Margaret Thatcher’s place in history is secure. She will be remembered for many things including her unwavering belief in the virtues of free market, her disdain for socialism and for her role in the downfall of communism. The truth is if you loved Margaret Thatcher, there is nothing that can be said or done to dissuade you from that position, and  likewise, if you despised her, you probably hold fast to that position as well.

In pursuit of the defeat of what she saw as socialist totalitarianism, she made a close alliance with U.S. President Ronald Reagan and built a relationship with

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, while still standing firm in opposition to the

Soviet empire. Without question, she was one of America's closest and most important friends and was instrumental in winning the Cold War for the West.

Thatcher refused to be bowed by terrorism and stood against it in all its forms. After the Irish Republican Army (IRA) attempted to assassinate her and her Cabinet at a conference in 1984, she famously insisted the conference go on the next day. She was tough!

"The fact that we are gathered here now, shocked, but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail." Her courage brought moral clarity in highlighting the atrocity of terrorism as a means of political activity.

Her resolve to stand against any threat to British interests was clear in the Falklands War. After the invasion of British territory by Argentine military forces, Thatcher said it would not stand. Fully knowing the real prospect of defeat, Thatcher ordered a British military task force to re-take the islands. They did. Along with foreign policy successes, Thatcher, known as "The Iron Lady," scored domestically.

Facing high unemployment rates, a crippling union stranglehold and an unproductive, stagnating economy, the United Kingdom of the 1970s was a country in dire straits. She guided Britain's economic base away from domestic monopolies and toward global capitalism. Because of her privatization and deregulation policies, the United Kingdom became a center for international finance and investment. Although many thought it was impossible. In 1987, Thatcher was elected to a historic third term.

Despite her successes, she was and remains today a polarizing figure in British politics. Many disagreed with her attempts to curb the unions, her cuts to social programs and education, and her introduction of the "poll tax." She was one of the few European leaders to resist the oncoming European Union and ultimately her distrust of some of the centralized requirements of a common Europe led to her downfall.

Still, there can be no debate of her enduring impact. Tony Blair's historic 1997 election and return of the Labor Party to power is often pointed to as a moment of renewed liberalism in Britain. In many ways, it was. However under the banner of a new Labor Party, Blair embraced a more moderate message and proved that Thatcher had changed the politics of Britain forever. 

Governor Martin O’Malley had quite a 2013 General Assembly session. His list of accomplishments is impressive, and speaks to a heightened national profile that has positioned him as a key player in the politics of the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential primary.

From wind energy to expedited veteran employment benefits, from a new gas tax to fund transportation improvements to a 10-year funding commitment for Baltimore City Public School infrastructure, and from one of the strictest gun control measures in the nation to the repeal of the state’s death penalty, Governor O’Malley showed an amazing mix of charm and political astuteness in dealing with the legislature.

He is off to Denmark this week for a conference on progressive public policy, yet another stage for Maryland’s governor to continue to prove his liberal credentials to left-leaning activists, who play an ever increasing role in the national politics of the Democratic Party.

Maryland’s House of Delegates approved a major gun control measure this week to ban assault weapons, require people who buy handguns to provide their fingerprints and limit gun magazines to 10 bullets. With all of the fervor in the wake of the Newtown shootings and other gun violence incidents over the last 12 months, these measures are reasonable.

With the legislature scheduled to close down next week, the pressure was on for passage of one of Governor Martin O’Malley’s top legislative priorities.  Although numerous rural area Democrats voted against the measures the real drama was in the Maryland State Senate.

Republicans loaded the bill down with amendment after amendment in an attempt to thwart its passage but to no avail. All Republicans in the Senate and in the House voted against the gun control provisions. They get points for being unified but really missed the opportunity to be part of the solution in their defiance.

In particular, the fingerprinting of gun purchasers seems to make the most difference in deterring criminals from getting guns. In states where a handgun purchaser has to be fingerprinted through the state police, many whom buy guns for friends and relatives who are prohibited from ownership, they are usually not willing to go through with the buy.

The Maryland measure also included an assault weapons ban for 45 guns, although people who own them or order them before the law takes effect in October would be allowed to keep them. 

Supporters say the measure will put Maryland’s already strong gun-control laws among the nation’s strongest. Critics described the bill as a devastating blow to Second Amendment rights. They said the measure wrongly focuses on guns, rather than people who use them to commit crimes. There is an argument to be made about the impact these new laws will have on criminals versus law-abiding citizens, but that doesn’t negate their true importance.

 The measure sought to address people with mental illness who try to get guns as well. Under the House version, people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility would not be able to possess a firearm. 

The debate often pitted rural lawmakers against legislators from urban and suburban areas. 

Baltimore Delegate Talmadge Branch gave an impassioned floor address pointing out that he often attends two funerals a week due to gun violence.  But rural legislators weren’t dissuaded.

It is also laudable that the governor included $25 million in funds for schools to invest in security measures such as locks, cameras and buzzer entrance systems.

A possible unintended consequence of the pending passage of the legislation is the inability for Maryland gun manufacturer Berretta USA Corp. to sell some of their own products in the state.  The company is now being courted by other states to move their plant operations – and hundreds of jobs – to a more gun-friendly jurisdiction.  That would be unfortunate given the fact that the company can still sell their guns in almost every other state in the country.

There are still some differences in the House and Senate versions that need to be worked out.  We encourage the inclusion of the 72-hour mandate for a gun owner to report a stolen weapon to authorities but do not believe it is reasonable to ban gun possession by an individual who is sentence for a probation before judgment for a violent crime.  That blanket provision does not take into account individual circumstances in some cases that would not mean the person should not own a weapon.

The debate around guns is an emotional one.  We are a nation born out of rebellion against a tyrannical foreign government and should never give over our basic freedoms and rights easily.  But we have also become a country awash in weapons and among developing nations in the world, we have become way too comfortable with violence.  There is a place for common ground and common sense to prevail.  We applaud the governor’s leadership in this effort.

 The U.S. Postal Service is losing $25 million per day and it appears the members of Congress are willing to allow this to continue.

At this point, Congress needs to take some serious steps or get out of the way and allow the Postal Service move forward on plan cost cuts.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe last month unveiled a plan to save about $2 billion per year by moving to five-day delivery for mail but keeping six-day package delivery.

 Since 1987 Congress has prohibited the Postal Service from reducing the number of delivery days.  This week the House approved a continuing resolution that includes the provision requiring the Postal Service to keep six-day delivery — meaning the status quo likely remains.

This is very poor governance.

Post offices across the country have closed and hundreds of jobs have been eliminated – saving around $15 billion. But there has to be more done if the agency is going to right its upside down budget.

 Each time the postmaster offers a solution such as closing more rural post offices and reduced delivery, he is met with opposition by legislators. The bulk of the Postal Service's financial problems stem from a 2006 congressional requirement that it set aside more than $55 billion over 10 years to cover future retirees' medical costs. No other government agency is required to fund benefits that way.

A good first step in providing appropriate oversight of the Postal Service would be for Congress to reverses that requirement.  Given how much Americans still rely on mail service, taxpayers may be in the mood to offer a bailout ­– maybe.  But first, the politicians have to get on the same page with the leaders of the Postal Service.

We’ve seen how the new business model at the Postal Service has transformed as technology changes the way we communicate. It is easier than ever to get your mail and packages delivered and the online upgrades used by the agency have been an

extraordinary improvement. 

If Congress is unwilling to unlock the shackles it has placed on a government entity that doesn't receive any operations money from taxpayers, we think the Postal Service would be justified in pushing forward with its cost-cutting plan.