Letter to the Editor: TEA Party Voting Membership

Dear Friends,

Thanks again for attending our recent Northern Shenandoah Valley Tea Party (NSV-TP) meeting on July 5, 2012. 

Our featured speaker that night was Professor John Winn, who discussed the recent US Supreme Court ruling on “ObamaCare”. We hope that you found his presentation to be enjoyable, educational, and informative. At previous meetings we have also had noteable guest speakers such as State Senator Jill Vogel, Delegates Joe May & Randy Minchew as well as several others.

It is the goal of our Tea Party to invite speakers to our meetings who are active in the political arena and thereby gain their perspective on issues while more importantly providing them with our concerns as an organized Tea Party voice. We feel it is important to participate in an organized manner in order to enhance our effectiveness and credibility with both the public and the political establishment. Your attendance at our meetings helped us accomplish these goals and we therefore invite you to become a formal member of our group. Some of the major benefits of becoming a member are listed below:

1. Become identified with a formally organized state 501(c)(3) group that is recognized and has an active voice in political events.

2. Registered members are provided with a formal vote on all issues that are brought before the general membership by the Tea Party Board.

3. Voting members may nominate, participate, and help select Board members

4. Voting members have a direct voice in determining the agenda and future activities of the organization.

The NSV-TP hopes that you share our belief that the upcoming election has serious consequences and that the outcome will directly affect the future of our country for quite some time to come. This has been said about other past elections; however, we truly believe that this is the most important election of our lifetime. Please join with us in bringing about a favorable result this November by electing candidates who share the Tea Party goals of Limited Government and Conservative Values.!! Become a formal member of our organization. Cost is only $5.00 to become an active voting member and to have a direct effect upon the future of our movement. Please take a minute to complete the attached application. Bring it to our next meeting or mail it to our Membership Committee Chair, Martha Sparkman, P.O. Box 3868, Winchester, VA 22604.

Once again, thank you for your participation and support, as it is people like you who enhance our organization and make it a success. I look forward to seeing you at one or both of our next 2 meetings on Tuesday August 7th and again on August 9th (Congressman Wolf is guest speaker) and hope that you accept our invitation to become a Tea Party member.

Thanks again,

Jay Marts


  1. cool test says:

    I hope CDN will allow this.

    This is pretty cool. isidewith.com/ Check the stance first before you just check yes or no and use the slide bar on how important it is to you. My results were very interesting.
    It’s not rigged I took it again answered totally different and it came up with who came in last for me the first time.


    • Bob Brawley says:

      501 tax exempt groups. As a conservative who will vote for the Democratic ticket from top to bottom.,Potential tax dollars are being squandered on private clubs that establish 501 status. This is an example of why deregulation is not valid. In my opinion. How many in the Tea Party accepts social security payments who are 62 or older. And Government Pensions another Ponzi Scheme. In my opinion.

      • Another View says:

        If you vote for Barack Hussein Obama, you are not a conservative.

        If you vote for Joe Biden, you are not a conservative.

        If you vote for Tim Kaine, you are not a conservative.

        If you vote for any Democrat running for office in the Commonwealth of Virginia, you are not a conservative.

        Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? You are a Leftist!

        • If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are pretending to be a conservative. Look at his record.

          • Another View says:

            If you vote for Mitt Romney you are voting to save America from Barack Hussein Obama. Sometimes you have to vote to stop evil. If it takes a moderate Republican to remove a fascist statist from office, I am willing to make that compromise.

            But your observation does not change the fact that no true conservative would vote for Barack Hussein Obama, or any other Democrat on a Virginia ballot this year.

        • NeverUseYourRealName says:

          Honey, I’m voting the bums out . The Republican Party are the bums . If by doing so I vote the liberals in that’s the way it going to be. I had great expectation in 93 when the republicans took control of Congress and what a sad disappointment that has been. I’ll put up with regulation of Industry over pollution issues my resolve is the regulation of the Financial Markets. The Republicans must not get another chance. If Obama loses but less Offices are populated by Republicans that’s OK by me. I’m not pro liberal . I’m anti Republican

          • Another View says:

            You are pro liberal. If you don’t like what the Republicans did in Congress, then how can you vote for the Democrats, who are a thousand times worse?

            You are a Leftist! Embrace your inner Karl Marx!

        • Wrong Direction says:

          I am not left or right. I am up rather than down. Now, back to the real topic of the thread.


          Be careful of the company that you keep.

          • Ahhh yes, the fascist uber right mantra: the president is a demon and must at all costs be held to one term. Their sole goal since day one. No matter what they were sent to Washington to do, forget that, let’s get that man out!

          • Congessional Budget Office reports that Obamacare will cost $1.68 trillion of NEW SPENDING. The Tea party questions new government spending. Americans want immediate gratification, so what are the results of the $831 billion stimulus? The “Curiousity” mission to Mars costs $2.5 billion. Many will disagree, but I think new knowledge about Mars is worthwhile.

          • just the facts..PLEASE says:

            if you read (and quote!)the Huffington Post you are MOST definitely on the LEFT. That is the largest purveyor of left wing propaganda this side of China

          • I never quoted from the Huffington Post in any of my comments. Some who claim to be left or right are probably narrow minded. Others like me who learn and read from many different perspectives try to be open minded. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

  2. Just wondering says:

    Wondering how monolithic the Tea Party is. Just today, the leader of an Arizona Tea Party group, Wes Harris, said “Go to (hello (cleaned up)), Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” referring to former GOP Presidential candidate and war hero, Sen. John McCain. Is this the dialog that represents the Tea Party?

    • Mr Mister says:

      Did you forget about Palin and her bulls-eyes?

    • ElinorDashwood says:

      Groups and individuals that tout themselves as “Christians” or patriots, yet wish other American people dead and say so publicly, only because their views or beliefs differ from their own, are abhorrent.
      I was in the Ace Hardware store in Stephens City several years ago and a man working at the paint counter, proclaimed loudly to a customer that somebody needed to kill the president and that if it looked like he’d win again, he’d do it himself. Needless to say, I set my things down in front of him and walked out. I then called a friend of mine in the Secret Service and reported what was said, where and what the man looked like.
      Extremists of any religion are a danger to us all.

      • Mr Mister says:

        These are the same people who salivate at the thought of waterboarding ,torture, and the death penalty, but abortion is murder. The same ones who shoot doctors performing legal procedures. The same ones who reject the facts when it comes to the President’s birth.

        • Another View says:

          Not so. Waterboarding is not torture, and was only used against a very few that held information concerning efforts by our enemies to kill innocent American civilians. No Tea Party organization has endorsed torture. The death penalty is provided for in the United States Constitution and many state constitutions. It is recognized in the Bible. No Tea Party member has shot any doctor.

          And when it comes to the President’s birth, what are the facts?

          I just added Mr. Mister to the list of those who hate freedom and our Constitution. Welcome to the list!

  3. Another View says:

    Nothing in this post suggests anything other than a polite invitation to become involved. Yet we have folks tarring the writer and his group by innuendo, citing an inappropriate comment by some yahoo in Arizona–NOT affiliated with this gentleman’s group. Nothing in this post was hateful or accusatory, yet the comments are focused on such matters as if they were; why?

    • Just wondering says:

      Here’s why. My original question was an honest one. Granted the letter is a polite invitation to join the ranks of the Tea Party. However, a “party” implies a certain unified message. Before I would join anything, I would want to know if a local “yahoo” similar to the one in AZ could stand up and make a fool of himself and, by association, me as well.

      • Realistic Joe says:

        Just wondering-
        People are just humans and they make mistakes. As long as people are involved there is always a chance that someone, at any time, could make a fool of himself. Even Congressmen, Senators and Presidents have had to correct themselves by saying; it was a poor choice of words, that was taken out of context, not what I meant to say, etc. (Some of course, didn’t inhale)

        If you are passionate about something put yourself forward!

        (And not necessarily meaning the above topic).

        • Sam Card says:

          While campaigning in 2006, Senator George Allen made a fool of himself by calling a man MAKAKA . He implied that he was an outsider, but he was from Virginia. Jim Webb has decided that 6 years are enough to serve as a US Senator.

  4. Another View says:

    Well that would require investigation, which is not what was suggested. Rather, we were treated to gratuitous slurs by well known Leftists, who hate capitalism, freedom, liberty and the Constitution.

    It is well known that the Tea Party is neither a political party, a single group, or a national organization. Rather is a euphemism for a grass roots movement that is repulsed by what is going on in Washington. The phrase “Tea Party” was resurrected by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli who expressed on air outrage at the thought that the federal government would be bailing out some folks’ mortgages, at the expense of other folks. Understandable outrage at that, unless you believe that it is government’s business to take from some to give to others.

    • “Grass Roots”? Personally I would look at some of the Tea Party “members” who are now in Congress. Many of them are quite wealthy, and while there is nothing wrong with that, many were helped along by taking advantage of what they term “socialist” big government assistance. Such as Mrs. Bachman, who received subsidies for her farm from big brother. Why, so who wouldn’t take advantage of such subsidies? Good for her!

      Grass roots, I think not. Hypocrites, I think so. Hoodwinking the ignorant, most certainly. She’s one of your “takers”.

      Spin it how you wish. Tea Party big time politicians are worse than any they condemn, worse, because they think they are somehow “better” and have put themselves on a pedestal of down home figurative terrorist tactics, spewing “socialism,” “fascism,” “communism,” etc etc, all designed to promote fear

      • Another View says:

        You apparently know nothing of the Tea Party. Your citation of Rep. Bachmann, for example. The TEA Party was born after Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats proposed using taxpayer dollars to pay off some folks’ mortgages, having already bailed out the banks, GM and Chrysler. Rep. Bachmann was already in Congress, and merely adopted the TEA Party message (though she clearly had prior similar philosophical leanings).

        It is not a “tactic” to call socialism by its name, or to decry the fascistic regulation of industry by government. It would only be a “tactic” if it were untrue; and it is not. We are living in the age of fascistic tyranny, and Barack Hussein Obama is a dictator.

        • Sam Card says:

          People retiring today have paid more social security taxes than will likely get back in monthly retirement benefits. A lot of people seem to figure a way to qualify for social security disability. At Rocky Mountain National Park, I remember seeing healthy people showing up with their golden access cards on motorcycles to get free entrance to the park. The golden access card is suppose to be for only people who are severely crippled. Social Security will go broke in 2033, unless Congress acts. Obamacare will fine companies if procedures and rules are not followed. Small business will have costly and unwanted government intrusion. Innovation to solve problems at a local level will be stifled as big government wants to tell business, individuals and public schools what to do. In 1992, Ross Perot as a third party candidate argued about the need to shrink government spending. His campaign influenced President Bill Clinton and Congress and by 2000, the federal budget deficit was reduced. Newt Ginrich made a “Contract With America” and there was welfare reform. The Tea Party is educating the public today with the same message as Ross Perot did in 1992. For those who are interested, WHERE and at what time will the Tea Party meet on Tuesday August 7th and Thursday August 9th? I will be playing tennis on Tuesday evening.

          • The only way to fix Social Security is to remove the cap.


            Neither side will do it because it would be the right thing to do.

          • Another View says:

            The only way to fix Social Security is to raise taxes? That is a “right wing” position? I don’t think so.

