Over the weekend, Bill Clinton took shots at anti-government protesters, suggesting they are at fault for the Oklahoma City bombing. He said the country today is like 1995, when there were tough economic times, strong antigovernment sentiment and the formation of militia groups.

In the 1760s, there were economic sanctions and anti-government sentiment against the king of England, which the formation of state militias started to change. April 19, Patriots’ Day, is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the battles of Lexington and Concord, that were fought by local rebel militias.

Conservatives today are criticized as being rich, racist and out of touch with the poor; these same criticisms are lodged against the leaders of the American Revolution.

When running for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton seemed to think it was fashionable or even patriotic to criticize the government. Now that the Democrats see the growing anti-government sentiment as a threat, they are trying to demonize the patrons of tea parties as racist misogynists.

Darryl Postell, a black man and tea party supporter, was asked by an NBC reporter at an event Tuesday if he felt uncomfortable as a minority. “These are my people, Americans,” he said.

Calling tea partygoers racist is an unfounded claim to make them look bad.

If the Democrats thought Americans wanted all of the regulations they are given, they could just ignore the dissenters and campaign on their ideas unopposed. However, if people liked what was being sold to them, the polls would not show the great political disillusionment they do.

Clinton and Obama have something in common: They can blame their problems on Bush. Over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner said part of what got the country in this financial mess is that the tax cuts from George W. Bush’s administration are still being paid for. Geithner also said he is against deficits as much as the tea party supporters are.

President Obama has run up a deficit of 7.8 percent of the gross domestic product in his term, while Bush in his eight years only had a deficit of 3.2 percent of the GDP. Geithner is wrong; the Obama regime certainly does not appear to care about increasing deficit spending.

To say tax cuts need to be paid for is absurd. The point of a tax cut is giving the people back some of the money that was taken from them in taxes by the federal government.

The Democrats’ idea of welfare is nothing more than an entitlement program, giving money to people who didn’t earn it rather than back to the workers who pay the largest share of taxes. Paying for tax cuts is another deception they have to spew, because in a fair arena of ideas, the socialist desires of the far left cannot compete.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.

A large portion of students would say having a national powerhouse hockey team was a big influence on why they came here and why they have pride in their school. Our school pride has already been low enough  in the years I have been here, in both academics and athletics.

If we lose more of our sports teams and our Division I status, more students will choose to go to other universities in the system, like the University of Southern Maine — or go out of state. That would mean even less money coming in, leading to more programs being cut. This would be a perpetual cycle until UMaine becomes a small liberal arts and engineering college. Simply put, killing athletics would lead to the end of UMaine as the state’s flagship university.

Boise State University is a prime example of how athletics bring students to a school. They have had a football program that has put them on the national map for the last three years. For the spring 2010 enrollment, they saw a 4.1 percent increase from the year before, translating to 724 more students. That may not sound like much, but that pays for quite a few more faculty members’ salaries.

Students from around the country are now choosing to go to BSU because they have heard of the school. Coming from Ohio, I never would have heard of UMaine unless I had heard of the hockey team’s success — the reason I chose to come here. Like BSU, the University of Northern Iowa has seen athletic success in football, and after big upsets in the NCAA Tournament this year, it should expect to see a rise in applications as well.

Our football team may spend $1.2 million per year, most of which I imagine is the 63 scholarships they have to provide, but they can also lead to more students coming to UMaine. It looks like the team will go back to the playoffs next year and make a strong run at a national title. If we can get on the national map for football, like hockey does, we could expect to see the same rises in enrollment other universities with strong football programs have.

The Athletics Department should be expected to lose money, because not all sports sell a lot of tickets. But athletics is the culture of the sports to our school, as well as donations from wealthy alumni.

Athletics has high academic standards for its student-athletes, with the field hockey and men’s cross country teams leading the way and consistently posting top conference GPAs. When teams achieve high academic success, they become another advertisement for academics at UMaine.

If we were to lose our Division I status but retain football and men’s hockey at the same level, we could be OK, but almost all of the players for the other athletic programs would go elsewhere, losing hundreds of UMaine students and the tuition they pay.

The way to fix our school’s economic problems when the state is giving less money is to raise in-state tuition and cut the amount of money given to faculty research. According to UMaine’s Web site, students from out of state pay $14,250 more per year than in-state students.

By my calculations, the state gives $8,900 for every resident undergraduate student, which leaves non-resident students footing a bill over $5,000 more. Closing that gap would bring another $39 million into the university and effectively solve our budget problems.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.

