Local Republicans join the campaign trail in New Hampshire by Brian Boyd

January 09, 2012 12:00 AM
Standard-Times of New Bedford, MA
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120109/NEWS/201090315&cid=sitesearch

SouthCoast Republicans are lending their support to their favorite
candidates as they make a final push in New Hampshire ahead of Tuesday's
primary.

GOP activists from the region have been campaigning for their candidates on
the ground in the Granite State and over the phone. They are hoping their choice
for president makes a strong showing in the neighboring state, home to the
first-in-the-nation primary.

Local supporters of Mitt Romney were planning to travel north to the scene
of the primary prior to the voting. They expected they would campaign for the
former Massachusetts governor by knocking on doors, distributing literature, and
making calls from phone banks.

"It's old-fashioned retail politics," said Brock N. Cordeiro, a Republican
State Committee member from Dartmouth. "There is a large contingent of
Massachusetts Republicans going up there."

Cordeiro said Friday he and other local Romney supporters were planning to
travel to New Hampshire Saturday. He was also planning to head back up Tuesday
after work to join the campaign's primary night gathering.

Local Republicans assess Iowa's impact by Brian Boyd

January 03, 2012 12:00 AM
Standard-Times of New Bedford, MA
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120103/NEWS/201030332&cid=sitesearch

If Mitt Romney catches a strong breeze today in the Iowa caucuses, he would go on to the upcoming primaries with the wind to his back, local Republicans said.

The former Massachusetts governor does not have to finish first in today's contest to win the GOP's nomination, though coming in at least second or third would help, local elected officials and party activists said.

Brock N. Cordeiro, another local Republican activist who is backing Romney, agreed that while a win today would be a major boost to the campaign, it's not critical.

"Iowa could be a king maker but I don't think for Romney it's a king breaker," said Cordeiro, a Republican State Committee member from Dartmouth.

The New Hampshire primary is a do-or-die moment for him, on the other hand, and a second- or third-place finish today would set him up well for next week, Cordeiro said.

If Romney finishes last or close to last, though, that would be a problem, he said.

Paul has a strong organization, Cordeiro said, but a victory by the Texas congressman would not likely knock out other major candidates. Unlike Romney, other candidates — namely Bachman, Perry and Santorum — need to do well in the caucuses to remain competitive, and they can appeal to social conservatives in the state, he said.

HERE'S THE POINT: Doctor Assisted Suicide

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman treatment to produce an abortion.
-from the Hippocratic oath

Earlier this month, Quincy resident Michael Clarke filed a petition with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office titled the Death With Dignity Act. This filing would get the ball rolling towards a November referendum ballot initiative which would allow people with terminal illnesses to legally commit physician assisted suicide.

Section 1 of the proposed law states that patients with the capacity to make health care decisions and who are "suffering from a terminal disease that will cause death within six months may obtain medication that the patient may self administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner."

Deathwithdignity.org has a blog entry titled 'living with dying', posted by Peg Sandeen, MSW. She hails similar laws passed in Oregon and Washington as "model legislation", stating that Death with Dignity is a "safeguarded, state-monitored practice" and there "has been no abuse and no coercion in the 13 years of implementation in Oregon and the 2 years in Washington. None." None of the patients 'treated' under Death with Dignity could be reached for comment.

Liberals will argue that they are trying to protect the dominion that people have over their own bodies. They will say that if a man wishes to ingest a lethal amount of drugs, that's his business, in much the same way they will claim that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she will continue to allow a pregnancy to come to term.

But dominion is not the subject matter. This referendum is part of a legal process that would give people authority to help in the taking of innocent life. A suicide is an unnatural death. If someone hangs himself or steps in front of a train, the area surrounding the corpse immediately becomes a crime scene. There is no proper setting for a suicide, hospital rooms included. Defense attorneys would have a field day with this. 'Your honor, my client is not guilty of accessory to murder. He was just carrying out the wishes of the deceased, who wanted to commit suicide. He is, after all, Board certified.'

Here's the point: Doctors who prescribe lethal amounts of drugs to their patients for the expressed purpose of committing suicide at that point cease to be doctors; they then become assassins with stethoscopes.

The question remains about a person's state of mind shortly before a suicide. Can any person be of right mind when they choose to end their life? Think back to a time in your life if you've ever had unbearable pain. If you were given the option of taking a pill that would have ended your life, or if you just had to give a nod to someone standing next to your iv bottle, would you have considered it? Perhaps you might have. As you read this right now, are you thinking to yourself that you would have been making, quite literally, a grave mistake?

Comparisons between end of life decisions involving life support, healthcare proxies, and DNR orders for our loved ones and euthanizing an old dog with arthritic hips are beyond the pale and have no standing in this debate. A pet, although alive and capable of feelings and emotion, is not a human being and is thus considered property. The debate about humans being considered property was settled in a war a long time ago, (unless the human in question is not yet born or is named Terri Schiavo). The inconvenient truth for liberals is that many of them often look at the weakest and most dependent among us, i.e. the unborn and the terminally ill, as inconvenient lives.

Where would we then draw the line? Do we authorize a psychiatrist to suggest to a patient victimized by decades of physical and sexual abuse to commit suicide because she feels that the rest of her life is utterly hopeless? Are we really concerned with making suicide dignified? Or do we just want to make it easier? Allowing a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose to a patient is tantamount to allowing a police officer to hand a pistol with a single .45 slug in it to someone who can't legally obtain a firearm. Anyone who has peered into the eyes of someone who shortly thereafter commits suicide learns that once his mind was made up that he was going to do it, nothing was going to stop him. Even if he didn't have a prescription.

A doctor is someone who has pursued the most noble of all professions, someone who has given his life to the profession of curing and treating disease and prolonging life. Putting a doctor in the position to discuss, facilitate, or help carry out suicide with one of his patients, as this referendum would do, would be asking him to act as an agent of death.

Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, Halifax RTC

ATTENTION MY FELLOW AMERICANS!!!

ATTENTION MY FELLOW AMERICANS!!! If you believe in, are willing to stand up for, and put into political action your principles of balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and living within our means as a nation – just as our families do in their daily lives – then you are a terrorist according to Vice President Joseph Biden!

According to several sources involved during a two-hour closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting ahead of Monday’s debt limit vote in the US House of Representatives, Vice President Biden lashed out at the so-called “Tea Party” – that is those aforementioned activists and voters – as having “acted like terrorists” for adhering to and trying to advance those common sense principles.

The Vice President wasn’t alone as Biden merely echoed the comments made previously by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA). Referring to some Republican Congressmen, Doyle is reported to have said “We have negotiated with terrorists...This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Rather than decry and denounce Doyle’s disgusting and deplorable language, Joe Biden reportedly stated “They have acted like terrorists.” Of course, once sunshine and fresh air broke through the proverbial smoked filled backroom, Vice President Biden denied the comments. Earlier in the day, Biden referred to Republicans putting “guns to their heads” when referring to Congressional debt limit negotiations. These vicious partisan attacks are unbecoming the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States of America.

America has experienced terrorism, both foreign and domestic. As we approach the tenth anniversary of Al-Qaeda’s attack, and in the wake of Norway’s recent tragedy, the careless invoking of terrorism and violent image is grossly inappropriate. I may gravely disagree with the Obama administration but I would never condescend to use such vulgar phrases against our President and his team. We, regardless of party or ideology, must rise above our lesser angels, take the high road, and challenge each other to be better than the pitiful examples set forth by Vice President Biden and Rep. Doyle. It may surprise the aforementioned but the Tea Party movement is comprised of far more than only Republicans. It is a grassroots groundswell that also includes multitudes of proud independent voters and Democrats who are fed up with the status quo at all levels of government.

Joe Biden has a negative reputation for making verbal gaffes over the years that bring embarrassment upon himself, his administration, his party, and our nation. Rather than a period to engage in petty partisanship, these past weeks were a time to unite and do what was best for America. Undoubtedly, there are sincere and profound differences political principles between Republicans and Democrats yet Biden reinforces the idea that the old story of Democrat House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. sharing a drink with Republican President Ronald Reagan in friendship and collegiality after partisan battles to truly be a thing of the past.

Perhaps it was former Joe Biden, who had been in the Senate since the Nixon administration, who shattered that endearing vision?

I briefly met Senator Biden once. As was his stereotype, our meeting was during an AMTRAK ride back home from Washington DC in April 2007. I sat late one night aboard the train after my very first visit to our nation’s capital. I was fortunate to witness President Bush’s White House welcoming ceremony for Pope Benedict XVI and later that evening an obviously tired Senator Biden, wearing a tuxedo but with his bow-tie undone, wearily walked down the aisle through my train car to another. Only one other person seemed to recognize Biden, and she was almost bursting with excitement. I’ll admit that even this Republican stalwart was thrilled to see the Senator. As he walked by, Biden patted me on the back and smiled with a grin that seemed to appreciate my calm recognition despite the celebrity sighting. It was an unforgotten pleasantry not soon forgotten.

Now, I wonder if Vice President Joe Biden would have been so cordial with me if he knew that I was a Republican who enjoyed a cup of tea.

Sincerely,

Brock N. Cordeiro
Massachusetts Republican Regional Chairman – Region 5
(Southeastern Mass, Cape Cod & Islands, South Shore & South Coast)
Massachusetts Republican State Committee Member
Second Bristol & Plymouth State Senate District
(New Bedford, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Acushnet & Mattapoisett)

HERE’S THE POINT: Held to a higher standard

Principles are the specific beliefs, the foundation upon which the different political parties are built. Ethics is the discipline and moral duty to adhere to right and wrong. Massachusetts Republicans are making a strong case to the public that they are willing to stand on both.