            The best way to fix Social Security is to abolish it. The next best way to fix Social Security is to make it voluntary.

            I would bet that if Social Security were voluntary, there would be a mass exodus from the program.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            Paul Ryan (the great white hope of the Tea Party) wants to dismantle Social Security. Social Security paid for Paul Ryan’s out-of state tuition (in part) at an Ohio public university with survivor benefits he received after the death of his father.
            Why AV, are you not calling this man a leech on society, a taker, like you do anyone one else that uses government help for anything?

          • Another View says:

            Because–based upon your representations–he “wants to dismantle Social Security”. I LOVE THAT if true! My fear is that it is not.

            But addressing your premise further, Paul Ryan receives government benefits from the government, through no action of his own, due to his father’s death. Okay. Now before you scream that he should have rejected the benefits, I would suggest that that would be admirable but perhaps foolhardy. I don’t know enough about Paul Ryan’s circumstance in that regard.

            BUT WHAT I DO KNOW, is that IF Paul Ryan is working to “dismantle” government entitlement programs, that makes him a voice for freedom, liberty and the Constitution. That he once partook of the program is of no moment.

            THE TRUTH IS that Paul Ryan DOES NOT wish to dismantle Social Security or Medicare; at least he has not proposed it as you falsely claim. Rather, Paul Ryan has proposed to strengthen and improve these programs. In the long run, better the programs explode in bankruptcy, but in the short run, I agree with Paul Ryan that those who have relied upon government promises should not be left holding the bag.

            THE FURTHER TRUTH IS that YOU SHOULD BE SUPPORTING ROMNEY/RYAN. These guys wish to save entitlement programs. The Democrat program guarantees the demise–in the short run–of these programs.

            So; are you going to vote Romney/Ryan in November?

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            There is absolutely nothing wrong in Paul Ryan receiving benefits from Social Security, I see nothing wrong with anyone receiving help from the government, however, you do and I’m tired of the hypocrisy. The definition of mankind is human beings considered collectively and it makes me happy to consider others well-being, and help if I can.
            I see no virtue in selfishness as Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan’s idol wrote of and I see no ethics in the objectivist rant.

          • Another View says:

            There is no hypocrisy whatsoever. No one is acting one way, and preaching another at the same moment.

            The definition of mankind has NOTHING to do with collectivism. Collectivism is a political/social philosophy that constitutes the underpinnings of socialism/communism/fascism.

            Lots of folks read Ayn Rand. They are not selfish. And if you actually understood objectivism, as written by Ayn Rand, you would understand that it does not preach selfishness.

            The only selfishness I see nowadays are the takers demanding that the producers support their lifestyles. That has got to stop.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            I understand Ayn Rand perfectly, AV. She absolutely DID teach selfishness…and I quote, “the idea of self-sacrifice is a totally artificial, very evil idea which children and adults learn from others” She was also an atheist that believed that people of faith (any belief in a higher power) were in an infancy stage of philosophical growth. For anyone interested, YouTube has ‘Ayn Rand’s First Appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, 1967’.

          • Another View says:

            No, Elinor, you do not understand Ayn Rand “perfectly”. She did not preach selfishness; rather, she opposed the State dictating “self sacrifice”. If you had read Ayn Rand, you would know that many of her characters engaged in “self sacrifice”, but on their own terms, and not as dictated by the State or society. If you understood Ayn Rand “perfectly”, you would know that she lived under the brutal Soviet dictatorship, and that that experience was the source of her philosophy, which was anti-government, and pro-freedom and pro-individual. You do not understand Ayn Rand “perfectly”; perhaps you should read her works.

          • You can’t have it both ways, AV. Repeatedly, above on this thread and others, you’ve belittled, demeaned, and dismissed all of the “takers” who feed at the government trough; you’ve NEVER offered anything remotely like an exception…until now, when you hem and haw over Rep. Ryan’s use of government funds. You’ve never cared about anyone’s “circumstances” until now, with this case. Thus, the hypocrisy within your stance.

          • And I quote: “Romney doesn’t appear to be trying to win the support of the majority of Americans (or the world for that matter). He appears to be playing for the affections of a few key shareholders. Romney is a niche candidate of a tiny percent of Americans who think working for a living describes what your money does for you.

            Let’s take stock of the groups Republicans are no longer attempting to appeal to: Wage earners. Women in their child-bearing years. People with pre-existing conditions. Unions. Public workers. The unemployed. Monogamous gay couples. The under-employed. Moderate Republicans. Muslims. Latinos. Oh and independent voters. We’re not going to see a “Romney Democrats” group pop up before November, save maybe a political wonk’s Halloween party.

            Romney is nominee no one really likes

          • Another View says:

            My stance is not hypocritical. I take no government monies, and I am opposed to government monies being handed out to others. Totally consistent.

            And it is not hypocritical to support a candidate for office who will accomplish part of what you advocate. Perhaps you should open the dictionary and learn the definition of hypocrisy.

          • Bob Brawley says:

            I voted for Ross Perot the first time he ran, when ever that was.. You say 92 , ok 92 then but this time around I don’t intend to throw away my vote and it will be against any candidate that the Tea Party toutes

  5. Roscoe Evans says:

    A simple aphorism from the olden days: You’re known by the company you keep.

    Another: You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

    This letter sounds quite reasonable, and maybe every person associated with this group is too. But there are too many people of this sort who claim the flag, guns, apple pie and liberty for themselves, and to hell with everybody else. Then they try to claim the Constitution is a religion, and demand that you worship their version of it, and acclaim the Founders as their Saints and Apostles.

    Sorry. It’s a big country, with people of every political stripe. This claptrap about “Leftists,” etc., doesn’t even rise to the level of political discourse. It’s cheap sloganeering, a cheesey slur from the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s (when “Leftists” were “Communists”) that’s calculated just to brand with hate. The follow-up cheap shot, that they “hate” freedom, is inane. Find someone, anyone, anywhere, who “hates” being free, who “hates” liberty, or who “hates” the Constitution. Get their name and number and post it. It will be a first.

    Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Do some good. Be happy.

    • Another View says:

      People who hate the Constitution? Alger Hiss, Henry Wallace, Harry Hopkins, Angela Davis, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Barack Hussein Obama, Van Jones, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ronald Dellums, and Franklin Marshall Davis. There’s a short list. And what do they all have in common? They are Democrats and Leftists.

      Sadly, it’s not a first.

      Work harder. Keep more of what you earn. Support yourself and your family. Vote Republican.

    • “Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Do some good. Be happy”
      Isnt that the truth? ! Isnt helping others being “Christian”? !

      I dont know if I consider myself Christian, but I abhor people who wave the bible and use it to speak hatred – politically or otherwise. It seems as if the Tea Party is a thinly veiled group for those type of people. So sad.

      • Another View says:

        Helping others is Christian. Supporting government confiscation of others’ wealth for redistribution to the taker class is communism. Nothing Christian about it.

        The Tea Party is but a euphemism for those who love and wish to restore the Constitution. There is nothing hateful about it. Indeed, you cite no instances of hate, you just accuse. And wrongly so.

      • Bob Brawley says:

        The Klu Klux Klan they were Christian. The Christian Militia they are Christians and I suppose some members , I should say participants in Tea Party gatherings , could be Christian as well. I almost forgot throw the Masons in with the Klu Klux Klan they are Christians too. Or use too

        • Another View says:

          There is nothing “Christian” about the Klan, or the Christian Militia. These are fringe groups who preach hatred and act upon it. Christianity and hatred do not mix.

          BTW, the KKK historically was an arm of the Democrat Party. Hugo Black–nominated by FDR to the United States Supreme Court–was a Klansman. Senator Robert Byrd (D. WV) was a Klansman. President Woodrow Wilson (D) associated with Klansmen, and endorsed the organization’s goals and purposes.

  6. Shaun Broy says:

    “We the people are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the constitution.” – A. Lincoln

    Gasp… Could this actually be some “common ground” on which most of us can all stand?!?!

    Get involved. Do something. Actions speak louder than words folks…

    I may disagree with this organization on some of the issues, but they are a class act!

    How would I know??? I actually attended numerous meetings… maybe those of you who wish to trash it, should do the same… before you are so quick to pass judgement.

    True strength lies within our differences, not in our similarities.

  7. Patriot says:

    Dear Author of the Letter to the Editor:

    Thank you for the very polite and thoughtful invitation to come to your meeting (NSV-TP) and become a voting member with a 5 dollar contribution.

    First, I do not contribute money to any political party. I have never liked the idea of being “bought” for my support, and prefer to stay “independent” (sometimes falsely associated with “leftism”). I have voted for both republicans and democrats throughout my life, and favor a two party system. I dislike the idea of having to pay to have my say.

    Second, I am concerned about what some people here refer to as “yahoos” who are not affiliated with your group, but who do call themselves tea party members or supporters. These people make downright scary claims, from calling anyone who disagrees with them communists, fascists, haters of the constitution, to attacking past and present leaders with unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. Patriotism, morals, among other things is questioned, and frankly that bothers me. I am sure you are concerned as well, and hopefully your movement will continue to evolve and enhance your credibility by educating those who spout extreme, and in my mind, unpatriotic and untrue rhetoric. We are all Americans after all.

    Third, I do not believe, and am sure you will agree, that I would not “enhance” your organization. You see, I believe in “human values”, such as equal rights for all, no matter their choice of life partner. I believe a woman has the right to determine personal medical, legal choices without having to undergo a sonogram. I feel one reason the economy is in the hole is due to personal greed. I respect that others disagree with my views, but do not understand why people label me a “hater” a “leftist” or a “fascist”, for example, because I choose to abide by my views: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Good luck! Sincerely, an American Patriot

    • @Patriot…does the woman have the right to steal money from me to pay for her medical choices??? I agree with you, she should make them on her own and pay for them.

  8. If Barack Obama had been the Democratic president who said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” Republicans would call it capitulation. “Obama surrenders to America’s enemies!” Commentators on Fox News would opine it’s actually an Islamic saying he picked up in a madrassa in Indonesia. “The prophet Mohammed talked about fear, it speaks to his Muslim leanings.” Fox and Friends would lead the next morning with the question, “Did Obama include a part of the Koran in his speech last night?”

    “Karl Marx’s whole campaign was to eliminate — completely obliterate fear! Now we have a president following in his footsteps!” Rush Limbaugh would bellow. All his doppelgangers and dittoheads would repeat it on every corner of the Internet and talk radio: “Fearless is Marxist!”

    Those more moderate would just call him out of touch. “Obama doesn’t understand how Americans feel: they’re fearful of Obamacare!”

    Mitt Romney would go on five networks to announce he’s always been a big fan of fear. “In America, the fear is the right height,” he’d declare. “Saying we have nothing to fear is foreign-sounding to a lot of Americans.” Days later, video of Romney telling a crowd not to be afraid would come to light. His campaign would counter with another weather balloon about his VP pick. “Paul Ryan? How about Ginny Thomas?” would be the entire body of an email to Romney supporters.

    Internet message boards would speculate there’s an Obama plot to criminalize negative emotions … tied to fluoride in the water, of course. “Mr. President, what are you trying to hide?”