Last Thursday, a Fox News poll showed 55 percent of Americans are opposed to the bill, and 35 percent are for it. These poll numbers are despite the fact that most network news shows lean toward support of the bill.

Over eight months, Congress has been playing games with releasing what is in the bills, having meetings behind closed doors — which President Obama promised several times would be on C-SPAN — and seeking to pass bills with reconciliation and Slaughter Rule procedures that were not intended for sweeping legislation such as this.

The same Fox News poll shows only 31 percent of Americans think the House of Representatives and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were playing by the rules in passing the bill, which might explain why Congress’ approval ratings continue to be low.

Pelosi did it by the book in the end, but not without kickbacks to buy off votes and an executive order “limiting abortion” that really means nothing. Back in October, she was asked by a reporter for CNSNews.com, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” She brushed off the question without answering it by asking the reporter twice if he was serious before moving onto a different reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, later issued a statement saying it was “not a serious question.”

Pelosi and her spokesman are wrong; this is the most important question in the entire health care debate. The current bill mandates every American buy health insurance or get on Medicaid if they meet the requirements. If they don’t, they must pay fines to the IRS, which has been granted the power to enforce this mandate. But the Constitution does not give enumerated or implied power to the federal government to make a person buy something, let alone enforce this with a fine. This would give a requirement to be an American citizen, and it is unconstitutional to have to buy something to be a citizen.

Democrats are quick to point out we have to buy car insurance if we wish to drive. But that is only if we have a driver’s license and vehicle and drive on public roads. Someone who does not have or do these cannot be stopped by a police officer while they are walking down the street and be fined if they do not show proof of car insurance.

After President Obama signs this bill into law, it should be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Arguments can be made that it violates Fifth Amendment protections and treats states unequally.

If I have it all wrong, and President Obama’s plan is going to make things better in America, I would like to know why it has to be done with backdoor deal-making like the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback. If it is good for us and we should want this, why couldn’t we have known earlier what was in it?

Secret socialist deals that were supposed to be good for the people led to the rise of Nazi Germany and other totalitarian governments in the world’s history. If our elected representatives will vote for the removal of liberties, I am glad the Constitution still stands in the way to protect them.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.

While our school provides great opportunities for everyone economically, not all groups are served here on campus. We may have a great disability services program that helps students with disabilities succeed academically, but for wheelchair-bound students, this is not always the easiest school to go to.

Knox Hall is the only fully accessible FYRE residence hall on the hill, which is a problem because it is uphill from all the academic buildings. Gannett Hall has a ramp, but the elevator is too small for someone in a wheelchair.

This year, I saw a student in a manual wheelchair have to wheel uphill against traffic on Long Road to get to his residence hall. The sidewalk to Hilltop is bumpy and in disrepair, leaving the student with no choice but to wheel in the street between Androscoggin Road and the entrance to the Knox parking lot.

In Hancock Hall, the key swipe to the front door broke over the weekend and was not fixed until Monday. This left the only handicap-accessible door unusable, because campus employees just figured Hancock’s other entrance could be used. A friend of mine who is a wheelchair-bound Hancock resident could not get into the building unless somebody walked by the front door to let him in.

Snow does not help handicapped residents on campus either. After the first snow of the year, my friend was stuck in his dorm because the ramp was covered in snow, and the proper employees who are responsible for clearing it had not done their job by the end of the day. A resident assistant in the building took it upon herself to shovel it so he could get out to eat. Last Wednesday, his chair got stuck in the snow on the way to Wells Commons. His chair has four-wheel drive, but its low battery prevented him from using the feature. He had to wait for someone to push him out, because there was too much snow on the path to the dining commons.

Our campus needs to do more for our fellow students in wheelchairs. I know there is a budget crisis, but not making this campus equally accessible to all students is not acceptable. As a former athlete, if not having a spot on the team meant enough money for making the campus compliant to government standards, I would be for it. If it meant a tuition raise, I am sure that most would be OK paying $50 more a year if that was the money needed to fix things.

The main problem is that services that are supposed to be provided are not. Hancock’s door should have been fixed sooner, snow removal where wheelchair-bound students have to travel should be a priority and the overall state of the walkways on campus should be improved so none of them are too treacherous to travel across in a chair.

Martin Luther King day was only a week ago, and we have a plaza dedicated to him on our campus. He wanted us to fight for equality. Our campus needs to do the right thing.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology major.

