RIREPUBLICAN.COM - Personal Liberty, Fiscal Conservatism, and Self-Reliance

Running for office? Check out candidate school

2010-01-22T20:40:00Z

     For those of you thinking of running for office, Operation Clean Government is offering a candidate school for those looking to gain some campaign knowledge. The school will be held at the Quonset O Club on Saturday, March 6th from 7:15 5:15. Here's the schedule for the day:

MORNING PROGRAM

7:15      Full Buffet Breakfast – Welcome: Larry Valencia, OCG President

                                               Candidate School Founder: Bruce Lang

           Speaker: John DePetro, WPRO 630 Morning News

8:30     Deadlines; filing requirements, campaign finance & reports The Honorable A. Ralph Mollis, Secretary of State

9:10     Ethics Commission rules   Jason Gramitt, Education Coordinator/Staff Attorney for the Rhode Island Ethics Commission

9:50     Structuring Your Campaign – Making the decision to run; brief overview of what you need to run an effective campaign including selecting a Campaign Manager.   Professor Victor Profughi, Adjunct Professor at University of Rhode Island, Owner at Quest Research, CEO at Quest Research Public Opinion, Public Policy Surveys

10:30   Fundraising, Wise Campaign Spending and Pay Pal     Seth Klaiman, SMK Enterprises

11:00   Print, Radio and Other Media – Press Releases & effective print advertising. Presenters: Tom Ward, Publisher of The Valley Breeze and Dave Layman, Layman Communications

AFTERNOON PROGRAM

12:00 Lunch - Speaker: The Honorable Donald L. Carcieri, Governor
BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Choose the session that will be most important to your campaign

1:15 Session #1

A.     State Issues – for candidates for State offices & General Assembly Presenter: The Honorable Donald L. Carcieri, Governor

B.     Municipal Issues – for candidates for local office Presenter: The Honorable Joseph Larisa, Mayor of East Providence

C.     Strategy – Targeting potential votes – Identifying the votes you can win – Don’t waste your time!     Presenter: Richard Foley, The Prince Group

1:50 Session #2

A.     How to beat an entrenched incumbent. Moderator: Dave Layman, Layman Communications. Panel: The Honorable Ed O’Neill, Senator (I); The Honorable Deborah Ruggiero, Representative (D); The Honorable Brian Newberry, Representative (R)

B.     Know the Issues and How to answer questions honestly while not alienating half the room! Presenter: The Honorable Arlene Violet, former RI Attorney General

C.     How to Get Out The Vote (GOTV), targeted for campaign Staffers.   Presenter: Ernest Carlucci, Campaign Chairman for Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis

.

2:30 Session #3

A.     Women candidates / Getting the women’s vote Presenters: The Honorable Arlene Violet and Deborah Perry , Executive Director of the Northern RI YWCA

B.     Minority candidates / getting the minority’s vote Presenters: Angel Tavares, Esq., specializing in election law, and Sandy Riojas, political advocate, political commentator, & educator

C.     Branding yourself – What do you stand for - Campaign Theme / Image. Presenter Gregg Perry, The Perry Group, Reputation Management & Strategic Communications

3:10 – 3:25 BREAK

Special Presentations for all

3:25 Using the Internet – Webmedia; YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. Etc. Gregg Perry, The Perry Group, Reputation Management & Strategic Communications

4:15 – 5:15 Education Roundtable -- an issue for every campaign Moderator: Dave Layman, Panelists: Bob Walsh, RI NEA; The Honorable Dan McKee, Mayor; Anthony Carcieri, President, East Providence School Committee; Harry Staley, Chairman, Rhode Island Statewide Coalition (RISC).

For more information, vistit Operation Clean Government's website: http://www.ocgri.org/candidate.html

Close the GOP primary

2010-01-13T00:19:00Z

     If you follow local politics, you probably know that there is a major disagreement in the Rhode Island Republican party. Some in the GOP want to close the primary so that only Republicans who have been registered for at least three months can vote. Others want to keep the current system, where unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote, then disaffiliate before leaving the polling place. I find it hard to believe there can even be disagreement on this issue.

     A political party's primary should be closed to anyone who has not been a member for a specific period of time. Failing to do so undermines the purpose of a political party and allows those who are not committed to the party's goals to interfere. If you need proof, just look at the 2006 primary between Steve Laffey and Lincoln Chafee.