Following the felony conviction of Democrat Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, the Massachusetts House GOP Caucus, in an attempt to restore the honor of and public trust in our elected representatives, put forth a comprehensive outline of ethics reforms that would serve as an honor code for state legislators.

The code would establish certain standards of behavior and require legislators to inform the House Ethics Committee of any unethical or criminal activity. The code would, among other things, crack down on legislators for sexual harassment and discrimination, prohibit the hiring of other member’s family members, prohibit legislators from contacting public agencies in hopes of steering contracts to preferred vendors, and further delineate the relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists.

In an attempt to appear non-partisan, the House Republicans even waited to propose the legislation to the chamber, giving the Democrats opportunity to sign on as co-sponsors. But a couple of unfortunate gaffes proved that Beacon Hill has a long way to go.

One provision of the code is that lobbyists would be required to wear badges identifying them as lobbyists while lobbying legislators. The badge would be in its own way a sort of back-stage pass. We know who is back there and where they are. This prompted Rep. John J. Binienda, a Worcester Democrat, to compare the badge proposal with Adolph Hitler’s tattooing of Jews during the Holocaust. After furious objections from the Anti-Defamation League, and every person of dignity and character who heard or read the quote, Binienda later apologized.

Governor Deval Patrick then offered up an ethical gaffe of his own. The governor, who has time and again claimed little or no interaction with casino lobbyists, was discovered to have deposited more than $17,000 in campaign contributions given to him by those very same casino lobbyists. His explanation as to how this happened is a simple, yet curt, “I don’t count every check.” Since the discovery, the governor has returned the money.

Political ideology aside, the unethical words and actions of DiMasi, Binienda, and Patrick defile the offices once held by Samuel Adams, John Adams and John Hancock.

Here’s the point: If principles differentiate one party from another, ethical standards should at minimum coalesce them.

State Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour stated, “Governor Patrick should adopt by executive order the same set of ethical standards as proposed by the House GOP Caucus for his entire administration. Now is the time to lead by example and restore the people’s trust.”

Governor Patrick and Speaker Robert DeLeo have tremendous opportunities presented to them. But how will they respond? If the governor issues an executive order implementing the code he may well curry favor with those wishing that Beacon Hill clean up its act. But this may appear to his supporters that the Republicans have painted him into a corner, forcing him to do something he didn’t want to do. A refusal to accept the code will make him appear as someone who would take one in the neck in order to defend unethical behavior with lobbyists. This comes at a particularly inopportune time for the governor as his stalled negotiations with the speaker regarding casino gambling are going nowhere fast. The governor can take the sure bet, issue the executive order, and shine a light on those cockroaches known as casino lobbyists. Or he could ignore the proposed ethics code and double down on casino dealings behind closed doors.

Some Democrats in the House cognizant of the pall cast over their chamber by the bad behavior of some of its members seem receptive to the GOP suggestion. Speaker DeLeo thanked the Republicans for “offering some positive proposals” and would take “a serious look” at them. But that remains to be seen.

Adoption of a code of ethics is not a compromise of political and philosophical principles because it is independent of policy issues. Those who we elect to represent us should be held to a higher standard, be they in the Legislature or in the corner office.

Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley (2nd Plymouth and Bristol districts) also serves as vice chairman of the Halifax Republican Town Committee. Here’s the point appears every other week in the Halifax-Plympton Reporter.

HERE'S THE POINT: U.S. History Requirement

It seems that Democrats in the Massachusetts Senate are not making the grade where Senator Bob Hedlund, R-Hingham, has.

The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS, was instituted in 1993 as a graduation requirement for all Massachusetts school children. A passing grade is required by all 10th grade students in Massachusetts in order for them to graduate.

The purpose of this series of exams is, in theory, essentially twofold. First, it makes sure that all Massachusetts school children are competent in Mathematics, English, and Science and Technology. And second, it holds teachers and school districts accountable for making sure those subjects are taught successfully.

For years, the Massachusetts Board of Education has resisted implementing a section of MCAS devoted to United States history. Upon hearing that the Board was going to vote to eliminate U.S. history as a graduation requirement, the Republicans in the Senate filed an amendment to the budget to block this action. Last week, on the second day of the Senate budget amendment process, the Senate voted along party lines, 31-5, to permanently remove U.S. history as a requirement under MCAS. One Democrat in the Senate voted with the Republicans.

According to Senator Hedlund, “this amendment would have protected the teaching of United States history by stripping the Board of Education of the power to remove United States history from the core curriculum”, pointing out that the Democrats said that the State Senate was not an “appropriate” forum to make these changes and that it should be further vetted. He added that he is disappointed that the Democrats profess that the Senate is an inappropriate forum to determine the content of the MCAS exam as they voted in the Senate to determine the content of the MCAS exam. The hypocrisy abounds.

Massachusetts Democrat State Senators voted against a U.S. history MCAS requirement because the topic should be evaluated for acceptance? Where is the gray area? Is it the process of voting on portions of the MCAS in the Senate? If they have voted in the past to make changes in the MCAS as well as other classroom curriculum, which they have many times, then the process is not the problem. Thus, it must be the subject matter itself.

Here’s the point: U.S. history is not some junk science like global warming and proficiency in it should be required to graduate.

Vetting the history requirement would be a laugh if it weren’t so offensive. Question #2 of the February 2011 MCAS Biology Test Items exam is a multiple-choice question. ‘Which of the following best explains why tropical insects may be at greater risk for extinction from global warming than insects from higher latitudes?’ None of the answers, A, B, C, or D, suggest that this is a trick question because global warming as it is pushed upon us simply isn’t happening. How can any public official give a nod of approval that a question like this be used to evaluate and educate our children while objecting to asking these same kids which battle followed Washington’s crossing the Delaware? (It was the Battle of Trenton, by the way.)

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the topic of requiring our school children to learn about our history has become political. 100% of the Senate Republicans voted in favor of implementing the U.S. history section. 97% of the Senate Democrats voted against the U.S. history requirement. Why? Liberal Democrat activists cannot afford to allow school children to learn that the real history of this great nation’s founding, and subsequent growth into the world’s lone superpower, is based on the conservative ideals of freedom, individual liberty, and capitalism, and not the result of a forceful, centralized government. These percentages are to high to ignore.

The more these kids realize that it is strong people who make the country great and that a strong government does not make people great, the more these kids will learn to rely on themselves to become successful, which is the real test in the long run. This is why U.S. history is so important. The Democrats in the Senate and the Massachusetts Board of Education could learn a thing or two from listening to Senator Hedlund.

Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, HRTC

FREE MassGOP Region 5 Municipal Committee Mini-Boot Camp

Please join us on Monday, June 20 for a FREE Republican local town/city committee training for officers & activists. It's a 2-hour condensed "mini-camp" of the full 6-hour boot camp offered by the Attleboro GOP & the MassGOP.

This event is similar to what you may have experienced at the MassGOP Grassroots Conference.

There are newly organized and a plethora of new members of various committees throughout the region. Likewise, there are plenty of local GOP committee veterans for whom it could never hurt to have a refresher and an update on the newest tools, tips, and tricks to building a sold, viable, winning grassroots Republican army.

I strongly encourage as many Republican committee officers & activists as possible from across the Second Bristol & Plymouth State Senate district, the SouthCoast, and all of Region 5 (and beyond) to participate.

Please spread the news of this FREE 2-HOUR CITY/TOWN GOP COMMITTEE MINI-BOOT CAMP on Monday, June 20!!!

Best regards,

Brock N. Cordeiro
MassGOP Regional Chairman - Region 5
(Southeastern Mass, Cape Cod & Islands, South Shore & SouthCoast)
MassGOP State CommitteemanSecond Bristol & Plymouth State Senate district
(New Bedford, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Acushnet & Mattapoisett)
508-979-8930
BNCordeiro@gmail.com

PS - Please RSVP for this FREE local/municipal Republican mini-camp by Monday, June 13.

HERE'S THE POINT: ANWR

A married man, father of three, comes home from work on a Friday to a dark and empty house. He is tired, a bit sore, and hungry. He flips a light switch, and his aggravation level spikes when the squiggly bulb above his kitchen table designed to save the planet offers insufficient relief to the darkness when he glances down at the mail he is carrying. He tosses the mail onto the table and waits for the bulb to warm up.

It has been said that most political campaigns are decided on the so-called ‘kitchen table’ issues, that is, issues that typically confront American families that are discussed at the kitchen table during mealtime. Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that American families seldom eat meals together at their kitchen tables anymore because Mom has to work in order to pay their federal, state, and local taxes, which is of course, the largest, cumulative bills they will pay all year.

Sitting just off the center of the kitchen table lay the mail, loosely sorted by size. A newspaper, a few coupon flyers, and a magazine on the bottom, a birthday card or two in the middle, legal sized envelopes on top. Not so triumphantly on top sit the bills, specifically the energy bills - the oil bill, the propane bill, the gas bill, the gasoline card bill, and the electric bill. By the time he peels his work coat and boots from his body, the squiggly bulb manages to push out a little more light.

A glance down at the monthly ‘news’ magazine yields headlines consistent with specious, liberal arguments: ‘Big Oil Profits in the Billions as Prices Rise’. ‘More Unrest in the Middle East, Oil Fields Seized’. ‘Obama Administration, Democrats Increase Spending to Stimulate Economy’. And, ‘Democrats Stop Republicans from Ruining ANWR’. The magazine, flipped back onto the table in frustration slides off onto the floor, taking the rest of the mail with it.