Retail companies use this time of year to get in the black and sell, sell, sell at the expense of the true meaning of Christmas. I even heard a guy on the news, waiting in line at a Wal-Mart in Florida the day after Thanksgiving, saying that “finding deals” is what it is all about. If this is what Americans are about — finding great deals on material possessions — then we do not deserve to be the freest nation in the world. Saving a hundred bucks on a high-definition television is not what our soldiers have died for.

Advertisers target consumers’ greedy desires, telling us all we need in life is the latest gadget to be happy. Of course, next Christmas something new will be out that we need for complete satisfaction, and we end up never being satisfied. Things will never love us back, and that is why it is important during this time of year that we focus on the people — friends and family — who do love us back.

Over the last decade, Christmas has only been politicized and materialized to the point that we are forgetting what it is all about. For example, in 2005, Target decided to be politically correct and banned the word “Christmas” from its advertising. Well, they lost so much money that they finally responded to public pressure and started saying “Merry Christmas” again. To retain sales these days, commercials mention Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza and even the solstice so they can please everyone.

In America, we have the great freedom to celebrate whatever holiday we want, but I also have the freedom to not spend my money at a chain that tries to please everyone, which is impossible. I wish more companies would realize that when you try to please everyone, very few people actually end up happy.

Christmas is the holiday that I celebrate, and I see no reason to hide my celebration by saying, “Happy holidays.” We have freedom of religion, not freedom from other people’s expression of religion. It is perfectly OK with me if you do not want to celebrate Christmas — you have the freedom to do that in our great nation. But I am going to publicly celebrate Christmas, because I’m able to worship and celebrate as I please, just as anyone who is not Christian can.

In the 1965 short “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” Charlie was as overwhelmed with the materialization of Christmas as I am; he wanted to know what it was all about. Well, the answer to what it’s all about is this: the good news that should be great joy to all. We are celebrating the humble birth of Jesus Christ and how he came to die for the salvation of the world. Whether you believe this or not, it is what the holiday is about. Merry Christmas.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.

The Copenhagen summit seeks to create a world government that is responsible for enforcing the treaty. The other purpose of this treaty is to transfer wealth from countries like America to Third World nations as compensation for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity,” as quoted in an early draft of the treaty. This provision goes on to say that compensation is for future damages because “many will become environmental refugees.” This week, the United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer wants wealthy nations like America to put up $10 billion a year to kick-start the program. This money would be given to Third World countries. The Associated Press says these countries might walk away if not enough money is offered before the treaty is signed. This money is only the beginning of what America will have to give to pay.

The exact carbon emission reductions called for by the draft treaty are 45 percent of the 1990 levels by 2020, and 95 percent of those levels by 2050. The problem is that if no one invents the technology to reduce these emissions, cars that run on gasoline will be banned, every factory with carbon emissions will close, and every coal power plant will be shut down to reach the goal. That will not leave us with enough electricity for everyone, no personal transportation, and food will be hard to get.

If we Americans want out because of the potential decline in our quality of life, we could not leave the treaty. The only way out is if every other country would let us leave, and as the richest nation in the world, that would not happen. The World Bank estimates this will cost between $75 and $100 billion dollars per year. Words like “election” and “democracy” do not appear at all in this treaty, which leaves us without any say. If the treaty is signed, it will take precedence over our Constitution, the very thing that gives us protection from our own government.

We do not need a treaty to save a planet that doesn’t need to be saved. Recent studies show the planet has not increased in temperature over the past 11 years. The global surface temperature record actually has shown statistically significant cooling over the past eight years, and 2009 could be the ninth coldest year on record. Just this week, e-mails were leaked that climate researchers omitted data that would counter an IPCC report. As my major is a science, I am ashamed to see that science could be hijacked to support a political movement. The fact that a “consensus” proves global warming is the politicization of science. Science is not about having a majority. Remember when everyone thought the earth was flat? Look at the facts and ask whether global warming is really happening. Keep an open mind and go where the evidence leads.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.

Although people like me are a minority on campus, conservatives here in the University of Maine bubble are able to step back sometimes and realize what the rest of the world thinks, and it is time for Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress to do the same. The tide of opinion for the president is turning.

A Fox News poll has the job approval for President Obama at 46 percent with an equal disapproval at 46 percent. Other polls are also showing his approval is slipping fast. The fact is that all the rhetoric Obama got elected with is proving to be nothing more than big government.

After years of criticizing the money spent on the war, his administration and Congress have created a record $1.4 trillion deficit with reckless spending. The national debt President Bush was criticized for creating has only been increased by the very people who were criticizing him. The left criticized President Bush for giving tax cuts to the rich, who just happen to be the ones who need money to create jobs, while Barack Obama hid behind campaign promises to only raise taxes on the rich, not the middle class.