     Some might argue that a closed primary doesn't foster a sense of inclusion and openness, but this is nonsense. Unlike a general election, where the party and candidates should court unaffiliated voters, a primary should be solely for dedicated members of the party to choose the best candidate. If voters would really like to vote in the Republican primary, perhaps they should consider becoming a registered Republican.

John Loughlin is 'on the radar'

2010-01-12T23:28:00Z

     For those of you who have been waiting patiently for a strong candidate to challenge Patrick Kennedy, it appears that the wait is over. The Providence Journal is reporting that John Loughlin is "on the radar" of the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), due to meeting fundraising targets and having a strong organization.

     This is a significant development for the Loughlin campaign for many reasons. For one thing, it recognizes his campaign as having "significant momentum", and helps bring the race closer to the national political spotlight. This can only help his fund raising and name recognition, which are two things that will help him defeat Patrick Kennedy.

     With the exception of Patrick Kennedy's first Congressional election against Kevin Vigilante, Kennedy hasn't had any strong challengers. This has led to Kennedy controlling the race. For example, you may have noticed that Patrick Kennedy never debates his opponents in a well-publicized public forum. Doing so would only give publicity and name recognition to a candidate who lacks any, while exposing Kennedy's lack of intellect for all to see. Instead, he takes the coward's way out and refuses to debate. This year, Patrick's familiar election script will likely have to change.

     A competent, well-financed candidate will be able to get his message out, gain support, and strike a chord with voters. If polling shows that the race is close, Kennedy will likely have to debate to avoid criticism, or at least make more public appearances. Once this happens, his incompetence will be on display for all to see. This will only help John Loughlin. Combine this possibility with an anti-incumbent sentiment, and you might have the makings of a major upset.

John Robitaille is in; Steve Laffey is out

2010-01-12T22:17:00Z

     If you're a Rhode Island Republican, you should be worried about the 2010 election. It appeared that Steve Laffey was considering a run for governor, but he put those rumors to rest yesterday. Basically, he feels that the typical Rhode Islander isn't ready for the tough decisions that would be necessary to turn the state around.

     Laffey's decision leaves the GOP with John Robitaille as the only announced Republican candidate. Robitaille, who announced yesterday, is the governor's director of communications. I know very little about John Robitaille, so I'm going to reserve judgment until he starts to discuss his vision for the state. With that said, I'm about as excited about his candidacy as I was about Rory Smith's.

     The big problem is that Robitaille lacks name recognition and money. Maybe he can over come these deficits, at least initially, by having an exciting plan, and an excellent handle on the issues. Of course, this will only get his foot in the door. The true test will be whether he can energize the party and independent voters in the months leading up to the election. If he can't, and if no one else decides to run, the party will be in trouble.

Lincoln Chafee: 'Is this guy a nitwit?'

2010-01-05T04:44:00Z

It's official: Lincoln Chafee is a candidate for governor. If his press conference is any indication, it will be an interesting campaign. Unlike many candidates, who often avoid getting into details, Chafee shared his plan to reduce the property tax burden. Normally, this would be great. Unfortunately, Linc wants to avoid raising one tax by increasing another.

Chafee's plan is to have a two-tiered sales tax, which would tax items that are currently exempt at a rate below the current 7% sales tax. This would mean a tax on food, clothing, and over-the-counter medicine. The scary part is that he's serious. Here is his rationale for raising the sales tax:

In his own defense, Chafee said: “At least I am putting out my two-tiered sales-tax idea. I haven’t heard anybody else say how we are going to close this deficit.”

Asked what he would say to critics, he said, “It’s dishonest to say [you] are not raising taxes when you are.”

At least “you have choices on the sales tax. You can spend $50 on groceries, or you can spend $40.… You can buy the Cadillac or you can buy the Chevrolet. You have those choices. With the property tax, you don’t,” he argued.

     Well Linc, if people can spend less on a car to avoid additional sales tax, then couldn't they also spend less on a house to avoid additional property taxes? By the way, is it just me, or is the suggestion that people spend less on groceries a bit appalling? If people are already avoiding brand names and buying the bare essentials, how much more can they cut out? Spoken like someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

     I could go on criticizing Lincoln Chafee, but the Providence journal had some great quotes that sum up my thoughts:

“A stunning move — we’ll tax the poor to fix our addiction to spending.… This is not a ‘new way forward,’ but the same old backwards path to buying union votes by raising taxes on regular Rhode Islanders.” GOP Chairman Giovanni Cicione

“I think this is a further example of how Lincoln Chafee has lost touch with the average Rhode Islander, and quite frankly, with reality,” Democratic Chairman Bill Lynch

“You can’t come out and run for governor and have your first words be, ‘Let’s raise taxes.’ Is this guy a nitwit?” Tea Party member Doreen Costa

     By the way, to answer Ms. Costa's question: Yes, he is.