With each tax increase his paycheck gets smaller. As inflation increases, each dollar in his now smaller paycheck is worth even less. Our government is forcing energy companies to deal in the Middle East and in other parts of the world when we don’t have to do so. And if they make enough profit to make doing business on the other side of the planet worthwhile, they get bashed for it. How is this supposed to make it easier for him to keep the lights on, the heat on, and the car running?

Here’s the point: Big oil is not the problem; big government is.

Take ANWR, for instance. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is a 19 million acre tract of land in Northern Alaska. Within ANWR is a 2000-acre area of land that has underneath it an estimated 11 billion barrels of crude oil, some experts say even more, that could replace 20% or more of our oil imports over the foreseeable future. This 3 square mile area of American soil is over 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle, could eliminate a substantial need for Middle East oil, and lower the cost of crude worldwide because of the increased supply on the world market. And one political party thinks this is a bad idea. Guess which one.

Let’s put this into literal perspective with respect to your very kitchen table. The average American kitchen table is 3½ feet wide by 5½ long. If you equate the 19 million acre area of ANWR with the average kitchen table, the 2000-acre area on which American oil companies wish to use for drilling is exactly the size of a single Cheerio. Not an Apple Jack. Not a penny. One single Cheerio. And the party of ‘Yes, we can’ says ‘No, you won’t’.

It’s May. The price of a gallon of gasoline is over $4/gallon and it will only go higher as the summer approaches. The price of a gallon of heating oil is over $3.799/gallon and it is holding steady. Combine a steady demand for energy with the devaluing U.S. dollar and you see rising energy prices with no end in sight. Commodity speculators are only reacting to conditions in this fiasco, not causing them.

The products offered, and subsequently purchased as evidenced by the stack of bills on our kitchen tables are necessities in daily, American life. We heat our homes. We cook our food. We power our lights and appliances. And we propel our vehicles.

Our demands for these necessities are met by people who go to great lengths, assume great physical and financial risks, and endure visceral public and political verbal attacks to ensure that their customers receive their goods and services at a competitive price and without interruption. And government at every level hinders their efforts, thus increasing their costs at every turn. Senator John Kerry said that acting on ANWR wouldn’t be helpful because he estimates that it will take ten years for its bounty to come to market. When did he say this? Ten years ago.

Where is their compassion? Democrats believe that a single Cheerio on a kitchen table 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle is too steep a price to pay to reduce the energy bills that sit on your kitchen table right now.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, Halifax RTC

HERE'S THE POINT: Sick Pay

The cost of just about everything in Massachusetts is going to go up again.

43 Massachusetts House Democrats, 13 Senate Democrats, and one Senate Republican who seems to have lost his way, have all co-sponsored a bill that would force Massachusetts employers to provide up to seven paid sick days a year for each and every employee in the state who do not already receive sick pay.

Deval Patrick’s Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development, Joanne Goldstein, went so far as to call employee paid time off a “basic right”.

According to the identical House and Senate bills, which the Patrick administration supports, employees who lack paid sick time would receive one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to 7 days a year. This time could be used for themselves, their children, their spouses, or to care for immediate family members.

Said Sec. Goldstein, “All those who oppose these bills themselves enjoy sick days, probably more than the bill provides for. To me, there’s some disconnect in fighting against something that you yourself enjoy and take advantage of. I would challenge all of you to find some folks who would say, ‘we think this is such a bad idea…we’re willing to forgo it.”

Those who are offended by Commissar Goldstein’s condescending ‘Proletariat v. Bourgeoisie’ blather subscribe to the radical idea that Americans are capable of negotiating their employment terms. The employer is free, at least for now, to offer a prospective employee a position at his company for a wage he sees fit. The prospective employee is free to accept it or reject it. This always seems to work fine until the government sticks its nose where it does not belong and decides it’s going to ‘help’.

Here’s the point: Government mandates on wages and benefits only succeed in straining and altering the relationship between employee and employer.

Referring to paid time off for being sick as a ‘basic right’ is quite telling for big government liberals. They continue to believe the falsehood that businesses exist to employ people. They do not. Businesses employ people to meet their customers’ demands while making a profit for the owner. That’s it.

Any argument to the contrary claiming that businesses exist not for the owner’s profit, but to promote some collectivist nonsense such as the ‘greater good of the community’ is advocating something other than capitalism. Neighborhoods and towns thrive because business thrives.

Let’s go way out on a limb and say that you took a job that offered no sick time. You got paid when you worked, and did not get paid when you did not work. You were a loyal and productive employee for a year and, as a reward for your good work, received from your boss a small raise plus 5 sick days. This law is passed and your boss hires someone to do the same job you started a year ago. But your new coworker, who hasn’t worked a day at this job, suddenly has the same amount of sick time given to him that you had to work a whole year to earn. Do you just say that this is the way the ball bounces? Or do you walk into your boss’s office and request an increase in paid time off (or a higher wage) with respect to the time and effort you’ve already put into the company? What happens if your boss cannot afford your request? Something has to give.

This bill, if it becomes law, will increase the cost of securing the employment of every employee in the state. And every employer will have to raise his prices accordingly to cover the increase. Every hamburger will be more expensive. Every basket of school supplies will cost more. The labor rate to change the oil in your car will go up. And whom do these increases hurt the most? That’s right, the very people this bill is supposed to help.

Paid sick time off, which is most certainly a perk as well as an effective way of securing and retaining happy and productive employees, is something to be negotiated between employer and employee, not legislated into existence.

Once government at any level alters this dynamic by requiring a certain level of pay or benefit, the relationship between employer and employee moves from cooperative to adversarial. The end of negotiations is signaled by a white flag rather than a firm handshake. The relationship is only free and voluntary if all the terms of the employment are free and voluntary as well.

The overseers on Beacon Hill should all call in sick when this bill comes up again.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice Chairman, Halifax RTC

MassGOP Regional Chairman Stands with Tea Party

This opinion piece was published originally in the Fall River Herald News and it was later picked up by Tea Party Review Magazine.

If the defense of liberty is extreme, then I am proud to be guilty. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was recently caught on an open microphone coaching his colleagues to call the tea party movement “extreme” in order to demonize populist, nonpartisan, conservative activists. The tea party formed as a decentralized, anti-tax, anti-intrusive government coalition. Considering we are currently in the heart of tax season, with the filing deadline just days away, a little of their limited government, low-tax, economically responsible “extremism” would be appreciated upon both Beacon and Capitol hills! Fear mongering aside, the tea party is nothing less than a reflection of the silent majority refusing to be muzzled any longer. Any mass movement will have the rare few who go beyond the pale, yet the tea party seem remarkably immune to such malcontents. Just compare them to the Black Panthers, whose voter intimidation is condoned by Eric Holder, President Obama’s attorney general. Another liberal Democratic canard is that the tea party is a covert wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps I wish that were so, but no. While the interests of the Grand Old and tea parties may often intersect, they are not a secret column dispatched under the cover of darkness by the Republican National Committee. The tea party movement has its share of Republicans, but also has fired-up independents and Democrats who are disappointed and disenchanted in the status quo. I welcome the infusion of refreshing new blood into the party, but I don’t dare dismiss or diminish the cherished independence of these principled activists. If the GOP just happens to serve as the more natural home for the movement, then so be it. I extend my open hand and embrace my fellow Americans. Schumer should be ashamed of his empty, divisive rhetoric. I refuse to be slurred, and I refuse to stand idly by while patriotic Americans are unjustly maligned. They stand with Sen. Barry Goldwater, President Ronald Reagan, and our Founding Fathers, and I will stand with them! Brock N. Cordeiro Chairman, Region 5 State Committee Member Second Bristol and Plymouth State Senate District Massachusetts Republican Party Dartmouth

HERE'S THE POINT: Legislator Pay

The Constitutionally mandated pay for Massachusetts legislators continues to be a perpetual news item.

The Massachusetts Constitution, amended in 1998, mandates that every two years State legislators are paid according to the state’s median income level as established by the Governor’s office. The spirit behind this Amendment was to take the politics out of legislative pay.

The base legislative salary increased for 2009 and 2010 from $58,236 to $61,439, an increase of $3,203. Lawmakers will be getting a miniscule cut in salary for 2011 and 2012 of $300 each year.

In addition to their base salary, some legislators receive additional, bonus pay for leadership positions such as committee chairman seats or certain vice-chairman seats, as well as party leadership positions.

Each legislator also receives $600 a month for expenses and is offered daily, vouchered per diem payments for travel, these payments ranging from $10 to $100 depending on how far from Beacon Hill each legislator lives. Rounding out legislator compensation is a state benefits package that includes health insurance and a pension. Each legislator also has a free parking space in Boston.

Taking into account salary, bonus pay, expenses, per diem, health insurance, pension, and free parking, the total cost associated with securing the employment of a Massachusetts State Legislator is quite generous.

Massachusetts ranks 6th nationwide in legislative salary behind California, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. Each of those states saw gains by Republicans in the last election cycle. And each of those states was in a state of fiscal and legislative chaos prior to the election.

The parking spaces and per diems paid to legislators in a state as small as Massachusetts are not the problem. But the full time spent by the legislator doing what should not be a full time job is.

Here’s the point: Legislative pay and government usurpations of our freedoms are directly related.