Joe the Plumber exposed our president for what his real plan was, and that was to raise taxes on whoever necessary to get money to pay for his health care agenda. In order to cover everyone who can’t afford coverage, middle class folks like you and me will end up paying more in the end. The rich sure don’t have enough money to take care of it for everyone.

Even the United States, one of the richest nations in the world, only has so much money. If we keep spending this much, taxes will have to be increased. More taxation only means less freedom to spend our own hard-earned money the way we see fit, which makes us more dependent on the government to get what we can’t afford to buy because they took our money away.

Big government spending our money for us to live our daily lives was not the vision of the founding fathers, but is instead the vision of power-hungry socialists. All Americans like me want is to be free to live our lives the way we see best. The blood of our ancestors has bought us that freedom, so let’s not give it to power-hungry politicians.

I’m not advocating for anarchy, because the purpose of freedom is not to satisfy our lower nature but to practice justice to maintain our free society. If we simply live virtuous lives in a nation that still has consequences for our actions, where we love our fellow man just as we would ourselves, America will once again prosper.

Our own personal greed got us into this mess, and I believe the motive of our government is greed. They want to tell us what is best for us, not because they want to help those who can’t help themselves, but because they think we do not know what is best for ourselves but they do. We must be a free society, so long as it is a society where we put others first and our selfish desires last.

Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.

Home prices finally reached their bottom dollar value, a price determined by the market. It can all be explained by simple supply and demand. Many homes were built, the housing bubble burst and finally the price went down enough to move the supply of homes in a market where there is a low demand because of the recession.

The market corrected itself, which led to a boost in consumer confidence shown by a surge in the markets.

Regulation was supposed to be the answer to the recession – at least that is what the elected politicians told us. They told us the markets would not fix themselves and that banks needed to be regulated because they got us into this mess.

The fact is, this mess was caused by regulation beginning in the ’90s when Congress told banks they had to give out more loans so everyone could own a home. Then – just as the banks expected – these people became unable to pay their loans when times got tough. All because of government interference.

Winston Churchill said, “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” He meant taxing the rich and spending their money in the way the government sees fit is futile and will not produce any results. Yet Obama, who says he is a “citizen of the world,” would not agree with this famous statement.

Another one of the solutions to America’s problems Obama has proposed is to tax the wealthy more and give more taxpayer money to the poor. The government should focus on making a favorable situation that promotes a strong economy while letting the markets run their course, instead of regulating the markets and taxing the productivity of those who run America’s businesses.

The favorable situation should be limited to the laws that keep customers from being cheated by predatory companies who try to take advantage of them. The best solution, and one that has been proven to work before, will happen on its own. American ingenuity working in the capitalist system will cause the markets to fix themselves.

The best solution – the one our politicians are not considering – is to let the businesses that survive make the decisions on how to right the course we’re on, rather than politicians. After all, politicians are paid the same whether they succeed or fail at running our country.

Jonathan Zappala is a junior psychology student.

Popular opinion is against the outgoing president largely because of the war in Iraq. The Congress that authorized him to start the war, and then turned against him as popular opinion wavered, caused him to lose more support. Once the heat of the moment passes, and the positive outcome of the war in Iraq – a nation freer now than before the war – is realized, he will be remembered as one of this nation’s better presidents.

Many will disagree, but they need only to think of the good things he did for our country. Cutting taxes, fighting for morality and American values and leading the nation through its darkest hour are a few of his achievements that should be mentioned. The economy was also booming under his watch, until the downturn in 2008 due to problems that began in the 1990s. Aside from all of his achievements and perceived failures, he is going to be remembered for possessing a rare quality in a president: the ability to be himself at all times.

President Bush was always honest with Americans and admitted when he was genuinely wrong. His farewell address exemplified his true character. As far as I could tell, he was not using a teleprompter, and it showed in the substance of his speech. He was speaking from his heart, and that is when he speaks best. It is hard to argue that he was not an honest man.

During the administration of Ronald Reagan 20 years ago, the media hounded the president as much as they attacked Bush during his two terms. Now liberals and conservatives alike accept him as one of our greatest presidents. He was even praised by President Obama in the primaries. Reagan took the strength out of communism much as President Bush has done to terrorism. Our enemies feared what makes us great: our liberties. Thanks to George W. Bush, they do once again.

History was kind to Ronald Reagan, and his legacy lives on in politics today. I have a feeling that time will bring the same for President George W. Bush.

Jonathan Zappala is a third-year psychology student.