Rory Smith will not run for governor in 2010; WIll Steve Laffey?

2009-12-12T23:09:00Z

Riordan "Rory" Smith has decided not to run for governor in 2010. In a statement to the media, he had this to say:

“After spending the last few months considering a run for governor, I have decided to suspend my campaign and return all campaign contributions. While I am deeply appreciative of the support of those who know me well, I have come to the conclusion that as a newcomer to politics, my limited political experience and political network in Rhode Island will keep me from running a fully competitive campaign,” he said in a statement released to the media Friday afternoon.

This leaves the GOP without a candidate for governor in 2010. Here's my prediction: Steve Laffey will announce his candidacy by the end of January. It's just a guess on my part, but I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

Illegal immigration: The distortions continue

2009-12-08T19:25:00Z

     The Providence Journal published an editorial by Alexandra Filindra which conveniently ignores facts related to illegal immigration and Governor Carcieri's executive order. Here is the editorial in a nut shell: There's nothing wrong with illegal immigration, and if you try to do anything to stop it, they'll get even. Of course, it is also peppered with distortions that need to be addressed.

     Ms. Filindra begins by discussing the fear among foreign born Rhode Islanders. I find this hard to believe, since I don't know one foreign born Rhode Islander who fears the Governor's executive order. It could be because my friend's are a little smarter than the people Ms. Filindra knows. They are well aware that the executive order does not apply to naturalized citizens and legal residents. They are here legally, they have nothing to fear, and they know it. Ms. Filindra and the ministers council should spend more time actually educating their friends and congregations about who the executive order affects, rather than misrepresenting the Governor's intent. Of course, there are probably many illegal aliens who are rightfully fearful of the executive order. If this is the case, perhaps they should move to another state or their country of citizenship.

     One of Ms. Filindra's problems with the executive order is its reliance on E-Verify. As a fellow at Brown University's Taubman Center, I would have assumed that she would be familiar with E-Verify's true effectiveness. Ms. Filindra states that E-Verify is an "error-prone federal program." This couldn't be further from the truth. Nearly 97% of those who are checked by E-Verify are approved to work immediately. Of the 3% who are not, they tend to be people who either don't know they can contest the finding, or are illegal aliens. Again. education about the process will solve the problems that exist.

     Finally, we have this disturbing assertion regarding the 2010 Census:

Rhode Islanders may soon pay dearly for the scorn that the governor showed to his immigrant and Latino constituents. A vocal minority within the Latino community is counseling Latinos to boycott the Census, due to take place next March and April. According to the Rev. Eliseo Nogueras, of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (NCLCCL), immigrants should sit out the Census as punishment for political leaders such as Governor Carcieri who have shown little regard for the community’s issues and concerns. If Rhode Island loses a seat in Congress, the argument goes, state leaders will start taking immigrants and Latinos more seriously.

The threat of a Census boycott is one that state and local leaders must take very seriously not only as an indication of the prevailing mood within the Latino community but also because of the consequences it can have for Rhode Island.

Ms. Filandra also goes on to acknowledge the importance of the Census when she goes on to write:

Rhode Island’s schools, hospitals and low-income families depend on Census numbers for the determination of federal funding. A substantial undercount in the 2010 Census will hurt all of us, but it will be especially devastating for poorer neighborhoods and school districts. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that as a result of the 1 percent undercount in the 2000 Census, Rhode Island stood to lose more than $4 million in federal funding between 2002 and 2012. If the undercount is larger next year, the state will lose a lot more funding. These are funds that our children absolutely need.

Of course, if we lost a Congressional seat and federal funding, it would't be the fault of illegal aliens who boycott the Census, it would be Governor Carcieri's. On one side we have people who break the law, and on the other we have a man doing what is right for the State of Rhode Island. Who do they blame? The guy following the law, of course.