    Congressman Darrell Issa would launch an investigation into this alleged plot outlined on these said message boards. Sideshow Michele Bachmann would mutter about how fear is profoundly Christian and Obama with his contempt of fear has shown his contempt for Jesus … and of course Israel. “Obama wants to destroy Israel!” Allen West would say it’s a form of slavery. John Boehner, wiping back tears, would proclaim, “Fear is a job creator — Mr. President why do you want to punish success?”

    Suddenly fear would be a constitutional right. “Barack Hussein Obama is trying to take away our god-given right to be afraid!” “We have nothing to fear? I fear our right to fear will be stripped away if Obama gets a second term.”

    Yes, the party that bravely came out against empathy (a trait lacking in all sociopaths) when Obama admired it in Sonia Sotomayor, would come out in favor of fear. It would become their signature issue. AstroTurf busses would drop grassroots activists on the capitol lawn for the Million Phobics March. It would mainly consist of security personnel (pro-fear remember) and Sarah Palin proclaiming, “Unlike Barack Obama — we’re god-fearing Americans!”

    SuperPAC funded T-shirts handed out at the rally would read, “I’m god-fearing not Mohammed-quoting!”

    Inevitably there would be Democrats being forced to defend denouncing fear. “Look, I think we can all agree fear is not helpful to Americans. No no, the president doesn’t want to see it criminalized. He just said, however inartfully, we don’t need it.” That would be dubbed a gaffe by the 24-hour news cycle. Right-wing commentators would gasp, “The administration all but admitted to their ambition of outlawing fear. ‘We don’t need it!?’ This is about freedom and governmental overreach!”

    Nancy Pelosi would be asked to weigh in on the controversy. She’d say, “This is not a debate about who’s for fear and who’s against fear — this is about a struggling middle-class.” The video clip would end up actually setting up several debate segments on cable news shows about who’s for fear and who’s against.

    To sum up: You have the right to be afraid! The Democrats want to take away that right! That is the choice this November—–Tina Dupuy

  9. Another View says:

    The choice this November is between freedom and slavery. The choice this November is between Americans being allowed to earn and keep more of their money or having the federal government confiscate private wealth and give it to their benefactors. The choice this November is between building a secure and safe America or continuing our decline and losing our influence abroad. The choice this November is between expanding energy and lowering prices, or continuing to subsidize boondoggles that the market will not support nor that will actually furnish energy. The choice this November is between greater health care choice and savings, or socialized medicine. The choice this November is between religious freedom and the secular, atheist state. The choice this November is between the right to be left alone and the nanny state.

    The choice this November is stark. Barack Hussein Obama must be retired to the ash heap of history, where he can join the Soviet style of planning he so admires.

    • Earl Ritter says:

      Excellent response.

      As a member of our local Tea Party all we are asking is that the Federal Government LIVE WITHIN their means, just like the peasants do, to quit spending money we don’t have and mortgaging the future of our grandchildren. The purpose of my life ISN”T to keep providing the government with anever ending supply of money to spend so they can give away bennies to buy votes to keep their sorry behinds in office. We aren’t advocating the overthrow of our government,we aren’t advocating violence. If you have never attended a Tea Party meeting then you have no right to criticize us.

      The choice this November is simple…..socialism and slavery to the government or capitalism and freedom to live a peaceful “FREE” life. The change obama is selling is Socialism/Marxism plain and simple. I choose capitalism and freedom…freedom to fail or succeed. I believe in exactly what the founding fathers of this nation believed in …it’s what I was taught in school back in the early 60’s.

      • Bob Brawley says:

        Hey Earl are you any kin to Elmer Ritter.? he may of been Huge Ritter’s brother , It appears to have been younger than Huge born about 1893 prehaps. Huge is well recorded in history . Elmer not so much.

        I haven’t seen any real effort by the republicans in the last 40 years. to balance the Federal budget. My hero John Warner brought Pork barrel to Fredericksburg to finance the removal of the Embry Dam. That doesn’t look good. George Bush keep howling for tax cuts . He shoved it down my throat. I didn’t want a tax cut. Financed by the sale of Treasury Bills sold to foreign governments . That not conservative behavior. Where was the Tea Party when George Bush was touting tax cuts even before he won his first term back in the good old Boom days. The conservative rhetoric just doesn’t wash with reality

        • Another View says:

          Tax cuts are not spending. The money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the person who earns it.

          If you do not want your own money, then give it away. But do not presume that others do not wish the freedom to do with their hard earned monies as they–not others–see fit.

    • Wow, you are so sold on the conservative talk radio jive. Maybe you should stop listening to it and spend some time coming up with your own thoughts. You’ll feel less angry and healthier. The propaganda machine is spinning out of control. There’s not choice between freedom and slavery. It’s all freedom. To say one party is bringing our gov’t to enforcing slavery is INSANE.

      Religious freedom has never been stronger in this country. Please look at history.

      And keep in mind when the constitution was written. I believe there was slavery in this country at that time. The constitution was written at a time when the population was a fraction of what it was. It was written when the make up of the people was white, and some black slaves. It was written before the technology boom, and before assault weapons, machine guns, grenades, poisonous gas etc. Much of the constitution is outdated and needs to change/adjust to the times. Look what happened to the native Americans. Was that genocide following our constitution?

      This is not 1787.

      • Another View says:

        I suppose it makes your life more bearable to assign blame for my views on “talk radio jive”. There is, of course, no evidence in any of my postings to suggest that talk radio is the source of my views. Indeed, it is not. But even if so, so what? The source does not change the substance.

        There is a choice between freedom and slavery. The current federal government and its taker constituency is hell bent on forcing a minority of the population support a growing majority. Fewer and fewer folks are paying taxes, and more and more folks are living off of others’ tax dollars. The federal government dictates toliet standards, mileage standards, food standards, whether you can build on your own property, etc. IT IS SLAVERY!

        And “Religious freedom has never been stronger in this country”? Really. Let’s look at the comments by the mayors of Washington, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, wherein all threatened to use the power of government to prevent a business–Chik-Fil-A–from operating, due to the Christian views of its President. Look at the harassment rendered to those who contributed monies in support of Prop. 8 in California. Look at the bigoted comments from the Left about Mormonism. How about the government’s mandate that Catholic hospitals provide abortions and contraceptives in benefit packages for their employees?

        The fact is, the government and the Left are on a crusade to destroy religion, or at least subjugate it to the secular State.

        I know when the Constitution was written. It is the greatest governing document ever written. As written–not as interpreted by Leftists courts–it is pure genius.

        But, if you want it changed, then by all means, get 3/4 of the States to agree on those changes. If you want to make the federal government a government w/ police powers, and the ability to redistribute wealth from the producers to the takers, then make your case. BUT YOU DO NOT do what the Left does, which is to ignore it, or “change” it by judicial fiat.

        And for your references to American Indians (they were not “native”), that was not genocide. Please quit trashing our country.

        • Biggotry, masked as “Christian views” .

          Not “native”? Not trashing the country, just the cowardous murderers.

          You have way too much time to post here. I’d love to argue, but have work to do.

          • Another View says:

            American Indians are not “native”. They came over from Asia, across the Bering Straits. They are no more “native” than the English colonists, the Spanish conquistadors, or the French trappers.

            The United States Army is not a bunch of “cowardous murderers [sic]”. Rather they served their country by protecting American citizens against the savagery of a barbaric and warlike group, determined to halt our westward expansion.

            And it is telling that you characterize “Christian views” as bigotry. You make my case that religious freedom is under assault. Thank you.

          • Just like the Holocaust deniers, trying to change history.

          • Another View says:

            What was incorrect? That the Indians came across the Bering Straits? Fact.

            What was so incorrect that you make the insulting comparison between me and a Holocaust denier? The assertion that the United States Army served their country? The assertion that the United States Army served to protect western settlers? Or the assertion that the Indians waged war on the United States?

            Sid, how about abandoning your hyperbole and advance some substance? Come out of your sandbox!

          • Not IS a bunch of cowardous murderers, WERE a bunch of cowardous murders.

            American Indians are not native? You’re wrong there. And don’t the Mormans believe Jesus wandered around Utah?
            You’re out there dude.

          • Another View says:

            The American Indian came from Asia. This is a fact. Which would make them NOT “native”. I am not wrong.

            The use of the term “Native American” is a misnomer used by the politically correct crowd so as to add to their stable of victim groups. The fact is that I am a “native” American, because I was born here.

            The United States Army is not now, and never was, a “bunch of cowardous murders [sic]”. To make such a statement–repeatedly–is both ignorant and defamatory. You should be ashamed.

            And if you want to know what Mormons believe, you might ask them. They are very polite and helpful folks.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            “the Indians came across the Bering Straits? Fact.” -AV
            “The American Indian came from Asia. This is a fact. Which would make them NOT “native”. I am not wrong.” -AV

            So the handful of “Asians” that perilously crossed the Bering Strait approximately 12,000 years ago and became the first humans to inhabit North America were not “Native Americans” but the 5.2 million that reside in the United States right now most certainly are, by your own definition.

            “You are not entitled to be considered a “Native American” unless born here. That would be the very definition of the phrase “Native American”.” -AV

          • Another View says:

            My point–follow me here now Elinor–is that “Native American” is not a racial classification. It is a political label bestowed in order to establish a class of victim and provide that class racial status, and political preferences and power. It is hooey, horse hockey, historically deficient, and linguistically incorrect.

            You Lefties may try and change the language, but those of us who speak it shall surely notice, and call you on your deception.

          • Sam Card says:

            Disease from European settlers killed many Indians. Evidence suggests that the sharing of food by native Indians helped Jamestown Colony in Virginia and pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts to survive. Read “Mayflower” by Nathanial Philbrick and learn about King Phillips War in Colonial Massachusetts from 1675-1678. More than half of New England’s towns were attacked by native American Indian warriors. President Andrew Jackson enforced the “1830 Indian Removal Act” with the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. After the US Civil War, many black Buffalo soldiers served in the western territories. River dams impeded anadromous salmon and buffalo hunts depleted food supply for native American Indians. On May 10, 1869, the trans- continental railroad was completed with the Golden Spike ceremony in Promontory Summit in Utah territory. General Custer and his brave soldiers were annihilated by native American Indians at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in Montana Territory on June 25 and June 26, 1876. Nez Perce Indains were told to leave their Wallowa Valley home area in north-eastern Oregon. Chief Joseph led a group of 800 Nez Perce Indians towards the safe sanctuary of CANADA. After a devastating five day battle, Chief Joseph surrendered on October 5, 1877 in the Bear Paw Mountains of Montana territory. The band of Nez Perce Indians were less than 40 miles south of the Canadian border, but the US Army refused to allow them to escape to Canada. The US government was humilated by Gereral Custer’s defeat by Indians viewed as savages. With stubborn determination and desire for revenge, the US Army wanted no mercy for Native American Indians. Remember General William Sherman, who was responsible for the burning of the Shenandaoh Valley in the autumn of 1864. Well General William Sherman sent Chief Joseph and 400 of his Nez Perce followers by train to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas as prisoners.

          • Spoken like someone cheering on the winning side.