New Hampshire pays their legislators $200 every two years with no per diem. Texas legislators pull in a mere $7,200/year. This is proof that legislators who need to remain in the private sector in order to make ends meet can also perform the necessary role of taking care of the State’s business at the same time.

No matter how you slice it, the Democrat run Massachusetts Legislature is responsible for this economic mess that sits on our plates right now. And what they fail to realize is that the more time they spend on Beacon Hill writing one law after another in hopes of fixing the problems they created, the only thing they are accomplishing is further burdening those in the private sector who can ultimately bring us out of it.

They have not only lost sight as to how to fix the problems, but they’ve also lost sight of the actual problems that need to be solved.

Recently, seven Legislators who were under the impression that they refused to take the $3,203 annual pay increase for the 2009 and 2010 sessions, found out that their bi-weekly paychecks did indeed include a $123 increase commensurate with the raise, and yet they didn’t notice it.

Liberal legislators and pundits trying to appear like principled, fiscal conservatives by posturing one way or another over $1,000 per year in per diems or $123 in a lawmaker’s paycheck every other week is an attempt to divert our focus from the billions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted every year.

We, in Massachusetts, have a $22 billion unfunded liability hanging over our heads in the form of golden parachutes for government union employees who managed to not get fired for twenty five years. $22 billion! And chastising 7 people for unknowingly taking a constitutionally mandated $61.50/week raise is going to fix it? While it may be that perception is reality in politics, grandstanding about marginal increases or decreases in legislator pay every two years will go nowhere towards getting the real work done if we are going to bring any fiscal sanity back to the Commonwealth.

If the Massachusetts Constitution mandates that State legislators be paid a certain amount, then those legislators should take that pay and be done with it, even if they are grossly overpaid for the terrible job that they are doing.

People are starting to agree, as evidenced by the slight Republican gains in November, that the Legislature should be castigated for doing a poor job because they continue to spend way too much money. And perhaps, just maybe, they’re just starting to feel a little bit guilty about it. Or not.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, HRTC

HERE'S THE POINT: Profanity & Public Decorum

The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.
George Washington

There will come a day in every parent’s life when their pride and joy will repeat some colorful words that he or she heard on the playground, at home, or someplace else. The usual parental refrain admonishing the child that such language is not going to be tolerated is often followed by an inquiry as to where he or she first heard the utterance. But when Sally or Junior say that they first heard it when the lady on television won the award, or when the President of the United States said it, then the issue must be approached from a different direction.

Profanity and obscenity, and the acceptance or intolerance thereof, continues to march boldly onto the different stages and screens in our lives. Some recent, newsworthy incidents bring this matter to the forefront.

Last month, Melissa Leo dropped the F-bomb on live national television when she won the Oscar for best supporting actress. Her gaffe, the first of its type in Oscars history, caused the audience to awaken from its slumber and erupt into laughter. The incident then became an international and Internet sensation, and certainly the biggest news to come out of the otherwise snoozer of an event. Ms. Leo, we appreciate that you said that there is a great deal of the English language in your vernacular. However, it is sound advice for anyone who has risen to the pinnacle of their profession to act like they’ve been there before.

Last summer during the gulf oil spill crisis, President Barack Obama said on the Today show one morning that he wanted to know who had the best information on the crisis so he would ‘know whose ass to kick’. How Presidential. His choice of words were meant to convey anger and dissatisfaction with the situation. But his lack of eloquence only further illustrates that he, in his role as President, lacks the dignity, grace, and creativity befitting the office once held by President George Washington.

And Northwestern University is in full damage control mode because a tenured professor of psychology organized for his human sexuality class an extracurricular live sex show involving a man engaging a woman with a modified reciprocating saw. Calling this sex act an educational exercise is as vulgar and profane as the act itself. The alma mater of two U.S. Supreme Court Justices should have known better beforehand and should be ashamed for allowing that farce to begin, let alone continue.

The gaffes by Melissa Leo, President Obama, and Northwestern University were not private conversations. The distaste (or acceptance) with which you view the gaffes aside, they were not appropriate for the venue in which they occurred.

Here’s the point: Lowering our standards of decorum in the public discourse have caused us to jeer and discourage those who hold themselves and others to a higher level.

This can clearly be illustrated by the uproar over the suspension of a Brigham Young University student from the men’s basketball team.

Brandon Davies, a student at Brigham Young University and a forward on the BYU men’s basketball team, was suspended from the team for the remainder of the season because he violated the school’s honor code for engaging in pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. The strict BYU honor code, which Mr. Davies signed in order to matriculate, is not taken lightly on campus and aims to hold its students to a higher moral standard consistent with the ideals and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church on which the university was founded.

The people who shrug off the poor behavior of Melissa Leo, President Obama, and Northwestern University as ‘just the way the world is’ or ‘that person just being that person’, are the same people who take issue with BYU suspending Mr. Davies from the basketball team. Are they standing on principle asking that the punishment fit the crime? Not remotely. They couldn’t care less about a BYU goody two shoes basketball player sitting out the rest of the season. But it turns out that BYU was 27-2 at the time of the suspension, Mr. Davies was a monster rebounder, and his suspension will most likely have an effect on their ‘for entertainment purposes only’ tournament brackets.

Vulgarity is no longer vulgarity. Obscenity is no longer obscenity. Honor is no longer honor. Asking someone to refrain from swearing is more offensive than the swearing itself. And the young people who look up to and admire those in influential positions as those who set the bar, as those who set the good examples as entertainers, college professors, or the President of the United States, are the ones who are being cheated.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, Halifax RTC

HERE'S THE POINT: Do you know who your Governor’s Councilor is?

Do you know who your Governor’s Councilor is? Do you know what the duties of the Governor’s Council entail? Did you know that the Massachusetts Governor’s Council exists? Since the answer to these questions is more than likely ‘no’, many people feel that the Governor’s Council itself should be abolished.

For nearly 50 years, the Massachusetts Governor’s Council has been viewed as an archaic and obsolete body whose sole function is to rubber stamp judicial nominees and act as ceremonial hand-holders when the new class of State Legislators is sworn in.

The Governor’s Council was formed in 1780 when John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin first drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, the final draft being authored by John Adams himself. The Council meets weekly to advise the Governor, to act on state treasury payments, criminal pardons, and commutations, and to confirm judges, notaries, and justices of the peace, as well as parole board members. There are eight elected Councilors, each representing five Senate districts, and the Lt. Governor, who serves ex officio. The elected Councilors serve two-year terms.

The Council’s authority was essentially neutralized in 1959 after a major scandal landed a majority of the Council in jail for bribery and corruption. Governor Michael Dukakis, hardly a champion of smaller government and decentralized political power, tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the Council by legislation and ballot initiatives in hopes that the Senate would absorb its duties. Once again, beware of liberals talking ‘efficient government’ and ‘saving taxpayer money’.

Given recent scrutiny of recurring, judicial incompetence in Massachusetts these days, the Executive Council, or Council, as it is known, is being noticed again.

Judges in Massachusetts, once confirmed, enjoy a lifetime appointment with a six-figure income and virtually no chance at all of being removed from the bench. And finally, a few Council members are starting to ask questions of the nominees other than their favorite vegetable or movie.

For example, Governor Patrick, a Democrat, recently nominated Plymouth County D.A. employee Heather Bradley, a Democrat, for a judgeship. She is married to State Representative Garret Bradley, a Democrat from Hingham. In the past three years they have donated almost $40,000 in political donations, more than half of that to Governor Patrick, Lt. Gov Tim Murray, and the state Democrat Party, as well as $100 to current Governor’s Council member Kelly Timilty, also a Democrat. Newly elected Council members Charles Cipollini and Jennie Cassie, both Republicans, decided not to rubber stamp Bradley and started to ask questions about these contributions. Cipollini said that if Bradley is confirmed he would file charges with the State Ethics Commission.

Last month, three council members had the temerity to vote against Gov. Patrick’s nominee for the Supreme Judicial Court, Fernande R.V. Duffly, after she inadequately answered questions regarding her judicial philosophy. Trivial matters to liberal pundits such as father’s rights and the definition of marriage seemed to annoy them into a froth, alluding to such questions as being of narrow focus. How dare one of the beautiful people actually be question while being vetted? Although she was confirmed, 4-3, calls for Dukakis’ mission to eliminate the board sounded again.

And the mere mention of Dominic Cinelli’s name should shame into resignation each council member who voted to confirm any member of that disgraced parole board.

Here’s the point: The out-of-sight, out-of-mind Governor’s Council should not be abolished. Rather, a white-hot spotlight should be trained on this vital board so the actions or inactions, bravery or cowardice, and integrity or lack thereof of its members can be illuminated for all to see.

The rubber stamp of judicial nominees is the strongest weapon in the liberal arsenal known as judicial activism. Those who would side with Mike Dukakis over John Adams on the existence vs. elimination of the Governor’s Council maintain that the State Senate should handle confirming judges, just as they are at the federal level.

But legislative bargaining can influence confirming judges in the Senate. A weak Senator may bow to pressure on a judicial nomination in order to see a certain bill passed. Or, a popular Senator that brings home the bacon for his district may not pay a political price if he confirmed a goat for a judge. And we’re still stuck with the goat.

An independent council who would not pay the price by legislative opponents is needed to see to it that the confirmation process remains pure. Immune to that certain political pressure, they are free to confirm judges by philosophical honesty. They do not play the Legislator’s version of ‘lets make a deal’ in the confirmation process.