Of all the troubling aspects of this editorial, the worst is the liberal tendency to throw everyone into one group. Ms. Filindra talks about the foreign born people affected by the executive order. This is nothing but a ruse to confuse the argument. The executive order has nothing to with foreign born citizens or legal immigrants. It is a way to make Rhode Island inhospitable for illegal immigrants in order to raise the standard of living for the rest of its residents.

With one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, Rhode Island's legal residents are in need of jobs. If it weren't for an influx of illegal immigrants who ignore our laws, perhaps they would be employed.

It's good to see standards increased

2009-12-07T23:53:00Z

     I'm glad to see Education Commissioner Deborah Gist is going to move forward with her decision to raise teacher standards. The increase in standards was supposed to happen next year, but instead, Gist will phase the changes in over two years. Rhode Island currently has one of the lowest cut-offs for test scores in the country, right there with Mississippi and Guam. Once the standards are raised, they will be among the highest in the country. This should be a source of pride, but instead, it has been criticized.

     At Rhode Island College, 30% of students typically fail Praxis 1. Once the cut-off is raised, the failure rate will rise to 54%. I see this as a way, of ensuring that only the best students are able to teach, but those who prepare teachers seem to disagree:

Increasing scores to 179 in a single year “would have decimated us,” he said. David Byrd, director of URI’s School of Education, said he is comfortable with boosting the cut score requirement. URI already requires higher scores than the state. But Byrd said he is not convinced that it is necessary to make the scores the highest in the nation.
“Being in the range of 173 to 176, I think gives you confidence in the overall skill level of the teacher, but above that level, it no longer predicts the quality of the teacher,” Byrd said. “These are tests that evaluate your ability to do math, not to teach math.”

     Byrd is correct in stating that a high score on the Praxis doesn't measure teaching ability, but it's rather foolish to minimize the importance of having the intellectual capacity to excel in your field. Think about this: With the new standards, RIC's failure rate will almost double. This means that over the years, there are many Rhode Island teachers who wouldn't have been allowed to teach in other states. By raising these standards, we will raise the quality of Rhode Island's teachers.

The Hispanic Ministerial Alliance votes to boycott the 2010 census

2009-12-03T21:57:00Z

     The Hispanic Ministerial Alliance has voted 14 to 4 to join a national boycott of the 2010 census. The group will encourage undocumented workers not to take part in the census, even though they are required to take part. The purpose of the boycott is to attempt to strong-arm legislators into approving comprehensive immigration reform.

     Isn't it odd that a group of ministers would encourage people to break the law and commit an act that will be detrimental to the community? Of course, ignoring the law is nothing new for these "undocumented workers" aka illegal aliens. They have already trespassed into the United States and spit on our laws. What's one more violation from someone whose life is full of such actions?

     Hopefully, any comprehensive immigration reform bill will include increased enforcement and penalties for illegal aliens and the businesses that employ them. It would be nice to take control of our borders so that illegal aliens are disuaded from coming to the United States. Then, the ministers wouldn't have to worry about all the "undocumented workers."

Stimulus money wasted on phones

2009-12-03T00:09:00Z

     The Providence Police handed out 92 Blackberry Curves to supervisors recently. The phones, which include 2 years of service, will cost $95,000. So, how is a city with financial challenges able to afford such a luxury? Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, of course! If you think that's a waste of money, check this out:

About 30 top-echelon command staff have had BlackBerrys for months, but beginning in early November the department distributed upgraded BlackBerrys to those supervisors plus new BlackBerrys to the rest of the supervisors.

     Let's get this straight: The department purchased 30 BlackBerries a few short months ago, but they already feel a need to replace the phones? If these phones cost $300 each, that's a $9,000 expense. These phones aren't a necessity, they're a gimmick. By the way, wouldn't it be nice to know what the deparment's policy is in regards to personal use?

     It's also shameful that stimulus funds were used to pay for this dubious expenditure. Does this create jobs or put people to work? It's another waste of money, and another reason why our deficit is heading into the stratoshpere.

The recycling program: You can't blame David Cicilline

2009-11-18T19:23:00Z

     It isn't very often that I side with Providence Mayor David Cicilline, but I have trouble finding any problems with his handling of the city's "no bin, no barrel" program. In case you haven't heard, Providence residents are required to place a blue and green recycling bin next to their city-issued barrel. If they don't, their trash won't be picked up. As was expected, many people didn't recycle and their trash was left on the street.