            Your argument that their ancestors trekked across the Bering Strait is correct, so by that limited definition they are not “native.” However, as the record tells us, the indigenous peoples of this continent, once they migrated here, established rich cultures, developed complex languages, and conducted trade and commerce as rich and diverse as the various geographical areas they eventually populated. Also, since there is no record of humans inhabiting the Western Hemisphere BEFORE this ice bridge materialized, I’d offer that – given the thousands of years between their arrival and the arrival of the Vikings off of Newfoundland or of Columbus in 1492 – they are very much entitled to be known as “Native Americans” since they were here first.

            However, were they “civilized” in the Western term of that word? No, which – by using the Western, Judeo-Christian, “go-convert-’em-and-find-gold-too” world view prevalent nearly 600 years ago – meant that they were indeed treated as savages with no redeeming qualities save for the land and its bounty upon which they lived. So, the government (and private prospectors and others who used the government for their own nefarious purposes) used force of arms, alcohol (something the native people had no innate tolerance to, as they didn’t drink it), bogus or non-enforced treaties, or disease and sickness (not intentially, perhaps, but it was a prime native killer, nonetheless) to push them back, starve them, force them onto reservations carved out of their former lands (or, as with the Cherokee and other tribes, onto land they as a people were not traditionally accustomed to live on), and otherwise get them out of the way.

            I would venture, sir, that – given your proclivity for wrapping yourself in the parchment of the Constitution and the colors of Old Glory – you’d respond similarly as the Native Americans did when faced with a threat to hearth and home by an enemy with superior firepower and a hardened demeanor bent on crushing your lifestyle and threatening your very existence.

          • Another View says:

            You are not entitled to be considered a “Native American” unless born here. That would be the very definition of the phrase “Native American”.

            But you clearly have chosen sides. When confronted with the history of this Country’s founding and development, versus the “innocent” bucolic environmentally friendly Indian, you have chosen the Indian.

            I choose my country. No guilt, no regrets; nothing but pride.

          • Wrong…I am equally as proud of my country as you are, sir. I just choose to acknowledge the darker parts of that history for what they are – dark periods when we were less (sometimes significantly less) than our ideals. That you seem to be so callously OK with how that all ended up for the native peoples here speaks more about you than any of your myriad postings and wasting of pixels could accomplish.

            I do not trade in overtly simplistic tripe wrapped in the fervored bunting of an over-zealous strict constructionist, which is your modus operandi. I, too, am born in this country, and probably can trace my lineage back almost as far as you claim to boast. In that, like you I am a “native American” with a lower-case “n” leading off. I do have documented Cherokee heritage in me, but not enough to be able to claim “Native American,” with a capital “N,” which is a name for the ethnic groups inhabiting this hemisphere recognized by government at all levels.

          • Another View says:

            The “government at all levels” can decree whatever it wishes; but that it is a government decree does not make it so. History–UNDISPUTED HISTORY–demonstrates that the American Indians WERE NOT Native Americans. Just as there is no such racial group as “Hispanic” or “Asian”. And all black folks are not from Africa (as in “African American”, another PC invention, this one by Jesse Jackson in the 80s).

            You are not acknowledging a “darker part[] of that history”; rather, you are reveling in it. You celebrate events that you can characterize as American fault, because that is your ideological bent. There is nothing in this thread having to do with the American Indian, YET you brought it up, gratuitously, in order to slam me and slam the American traditions. It is you who wish to rewrite history, because it offends you that this country was built by a bunch of WASP men. It is you who wish to rewrite history because you choose to judge our forebears by modern standards. It is you who wish to rewrite history because you hate the past.

            No one is celebrating slavery or even battles with the Indians. But you, and your ilk, bring it up all the time, unbidden, because it enables you to criticize this country. You should be as ashamed of your worldview as you so clearly are of our country’s history.

          • Actually…”John” introduced it into this thread, and you – like the dogmatic pit bull you are – took the red meat and ran with it.

            I am not revelling in anything. I am acknowledging something that you glibly toss aside – that many of the accomplishments and a lot of the growth of this country came about through means that were, despite our forefathers’ best intentions, less than ideal. I “slam” nothing except for your dogged refusal to give credence to anything that doesn’t fit your tightly and narrowly ordered view of the world outside your window.

            I am proud of this country, proud of being an American (I had forbears who fought in the Revolution, and on both sides of the Civil War), and I am eternally proud of the great things we’ve accomplished (ending tyranny in WWII, the moon shots, establishing national parks, etc.). I look at all of the issues, and vote my conscience on them; I blindly follow no political party. I believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I pray that our elected leaders (whether or not I voted for them is moot) feel God’s Providence and do the right thing. Does that mean I’m disappointed in our leaders? Sure does, but such is the price of being human and living in this democratic republic we call the USA.

            But, just as I am solidly on the side of the red, white, and blue, I also am not so haughty as to ignore the facts of history. You prefer the Currier & Ives, rose-colored, ignore-the-cost-because-the-ends-justify-the-means view of history. That’s your choice, albeit a poor one, imho.

          • You should talk to Mass Sen candidate Virginia Warren, the new liberal wunderkind. She is 1/32nd Cherokee Indian but claimed it on her Harvard application form for her teaching position.
            Harvard claimed her as a native american

          • Another View says:

            Elizabeth Warren has been exposed for the liar that she is. She is no more Indian than I am (I am not), and she plagiarized recipes for inclusion in an Indian cookbook. Recipes from NY restaurants and magazines.

            Elizabeth Warren represents exactly what the LEFT has become; a movement dedicated to racial spoils. In so doing, the LEFT embraces racism, just like their Democrat forebears who founded and embraced the Klan.

          • Sam Card says:

            During the US Civil War, General William Sherman led the march to the sea in Georgia and Phil Sheridan was responsible for the 1864 burning of the Shenandaoh Valley. I should have read my comment before being so quick to post.

          • Another View says:

            Quite right. Aided by David Hunter, one of the most barbaric “soldiers” to ever lead men into battle.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            Of course you would find Hunter abhorrent. He was an abolitionist who had the nasty habit of freeing slaves in the areas where he held command. And you are an apologist for slavery and for every political, religious and economic argument that supported it. Your writings here show that, and track directly to your hate for our current President.

            Sam, Virginia exactly got what it deserved: an eye for an eye.

            Sherman and Sheridan pursued a less humane approach with our aboriginals, though, seeking genocide on the theory that the only good Indian was a dead Indian.

            What’s laughable is to hear Southern apologists decry what Sherman and Sheridan did to the South, then support their actions against Native Americans.

          • Hunter wanted the slaves as chaff for his army, He emancipated the slaves in three southern states only to have the order rescinded by Abraham Lincoln.
            He was as ruthless as West Point makes them. And thus a good soldier.

          • Another View says:

            David Hunter was a butcher. He targeted civilian women and children, thus also making him a coward. He executed men following the Battle of Lexington, without benefit of trial, in violation of all then military standards and code. He looted Washington College, a civilian institution.

            David Hunter was a disgrace to the uniform. And those who applaud his barbarism soil themselves as well.

      • @John…in response to your quote:
        ” It was written before the technology boom, and before assault weapons, machine guns, grenades, poisonous gas etc. Much of the constitution is outdated and needs to change/adjust to the times.”

        The founding fathers agreed with you and prescribed a process for changing the Constitution…it’s called an amendment and the process is laid out very clearly….in fact it’s been done many times.

    • Sam Card says:

      Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom and wrote an eloquent Declaration of Independence. He was our third US president and he started the University of Virginia. While visiting Charlottesville, Virginia, Marquis de La Fayette encouraged Jefferson to free his slaves. Polish engineer Kosciusszko built the fortifications at West Point on the Hudson River in New York during the American Revolutionary War. He was willing to give Thomas Jefferson $20,000 to free his slaves. Back then, that was a substantial amount of money. The Monticello slaveowner chose not to give up his profitable free labor and honor his ideals. Power and wealth corrupt in history and today. George Washington made arrangements to later free his slaves at Mount Vernon. As for the present, consider seeing the movie “Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore and learn about evidence of global climate change.

      • Bob Brawley says:

        I didn’t vote for George Bush but i got him anyhow . I din’t vote that year. both years. I’m more worried about being served a warrant for failing to show up for court duty than who gets elected president. This year I’ll take the warrant to vote against the Republicans.

        How did my post get way up here by Sam ? I’m supposed to be posting in reply to Anne Murray eight post below

        • Another View says:

          You are the perfect Democrat voter. You demand government largesse, and ignore civic responsibility. You ignore a summons for jury duty, and are too concerned about being arrested to vote? Goodness, I couldn’t make this up!

          Go. Vote for Barack Hussein Obama. You are a poster child for the nanny state.

          • geezlouise says:

            I’m still waiting for someone to explain why they support Romney? Clearly, he isn’t conservative or moderate. No one really knows what he is because he switches from day to day. So why support him? Try to answer without saying something like

            because he’s not Obama.

          • Another View says:

            1. Because he’s not Obama.

            2. Because he supports utilizing American grown energy–oil, coal and natural gas. This policy will create jobs and lower energy prices, improving the quality of every American’s life.

            3. Because he’s not Obama.

            4. Because he wants to lower taxes for all Americans. The American people–including our corporations–are overtaxed.

            5. Because he’s not Obama.

            6. Because he wants to repeal and eliminate onerous federal regulations on business. These regulations cause unbelievable harm to American businesses, and serves to lower wages and raise unemployment.

            7. Because he’s not Obama.

            8. Because he wants to repeal Obamacare. Obamacare is not just the biggest tax increase on a people in WORLD HISTORY. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Obamacare is socialized medicine. Obamacare will serve to make our medical services less responsive and more expensive.

            9. Because he’s not Obama.

            10. Because he will not seek to impose secular mandates on religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals.

            11. Because he’s not Obama.

            12. Because he is opposed to homosexual marriage.

            13. Because he’s not Obama.

            14. Because he will appoint judges who will apply, not rewrite, the Constitution.

            15. Because he’s not Obama.

            16. Because he will rebuild our military, especially our Navy.

            17. Because he’s not Obama.

            18. Because he will work with Congress to cut spending, and reform entitlement programs.

            19. Because he’s not Obama.

            20. Because he will reestablish strong ties with our allies, forgo Obama’s apology tour, and abandon Obama’s policy of appeasement with militant Islam.

            21. Because he’s not Obama.

            22. Because he will force Iran’s hand on nuclear weapons, and use military force, if necessary.

            23. Because he’s not Obama.

            24. Because he will seek Congressional approval before committing American military force. Unlike Obama (and unlike Bill Clinton).

            25. Because he’s not Obama.

            26. Because he will not use federal funds to subsidize his friends’ business ventures. Unlike Obama.

            27. Because he’s not Obama.

            28. Because he’s not a socialist.

            29. Because hes’ not Obama.

            30. Because 4 more years of Obama will irreversibly destroy this country. I’d vote for a cartoon character before I’d vote for Obama.

          • geezlouise says:

            Ok, you are like an uneducated person, which you are not, with numbers 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29. But you go. You don’t like the man. We all get that. Lots of people don’t. You are not alone. I do not like everything he’s done, cannot give a clean positive sweep to him, but I do admire the man because I do think he has honestly tried. He’s had a lot to overcome, with people like you and the “grass roots organization” who from day one has vowed to make him a one term president.
            2. As noted by someone above, he will tax the middle class to death. His tax plan is not revenue producing. But the rich can drink champagne and be secure. But really, who knows, he’s not been very forthcoming with this tidbit. You surely have to agree on that? He does change his tune frequently.