And the only price they would pay is at the ballot box if the people know that they have been confirming judges that perform poorly, thus the need for the white-hot spotlight.

Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, Halifax RTC

HERE'S THE POINT: Evergreen Solar

Any idea that is good in theory, but is not good in practice, is not a good idea. And our newly re-elected Governor is full of good ‘in theory only’ ideas.

On a frigid, spring day in 2008, Governor Deval Patrick proudly stepped to a podium in front of the Massachusetts news media and announced that he would be delivering $58 million of our money to a company called Evergreen Solar in hopes to combat the nonexistent problem of climate change, i.e. global warming. Evergreen Solar is a company that manufactures solar panels using what they call “string ribbon” technology, which supposedly uses less silicon in the solar panel’s production. The money would be used to help expand the business by constructing a manufacturing plant in Devens.

In trying to keep his comments short because the cold weather had numbed his fingers, the Governor said that the $58 million package was awarded to Evergreen Solar because “we wanted to show that there are ways in which state government, in working together with private industry and with the utility companies, could begin to create a different kind of environment, a different kind of business climate here, to grow that sector. And it is happening.” Said the Governor, “It is a part of what we must do to grow our economy and save the planet.”

‘A different kind of business climate’ is right. Evidently the Governor thought that the free market was not producing ‘green jobs’ fast enough, so government had to step in and take matters into their own hands. This money was doomed to evaporate from the start because his fundamental views of successful business models and the role government has with them are flawed.

What Republicans have been calling ‘wasteful, government spending’; Democrats have been calling ‘investments’. So, what is the return on our $58 million dollar ‘investment’ designed to create jobs and save the planet? Zero. Evergreen’s plant in Devens will be closing and moving to China, and 800 more people will be left without a job. $58 million and nothing to show for it. And these are the people who want to manage more of your healthcare, your retirement, and your education.

Evergreen had complained that they could not compete with Chinese manufacturers’ prices because the Chinese government heavily subsidizes them. In other words, if the Massachusetts taxpayer had ponied up more than a mere $58 million, Evergreen might not be in this situation. Which means that this is your fault. Of course, according to figures in the Wall Street Journal, if we had given them ten times that amount, there would still be over $100 million in cumulative losses on the company’s books. Governor Patrick ‘invested’ $58 million in a company that already lost over $680 million.

Here’s the point: The idea that government can create so-called ‘green jobs’, causing such enterprises to thrive in the private sector of a free-market economy, is an idea that simply does not work.

The government is openly embracing so-called ‘alternative’ sources of energy at the expense of tried and true and reliable energy sources such as oil, gasoline, coal, diesel fuel, propane, and natural gas. Despite overtly discouraging and burdensome regulations, confiscatory taxes, excessive fees, and shamefully derogatory marketing campaigns against them, industries dealing in these sources of energy still remain productive and, much to the liberal’s chagrin, profitable.

Alternative sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, corn, soy, moon beams, and gummi bears, with the full financial and regulatory support of the local, state, and federal governments, are still incapable of staying in business because people in a free market society simply do not want to use them because there is no need to do so. The technologies are expensive, not readily available, and thus, not cost efficient. It is easier to replace an igniter on your oil burner than a fin on your wind turbine. The internal combustion engine in your car is considerably less expensive, much more powerful, and easier to fix than that hybrid or electric motor. Eat corn. Burn gasoline. Save money.

Governor Patrick sat on this until after the election and will not pay a political price for his ineptitude in this farce. There will be no talk of corruption, favoritism, or malfeasance. Had Evergreen Solar been Evergreen Petroleum, impeachment proceedings would be underway, and Rick Feldt, Evergreen Solar CEO, would be under indictment. This will not be, however, and the Left will judge the Governor only by the beneficence of his intentions, not the results of his actions no matter how bad an idea this was, in theory or in practice.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol Vice-Chairman, Halifax RTC

HERE'S THE POINT: Parole for violent, career criminals should be off the board

On Dec. 26, 59-year-old Dominic Cinelli, along with two accomplices, attempted to rob a Kohl’s jewelry counter at gunpoint while being aided by the inclement weather during the 2010 blizzard. Veteran Police officer John Maguire was one of many who responded. Officer Maguire was chasing two of the suspects on foot when Cinelli turned and fired, hitting Maguire four times in the torso. Maguire returned fire, killing Cinelli instantly. Maguire was rushed to a hospital where he later died. Had Maguire lived, he would be retiring in October. He leaves a wife of 23 years, Desiree, a son, Bryan, 22, and a daughter, Tara, 21.

This story is tragic by any measure. But the tragic chain of events leading to the death of a devoted family man and police officer began long before Dec. 26. Given his criminal past, there was no way in all that is right and just by living in a civilized society, that Dominic Cinelli should have ever been allowed to freely walk the streets in Woburn. He was, though. But how?

A career criminal and a junkie, Cinelli was sentenced to life in prison back in 1986. But the appeals court, in their wisdom, made him eligible for parole. Parole records show that Cinelli started shooting heroin at age 14, and was at one point serving three concurrent life sentences for many armed robberies, attempted murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Simply put, this man was a dangerous, violent, drug addled menace who had to be removed from society. The parole board knew it. Or, at least they should have known.

In 2008, at the opening of his parole hearing, a young, impressionable woman speaking on Cinelli’s behalf sang his praises by saying that “since 2005 he has remained free of disciplinary reports, maintained his sobriety, and acquired new skills and a plan for moving forward with his life.” Really? A man with a record such as his has managed to be a good boy for three years for the first time in his life and you want to let him out in public? Apparently, he learned that when you knock over a jewelry counter you’re supposed to wait until there’s a blizzard and a holiday crowd around so you could blend in while making your getaway.

The hearing was in Cinelli’s favor from the start. The head of the parole board asked if Cinelli thought that he should have been given a parole hearing sooner than later. Cinelli replied that the institutional parole officer told him a while back that he shouldn’t get his hopes up, given the totality of his record. The head of the parole board then apologized to Cinelli. That is not a misprint. Two minutes into a parole hearing of a violent criminal serving three life sentences for armed robbery, assault, and weapons charges the head of the parole board is apologizing to the criminal on behalf of the board because he was given “attitude” by a parole officer and told not to get his hopes up. This is the type of liberal squishiness that gets people killed, namely Officer John “Jack” Maguire, when dealing with criminal types like Dominic Cinelli.

Here’s the point: Parole for violent, career criminals who have been sentenced to life should be off the board.

When Cinelli mentions that younger inmates are asking him for advice about succeeding in programs within the prison, a board member says that he should give himself credit for the hard work that he’s put in. First, they give him an apology. Then, they give him credit. Then, they let him walk.

Lost in this charade is the fact that while in prison, not getting wasted, not getting into fights, and also realizing that shooting police officers while knocking over jewelry stores is unacceptable behavior, are the absolute minimum things that you are supposed to do. Difficult? Perhaps. But no one is so naïve to think that Dominic Cinelli did not know right from wrong, or that a pressed, white shirt and a haircut suddenly meant that he would now headed on the straight and narrow. Unless, of course you are on the Massachusetts Parole Board.

In a unanimous decision, the Parole Board stated that “Cinelli’s release to community supervision at this time is not incompatible with the welfare of society.” A deadly error in judgment by all of them.

That’s the message that liberals are sending to criminals and would-be criminals. With liberal judges handing out light slaps on the wrists, and even more liberal parole board members letting thugs like Dominic Cinelli walk, law-abiding citizens are walking around in fear while the criminals are whistling Dixie. Commit a rape or a murder or an armed robbery in Massachusetts, buddy, and you are going away for months.

The parole board’s relief of their duties at this time is not incompatible with the welfare of society.



Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley (2nd Plymouth and Bristol districts) also serves as vice chairman of the Halifax Republican Town Committee.

HERE'S THE POINT: MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Ho-ho-ho! Happy government approved, winter, seasonal, social, secular salutations, everyone!

Doesn’t that just warm you up? So sad is the politically correct, i.e. politically weak, state of affairs that ‘Merry Christmas’ can now be viewed as an over-the-top, in-your-face political statement. Seriously, in a face-to-face conversation, has anyone ever said “Season’s greetings” to you?

The Christmas tree is now the ‘Holiday Tree’. The Christmas pageant is now the ‘Winter Festival’. The Christmas season is now the ‘holiday season’. Candy canes, cupcakes with angels on them, and red and green sprinkled sugar cookies are considered contraband and are no longer legal to sell at elementary school bookstores. And may the full force and fury of the ACLU and noted atheist Michael Newdow be upon you should you even consider putting up a nativity scene on public property.

The United States has on a few very deserving occasions forever memorialized some of the greatest and most influential men in the world by declaring their birth dates as our national holidays. President George Washington, President Abraham Lincoln, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus Christ have all made worldwide contributions to freedom, liberty, and equality, three of them paying the ultimate price in doing so.

All four men were religious, drawing their strength in their darkest hours from their faith in God. One led a Revolution. One won a Civil War. One had his life taken from him in his thirties because he brought a message worldwide that we should do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. Actually, two of them did. But mentioning one of them in a school or in the Town Hall is taboo.

Here’s the point: The national holiday known as Christmas, and the spirit that surrounds it, should be proudly recognized and celebrated in the public domain in its entirety, and not shunned from the public discourse.

The forces of tolerance have a lot of people in this country walking on eggshells. Somehow, ‘Merry Christmas’ is deemed insulting, exclusionary, and provocative. So, we have to homogenize it to make it palatable for those who think that love thy neighbor somehow infringes upon their rights not to do so. Thus, we have ‘Happy Holidays’ or ‘Season’s Greetings’.