     Since this strict enforcement began last week, there have been those who have criticized the city for failing to notify them. Unfortunately, this is a poor excuse. Residents received mailings and stickers on trash containers, along with outreach efforts at neighborhood events. In addition to these methods, David Cicilline made a Youtube video, and it has been discussed on local blogs. If I remember correctly, I also read about it in the Providence Journal. Since the first day of enforcement last week, there has also been front page coverage in the newspaper, along with regular coverage on the news. How could people say they don't know?

     As you might expect, I don't have any sympathy for those who didn't have their garbage collected. It's a citizen's responsibility to educate themselves and familiarize themselves with the issues facing their community. They shouldn't be blaming the city for their ignorance.

     I'm glad to see that the city is enforcing the recycling problem by refusing to pick up trash, but they need to go further. Many residents are leaving their trash cans on the sidewalk, then simply throwing garbage beside their barrel. Besides being unsightly, it is also a breeding ground for rats and other vermin. There are ordinances on the books to prevent residents from keeping their trash on the sidewalk. These ordinances need to be enforced swiftly in order to bring this problem to an end.

     One last "problem" concerns the cost of the recycling bins, which are $5 each. Some residents and Councilmen have complained about the cost and suggested giving the bins away. This is ridiculous. First of all, it shouldn't be the city's responsibility to provide bins. If residents can't afford $5, then they can use any waterproof container. If one isn't available, then perhaps they need to sacrifice in order to make the purchase.

     We need to stop coddling people. A new rule went into effect that will save taxpayers $300,000. Residents need to quit their whining, do their part, and clean up their sidewalks!

The Colbert Report addresses Rhode Island funeral bill

2009-11-17T23:50:00Z

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Skeletons in the Closet

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

U.S. Speedskating

Legalize or decriminalize marijuana in Rhode Island

2009-11-17T19:09:00Z

It's good to see the state move forward on potentially legalizing marijuana. The commission set up to study the issue is set to release a report by January 31, 2009. Among the questions they will attempt to address:

Other topics to be explored are the effects and costs of Rhode Island’s prohibition of the drug, except to sick people; whether adult use has increased since it was banned in 1918; whether its sales are financing drug cartels and fomenting violence; and its current availability to young people. The group will also look at how states and countries that have decriminalized the drug have fared.

One of the first subjects the panel will examine is Massachusetts’ experience since voters there overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure in November 2008 that decriminalized possessing small amounts of marijuana. People caught with less than an ounce face a $100 civil fine, but not criminal charges.

     It appears the commission will be addressing all the major issues. Although, I have a feeling I know how many will turn out:

* By legalizing marijuana, the state will save a tremendous amount of money on costs associated with law enforcement and incarceration.

* Fewer people will have a criminal record for engaging in this victimless crime. This can only help their future prospects.

* Availability to young people probably won't be any different than it is now. I doubt there are many teens who want it and don't know where to get it.

     Legalization is a great idea, but I do have a question: Is legalization even possible with marijuana illegal at the federal level? I was under the impression that it could be decriminalized, but that actual legalization would be out of the question. I also wonder how tax collections would occur, since it would entail the creation of legal producers and points of sale. Once this occurs, any tax placed on the marijuana would have to bring the cost in line with illegally purchased marijuana. If not, users would likely skip legal avenues and continue to feed money to illegal distributors.

     Done right, legalization/decriminalization could save money, result in fewer incarcerations, and most importantly, preserve personal liberty by allowing individuals to make choices for themselves. We could continue to keep it illegal, but where has that gotten us?

Don Carcieri's disgraceful veto

2009-11-11T23:07:00Z

Governor Don Carcieri has vetoed a bill that would have allowed domestic partners to claim the bodies of their partners and make funeral arrangements after their death. The legislation seems reasonable to me, and I hope to see the General Assembly over-ride the Governor's veto. Here is Don Carcieri's rationale for the veto:

“If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide,” he wrote.

He took issue with the definition of a domestic partner as “a person who, prior to the decedent’s death, was in an exclusive, intimate and committed relationship with the decedent” for at least a year, saying a year “is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals ... [relative to] issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.”

He also questioned “how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for year” since there is “no official or recognized form” of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island.

As far as I know, there are no laws requiring married heterosexual couples to wait a year before being eligible to make funeral arrangements for their spouse. A year isn't a long time, but heterosexual couples married less than a year are able to make such arrangements, why not same-sex couples? Of course, same-sex couples don't have the same legal recognition of their relationships, but that isn't their fault. Leaders in the General Assembly won't allow a same-sex marriage bill to come to a vote, and many of our reps and senators are too gutless to put House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President Theresa Paiva Weed on the spot.