            I do support cutting loopholes and tax breaks for a certain segment, including large corporations.

            4. There is not enough of this so called energy in the United States to make us independent in the foreseeable future. Look at North Dakota, where there is a boom, but quality of life is disappearing from that area.

            6. We need regulation for safety. Should we go back to child labor and horrible working conditions? Some middle ground here, or does that automatically make me a horrid facist loving someone?

            8. It will be difficult to repeal especially since it is law. Whether you like it or not. It will be in essence a repeal of Romneycare. And a distraction for real issues. I know this is a pet project of some, but get over it already. It has flaws, but is a start. Quit with socialized medicine. Look to Israel, maybe we can learn from them.

            10. That was a mistake, the jury is still out.

            12. What on earth does gay marriage have to do with our daily lives? It’s not your, nor my, business, unless you are sour on tax breaks. And don’t bring the bible into it, same thing as number 10. Separation of church and state. Romney can be against gay marriage, but it would seem he can do nothing about it, nor can the President. They are after all allowed personal views.

            14. He can appoint judges, and who knows how they will vote, example Justice Roberts.

            16. Who will pay those taxes? We have too much military in too many locations not necessary in this day and age. Can they not be relocated to more of the hot spot areas?

            18. Good luck with that one, considering the tea party involvement in a break it down Congress. And what happens if Democrats take over?

            20. This is fallacy and fear pandering. And what is worse you know it.

            22. And how will we pay for another war? I think this is not only fear mongering, Romney will not do anything differently. But who really knows?

            24. Libya for one this was a success. Better that than thousands dead in Iraq because “Saddam tried to kill daddy” Shock and Awe. phhht

            26. Yeh right, good luck with that one. Romey does, and so do they all. Reform. When has Romney stated that by the way? Which flip flop was that?

            28. Oh the socialist thing again. Sorry, we aren’t in the 50s anymore. That is so lame. You forgot fascist, by the way. Fear mongering.

            30. I do not think the country may be destroyed. Fear mongering. You have no basis. Might I suggest Elmer Fudd. He’s got it all over Romney.

            Well it’s been swell, time will tell, and we shall see. I’ve wasted too much time with you and your ilk, you are simply anarchists. JMHO

            Over and Out.


          • Another View says:


            May I offer a substantive retort to your flippant dismissal of my points (which you solicited)?

            Energy–We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more coal than we know what to do with. Coal lights our homes. What does Obama want to do? Eliminate coal fired plants.

            Regulation–It is not the federal government’s job to impose “safety”. And no one is talking about children working. But if we promise not to repeal child labor laws, will you concede that the federal government has no business regulating the amount of water that can flow through a toilet in someone’s home in Omaha?

            Obamacare–It must be repealed, and it will be repealed. Because it is unconstitutional, because it is destructive, because it is tyranny, and because it will destroy the private insurance business, and the private medical field.

            Obama’s War On Religion–No, that was not a mistake and the jury is not out. Obama and his minions are hostile to Christians, and believe that government should be able to trump individual conscience and belief. The Founders, as evidenced by the First Amendment, thought better.

            Marriage–It is not a federal issue, but the Left is trying hard to use the federal system to impose it upon the country. Homosexual conduct is a sin. It is unnatural and wrong. And to celebrate it by destroying marriage is wrong. It is important, because it is a traditional cornerstone of society and its destruction would be antithetical to our culture. Culture matters.

            Military–We do not have too much military. We have way too little. And Obama is trying to reduce it further. Read the Constitution. The military and the defense of our country is a core federal function. Unlike socialized medicine.

            Spending–The TEA Party movement is all for cutting spending and reforming entitlements. And the Democrats are not going to retake Congress. But if they do, get ready for a fiscal meltdown that will make Weimer Germany look prosperous.

            Foreign Policy–Obama is a disaster. He disses Great Britain, Poland, and Israel, while sucking up to Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. Romney will reverse Obama’s appeasement, and that is a good thing.

            Unilateral War–Libya was not a success. And your cheap and ignorant shot at President Bush notwithstanding, Obama’s military ventures violate the Constitution. Obama did not seek Congressional approval; indeed, he claimed he did not need it, as he had UN approval. I’ve read the Constitution, and the UN is not mentioned. But the power to declare war is, and President Bush followed the Constitution by gaining Congressional assent to engage in military ventures.

            Socialism–We are on the brink, the Democrat Party is a socialist party, and it is not fear mongering to state the truth. We need to pull back from the policies we previously rejected when we fought the Cold War against communism. Socialism=totalitarianism. It is anti-American for the government to determine all the components that comprise socialism, including “spreading the wealth around”. Egalitarianism is everyone being equally miserable. Capitalism is everyone having the opportunity to succeed and prosper.

          • Laughing says:

            you’re like a vulture with no beak.
            The President has given 18 tax breaks to small business, not enough for you? Health care for every one, don’t like that, why? Its cheaper for every one to have insurance than to have to pick up the cost of emergency room visits. But regardless of the money, you have a problem with children, the elderly, with people with disablilities being covered? Its not just about you.

            The stock market has gone up, unemployment has gone down, health care provided for more people, an international enemy taken down, wars ended, still not enough?

            Plenty of “rainbow” people who pay taxes, work as doctors, soldiers, dentists, lawyers, and are probably a lot more stable and rational than you. Probably are Christian as well. Jesus loves them, yet you continue to bash them. Love is not immoral.

            So we should go with a man that rather than be patriot and keep his money in this country and pay taxes on it, hides it in tax free countries…..now there’s good example of a leader! Romney is a front man for the billionaires in this country and if you’re a billionaire and his tax plan that will raise your taxes but gives the top 1% millions in tax breaks, go for it.

            By the way, you insinuate the President is a socialist, fascist, look up fascism again- a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, thru the merging of state and business leadership, together with an idealogy of belligerent nationalism, now that’s where we are headed thru Romney.

          • Uncle Jessie says:

            Another View-
            You should change your name to “Chicken Hawk”- because it’s painfully obvious that’s what you are- amongst other things.

            So you want to rebuild the military and also cut spending?

            And force Iran’s hand and use military force if needed? Of course as long as you or your ilk don’t have to do the actually fighting.

            You talk a good game on here- but as with all Chicken Hawks I guarantee you wouldn’t be such a “tough guy” in person.

          • Another View says:

            How “Uncle Jessie” is it painfully obvious that I am a “Chicken Hawk”? Because I support defending this country? Because I want to eliminate unconstitutional domestic spending? Because I oppose socialism? Because I recognize Iran as a threat to US security and world peace? What is the reason? You don’t specify!

            Was Patrick Henry a “Chicken Hawk”? How about John Adams? Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? FDR? Winston Churchill? Ronald Reagan? Hmmm???

            I guarantee you that I am tough. Tough enough. My background and career are proof enough. And your name calling is wholly insufficient.

          • What “proof”? You’ve offered npthing but hints at a lucrative legal career, much-ballyhooed “FFV” status, and the self-rigtheous chutzpah to lump yourself in the same company as those great leaders. Other than that, all you are is a lonely squawkbox endlessly harping the same tired lines.

          • Another View says:

            I’m not trying to prove anything to you. I simply stated that my background would speak for itself.

            Follow me now; I was not casting myself as anything special. It was “Uncle Jessie” who cast aspersions and called names. Where is his proof? Or do you not care, preferring to merely call names yourself?

          • AV, your omnipresent rants on here do precisely that – paint you as someone desperate to prove that you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong (since they don’t agree with you and your trite, exceedingly narrow belief system). You seem to believe that if you rant long enough, use enough pixels, repeat the same tired lines over and over and over again, that you’ll win the day.

            Au contraire, mon frere. All you’ve succeeded in doing is undercut your own arguments (in the above list, you include TR and FDR, both of whom you’ve previously have dismissed for various reasons); toss derisive commentary on aspects of our lives that even you enjoy or take advantage of; and glibly label anyone who deigns to differ from you as “on the side of the Leftists” and a “statist” or a “socialist” or whatever. And, you do all of this behind the anonymity of your screenname.

            Someone earlier compared you to a dogmatic pit bull…seems fitting. The mere mention of “Obama” sees you come tearing out of your doghouse barking and slobbering and raising a ruckus like they’d tossed a raw T-bone steak at you. Seriously, sir, I can commend your tenacity and apparent sincerity, but – as was pointed out to “W” in one of the 2004 debates – it is possible to be both sincere yet also sincerely wrong. Your repeated posts prove this abundantly.

          • Well according to you in some thread Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and Teddy Roosevelt was something “bad” as well.

          • Another View says:

            Both Lincoln and TR were tyrants. But please note that my general opposition to both does not mean that they were never right on anything. It also does not mean that I cannot cite them for detecting foreign threats–that was the example–since they are heroes of the LEFT and that is where the attacks against me came from today (and everyday).

            I have opinions and I have facts. When I cite facts, they are facts, and that someone on your side does not like them does not make the facts untrue, nor me dogmatic.

            Find a fact where I was wrong. Please. Debate my opinions, please do so. I enjoy substantive debate.

            But what goes on here is that You People [Leftists] toss around slogans, call names, and offer nothing of substance. Proof today is that I was asked specifics as to why I would vote for Romney. I provided that in spades. I, and others, have asked for specific reasons why anyone would support Obama. Crickets. Nothing stated, and that is telling.

            You keep calling names. I will keep offering substantive opinions. We’ll soon see who is right, and who is wrong.

          • Another View says:

            BTW, can you explain why you support Barack Hussein Obama?

          • Bob Brawley says:

            Oh so Bill is not going to collaspe the market until after the election . If Congress is retaken by the Democrats then he will collaspe the markets for that Financial market meltdown. Thanks for the tip . You are well qualified to offer the tip because you is he. Till then I’ll reverse my Short bais and look forward to 1420 on the S&P and higher.

          • I like the guy. I like that he successfully bailed out the auto industry and it is doing pretty well. I like that he had the gonads to give the order that got Bin Laden out of here, and the terror threat is going down. I liked he had the gonads to express his view on gay marriage, whether we like it or not. I like that he kept his campaign promise to overhaul health care, and while not perfect, it has been deemed constitutional, your sputtering aside. I like the fact that he cares about women’s issues, poor people issues, and tries to compromise with the far right, who of course, will not. I like the fact that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity don’t like him.

            That makes me smile. You actually make me smile. [redacted]

          • Another View says:

            Do you like the fact that he lent invested $80 billion into 2 companies that together were not worth more than $15 billion?

            Do you like the fact that his bailout plan cheated secured bondholders out of their investment in favor of the unions?

            What makes you think the terrorist threat is receding? And do you remember that W put into place all the intelligence infrastructure that permitted our forces to find Bin Laden? And what is so courageous about ordering others to kill a man already sentenced to death by the previous administration?

            Do you like the fact that he lied about homosexual marriage for political reasons?

            Do you favor the redefinition of marriage to satisfy a small percentage of a small percentage of sexually confused deviants?

            Do you like the fact that he DID NOT overhaul health care, but rather endorsed a law that dictates the price and product a certain industry must sell and that the American people must buy?

            What are women’s issues? What are poor people’s issues? How are they different from others’ issues?