Start mentioning to people that we should be saying ‘Civil Rights Day’ as opposed to ‘Martin Luther King Day’ and see where that gets you. It would belittle and marginalize the great work Dr. King did, as well as insult the great man himself. Unfortunately, this is what is happening to Christmas.

Historical records provide iron-clad evidence that Jesus Christ was an actual man, and not merely a fictional character that lived a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. If the United States wishes to celebrate one of, if not the, single most influential man in human history by creating a national holiday, then its citizens should be allowed to make mention of the holiday’s namesake in a public and official capacity.

Whether or not your faith leads you to believe that Jesus Christ was actually the Son of God is exactly that, your belief. But our Founding Fathers, all pious men, saw fit to acknowledge this great man’s work and sacrifices with a national holiday in His name on His birthday. Celebrating the birthday and life’s work of a religious man is not making law respecting an establishment of religion. Jesus Christ is one of mankind’s most profound figures. Abridging the freedom to cite His name, His work, and to display His likeness in history books and in the public domain alongside Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and King is a shocking display of censorship, which turns an irresponsible blind eye to history.

But the secular, public overseers can’t help themselves. Mentioning Jesus is out of the question. Santa and Christmas trees can’t be displayed. And you can’t say ‘Merry Christmas’, or at least you shouldn’t. And the only way you can get away with any of this in public conversation is if you stream together a list of suitable qualifiers in order to placate those who the elite say might be offended, even if all the evidence says that those who are offended are clearly the exceptions to the rule.

Linus Van Pelt said that Charlie Brown was the only person he knew who could take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem. It seems that he didn’t know this crowd. ‘Merry Christmas’ is and always has been a gesture of happiness and well wishing from one person to another at Christmastime and it should remain so.

So to everyone, please, have a very, merry Christmas.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice Chairman, Halifax RTC

HERE’S THE POINT: SJC overturns second degree murder conviction

Shame on the SJC.

Two weeks ago, the state’s highest court overturned the second degree murder conviction of Margaret Earle for her part in the murder of her 21-month-old daughter because her actions surrounding the death showed “legally insufficient” malice. In other words, unless District Attorney Tim Cruz pulls off a miracle and keeps this animal in a cage where she belongs, she’ll walk.

In 1985, Rachelle Pelletier was stomped to death by her mother’s boyfriend, Michael Burnham, at their Highland Street apartment in Brockton. Grand jury testimony in 2002 revealed that the baby’s constant crying prompted Burnham to throw her to the floor and stomp on her stomach twice.

Pelletier did not die immediately. According to autopsy reports, although she suffered broken ribs, bruises to her face and body, and a severed small intestine, she screamed and suffered for hours until she expired the next afternoon.

In trying to explain the baby’s facial bruises and cries of agony so severe that it sounded like she was choking, Earle told a babysitter that lived upstairs that Rachelle fell off a rocking chair while telling others that she ran into a stereo. Around the time that the infant entered her death throws, Earle went to a drug store to buy cigarettes and make-up. Inexplicably, the prosecutors at the time were unable to convene a grand jury to indict Earle and Burnham, and the case went cold for 15 years.

Enter Tim Cruz. In 2001, Tim Cruz was elected as Plymouth County District Attorney. He wanted to pay particular attention to cold cases because, as he put it, the victims “have a right to justice, no matter how long it takes.” He put his team of investigators together, gathered evidence, witnesses, and testimony, convened a grand jury, issued arrest warrants, made the arrests, went to trial, and won.

In 2005, Michael Burnham was found by a jury of his peers to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree murder for stomping Rachelle Pelletier to death. Margaret Earle was found guilty of second degree murder for letting her die.

But those on the SJC felt that justice had not been served. They felt that Earle’s involvement in her daughter’s death did not rise to the threshold of second degree murder, but to a lesser charge such as manslaughter. So they vacated the decision.

Here’s the point: Liberal activist judges, such as those who currently preside over the SJC, are either unwilling or unable to differentiate thoughtful jurisprudence from sympathy for the devil.

“This was a brutal and vicious murder of a defenseless 2-year-old child who was left to suffer a slow and painful death,” Cruz said. “After hearing weeks of evidence, this properly instructed jury found that there was sufficient evidence that Margaret Earle was responsible for the death of Rachelle Pelletier. The court has taken away the jury’s verdict and substituted their judgment for that of the jury’s.”

Had Margaret Earle called paramedics to her home, or at least taken her daughter to the hospital herself, it is quite possible that doctors would have been able to save her. A severed intestine, though traumatic, can be surgically repaired. Bacteria from the injury to her intestine built up in her body causing organ failure, then death. Rachelle would have been 27 years old this year.

Unless the SJC has a dramatic change of heart, being persuaded by the appeal filed by D.A. Cruz, Margaret Earle will be freed. She cannot be tried again for second degree murder for they ruled there was a lack of malice in this case. She cannot be tried for manslaughter because the statue of limitations for that crime has expired. Therefore, she walks, having served only five years for infanticide.

With this ruling, the SJC made Margaret Earle the victim. The SJC believes that Margaret Earle has been wronged.

The Legislature writes the bill. The Executive Branch signs the bill into law, and then enforces it. And the Judiciary interprets the law as it is written to make sure it is applied properly at trial. The SJC failed to administer justice in this case because it has determined that a mother’s refusal to give treatment to her suffering, screaming baby whose intestines have been fatally stomped apart is insufficient malice to warrant a seconddegree murder conviction.

Cold cases are extremely difficult to prove because witnesses die or move, memories of certain details fade, evidence can be lost, and many people just don’t want to relive the horror and pain of the crime all over again. So when a cold case is heated up after 17 years resulting in a conviction, it can be said that those who prosecuted it have done a more thorough job than if everything were fresh in everyone’s minds.

The hard work by District Attorney Cruz and his team to bring Rachelle Pelletier’s murderers to justice has been thwarted by the SJC. And that is truly a shame.

Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley (2nd Plymouth and Bristol districts) also serves as vice chairman of the Halifax Republican Town Committee.

14 & 1/3 years later... I'm Certainly NOT "Looking down on Walmart workers"

This lengthy op-ed originally was published in the New Bedford Standard-Times as well as the Dartmouth/Westport Chronicle in early/mid-October. I wrote it on the heat of the campaign to Keep Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson.

I have been honored to serve the taxpayers of the Commonwealth and residents of Bristol County as the administrative aide for & legislative liaison for Sheriff Hodgson since June 1. Unfortunately, the Sheriff's main opponent purposefully & personally attacked me - by name - on several occasions. As such, I had this piece published.

It's pretty bad when even the Sheriff's other opponent, former State Trooper Alan D. Garcia of Dartmouth, even defended me against the personal attacks during one debate!

I publish this now simply to say "thank you!" to Walmart as after 14 years and 4 months of employment later (14 years & 4 months later since June 1) it's time to say goodbye to America's largest non-government employer. My next & final day will be Sunday, November 21 when I punch out at 8:00 pm. Walmart was there for me to work my way through college, graduate school, and beyond. I've made lots of great friends and lasting memories. Fortunately, with technology being what it is today gone is far from forgotten. Walmart #2157 in Dartmouth, Mass... thank you & goodbye!

I started as a stockman (cart pusher) and did everything from garden center sales associate, cashier, service desk associate, people greeter, and community relations director. In May 2007, I was sent to the Shareholders' Meeting in Arkansas to represent the store. Helping people save money so that they can live better isn't such a bad thing after all and my co-workers remain the salt of the earth. God bless!

I graduated from Dartmouth High School in June 1996 as a member of the National Honor Society, and by mid-July, I was a Dartmouth Walmart associate. My first job was as a stockman. As such, I cleared the parking lot of shopping carts, loaded items into people's cars, and occasionally cleaned the rest rooms. It wasn't a glamorous job, but it was an honest and much needed paycheck for someone straight out of high school and soon to be a college freshman that September.

Over the past 14 years, I've served as a people greeter, cashier, service desk associate, and community relations director. In that last role I handled in-store public relations, processing tens of thousands of dollars for various store-level charitable grant programs, and served upon the multi-million-dollar statewide charity council. Thanks to the hard work of my fellow associates and the tremendous charity of my customers, during a recession, we raised approximately $100,000 to directly benefit the patients of Children's Hospital Boston.

According to State Rep. John Quinn, candidate for Bristol County sheriff, the aforementioned disqualifies me for my current employment. I've been honored and privileged to serve the people of Bristol County and taxpayers of the commonwealth of Massachusetts as an administrative aide to and legislative liaison for Sheriff Tom Hodgson for the past four months.

During their first debate, Quinn quipped that the sheriff's office had just hired someone from Walmart. Quinn attacked me similarly recently on WSAR 1480 AM. He resumed his line of attack upon my previous job during the Dartmouth Community Television debate.

Arrogant, elitist condescension flows when Quinn utters the word "Walmart." Walmart is the largest non-government employer in America, and working in service-related retail jobs remains honorable, tax-paying work. I'm proud to come from a blue-collar, working-class family. My father is a medically retired truck driver and, ironically, my mother is a cafeteria worker in Dartmouth's Quinn Elementary School.

I am the grandson of Portuguese and Norwegian immigrants. I'm not part of an entrenched political dynasty. I live in Apponogansett Village, not at a fancy address.

