Reader’s Comments

Issue 215 – November 14, 2012

Editor: Regarding your editorial “Commander in Chief Romney,” let’s look at the situation. Our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are not exactly  triumphs.  The days of Smedly Butler and Chesty Puller and send in the Marines are long gone.  Americans are war weary. Looming deficits haunt our future. Since WW2 our military campaigns , in spite of great bravery of our armed forces, have not been very successful and when we expanded our mission in Korean we got our head handed to us re the Frozen Chosen. We could not have prevented the the ouster of the Shah or saved Mubarak.  To forestall a major budget crisis the US govt and all levels of society require a hair cut and than includes the military and higher taxes on the top one per cent. In times of war or economic crisis we must all share sacrifices. The United States and the elites of both parties must reassess the geopolitical situation and develop new tools and policies to defeat militant Islam. How that is to be achieved will take study and determination and not a quick recourse to using our professional  armed forces which involves less political  cost than using draftees. The neocon, conservative and tea party members of the Republican Party must  re think  their positions and world outlook with a view to defeating militant Islam. Timothy Sullivan

Editor: Regarding your editorial “UN Schoolmarm President.” I have tried to reason why, in the Republic of the United States of America, Barrack Obama could even be considered to run for President, let alone actually be elected.   Having read some of your articles on the media and the people associated with it, it is quite clear that they have been successful in playing to the vast ignorance of people in this country.  Then I realized that it is not the single man, Barrack Obama, but those who put him there, those who allowed him to hold the most powerful post in the world that are the dangerous ones.  Anyone who could support a man who circumvents congressional process, one who circumvents the Constitution, one who rams stimulus and bailout programs to fruition and introduces staggering debt, coupled with socialistic policies and excessive government is something dangerous to all elements of the Republic for which our flag flies.  They trod on our Constitution, our Christian heritage, our freedoms and our liberties.   It appears clear that there is a large faction of people who have grown out of liberal policies that have grown the size of government to epic, dysfunctional proportions.   They have successfully created and grown an entire society that is dependent upon entitlement programs, administered under the umbrella of overgrown government.   Essentially, these people are trapped by dependence and dole outs of government life support.  It is illegal to feed deer for example.  It is illegal because the animal becomes dependent upon the hand outs and then diseases develop such as the one where the deer began to waste away.  The same thing with bears, particularly in the Catskill Mountain area where I live.  Bears being fed by humans stop foraging and begin to become dependent upon human dole outs.  This has several detrimental effects and in the end it does not help the bears and has many dangerous and negative impacts on society. We may not be physically enslaved to a landlord or feudal government but we have become enslaved by the propagation of excessive entitlement programs, socialist programs and policies such as the Affordable Health Care Act (already wreaking negative havoc on companies, individuals, and benefits).   We are enslaved by excessive taxation, and out of control, obese government controlled by a faction of people who propagate progressive liberal government growth and socialistic programs.  Our Republic is being systematically dismantled by a greedy, controlling, corrupt, self serving assembly of socialists right before our eyes.  Our freedoms and liberties, our Constitution and our Republic are at a dangerous juncture, whereby, if people such as Obama and this internal band of socialists are not brought under control, we will see and experience physical uprising. I will not comply with the Affordable Health Care Act, buy insurance as dictated by any government entity, pay any fines or go to jail without a physical fight.  I took an oath as a soldier who served this great Nation in military service for 18 years to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  We (and there are millions of us) have had enough. Richard Christensen

Editor: As Jeffrey Folks makes clear in his article “Social Security Worth It?” Social Security is a bad deal and the administration of Galveston County, Texas, knew this in 1980. We privatized SS for county employees in 1981 and have had a very successful plan for over 30 years. Do you know what we did in 1980? If not contact me and I will tell you all about it. I was the County Judge at that time and led the county in this endeavor. I can provide all the details and refer you to the private plan we adopted. Ray Holbrook, Santa Fe, Texas

Editor: Regarding Robert Weissberg’s article “Fear of Gotcha” do we know exactly what Todd Akin was referring to when he said “legitimate rape”? I think the whole issue rests on the definition of legitimate.  I think we can all agree that if a man or woman were forced to have sex that is clearly “legitimate rape” – that is real rape, especially if the victim was brutalized. Let’s say that a man or woman unwillingly engaged in sex with a person or group of people they knew but what if no force was used? What if our man or woman were at first reluctant but then had sex. Is that legitimate rape? What if our man or woman willingly had sex but regretted it the next day. Is that “legitimate” rape? Is having sex with someone you don’t want to have sex with but willingly consented to legitimate rape? What about if you willing consent to sex and later get mad at your partner and accuse him/her of rape to get even? Is that legitimate rape? What if our man or woman didn’t even have sex but was accused of having sex by someone. Is that legitimate rape? This is probably the only clear case. This is clearly not rape as no sex has taken place.  My point is that the only clear case of no rape is if there is no sex. All other cases if there was sex there is some room for doubt. I think what needs to be distinguished here isn’t whether a rape is legitimate or not but whether the accusation of rape is legitimate or not. Hopefully that is what Todd Akin was trying to relate. Robert Solum

Editor: Robert Weissberg writes an interesting, apolitical and pertinent piece in his “Fear of Gotcha” but I’d like to make a related more political comment. What disturbed me more than what was nothing more than an unfortunate choice of words by Mr. Akin and the media’s perfectly predictable response, was the rapidity and rabidity of the Republican establishment response to immediately chastise Mr. Akin and demand that he remove himself as the Republican candidate in the race. The fear of a media attack was palpable. This is the Republican establishments way and reflects weakness and incompetence and likely the reason why the most incompetent American President, certainly in my 79 year old memory, one surrounded by a radical inner sanctum of handpicked, like minded incompetents, goes about issuing executive orders and conducting feckless domestic and dangerous foreign policy, unchallenged, in any meaningful way, by these same “outraged Republicans” who, by the way, hold a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives. Mr. Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” in the context of rape, was an unfortunate gaffe, no doubt, but one easily interpreted and dismissed as exactly that. I knew what he meant as would any other listener who’s made countless gaffes themselves and listened to countless coming from others without suffering a bleeding heart or gasping for breath in mock offense. This makes the sharks salivate as they smell the blood in the water. It’s never too late to stop the bleeding and go on offense. If ever there was an opportune time, this is it. Donald J. DaCosta

Editor: In his article “Whose Deficit” Jameson Campaigne says the Democrats had control in  2009 but if this was so why did the Healthcare Act have to be passed by Reconciliation? If Obama had the 60 votes he would have had no need to go this way. When the election was over Dems had won 59 seats and the Republicans 41 seats. When Obama took office January 2009 the Democrats had 57 elected senators, 55 Dems and 2 Independents, and this was due to Kennedy being ill and Franken not being seated. This is why he had to compromise on the Stimulus Bill. April 29, 2009 Specter switched parties which would have got to the Filibuster proof 60 votes but the Minnesota seat was still vacant and Kennedy was home ill. May 15, 2009 Byrd was in the hospital and could not vote. Kennedy died August 25, 2009 and the seat was empty from August 25th to September 24th On July 7, 2009 Franken was sworn in and on July 21, 2009 Byrd returned to Senate which gave them 59 seats.The Kennedy seat was filled September 25th which gave the Dems a 60 seat majority which was lost in Feb 2010 due to Brown being sworn in. I would suggest the Dems had the 60 seats needed from Sept 24, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010. This was 4 months not 2 years. Now factor in the days congress was in session and it is a lot worse. Leslie Baker, ST. Cloud, Fl.