            And when did Barack Hussein Obama ever attempt to compromise with anyone on anything? Even the hyper partisan NY Times has admitted that it was the Messiah–not John Boehner–who deep sixed the budget deal. Is there another issue of which I am not aware?

            Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity disagree with Barack Hussein Obama. So do I.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            I like the fact that he has succeeded despite his name; and that his name drives his opponents crazy, even while they call him un-American, and try to turn BHO into an epithet. (I have a pal who is Italian. Long ago, he told me the USA would never elect a man whose name ended in a vowel — too alien sounding, he said Italians, Spanish, and a slew of others, need not apply. Barrack took that shibboleth on, and beat it.)

            I like the fact that he went to a top law school, and taught at another top law school for nearly a decade, yet he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. I went to a top law school, and know that teaching a bunch of top notch law students is a royal pain, and no easy task. i’ve seen interviews with former students– including federal court judges — who say he was great. That means something to me.

            I like the fact that he sees no shame in his work as a community organizer. He helped people at the bottom of the heap get more out of life, something each of us should do a time or two ourselves.

            I like the fact that he knows what the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution means, and that he does not subordinate our populace to those who would subordinate us all to their peculiar readings of “Scripture.” Scripture being, to my mind, too much the petty prejudices of ancient and ignorant men: guys smart enough to be literate, but ignorant enough to think they alone knew the Word of God.

            Work harder. Earn more money. Pay more taxes. Do more good. Enjoy life.

          • So why did he change his name?

          • Why does it matter, Sarge?

          • Another View says:

            Do you like the fact that despite his education, he seems oblivious to the Constitution’s restraints on the federal government?

            Do you like the fact that despite his education, he failed to observe Constitutional requirements before committing US military forces in Libya?

            Can you name one (1) federal judge who thinks he is “great” and identify the interview in which that statement was made?

            Do you like the fact that community organizers create nothing of value, no product and no service?

            Do you like the fact that he worked as a community organizer for ACORN, a federally funded group which lobbied for more government?

            Do you like the fact that he worked as a community organizer for ACORN, a group so corrupt that it collapsed in the wake of federal investigations during his administration?

            Do you know what the Equal Protection Clause means, and what has Barack Hussein Obama done to demonstrate his knowledge of it?

            If Scripture reflects the “petty prejudices of ancient and ignorant men”, why does Barack Hussein Obama frequently mis-cite it in order to demand more government? Do you think that Barack Hussein Obama is a petty, prejudiced ignorant man?

            Do you think that Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian as claimed? And if so, does he think that the Bible reflects the “petty prejudices of ancient and ignorant men”? And if so, how can he call himself a Christian?

            Work harder. Earn more money. Keep more of your own money. Support yourself and your family. Vote against communism. Vote against [redacted] Barack Hussein Obama.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            You believe in the Constitution that was written to preserve the status quo of an agrarian, plantation society, predicated on race-based slavery by descent. I.e. the pre 1800 society that enriched us all with its free labor, for 220 years.

            I believe in the modern Constitution and the nation that overthrew that nonsense.

            So, going tit for tat with you about :the” Constitution is pointless. We are talking about two different animals, and yours is extinct. Mine is supported entirely by prevailing case law, which you reject in favor of your own comic book version of the document. Too bad for you, and those who are ignorant enough to agree with you.

            Community organizers do what lawyers are too busy to do: they solve problems for people at the bottom of the economic heap. (If you are a lawyer, which I doubt), you’re obligated to do a little pro bono work yourself. If enough of us did it, poor folks would not need community organizers. So, Since that issue is so problemmatic for you, solve it yourself.

            ACORN: Bullcrap.

            The Equal Protection Clause is the basis of judicial decisions that have found that adult Americans can marry same sex partners. You can read the cases that led to those decisions for yourself, if you are capable of finding them. Read the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, if you are too “busy” to do the research.

            The former law students who endorse President Obama are legion. I mentioned one judge; there were several, which surprised me because they are so young. Look it up yourself, Einstein. Satisfying your endless inquiry of ignorance is a matter that is not high up on my agenda.

            The ignorance of Scripture nd the Bible? Those texts were written by men who pretended to know God. What hubris! And their words have been edited and interpreted and misundertood countless times over the intervening centuries, including the countless years when the “texts” were passed on by oral tradition and hand written notations. Ignorance heaped upon stupidity, topped by simple mistakes is what we now have, and much of it is bastardized by self-aggrandizing charlatans.

            I believe I’ve seen folks on this board say that Paul’s letters to Timothy support the proposition that marriage must be limited to a man and a woman. Well, for all practical purposes since the beginning of time, that’s what made biological sense. But the fact is that these “letters” were written by an unknown source years after Paul and Timothy were dead. They were not the writings of Church authorities from the beginning, and they never were relevant to the Constitutional basis for our rights to marry. I would not have cared what Paul said in any event. But his decendants, writing as though they were he? Pure bunk.

            I don’t care what the President’s religion is, or even if he has a “faith:” and I find it hard to believe that you do. It’s none of my business or yours. Grow up. Live in the real world. Your opinions don’t matter to anybody outside of your own house.

            Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Do some good. Be happy.Don’t worry about socialism or communism They don’t grow in American soil.

          • Support'n Clarke says:

            The Tea Party letter was interesting, and I appreciate this group of organized citizens who are encouraging individuals with similar views to have a “direct voice” in planning for the future… although I do not exactly agree with the dire circumstances which make the upcoming election “the most important election of our lifetime”.

            As I scan the tirade of resulting comments (none of which one can take too seriously) a few thoughts come to mind….

            ~ the right to vote is an honor, and we should perhaps be sure what we are voting FOR (not just what we are voting against….)

            ~ the greatest threat to our society is not baseless rhetoric, but the concentration of too much wealth and the power it controls. We must be wary, and not be mislead. (As a borderline Republican I find it difficult to dismiss the Brooking’s Institute report, and Romney’s refusal to disclose personal tax records…)

            ~ opinions are not facts… although people are swayed by them all the time.

            ~ Must we throw arounds words like “socialist”, “communist” and “fascist” as empty and baseless scare tactics? Really, this is America. And as mentioned before, we can organize, share similar views and have a voice in shaping the future of our country. Be PROUD of our diversity!

            ~ Has any other President been referred to with such a lack of respect during his entire term? (Really folks, like it or not, he is “President Obama” after all!)

            In the words of Maya Angelou: “Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet.”
            …………………something to keep in mind as we search for solutions.

          • Hussein? says:

            I would like for Another View to please explain to everyone why he feels the need to express the POTUS’s middle name in every post????? Please do so without the usual, it’s just his name crap too…….

          • Another View says:

            There doesn’t really need to be a reason other than it is his name. And as I recall, he used it–Barack Hussein Obama–in taking the oath of office.

            But there is another reason. It is because it irritates the dickens out of the Left. And that makes me smile.

            I’m smiling now.

          • My 2 Cents says:

            I have a feeling the LEFT might be smiling in November!

          • Another View says:

            The LEFT never smiles. The LEFT thrives on other folks’ misery. The LEFT is constantly angry, demanding ever more from others.

            And in November, the LEFT will be defeated by the Real Americans. Prepare for it.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            Seriously? AV, you just described yourself. You say that Romney will do this and Romney will do that but I can’t figure out where you get your information from. Willard says ‘I’ll fix the economy” but doesn’t say HOW he will. Willard says ‘I’ll make more jobs” but doesn’t say HOW. Willard says “I’ll lower taxes and fix the deficit” but he doesn’t say HOW. However, here are some things he HAS said…

            ‘I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.’ [1]
            ‘I never really called myself pro-choice.’ [2]

            ‘It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.’ [1]
            ‘I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.’ [2]

            ‘I like mandates. The mandates work.’ [1]
            ‘I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.’ [2]

            ‘Roe v. Wade has gone too far.’ [1]
            ‘I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ [2]

            ‘I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.’ [1]
            ‘There’s no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.’ [2]

            As a gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts, he refused to sign a pledge that he would not seek tax increases. As a presidential candidate, he signed it.

            Romney’s downplayed his signing of an assault weapons ban as governor in 2004, but it’s not clear that his policies have shifted as much as his rhetoric has.

            Personally, I prefer flip flops on my feet, not from a presidential candidate.

          • Another View says:

            Why do you support Obama? I have yet to hear that explanation, though I provided a very detailed and substantive itemization of why I supported the Republican candidate. Can you enlighten us? Please be specific.

          • And HOW will BHO lower taxes and fix the deficit?

            HOW will BHO fix the economy?

            HOW will BHO make more jobs?

            You demand answers about/from Romney, you should also demand the same answers about/from Obama.

          • The right’s sole goal is to tell the world how bad (they think) Obama is—That is the number one goal, remember what McConnel said?–That is all the GOP has done=Nothing for the country just trash Obama and the Dems in general–And you wanna vote for that? You go.

          • The left never smiles? Where on earth did that one come from?

      • Sam Card says:

        Three fifths of the slave population were counted in determining the number of Congressmen from slave states. Prior to the US Civil War, there was disproportionate representation of slaveholding states to voters. The 13th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution made the three fifths clause moot. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Law was cruel. Any federal marshall who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave could be fined $1,000. A suspected black slave could not ask for a jury or testify in self defense. In his memoirs, President Ulysses Grant wrote that the Civil War could have been avoided and that demagogues inflamed passions. General Grant won the Siege of Vicksburg on July 4th,1863. The Union gained total control of the Mississippi River from that victory. The Shenandoah Valley was the breadbasket of the Confederacy. The 1864 autumn burning in the Shenandoah Valley was to deprive food to Confederate soldiers for the winter. John Mosby almost captured Phil Sheridan in August 1864. Mosby and his rangers had safe houses to hide. Mosby was responsible for the disruptive Berryville Wagon supply raid. Confederate General Jubal Early did not communicate well to Mosby. However, Mosby did the best he could with his daring raids. In Colonial Virginia history, many settlers were encouraged to migrate south down the Great Wagon Road from Pennsylvania to the fertile Shenandaoh Valley. Some tidewater English brought their slaves to Clarke County. German lutherans, mennonites, Scot-Irish and others were allowed religious freedom, if they would settle the Shenandoah Valley, as a buffer to the Indians on the frontier. Clarke County representative to the two seccesion conventuions voted to stay in the Union. There were many Shenandoah Valley farmers who owned no slaves and had some sympathy to the Union before the bloodshed of the Civil War.

  10. life is good says:

    I believe it will be a close election, because of posts like yours, but Obama will win. Willard Mitt Romney will probably not do that well in the debates – he has a lot of trouble answering even softball questions. How do we actually know what he will do? People will see that Mr. Willard Mitt Romney is George Walker Bush x2 when the campaign really gets going in September and October – I think that will tip the scales to Mr. Obama’s campaign. Then, we will most likely never have another republican in the White House. I think that’s why there is so much vitriol and willful blindness from the right this time around. They are scared – good and good riddance. I am peaceful. Life is good. And I quote from an above post

    “These people make downright scary claims, from calling anyone who disagrees with them communists, fascists, haters of the constitution, to attacking past and present leaders with unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. Patriotism, morals, among other things is questioned, and frankly that bothers me. I am sure you are concerned as well, and hopefully your movement will continue to evolve and enhance your credibility by educating those who spout extreme, and in my mind, unpatriotic and untrue rhetoric. We are all Americans after all.”