John Quinn should use his public office to empower hard-working people, not belittle them. Quinn may be shocked at the great numbers of people who have sought Walmart employment recently and especially over the past few years. Average people, the average voter, shop and work at Walmart. We, the people, aren't serfs and we won't support someone who smugly believes that they belong to a superior, entitled, privileged, noble class.

Sheriff Hodgson has defended me by stating that I have a college degree and am talented, and everybody knows it. At the risk of publicly correcting my boss, I actually earned two degrees. I graduated magna cum laude from UMass Dartmouth in June 2001 with a bachelor of arts degree in history. I graduated UMass Boston with a master of arts degree in history in December 2004. I belong to the Golden Key International Honor Society and Phi Alpha Theta National History Honor Society.

In recent years, I scored highly on the Massachusetts Test for Educator Licensure (MTEL) and hold a preliminary license as a Massachusetts educator. I have worked as a substitute teacher in both Dartmouth and Old Rochester Regional high schools. I've taught troubled youth in a GED program in Taunton's Massachusetts School for Information Technology.

I've donated copies of my 214-page master's thesis, "Paul Cuffe: A Study of His Life and the Status of His Legacy in Old Dartmouth" to numerous educational institutions and Cuffe descendants, while also giving lectures on the subject. I convinced Gov. Deval Patrick and local area boards of selectmen to declare Jan. 17, 2009 "Paul Cuffe Day." Congressman Barney Frank inserted a speech into the Congressional Record noting my non-partisan activism. At my request, Quinn actually co-sponsored a citation in honor of Paul Cuffe's 250th birthday.

I've been elected to the Dartmouth Town Meeting for 10 years. The town moderator appointed me to serve four years upon the Personnel Board. The Select Board appointed me to the historical commission three years ago. I am a co-founding board member of the Dartmouth Education Foundation and a fourth degree Knight of Columbus.

I still work Sundays at the same Dartmouth Walmart. I haven't fully severed my ties to the company, as I entirely expect that if elected, Quinn will immediately terminate my employment.

When Hodgson became sheriff he kept every sheriff's office employee except the chief of staff. Will Quinn pledge to do the same? Would the Beacon Hill insider keep that promise? We may never know. I believe that the voters will keep Thomas M. Hodgson as Bristol County sheriff.

My Quotes from "How did Massachusetts GOP miss the wave?"

Below are my quotes from How did Massachusetts GOP miss the wave? by Steve Urbon of the Standard-Times on November 5.

Also quoted were Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson & State Committeewoman Jill Ussach.

You can read the entire article with the quotes in their proper context at http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101105/NEWS/11050318

Brock Cordeiro, GOP regional chairman and state committee member, likewise said that Republican candidates are going to have to establish themselves locally to do well in the long term. "Leapfrogging" into higher offices is a long stretch, he said.

"It won't be sexy and it won't be exciting work. But it will build a foundation and a better structure," Cordeiro said.

Lastly, though, there is the phenomenon of the unenrolled voter. People may be abandoning the Democrats as time passes, but so far they are not joining the GOP, at least in Massachusetts, where statewide GOP registration has slipped to about 11 percent.

It may reflect a national trend away from joining organizations of all kinds, Cordeiro said, whether it be the Knights of Columbus or the Republican Party.

That shrinking base of members seriously limits not only recruitment but fundraising. Cordeiro said the party is countering that with detailed examination of voter lists to see how unenrolled voters may have pulled party ballots in primaries, or have expressed themselves in town meetings and public forums. Such people tend to be more conservative and therefore better prospects, Cordeiro said.

"Some of it is cold prospecting; some of it is really targeted," he said.

HERE'S THE POINT - 2010 Midterm Elections

If a tidal wave of Tea Party inspired Republican victories rolled eastward, nationwide, from Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco, then there truly is a sturdy jetty all along the Massachusetts border. Nationally, the Republicans swamped the Democrats, gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives by gaining 60 seats, a major feat not duplicated since Herbert Hoover was President. But the seemingly still water of this safe, ‘blue state’ harbor runs deep.

On the surface, it does not look good for the MassGOP. In spite of the wave, Republicans failed to win neither the Governorship, the Atty. General position, nor any of the other statewide offices. Barney Frank, the surly, chief architect of the global financial collapse of the American housing market was re-elected in favor of decorated Marine, businessman, and family man, Major Sean Bielat, ensuring that all ten Congressional seats remain in Democrat control. The State Sales Tax remains at an obscene 6.25%. And Chapter 40b and other liberal, legislative mistakes will continue to either remain law or get signed into law.

So where is the good news for conservatives? The good news is that in the 140 member House, the Republican delegation doubled, from 16 members to 32. Every incumbent Republican won. And 100 new Republican city and town committees were organized before the election.

Here’s the point: Although falling short of desired expectations, the net result of the Massachusetts 2010 midterm elections was a positive gain for the Republicans.

There is much to learn from the election results in the weeks and months ahead.

The Scott Brown barometer with respect to votes for and votes against percentages, although a decent indicator, was not entirely accurate. Prior to the election, some party loyalists claimed that their fellow loyalists rested on the laurels of the Scott Brown election and, thus, were surprised when Charlie Baker et al did not do as well in their towns as the Senator. Also, the dynamics of a midterm election are entirely different than those of a special election.

Money, the mother’s milk of American politics, has started to come in from sources outside Massachusetts more freely than it has in the past, the RNC and the Republican Governor’s Association to name a couple. Over the past year and during this election cycle, MassGOP sponsored events and rallies have been drawing more and more people aside from the usual familiar faces that attend them. These activities, as well as the spirited candidates campaigns fuelled with the belief that they may actually be able to win, have had an energetic, snowball effect.

And the freshmen Republicans with have to work hard to remain true to their principles as well as the constituents who put them there. Going along to get along will make re-election nearly impossible for them. Their message is what got them there, and their message is what will keep them there.

It will be interesting to see how the Governor approaches the issues facing him in his second term. After four years in power with a 90% majority in the legislature, his inability to close a $2 billion budget gap, without hiking up taxes again, is not going to cut it. He cannot pass the buck, as President Obama does, by saying that this is something he inherited. He campaigned very long and hard to make that problem his to solve.

The MassGOP, and the Tea Party movement that is beginning to thrive within its members, have their work cut out for them. The Governor isn’t suddenly going to ease fees, permits, and registrations in order to help the business climate. Martha Coakley isn’t suddenly going to get tough on illegal immigrants. The Democrats in the Legislature aren’t suddenly going to lower income tax and sales tax rates. Don’t blame them. They’re Democrats. It’s what they do. It bears repeating that if the Republicans have to work twice as hard as the Democrats to get their agenda on the table, then they’ll have to work twice as hard.

The Republicans had a full slate of candidates for statewide offices and a respectable slate of legislative candidates as well. Did they win the corner office and enough seats to set the agenda? No. They lost. But that doesn’t mean they have to like it.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chair, Halifax RTC

HERE'S THE POINT - Massachusetts needs a result driven governor

Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, friends and confidants who share bonds and similarities, also share one they wish they did not, the Peter Principle. The governor, by all accounts an amiable and pleasant man, has risen to the level of his incompetence. Charlie Baker, equally pleasant and amiable, is a capable and competent chief executive officer who will see to it that Gov. Patrick will not have to bear this burden for a second term.

Gov. Patrick, like the president, campaigned on a litany of lofty expectations such as promising to legislate sickness, unemployment, and inconvenient economic conditions out of existence, all while attempting to legislate the Massachusetts yearly, mean average temperature to its proper level, whatever that may be. The sky was the limit, so we bought it. But on every promise we bought, the governor has failed to deliver.

Now, even in this bluest of states, the voting public is asking to see the fruits of their labor. Why are we allowing the government to take with impunity more and more of our money and freedoms from us? Is there even one city or town where all of these programs have panned out? The real world, Utopian version of Dr. Seuss’s Solla Sollew (where they never have troubles, at least very few) doesn’t exist. Show us where you’ve prevailed, Gov. Patrick, because your status as an elected Democrat in Massachusetts is no longer sufficient to warrant re-election.

From the moment he took office, the governor has showed his ineptitude time and time again, starting by luxuriating himself at taxpayer expense with grandiose window dressings and a new Cadillac. He fled to New York to secure a lucrative book deal for himself when the Massachusetts Legislature was battling over legalizing casino gambling. He increased the income tax, the sales tax, alcohol tax, excise tax, cigarette tax, sugar tax, tolls, fees, permits and registrations at every turn. He increased state spending by $3 billion. He has gone to the mat with help from Martha Coakley and liberals in the legislature to make life as easy as possible for illegal immigrants. He campaigned that he would lower local property taxes – even though, unbeknownst to him, he has no Constitutional authority to do so. And, at a ceremony commemorating the victims of 9/11, he referred to the attacks as “a failure of human understanding,” tacitly implying that the United States played at least a minimum, contributory role in that holocaust, as opposed to an unprovoked, unilateral attack on an innocent, free, capitalist society.

Here’s the point: If a governor cannot deliver on his campaign promises with his own party controlling 90 percent of the State Legislature, then that governor is an absolute failure and should not be re-elected.

Baker exemplifies the Reaganesque quality of leadership of surrounding yourself with competent people, delegating authority, demanding results and not interfering.

While happily employed as CEO of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, he was soon heavily recruited out of necessity to become CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. HPHC was in financial crisis mode and was desperately in need of a leader. He put his team in place, set goals, formed a strategy, made the difficult decisions, put the pain behind them and kept moving forward. Success followed. HPHC is now the highest rated health plan in the United States for clinical effectiveness and member satisfaction.

