Everyone's Opinion Newsletter

This article is being posted on the eve of another general election, this time a presidential election and will not go to print until the election is over. Under the hype of this presidential race, candidates for local elections are getting a free ride and avoiding being collared for commitments on how they would represent us on other issues. The Altoona Mirror has also conveniently bought into this national hype and their lack of coverage on local races suggests a collusive political conniving to direct its readership?

s attention away from local issues. What could the novelty of one man and one woman, or the novelty of one black man and one white man, as president and vice president do by themselves in a state of crisis, - unless they had the powers of a dictator? This presidential race has contained nothing of substance that a responsible voter could make an informed decision on. The nature of our republic is representative and that is where attention should be steadfastly directed. Thankfully for opportunities such as this, we the people have a chance to direct dialogue in other directions.

Have you heard from Rep. Geist or Rep. Stern lately? What is their opinion on property taxes or perhaps a comment on how our last commissioner?s race was gerrymandered? Their silence is eerie, but then, we have another crisis on our hands that?s more important; indeed, it seems as if the past eight yrs. has been one crisis after the other, so much so, that we are now governed by crisis.

While the voter?s attention is being drawn to the national situation, political slights-of-hand continue at the local level. According to the headlines in today?s (10/16/08) edition of the Altoona Mirror, the heat is once again being turned up on reassessment, which was clearly stated against by the will of the voters despite the handicap of a gerrymandered commissioner?s race. It is always under the appearance of a crisis that deviousness chooses to make its moves. No doubt this national crisis has added urgency to the conniving, because investments in pension funds most likely have gone awry and there is an urgent need to have these losses covered through reassessment, again at the property owner?s expense to their security. Will Tomassetti now finally waffle? Will Meling now find political opportunity in reassessment? Or will an out of town judge be invited in, by having one of the school board solicitors provoke a law suit, then tell us; it?s the rule of law? As the saying goes all politics are local and to that should be added, local in deeds. Our securities, our rights of and in property are being put in jeopardy, not by a crisis that may be real, contrived, or imagined, but by factious behavior. It is factions, which give the appearance that the sky is falling.

To underscore this factious behavior lets return to a past election that to some might seem like ancient history. This was the election that catapulted then commissioner Eichelberger to prominence over a predecessor who was a long-standing, high-ranking legislator for over 30 years.

In this senatorial district at that time there were 178,643 registered voters of which 44,591 voted. The 44,591 represents a turnout of 25%, which is a faction in itself and not a majority. Out of this 25% Commissioner Eichelberger and a democratic candidate were determined to be the representatives of their respective parties. The respective number of votes out of this percentage that each candidate garnered becomes an even smaller percentage of endorsement for each candidate and is representative of an even smaller faction. In that primary election commissioner Eichelberger defeated his predecessor by a mere 2,829 votes. Depending on how one does the math commissioner Eichelberger defeated his predecessor by approx. 6.3%, which is an even smaller ?faction? the subtitles of which would be even harder to define.

The inter-play of factious behavior, within the confines of the Republican Party since this was a primary, indicates a deep internal conflict that could potentially destroy the party from within. During one of the debates commissioner Eichelberger?s predecessor stepped out from behind his podium with his arms half raised out to his sides with the palms of the hands raised up, then looked upward using the mocking jester to portend that the sky was falling. Well, the sky did not fall but there was a price to be paid.

Commissioner Eichelberger?s predecessor became a victim of his own tactics; he tacitly represented a faction while generally proclaiming to the majority that their best interests were being served. In the end a majority abandoned him and he fell prey to another faction. Thus was born of a faction, Sen. Eichelberger and his predecessor defeated by a faction.

The extent of factious influence pervades the entire political process and a constant vigilance is required to keep it at bay. As has been noted earlier the commissioner?s race was a local example. The influence of factions can also be seen at work in the various committees of the lower and upper houses. Here, whether an issue gets the opportunity of debate before its respective house, becomes hostage to committee members and the influence of a committee chairman, directing not only the direction of the committee?s consideration but also tacitly directing the consideration of the entire legislative house. The devolution of power and influence is thus distilled down to a smaller and smaller number of senior members who can be considered a powerful and strategically influential faction collectively.

Another fine example of factious influence was the tactics used in the passage of the last budget. The brief time allotted for our representatives and senators to examine the budget was outrageously cruel. A responsible review by our representatives of such a complex nature under this brief time constraint is humanly impossible and the factions involved in creating this situation know it. They also know and are well aware that ?the opportunity to reject is far superior to the power of repeal?. This is a flat out subversive insult to the principle of representation. In the senate there was only one brave dissenting vote and that was Sen. Eichelberger?s no vote. Was Sen. Eichelberger?s no vote declared out of a sense of personal affront or was it cast in defense of the principle of representation? The answer to this perplexity is owed only to himself.

What was to be our security against such factious behavior? Do you think that our founding fathers were not fully aware of the intricacies and violent potential of such subversive factious tactics? They were fully aware and it was to you as a citizen of a duly constituted representative republic that the right of property as a security was imperative. It?s time to demand that our right of property be completely released from the encumbrances of factious liability. If not, the sky will not fall but the grace of civility may be denied.

When the gates on the landing craft slammed down on the beaches of Normandy the sky did not fall. When on a hot summer day in Gettysburg a little, meandering, winding creek ran blood red and whined out ?Bloody Creek, I am to be forever called?, the sky did not fall, but there is always a price to be paid and it is time they put it back or be forced to put it back, due strictly to the PRINCIPLE alone.

The Freeman

Blair County

What do you think?