You have broken the US law if “fish, wildlife, or plants that are taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any federal, state, tribal or foreign law.” Note the words FOREIGN LAW.
The act covers “import, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase” Note that you do not even have to have knowledge of the actual illegal act. Possession or purchase of the item is enough to charge you with breaking the law.
The only possible Florida law that was broken was for possession since the harvesting did not occur in Florida. Honduran laws were broken for most of the charges.
No mention is made of any tax laws being broken.
The Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of it’s constitutionally authorized powers which I don’t believe encompasses overriding constitutional amendments.
Supremacy Clause.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything
in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.”
The working specifically states that treaties are one of the items that “shall be the supreme law of
the land” And later in the same clause, ” anything
in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.”
I would agree that the wording of this clause is muddled to my thinking and could have been better written. However, like it or not, that last phrase can be interpreted to give a treaty higher standing than the constitution itself. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that a treaty does NOT override the constitution. But given the present bias against guns in the media and by many liberals in power I have no confidence that this principle will be upheld with regard to this issue.
Not to mention that if the government institutes laws and regulations to implement this treaty on US citizens it will probably take years of legal challenges to reach the Supreme Court. By then the damage to our constitutional right to own and bear arms may well have been done.
I really wish people would get off the ranting about liberals being against guns. It completely distorts the actual views. I do not know of any of my liberal friends who are against guns. Some of them actually buy and sell them. If you pay close attention to the gun regulation group it consists significantly of Mayors and police chiefs of large cities where crime is out of control. Some are democrats and others are republicans. I myself, probably considered a liberal, occasionally go target practicing with my conservative friend. We obviously get along well.
I do object to the NRA and would never join them because of the lies they have been spreading. When Obama took office the right wing nuts, supported by the NRA, claimed Obama would regulate gun ownership. It never happened, but a s consequence of the panic on the right, gun prices have skyrocketed. I have not been able to add to my gun cabinet since.
Not ALL liberals are against guns. I agree with you on that, especially in mostly rural areas.
However the majority of those who do want to heavily regulate or ban ownership of guns are liberals.
If Obama thought he could get away with regulating or banning guns he would.
“I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign
“If Obama thought he could get away with regulating or banning guns he would.” And your evidence is? He has not pushed one single anti-gun law in 3 years in office. Saying that it is going on behind the scene is the paranoid ravings of a lunatic. This is the ranting from the NRA and right wing nuts who will do anything and everything to disparage Obama. There is no basis in fact to make this statement honestly.
I’ll believe the UN doesn’t want to get rid of the private ownership of guns when they stop saying as much in all of their literature and meetings.
Just listen to these UN representatives and members, from their own mouths!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQX64xOd-Us
Provide one link to a law restricting our access to guns pushed by Obama. I won’t hold my breath waiting for your response.
Firearms are private property and cannot under current law be confiscated unless you become a convicted felon. I’m not worried about American citizens having their guns taken away. It will never happen.
You would be wrong there. You can have your guns taken away simply by your being accused of domestic violence. Not convicted of anything, just simply an accusation.
That’s just one for instance.
It still requires a hearing before a judge in order to have your access to guns restricted.
Quite a bit of difference between that one for instance and the claim made though right?
“Firearms are private property and cannot under current law be confiscated unless you become a convicted felon. I’m not worried about American citizens having their guns taken away. It will never happen.”The above claim is almost as silly now as saying “The government is required to give you a trial before executing you”. Our own President has proven that is not the case and he defends his right to execute you without a trial with his AG backing him up on it.
In a domestic violence case the police can seize your guns if they have reason to believe you have threatened someone. They must still go before a judge to keep you from having access on any long term basis.
Obama’s authorization to kill someone without trial applied to a terrorist on foreign soil, not on US soil under US law. I know the right wing nuts are trying to make a big deal out of that, but at the same time trying to outlaw Sharia law, ban the building of mosques, and prevent Moslems from practicing their religion in general. This naturally leads me to believe the real interest of the right wing nuts is in disparaging Obama in any way possible, regardless of the truth. They obviously are not interested in the rights of individuals .
I personally do not care whether someone is American or not if they threaten this country or its people with violence. I do not care where they are outside of the US. If it becomes necessary to kill them to stop them, then do it.
Who convicted the two Americans he killed of being terrorist and what exactyly were they convicted of doing? As for where Obama’s authority to kill at whim applies, neither he nor the AG seemed to want place any limits on this unwritten power of his when asked at a press conferance. How is it you do not care about the rule of law when it comes to this President? Please be assured that future presidents of all parties will use this precedent to claim the same executive privelages for themselves.
“It will never happen [here]…”
Wonder how many Jews in Germany said that.
Gun regulations came into effect in Germany in the late 1890s, long before Hitler. Trying to link Hitler and gun ownership is just more right wing BS, like the claim the Japanese never attacked the continental US because Americans had guns. It works well with those of limited ability to do their own research into history.
Does it matter WHEN it started? Because we know where it ENDED.
What happens when an evil person gets control of a system that already had gun-control legislation built in to it?
Yes, we know exactly where, when, and how it ended. It did not end with armed civilians overthrowing Hitler and Mussolini. It ended because many well armed, equipped, and trained, organized armies succeeded in defeating the Axis powers. To imply that armed civilians could have stopped a well trained and equipped military, as the Germans were, is ludicrous. Germany overan France, Poland, Belgium, and the rest of Europe with little effort, and nearly defeated the Soviet Union with their vast wealth. It took the combined military and industrial might of the US, England, Australia, Canada, and others to end the war. Civilians would not have been capable of doing so.
Actually GErman law in 1934 expanded gun ownership for “good” Germans while taking away gun rights for “bad” Germans
Not as long as the National Rifle Association controls our country.
What are you going to do if Mitt get’s elected and pushes the Massachussets weapon ban that he signed onto the rest of the country?
I’m not a big O fan, but so far under his administration gun owners rights have expanded across the country.
It wasn’t a “Massachusetts weapons ban”, it was a ban on assault weapons and extended magazines.
http://www.goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/awtimeline.pdf
Take the time to learn what Mitt considers an “assault weapon” and you will be mighty surprised.
Might it be appropriate for Mr. Ludzack to clarify his relationship to the Du Houx family?
Mr. Sandine, if you had ever had the occasion to suffer a bout of giardia, then I think you may sing a different tune. Fecal contaminants from wildlife are just as dangerous as from humans.
Well, I am pretty sure you aren’t going to get Hepatitis A or c-diff from the wild animals pooping in the wild – some of those “bacteria” I would take over many other fecal-born human diseases any day that we can pass on person to person. Let the moose poop on the broccoli, but I’d rather stay away from the individuals picking it, if you know what I mean.