As governor, Baker will utilize in the public sector the same strategies implemented in the private sector to demand that Massachusetts be ranked number one in government effectiveness and voter satisfaction. Bonuses for non-performance, double dipping, the Pacheco Law, and excessive vacation payouts are on the way out. Quasi-public agency reform, licensing and permitting reform, regulatory reform and tax cuts are on the way in.

This campaign is a tale of two philosophies. Baker believes the government needs to take a smaller role in your day-to-day lives because it is incapable of providing you your dreams and aspirations. Remove the obstacles of government, put them behind you, and success will follow.

Gov. Patrick’s philosophy? You need the government because you’re incapable. But don’t worry; He’ll take care of you.

Just this week, upon hearing a 26-year-old graduate student from Emerson College complain during a debate that her health insurance was $1,700 per year, he avoided answering the question by just telling her to call his office. “Just call the office. We’ll figure it out for you.” Is that the message you want to give to the next generation of American work force? Ask the government? Is it unreasonable that she be expected to obtain health insurance for $125/month? Governor, is your opinion of her that low?

We are not safer. Our economic outlook in the foreseeable future is terrible. And Gov. Patrick has done nothing to give the people of Massachusetts any sense that he understands the first thing about leadership. Either he is unable to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, or he is refusing to do so. Even the State Treasurer, a lifelong Democrat, left the party to campaign for governor against him.

The governor is the chief executive officer of the executive branch of the state government. During this financial calamity, Massachusetts state government needs a results driven CEO like Baker to serve in this capacity.



Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley (2nd Plymouth and Bristol districts) also serves as vice chairman of the Halifax Republican Town Committee.

HERE'S THE POINT - 2010 Ballot Initiatives

On Election Day, members of the so-called party of ‘No’ wants you to vote ‘yes’, ‘yes’, and ‘yes’ on the three binding ballot initiatives.

In politics, it is said that if your message cannot fit on a bumper sticker, then it is too long. Hence, the Democrats have labeled the Republicans “The Party of ‘No’”. It’s short, simple, and catchy. But it is also backfiring on them. Those in the now re-energized Republican Party, and those who are also part of the Tea Party movement, are not telling the people no, but they are most certainly saying no to the government.

The three binding ballot initiatives to be voted up or down on the General election ballot next month will send a crystalline message to the overseers ruling Beacon Hill. That message is, in a word, ‘no’. All three subjects have been debated in the Democrat run Legislature. All three subjects were decided along party lines. And in each instance the party of ‘Yes, we can’ carried the day with a resounding ‘No, you can’t’.

Question 1 is a proposed law that would remove the 6.25% Massachusetts Sales Tax on beer, wine, and liquor imposed last year. Frank Anzalotti of the Committee to Repeal the Alcohol Sales Tax, correctly points out that Massachusetts consumers have always paid a considerable excise tax on alcohol. What is also true is that the new sales tax cast down from on high amounts to nothing more than a ‘double tax’ on these items, yet another money grab for the government. Intellectually vapid and dishonest arguments against repealing the sales tax increase include that since the government cannot afford to do without this money, you can and will do without it instead. And, the money grabbed by this tax on alcohol will be used to fund programs designed to treat those who abused alcohol, with the increased sales price intended to discourage the purchase of these products, much like the legislative assaults on tobacco use. Conveniently left out of this argument is that if a particular item or action is an absolute scourge on society, like drugs or prostitution, then it should be banned outright. Incrementally raising taxes on it proves that those in power have no intention whatsoever to curb its use because they’re making money on it too. If you own or work in a package store near the state line you’re not making much money, if any at all. Send a message. Vote ‘yes’ on Question 1.

Question 2 is a proposed law that would repeal the state law known as Chapter 40b that allows developers to circumvent zoning laws in order to build low-income housing. Chapter 40b artificially, as well as intentionally, lowers the values of people’s homes by creating a surplus in low-income housing. This is especially devastating in a weak economy when the demand for new homes is considerably low. Also, unscrupulous developers seeking approval of, say, a 15 home cul-de-sac on a 15-acre parcel of land often try to extort a variance or two as well as other preferential treatment from local planning boards by holding, say, a normally nonconforming, 60-unit, low-income housing project on the same land over their heads in the name of Chapter 40b. ‘Don’t tell me I can only get 12 approved lots or I’ll flood your school system with kids from 60 low-income families.’ This practice is shameful and has got to stop. Send a message. Vote ‘yes’ on Question 2.

Question 3 is a proposed law that would lower the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. In 2000, Question 4 passed, 1.5 million votes to 1 million, to lower the state income tax from 5.9% to 5%. In a series hubristic, legislative maneuvers that would have made King George III proud, the Democrats on Beacon Hill not only passed a law that prevented the income tax rate from falling to, and staying at the voter mandated 5%, they then decided to raise the state sales tax from 5% to 6.25% just to let you know that your money is theirs and they’re just letting you keep some of it. The income tax rate remains at 5.3%. King George ended up facing a Tea Party. Gov. Patrick and Pres. Obama are facing a Tea Party right now. Send a message. Vote ‘yes’ on Question 3.

Here’s the point: Any law so simple that even the slickest politician cannot find a way around it is good law. Any law so complex that the average citizen cannot understand it is not good law.

Binding ballot initiatives simplify law and are used as the last lines of civil defense to repel the hands of an overreaching government. Opponents of the binding ballot initiative often state that the questions are too simple and that they often lead to inadequate answers to some very complex problems. Rubbish. This is why knee-jerk liberals bristle when a conservative responds to a liberal’s acceptance of yet another layer of bureaucracy or government power by asking: “Where in the Constitution does it say that?” The genius is in its simplicity.

Affirmative answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 preserve liberty, limit government, force government to live within its means, secure equal justice under law by lowering tax rates, and eliminate prejudicial treatment towards some people out of political expedience. Send a message. Vote ‘yes’ on all 3.


Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice-Chairman, Halifax RTC

HERE'S THE POINT - Latest Article

One of the most sacred rites of exercising our democracy in this beautiful constitutional republic of ours is voting at the ballot box. As any even casual observer of American elections can attest, your vote counts. So, it is all the more vital that your vote counts only once.

Voting in Massachusetts is not difficult. When you register to vote, you declare to which party you belong (unless, of course, you declare that you are unenrolled). Then, when it is your turn to vote on voting day, you give the election worker your name and address. She verifies that you are on the list, crosses you off, and then hands you the ballot. After marking your ballot, another poll worker asks your name and address. He crosses you off, and you then cast your vote. Simple. But some simple questions can show how the process can easily be corrupted.

Do you know anyone of your gender that does not vote? Chances are that you do. Do you know his/her address? Let’s assume that you do. Assuming this takes place in another precinct where you will not be recognized, if the person you know does not know any of the poll workers, and they don’t know him, then you can vote twice. Vote early. Vote often.

Voting fraud and irregularities are serious crimes against the democratic process and are not to be taken lightly. Reasonable measures can be taken to ensure the blessings of liberty while ensuring that the citizen who is voting is actually that citizen who is voting.

Here’s the point: Requiring a citizen to furnish photo identification prior to entering a voting booth is a reasonable measure to prevent voter fraud and ensure that one man has one vote.

Committing a crime such as voter fraud in Halifax, Plympton, or Kingston, and towns such as these would be difficult because chances are pretty good that someone at the poll is going to recognize you, or remember that you were there earlier, or know that you are not who you say you are, etc. But voter fraud is more easily done in larger, urban areas where people can remain largely anonymous and disappear in a crowd. Providing valid photo identification is an effective and appropriate way to combat this.

What are the arguments against providing photo ID? None of them are very compelling given that a Rasmussen poll taken in August concluded that 82% of Americans say that voters should be required to show photo ID at the polls. Hardcore liberals profess that a photo ID is too difficult for students, the elderly, and minorities to obtain and will thus be shut out of the electoral process. Reasonable people understand this not true.

A photo ID is a simple yet vital instrument utilized to protect you, and facilitate your moving along in day-to-day, free, American society. They are easy for any American to obtain, and you do not necessarily need to show proficiency in driving an automobile or handling a firearm to get one. A Social Security Card. A utility bill. A Selective Service Card. These are easy to get and can be used to secure valid State photo ID. Americans need photo ID to cash a check, write a check, open an account, enter into any contract, or rent just about anything.

Saying that it is unreasonable to expect that students, the elderly, and minorities obtain for themselves valid ID is one of the examples of what is meant by the soft bigotry of low expectations. “You people as a group can’t be expected to get photo ID because you’re ‘this’ or ‘that’.” Try saying this to, or about, any member of these groups and the ACLU will slap you with some sort of hate crime lawsuit so hard your head (and wallet) will explode. Good luck with that one.

Requiring a photo ID is not asking people to suspend their 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. If the Department of Homeland Security can require before you board an airplane that you show photo identification and then have you subject yourself to an Orwellian, electronic gaze right through your clothing and upon your naked body, then how can they say it is unreasonable to be asked that you present photo identification before you decide at the ballot box who will be forming these policies? They can’t. Their convoluted views of government and winning elections too often clash with basic freedom and liberty.

These are the type of people who think they see the big picture with respect to voting in an American election. But actually being an American seems to mean less and less to opponents of proposals like this these days. They don’t differentiate Americans from anyone else in the world, which is precisely why they welcome anyone from anywhere to vote in our elections, even without ID.

Richard Greeley

Republican State Committeeman, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol
Vice Chairman, Halifax RTC