    But keep posting, you will help re elect the President.Thank you

    • Another View says:

      Willard Romney has NEVER called anyone a communist or a hater. Where do you get that from?

      I call Obama a fascist because 1) he is one; and, 2) I am not running for public office. But I thank you for your compliment that my posts might cause this election to be close. I never realized the power I held.

      Barack Hussein Obama is scary. Barack Hussein Obama is a threat to freedom and liberty. You should run away fast. You should vote for the liberal Republican, Willard Romney.

      • HL Mencken says:

        The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

        • Bob Brawley says:

          Why don’t you quote something from HL Mencken for a change? The Populace is not alarmed , They are not alarmed of Obamacare. They are not alarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction, They weren’t even alarmed when Bill Clinton soiled an admirers gown. Public opinion is fabricated by pundits , experts and message board loud mouths

    • Bob Brawley says:

      Yea I can’t figure it out why Bill O”Neil likes inflammatory rhetoric . Apparently it works. Obama passed the Jobs bill and that (hurt my feeling) me off. because regulartory considerations were laid aside. Bill wants Ayn Rand capitalism knowing a sucker is born every minute. Financial Market regulation won’t stop Bill’s manipulation but the less the merrier. This has nothing to do with fact its just my opinion. I don’t know Bill personally

    • Earl Ritter says:

      Just in case you haven’t noticed…obama is a socialist…that’s not name calling …his actions speak louder than words. Your not paying attention my friend.

  11. Anna Murray says:

    It is with pride that I write my comment (note the inclusion of my REAL name in my comments).

    I know Mr. Marts personally and I attend his and other Tea Party gatherings as frequently as possible. Before you all ANONYMOUSLY libel him, his organization and people who participate in his organization, I recommend that you attend at least one Tea Party meeting. (Attendance at meetings is free.) In my experience, the meetings are about education and open discussion of issues surrounding our local, state and national governance. All points of view are welcome. To my knowledge no one has ever been turned away or asked to leave a meeting. Usually at least one elected official or candidate attends the meeting in order to speak and take questions.

    Mr. Marts is truly a patriot. I don’t know whether he calls himself one or not. I give him that label. He has served his country noblely, has raised three beautiful children who are upstanding citizens (and for which you should all be grateful) and is a loving and attentive grandfather. He is a very busy man who devotes much of his free time to the effort of educating you, the public, in order that you might make well-informed decisions concerning your governance. The ignorance that has been displayed in so many of these comments is dismaying, to say the least. As has been said by someone of much greater stature than myself, you will elect the government you deserve.

  12. Earl Ritter says:

    Well said Anna and I stand proudly with you ,Jay and the rest!

    • Sam Card says:

      Mike Huckabee is more likeable and trust worthy than Mitt Romney. Polls indicate that President Barack Obama is more likeable than Mitt Romney. Obama was able to save General Motors and Chrysler, while Mitt Romney wanted to let them die, which would have greatly increased Michigan’s unemployment. Both Obama and Romney are both intelligent graduates of Harvard and very devoted to their families. Romney seems evasive, inconsistent and not sincere.

  13. HL Mencken says:

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. – John Kenneth Galbraith

    • Another View says:

      How so? The modern conservative is not asking anyone for anything. Rather, the modern conservative believes in maximum freedom and liberty. The modern conservative believes that hard working Americans should be able to keep their earned monies and wealth, instead of paying it over to a government for redistribution to others. The modern conservative believes in charity, not government welfare.

      The selfish ones are the takers. The government bureaucrats who demand higher and higher pay and benefits, in return for dictating how ordinary Americans must live their daily lives. The recipients of food stamps, disability, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, agriculture subsidies, corporate subsidies, housing, and unemployment payments. These are the ones who are selfish, because they demand that the government seize money from those who earn it and give it to them. They are parasites, and they are killing the host–our country.

    • Bob Brawley says:

      Yea wasn’t that guy , John Kenneth Galbraith a friend of Huge Hefner’s seem I saw his name in Playboy . the only article I read in Playboy was the interview with Castro. I’ve been known to read a sports page., a marketing venue for peanut and beer sales, so I’m informed. . I’m not sure of the meaning of your offered quote. Ayn Rand touted selfishness as a good thing Miss Rand seemed to be conservative I could understand her writing. Jphn Kenneth Galbraith I can’t understand , was he a conservative ?

  14. David Sparkman says:

    This election will be between two different viewpoints over the role of government: those that think that the government should give us free stuff and provide for our needs, and those who believe in individuals should for the most part look after themselves and not be asking their neighbors to fund their lifestyles. There are good arguments for both and so we are divided.

    The fly in the ointment is human nature. If we have to work to provide our means of life, we tend to want to keep that which we earned. If we don’t work to provide our means of life, then we become dependent on the flow of benefits, and don’t try to break out and become productive self providers.

    Given the choices of a non-working lifestyle or a hard stressful lifestyle of work, the 80/20 rule applies: 80% will chose the easy path, 20% will chose the hard path. The practical problem is that the 80% cannot live off of the taxed earnings of the 20% even at a 100% tax rate.

    Ah but you say we are not at 80/20 and you are right. But we are close to the tipping point where those who enjoy government benefits based on taxing those who do work is getting close to a voting block that will have the ability to totally control government. From there it is just a short path to establishing a permanent government based on the philosophy of benefiting those who would not work.

    That might work if there was an endless supply of money. But there isn’t. Money is just a symbol of work preformed: an exchange media. You can print more of it: but that just lessens the value of each unit of money for there is only so much of the products of work to be shared. As we move further toward a government to provide benefits we run into a conundrum: we have to provide the services the growing non-productive segment of society needs – we have to spread the butter thinner and thinner over more pieces of toast because there are fewer and fewer producers.

    I am an engineer, a group of people known for practical solutions, not perfect solutions. And I think we need to move back toward making work more rewarding, even if it makes the non-workers less comfortable. It is not an all or nothing issue, it is an issue of what do we value? Do we value mercy? Yes. Do we value kindness? Yes. Do we value allowing those who can work not work? No. The richness of our nation is build on the proud American Worker as it has always been.

    Recently the government, in the name of any number of wonderful causes, has prevented the creation of American jobs. Again striving for the perfect instead of the practical. They have loaded regulation on top of regulation to no practical effect other than to stifle the economy and slow job growth. You cannot legislate honesty, you cannot legislate morality, you cannot legislate love.

    In the past politicians of both parties have used their offices for personal gain, and for impractical boondoggles – wasting the product of our labor to buy their reelection and their hold on power. There is something really wrong in government trying to legislate love, and taking over the function of charity.

    Something has to be done and we cannot leave it in the hands of those politicians that enrich themselves while placing more burdens on we the workers. For this reason, I have joined with a group of like-minded citizens to try to bring honesty and practicality back to government. Yes I have joined a local tea party. “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country” – JFK. That is what it is all about.

  15. Bob Brawley says:

    Hey Dave my eyes started to roll back in their sockets when you started typing 20/80 but I got that far in your letter . Conservatives should embrace the influx of spanish speaking illegals because with them you get the job creators . Illegals have less concern of ethic behavior because their goal is job creation in hopes of enriching themselves . Are the American people going to hold back the future job creators ? If an illegal steals an identity, drives a car or truck with out a valid lic. he should be held libel. I’m not talking about overlooking illegal activity . but a charitable view to illegals. Personal views because they are the future. And the future greatness of this State any state

    Dave I didn’t read your whole letter my post is not a rebuttal to yours but I would like to add that the 20% are many illegals as well as legal immirgrents

    • David Sparkman says:

      Not sure where you are coming from Bob. Yes a lot of the illegals are looking for the land of opportunity as in work. My reference to the 20% willing to work in the face of government largess was in no way aimed at immigrants. But you are right. My daughter’s father-in-law was kicked out of Indonesia after WW2 for not being pure Indonesian. He married a half Indonesian half dutch woman in the Netherlands and immigrated to the States in the 50’s with a cow. From being almost penniless he is now worth over 5 million by hard work. And he is now an American Citizen and proud of it.

      But much of the social welfare costs of California are due to illegals gaming the system as well. So it is a mixed bag. I think Romney may well solve this problem, though no one is talking about it and in ways no one is talking about. He is a deal maker and will find a way to solve this problem and add those who want the American dream and are willing to work for it to our ranks. We will see.

  16. Another View says:

    Illegals are the future of this country, and Virginia? Illegal aliens are job creators? Job creators lack ethics? Conservatives should embrace lawbreakers?

    Let me guess; you are going to vote for Barack Hussein Obama for the second time. It shows.

  17. Biff Hussein Koch III says:

    Let me guess, Another Hussein View, you are voting for the dime store manikin.

    • Another View says:

      I am voting against Barack Hussein Obama. I am voting against socialized medicine. I am voting against welfare for corporations, and the shiftless and immoral individual. I am voting against the immoral war on productivity, work and wealth. I am voting against government’s suppression of religion and conscience. I am voting for freedom and liberty.

      • Your voting against welfare for corporations? Who’s your write-in candidate?

      • I am voting against Willard Mitt Romney. I am voting against tax breaks for about 5 percent of high income Americans, which I will have to pay for. I am voting against Willard Mitt Romney’s committment to nothing. I am voting against prejudice and supression of people’s and individual lifestyles and legal personal choices. I am voting against a man who stands for nothing except to placate whomever is “attacking” him at the moment. A man who is scared of whom he might offend and in the end, offends many. I am voting against returning to the failed policies of the Bush years. I am voting to retain Medicare and Social Security, which I have paid into for 40 years and am entitled to collect, without being labeled a taker or shiftless. I am voting for freedom and liberty.

        • But some odd people, not maybe to his liking, do support Willard Mitt Romney, and I hope I cleaned this up enough for CDN, Monica’s navy dress notwithstanding:

          ” Retired adult film actress Jenna Jameson voiced support for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at (an adult men’s club) Thursday, CBS San Francisco reports…”

          “I’m very looking forward to a Republican being back in office,” Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city’s South of Market neighborhood. “When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office.” (I agree with that one. When your not rich, maybe not so much for a plastic man)

          “Jameson isn’t the first in the business to praise Romney: Ron Jeremy recently called Romney “a good man” and “such an amazing father.” In an interview earlier this year, (adult male actor) titan Michael Lucas said he would “of course” support the former Massachusetts governor.

          Now, since I am a tolerant sheeple, I personally don’t care what they do for a living, but really, don’t those with “American Family Values” do care? Or not.

        • Another View says:

          Neither you nor anyone else “pays” for tax cuts. The money belongs to those who earn it, not those who want to spend it.

          And you are NOT entitled to Medicare and Social Security. I hate to break it to you, but both programs are Ponzi schemes, on the verge of insolvency. Your taxes went to pay to give benefits to others, not for your own care. There is nothing waiting for you; the government has lied to you, and you bought it, all evidence to the contrary.

          You are not voting for freedom and liberty if you vote for Barack Hussein Obama. You are voting for the chains of the welfare state. You are voting for fascistic control of the economy. You are voting to become a slave to the State. You are voting against the Constitution.