I would like to see Rhode Islanders have the opportunity to vote on same-sex marriage. Some would argue that the legislature is the best way to address the issue, not by placing the question on the ballot. I'm inclined to agree, but with so many gutless, closed- minded legislators, a question that allows them to pass the decision on to Rhode Islanders might be the best chance of legalizing same-sex marriage. It's not the perfect solution, but it is probably the best one.

What's the point Patrick?

2009-11-10T19:17:00Z

Like many Rhode Islanders, I was raised as a Catholic. I was baptized, received penance, and made my first communion. I never made my confirmation because I thought it was ridiculous. Even at a young age, I disagreed with the church and had difficulty "confirming" my place as a member. I know many people just go through the motions because they feel they are supposed to, but I just couldn't. Unlike many of my peers who also disagreed with the Church's teachings, I disagreed and refused to make a mockery of the proceedings. Many people seemingly don't care and are content to go through the motions. Who do you think takes religion more seriously?

One of those people you could certainly call into question is Patrick Kennedy. He loudly criticized the Catholic Church last week and received more criticism from Bishop Thomas Tobin this week when he fought to allow government funding for abortions. Kennedy stated that his views and actions didn't make him any less of a Catholic, but the Bishop disagreed. Here is his response to Kennedy:

“Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does,” the bishop said in a letter issued just two days after Kennedy was among a group of minority lawmakers who attempted to block tough new restrictions on abortion that were added Saturday to the House’s health-care reform legislation.

“Although I wouldn’t chose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion,” the bishop declared.

Kennedy’s office did not respond yesterday to phone and e-mail requests for an interview on the bishop’s letter.

Bishop Tobin raised the question: What makes Kennedy think he’s Catholic? “Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?”

Being Catholic involves much more, he said, including acceptance of essential church teachings on matters of faith and morals, belonging to a parish community, weekly attendance at Mass and regular reception of the sacraments.

And support for abortion rights is not in the same category of those who struggle with sins of anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty and then fail, the bishop declared.

“Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category — it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will, a conscious decision that you’ve reaffirmed on many occasions.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to ‘an imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church….

“I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God.

“But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late to repair your relationship with the church, redeem your public image and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’ especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children.”

I'm glad to finally see the Bishop call out Patrick Kennedy on this issue. I've always been troubled by people who claim to be Catholic (or any other religion), then hold views and live their life in a way that is counter those teachings. They try to be everything to everyone, then end up looking like a fool. Of course, the Church isn't blameless in this. For proof, just look at Ted Kennedy's funeral and the plethora of bishops at his service. This is a man who was also strongly pro choice and lived counter to the Church's teachings, yet he was treated like a king. What was the Catholic Church thinking?

I support woman's right to choose, gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, I oppose excessive spending on social services, and I support tough enforcement of our immigration laws. All of these views are at odds with the Catholic Church's positions. Because of these differences and many more, I can't see myself following the Catholic faith. If you are going to ignore the teachings, why bother being a part of the religion?

District 10 candidates and e-verify

2009-11-04T19:15:00Z

Brian Hull of RIFuture.org had an interesting post today. It asked the three candidates for the district 10 House seat 7 questions. One question that particularly caught my attention focused on e-verify. It certainly wasn't the most important question asked, but I was struck by the ignorance of all three candidates on this issue. Here is the question, along with the answers from each of the three candidates:

In 2008, Governor Carcieri issued an executive order for all state contractors to verify the legal working status using the federal E-Verify database. Do you support or oppose the Governor’s decision? Additionally, do you support or oppose expanding the use of the E-Verify program to include private businesses in the state?

Scott Slater (D):
I do not support the Governor’s executive order because all it has done is further separate the two sides in the immigration debate. It also places an unfair burden on small businesses like we have in our district that would face added expenses to participate in such a program.

Wilbur Jennings (I):
I oppose E-Verify for a number of reasons. One, the federal government is trying to bring the state back into the enforcement of immigration laws (after 80 years) without giving our law enforcement agencies any money to carry that task out. Two, the E-Verify system is not reliable and it has causes workers who are otherwise eligible not to receive proper verification. Three, the state of Illinois has passed a law prohibiting companies from using the federal database because of concerns of accuracy. Four, the Arizona law mandating E-Verify is being challenged in federal court, and this law is being blamed for the already tight and shrinking labor market in Arizona.

