LePage wrong on Question 1

Someone please inform Gov. Paul LePage that someone must have moved the piles of paperwork around on his desk. His assertion that the election reform effort (Question 1) is “a scam aimed at making the wealthy wealthier and poor people dumb” is incorrect. He is obviously reading from the official GOP political handbook, not Question 1.

Michael W. Grondin


CDC gun study a step towards confiscation

Appropriating the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to investigate and become an intrinsic part of the firearm conversation, as the Bangor Daily News suggested in an Oct. 13 editorial, has been a clandestine operative wish for those siding with governmental registration and confiscation for many years. Under the umbrella of “public health,” those who have been unable to implement their restrictive covenants as viable entities because of their inability to convince citizens that pigs really can fly have sought to secure the most radical parts of their agenda through CDC participation.

Once again, those who recognize the political, social and restrictive nature of the CDC, in addition to individuals seeking to rescind a basic tenet of individual freedom, need to speak up. They have an obligation to identify the fallacies of their arguments and the need to stand tall in opposing this draconian suggestion, which attempts in the most insidious of manners to achieve what the majority of citizens have denied them to this point in time.

Ken Fogelman


Divine right to profit

When Jesus said “You can’t serve God and Mammon (money),” he recognized that serving the money god is incompatible with serving the God of creation. So many well-meaning believers have been fooled by the morality hoax, the well-funded claim that homosexuality and abortion are the only moral issues, that Mammon is now by law the god of America. This is evident in the chapters of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership that give foreign powers the right to challenge U.S. laws if they are a threat to potential profits. There seems to be a new principle in our economic philosophy: “The divine right of corporations to make a profit.” This trumps our democratically enacted laws to protect the health and safety of our children and our planet.

But this principle that foreign corporations or other powers can trump our democratic laws has overthrown the sovereignty of the United States. Any member of Congress who gets money from an offshore or overseas corporation and then supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership is an agent of the foreign power and should be on trial for treason. I urge every God-fearing, democracy-loving American to vote against any official who supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership and these abominable chapters of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. These so-called public servants are not only enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but enemies of democracy in America.

Ralph Grimes

Stockton Springs

Nichols for Bangor council

I have known Sarah Nichols for 10 years, since she was a student of mine in honors biology at Bangor High School. By the end of that school year it was clear that Sarah was within the best 1 percent of students I’ve ever taught. I’ve been teaching for 28 years, and Sarah is still ranked within that elite of truly outstanding students. Ask a Bangor teacher about the best of the best; you will learn how happy we are when a great former student chooses to settle in Bangor.

Sarah is smart, energetic, positive and sincere, with outstanding people skills and a thriving and growing circle of friends. She is driven to pursue all that is good, right and just.

I am absolutely certain that Sarah will succeed famously at everything she directs her energy toward. I recommend Sarah enthusiastically and without reservation. The people of Bangor could not have a better new city councilor than Sarah Nichols.

Martin O’Connell


No on Question 1

Question 1 supporters claim the new law will increase transparency and accountability and return power to the voter. This is total hogwash. Making candidates use valuable advertising space to list donors will not help anybody except those who sell advertising. Information on who donates is already available online with the Maine Ethics Commission. If you want to know, just look it up.

Question 1 has nothing to do with returning control to the Maine people. The people already have power in the form of their vote.

Increasing fines and penalties will only pad the coffers of the election fund itself. My review of ethics violations showed only minimal fines levied, mostly for late filing penalties. It is unlikely that any dark, evil deeds will be eliminated by increasing fines and penalties.

The big money spent in politics comes from PAC spending, and Question 1 will not change that at all. Question 1 will virtually triple funding levels to political candidates and cost the taxpayers and job creators of Maine millions of dollars.

They propose that state House and Senate candidates who receive general election funding of about $5,000 and $22,000, respectively, now receive up to $15,000 and $60,000, respectively. Keep in mind they run for office every two years, and there are 151 House seats and 35 Senate seats. Do the math.

This is a lot of money that could be better used for seniors on waiting lists and to fully fund our schools. No more welfare for politicians. Vote no on Question 1.

Paula Sutton


Don’t resurrect Ex-Im Bank

So, the Ex-Im Bank is to be resurrected from the dead. I believe that the demise of the Ex-Im Bank was long overdue as a relic of crony capitalism, both as symbol and realization. The taxpayers of the United States, through the bank, subsidized (bribed?) foreign purchasers to use goods and services of selected American corporations in preference to others. For those who might not know, if an American corporation were to directly subsidize its goods and services to any foreign entity, such corporation would be subject to legal action for bribery.

While I do not endorse “subsidizing” purchase of products by foreign purchasers by U.S. corporations, I can wonder why it is OK for the U.S. government to do the selfsame thing, Whatever happened to providing superior products?

Hans Schmidt