Maurice Green (R):
I have doubts about the accuracy of the E-Verify database. I do not want legal residents being denied jobs, due to errors in this database. In the long term, the only solution to our immigration problem is for the federal government to close the Mexican border with a real fence, and allow our immigrant population to become assimilated.

     I really don't know where to start, but let's focus on businesses. Scott Slater seems to be concerned about the burden on business. I might be wrong, but Mr. Slater seems tax happy. Most businesses would probably rather spend a few minutes checking a worker's background than paying additional taxes. If Scott Slater really cares about the burdens businesses face, he'll take that into consideration.  Wilbur Jennings points to the possibility of creating a tight labor market. I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out to him, but we currently have an unemployment rate of 13%. We could disqualify every illegal alien from working in Rhode Island, and businesses would still have their pick of good employees.

     Wilbur Jennings and Maurice Green also call E-Verify's reliability into question. It isn't perfect, but it's certainly close. Statistics show that 96.9% workers are confirmed immediately, or within 24 hours. Of the remaining 3.1%, 0.3% receive confirmation, and 2.8% receive a final nonconfirmation. It looks rather reliable to me. Of course, some people choose to ignore these numbers because it runs counter to their preference for open borders, or is unpopular to support when you are running for election in a district that has a large number of immigrants.

     Governor Carcieri's executive order was an excellent first step, but it needs to be extended to private businesses. By doing so, we will discourage illegal aliens from moving to Rhode Island and ensure that there are more jobs for legal residents who follow the law. Unfortunately, none of the candidates seem to firmly grasp this important goal.

The Moderate Party's questionable contribution

2009-11-04T00:29:00Z

     It's disappointing to see a political party which stresses ethics become embroiled in questionable financial activities. Moderate Party founder Ken Block donated $10,000 to the party for "party building," then gave a similar donation to the Barrington Moderate Party, which then turned around and gave it to the state party.

     Right now, it isn't 100% clear if this financial maneuvering is legal. It could very well be, but it also appears to violate the spirit of the law, even if it does follow the letter. If Block's contribution is allowed to stand, wouldn't wealthy individuals be allowed to give the $10,000 maximum to every city or town committee, which could then be turned over to the state party? Think about it: $10,000 to each city or town, plus $10,000 given directly to the party (39 x $10,000 + $10,000) means a total contribution of $400,000. That's quite a bit more than the $10,000 state limit.

     This does not put the party in a positive light, or enhance them in the eyes of the electorate. To me, it just looks like more questionable activity. Don't we already have enough of that in Rhode Island?

It's official: Rhode Island is as wrong as the other states

2009-11-04T00:03:00Z

     It's official: Indoor prostitution is illegal in Rhode Island. Representative Joanne Giannini acknowledges that prostitution will not go away and adds, "...it means Rhode Island will no longer be a safe haven for pimping and trafficking, and the victimization of young women." Despite the exaggerations being passed on by Joanne Giannini and Citizens Against Trafficking, I still haven't seen any evidence that trafficking is any more common than it is in any other state. They were very fortunate to have a large number of legislators who either don't seem to think clearly, or are afraid to use their common sense.

     Ms. Giannini isn't right about much, but she is right about one thing: Prostitution will not go away. Instead of being centralized in indoor locations, it will now be outdoors. Spas will soon be targets for police raids, so this behavior will soon scatter through out neighborhoods. You don't like indoor prostitution? Well, I guarantee you will like the increase in street-walking even less. Now, instead of having "business" conducted indoors, it can occur near the neighborhood elementary school or church.

     If you doubt this, just think about all those Providence Journal stories about prostitution stings in Providence over the years. About a half-dozen police officers would spend the evening arresting prostitutes and Johns out on the streets, then have an article in the paper the next day. I don't recall seeing any articles like that in a long time. Could it be because prostitution has largely moved indoors? I think so, and I also think we will see a return to large-scale raids and stings.

     This bill will lead to more arrests and incarcerations, a further strain on the court system, and a steep increase in outdoor prostitution. However, I doubt we will see an increase in human trafficking cases. After all, stopping the supposedly wide-spread occurrence of human trafficking was never the true goal of the bill's supporters. It was merely a distraction used to drum up opposition to the current law. This assault on liberty was a purely a puritanical crusade from the beginning.

Churches think we should ignore immigration law

2009-11-02T17:43:00Z

The Rhode Island State Council of Churches has issued some guidelines for people of faith to consider in regards to illegal immigration. Strangely, the council says, “It is not clear if the U.S. economy is improved or worsened by immigration,” yet if feels compelled to issue a list of recommendations, which if implemented, could hurt the country. Here are the five guidelines, along with some of my own comments below:

•That people should have equal access to immigration no matter which country they are coming from.

I disagree. This should be true for most countries, but there could be a need to restrict access from certain countries, or at least be extra vigilant.

•That caps and quotas not be based on race, gender, income level or party affiliation.

I agree with not basing caps and quota on race, gender, or party affiliation. As for income level, it should be a consideration. if someone comes to the United States with financial security, there is less chance of them needing assistance, and a greater chance of them making a positive contribution.

•That priority be given to reuniting families and to opening the doors to refugees regardless of their political leanings or the affiliation of their home government.

Nonsense. Immigration policy needs to be focused on what is best for the United States, not for individuals who hope to move here. Policies should place an emphasis on fulfilling the country's needs, not the needs of the citizens of other countries. For example, if there is a shortage of nurses, then applicants with nursing degrees should receive preference. To pass over the nurse because someone's relative gained entry a year before is foolish.

•That illegal immigrants who have be in the United States for a certain length of time be afforded a chance for residency without having to go back to their home country.

     Illegal aliens deserve no special treatment or benefits. They should be detained, deported, and banned from applying for entry to the United States for a period of time. Illegal aliens show nothing but disdain for our laws. They don't deserve an opportunity to receive citizenship, only a ride back to their country. By the way, I also find it shocking that illegal aliens who have been here the longest would receive preferential treatment over new illegal aliens. The churches actually want to reward those who are better at evading law enforcement!

•That there be an end to “punitive government actions.”

     "Punitive government actions?" Translation: The government should stop enforcing our immigration laws. It should essentially look the other way, providing a policy of open borders. We need an immigration policy with teeth: Break the law, then be deported. We need more enforcement, not less. We need more workplace raids, followed by swift deportation. As for the businesses, there should be prison sentences and massive fines. If you can discourage employers through "punitive government actions," you will also discourage illegal aliens from breaking our laws.

     It's pretty easy to see that the Rhode Island Council of Churches has little use for national sovereignty and favors a policy of open borders. They support breaking the law and believe trespassing should be legal. I wonder if they would also support a poor person breaking into someone's house to steal food? After all, if they really need it because they're hungry, then why should be take "punitive government actions" against them?

Dede Scozzafava’s decision: Great for conservatives, not so great for moderates

2009-11-01T18:37:00Z

Originally posted on Pundit.net

I was surprised to hear about Dede Scozzafava’s decision to suspend her campaign for a Congressional seat in New York’s 23rd district. Since she is currently running third in the polls, her chances of running were slim, and the chances of splitting Republican votes and handing them to the Democrat were likely. It’s important to pick up as many seats as possible in order to eventually remove Nancy Pelosi from power. Ms. Scozzafava realized that, and I commend her for her selfless decision. With that said, I’m also a bit worried.

While Dede Scozzafava’s decision will likely lead to greater unity for Conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman, it certainly doesn’t bode well for moderate Republicans in general. I’ve never been a big fan of the two party system, since it essentially forces people to pick the side that is closest, rather than a side that is close. That results in a certain ideological heterogeneity that you wouldn’t find in a multiparty system. Unfortunately, it seems that some on the far right don’t seem to get this, and have a tendency to lash out at moderates the same way they would at Nancy Pelosi. It’s similar to a “with us or against us” mindset.

I’m a registered Republican who is a staunch supporter of limited government. I strongly support low taxes, reduced spending, and less bureaucracy. On the flip side, I’m pro-choice, support gay marriage, and the decriminalization of marijuana. If I were running for Congress, I’d probably have social conservatives from all over the country rooting for my political demise. Why? Because I’m ideologically consistent. I truly support limited government, not only in fiscal matters, but also those of a personal nature. Just like excessive taxation is an impediment to liberty, the same is true of a government which attempts to control our personal decisions.

For many, there seems to be a disconnect. They want limited government, but they also want government to control and legislate morality. I respect socially conservative views, and in many ways, lead my own life in that fashion. With that said, it isn’t the government’s role to impose these views on the citizenry. It is the responsibility of families, and most importantly, the individual.