    • I am voting for freedom as well…I want the government to get out of my life. This democratic republic that we live in, was created to protect the individual from the Federal Government…not to have the gov run our lives. It was created with explicit enumerated powers describing all that it could do and everything else was left to the people and the state.

      I do not labor for the pleasure of obama…I do not work so that he can steal from me and give to others what I have earned.

      • I wish we had better choices than career politicians who are party hard-liners.

        • Another View says:

          How can someone who takes the pseudonym “Right Winger” be against conservative “hard liners”? Perhaps you are more moderate in outlook, having more in common with Olympia Snowe than Jim DeMint? In which case, you should change your pseudonym to R I N O !

          • If you are really as smart as you purport yourself to be, you wouldn’t assume such things. At least I am consistent in my moniker. Go back to arguing with yourself, it’s far more amusing.

          • Another View says:

            It was a serious query. Are you with Jim DeMint and Ron Johnson, or Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe?

            You stated that you are against hard liners on both sides of the aisle. That would logically lead one to believe that you are not a “Right Winger”. If I am wrong, please explain. It was your words that created the confusion.

          • My “Right Winger” moniker has NOTHING to do with politics. But, you already knew that from before. The only confusion is on your end.

            I despise politicians, and politics.

          • “Right Winger” was his position on his school soccer team, AV. If you’d been paying attention, you’d know this.

          • Another View says:

            I did not realize that he was French. And I do not recall reading that. But thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps it would have been easier if he had answered my question in a straightforward fashion, instead of being evasive.

          • Evasive? How? Fact is, you assumed the moniker was political. And you were wrong. No one’s fault but yours.

          • Another View says:

            Again, I am sorry. I don’t follow foreign sports like soccer. I enjoy American sports like football, basketball, and baseball. It would never occur to me that “Right Winger” stood for a soccer position.

            But you may have forgot, I did query him about this moniker, and he was evasive. So it would have been cleared up then, if he so desired. He did not.

            But HEY! Thanks for piling on! Good one!

          • clarke conservative says:

            If a person is arguing politics, and has a pseudo “Right-Winger” one could easily interprete it as a clue to their political leanings, ie. clarke conservative.

            I have yet to hear “Right-Winger” talk about hockey, and being in Virginia and not Buffalo, even if we had, please do not suppose those of us from the ‘South’ will know the names of the positions.

          • Perhaps it would have been better for you to do a little research on this site before continuing to jump to conclusions about someone. But then again, you knew that already.

  18. Disgruntled Voter says:

    Vote third party!

    • That’s like voting FOR Obama.

      Maybe one day the Tea Party can get it’s strength up to a point where they can nominate a well funded, credible, conservative candidate.

      I look forward to that day

      • Bob Brawley says:

        See sarge a third party has to start out with a fence sitter like John Mc Cain and Mitt Romney used to be I supported both in my approval. Then the Third party can whip them in shape to tow the party line. The sucker, me,. still sees the candidate as a fence sitter even after he has been converted So to have a creditable candidate you need the support of the suckers as well as the rabbles

  19. jimmyJoeBobBoy says:

    WOW, it’s easy to see that all the ultra liberal teachers that are living off the taxpayers dime have tons of time to snipe away at this poor ‘Another View’ Gladiator. Kudos (what the “L” is a kudo anyway? Has anybody ever photographed one?) to “Another View for continuing a worthy but futile joust.
    Calling all liberals – go to the CDN and dump on the Tea Party.
    The Only thing I fault the Tea Party for is for running that clown against Harry Reid giving that bozo a free pass to 6 more years, never voting on a budget, and all that ails America. So come on all you liberals, click on the thumbs down button real quick like. Feel all smug and everything while doing it. I’ll be back on Nov 9th to click on a thumbs up from some Tea Party comment. BTW, the up digit, are we real sure it’s a thumb?

  20. I was at the Farmers Market this weekend. It was a very lonely looking DNC booth. The lady sitting there looked like the Maytag repairman.

    OTOH, business was good on the other side at the republican booth.

    That’s bodes badly for dems, especially in liberal, white Clarke County.

    92 days until the nightmare is over

  21. Obama lost Clarke County I believe in 2008?

    Big deal, and not surprising btw.

    • Vote in 2008
      McCain 3,840
      Obams 3,457
      “Third-Party” candidates 116
      write-ins 18


      Bush 3,741
      Kerry 2,699
      Third Party 62
      write-ins 3


      Bush 2,883
      Gore 2,166
      Third Parties 233
      write-ins 2

      • Sam Card says:

        Third Party Discussion

        Theodore Roosevelt created the Bull Moose Party when he was denied the Republican nomination in 1912. Woodrow Wison won that election. “Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick” was Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy, when he had been US President. Ross Perot ran for President in 1992 and 1996. In 1992, Perot finished with 19% of the vote. Ross Perot disagreed with NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement). Perot said that the treaty would generate an obnoxious loud vacuum cleaner sucking noise as numerous factory jobs would quickly relocate to Mexico. Ross Perot disapproved of too much outsourcing of jobs. The comeback kid, Bill Clinton, won against George H.W. Bush in 1992. Bill Clinton (Slick Willy) won because conservative republicans were displeased that President H.W. Bush did not honor his (Read My Lips, NO NEW TAXES) promise in 1988, when he was campaigning against Michael Dukakis. As for Jesse Jackson in 1988, he should have ran for Washington, D.C. mayor instead of seeking to be US President. Jesse Jackson had the charisma to win as mayor of Washington, D.C and he would have been far superior to the D.C. mayors that have held that job in the last 30 years. Ralph Nader was the third party spoiler in the 2000 election between George Walker Bush and Al Gore. Ralph Nader represented the Green Party, which had been influential in Germany. The egotist Nader took away Florida voters who may have voted for Al Gore in 2000. Ralph Nader harmed his consumer advocate agenda by enabling the election of George “Wrecking Ball” Bush. Al Gore won the popular vote but there was the controversial 2000 US Supreme Court decision ruling in favor of Bush. President William Jefferson Clinton had managed to reduce the federal budget. Compassionate conservative George W. Bush cut taxes and grew the government. Prior to his election, George “Warrior” Bush had said that he did not believe in nation building and wanted a humble foreign policy. Dick Cheney got his way.

  22. Bob Brawley says:

    I’m reading a newspaper onthe otherside of the Top and Farm Owners don’t want Farmers to conduct the business of a farm because productivity of a Farm interferes with Farm owners Estate. The Farm owners don’t need productivity other than the tax deduction they get for having an apple cart set out on the road “Help yourself the homemade sign will say” but they are adament that no Farm production be conducted in Agriculture zone area.. Now the Tea Party( not affiliated with any political party) steps in to put pressure on the Zoning office in support of the Farmer against the Farm Owners. What does the Tea Party (not affiliated with any political party ) in Clarke County do? They complain about the Government for giving out free rides while they are riding the Governments Free Ride.

  23. * WORK HARDER *
    Millions on Welfare Depend on you

  24. ElinorDashwood says:

    Things I like about President Obama (because AV and RW asked)…
    1. President Obama has brought us out of Iraq where we never belonged in the first place, chasing fictional WMD’s.
    2. President Obama sent Admiral William McRaven and Seal Team 6 to finish Osama bin Laden. (if you want to argue that Obama had nothing to do with it, read the last paragraph in the Time magazine article. McRaven talks about Obama’s leadership and intelligence.)
    3. President Obama passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to hold Wall Street accountable, prevent future financial crises, and end the era of “too big to fail.” Wall Street reform ensures that if a financial company fails, it will be Wall Street that pays the price—not the American people.
    4. President Obama enacted a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, like over-the-limit charges and hidden costs.
    5. President Obama has passed tax cuts for small businesses 18 times in under four years.
    6. President Obama created the National Export Initiative, an effort to help businesses compete in the global marketplace and double our nation’s exports by 2015—a target that is on track.
    7. President Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which cut taxes for small businesses and 95% of working families.
    8. President Obama kept all his promises to help the Veterans Administration help veteran’s. One was passing the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009, a permanent solution to the yearly problem of Congress failing to pass a VA budget before the end of the fiscal year.
    9. President Obama knows that the tax rates from the Clinton era were working and wants to bring us back to that. He knows the majority of this country is the middle class and if the middle class have enough jobs and money to be consumers, it will help the country.
    10. President Obama supports women. The whole abortion rights and free contraceptives issue should be decided by women for the same reason I only go to female gynecologists. Going to a male gynecologist is like going to a mechanic that’s never owned his own car. Keep the men out of it.

    You told me to be specific so I was, and I didn’t have to fill in with nonsense, AV. I could have kept going, like the Health Care Act and understanding climate change and endorsing clean energy. The bottom line, AV and RW, he has integrity, diplomacy and compassion for the common man… virtues Willard Mitt Romney is completely devoid of.

    • Elinor, you profess to be so well read, yet you obviously didn’t read my post. I didn’t ask WHY you liked BHO. I asked the same questions you asked of WMR. I’ll help you out again.

      And HOW will BHO lower taxes and fix the deficit?

      HOW will BHO fix the economy?

      HOW will BHO make more jobs?

      • How will WMR do the same?

        • That’s the point. Both candidates should be forthcoming with those answers. No support should be given until they do. Nobody is asking both candidates the same questions. Why?

          Because the extremists on both sides are blinded by their desire for power and money instead of desire for the good of the country.

      • ElinorDashwood says:

        Well RW, I assumed you read well enough to get the information from my post above, I didn’t think I had to spell it out for you but I guess I can.

        TAXES- He will lower taxes by returning to (if Congress lets him) “tax rates from the Clinton era” Economists know that it was The Bush tax plan, two wars funded and failure to regulate big business that caused the economic tailspin our country is in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, $107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000 before it was dissipated by huge tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration.

        JOBS- Since February of 2010 the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase. The private sector in an economy is made up of all businesses and firms owned by ordinary members of the general public. It also consists of all the private households in which people live. The public sector is an economy owned and controlled by government. It consists of government businesses. Bush was great at creating government jobs but not very good at creating jobs in the private sector (look it up).

        ECONOMY- He will help the economy by helping America “compete in the global marketplace and double our nation’s exports by 2015” and by strengthening the middle class which has the largest base in our country.

        As I’ve said before, you can’t fly eight years into space and expect to get back in four. Not possible.

        “You demand answers about/from Romney, you should also demand the same answers about/from Obama.” RW Still waiting on anything you’d like to provide on how Willard means to fix the same issues.
        “though I provided a very detailed and substantive itemization of why I supported the Republican candidate. Can you enlighten us? Please be specific.” –AV I have been much more specific and logical in my response than just saying “because he’s not Willard”, over and over.

        • Another View says:

          TAXES–Economists do not “know” that the Bush tax cuts, the wars and failure to regulate caused the current economic crisis. But fine, I’ll play. If we raise taxes to Clinton era levels, are you willing to lower spending to Clinton era levels? And are you willing to acknowledge that raising taxes to Clinton era levels means raising taxes on the so-called working and middle classes?

          JOBS–Quit reading the Obama campaign website. It makes you look foolish.

          ECONOMY–Not very specific. Sounds like Democrat talking points taken from certain websites.

        • “…TAXES- He will lower taxes by returning to (if Congress lets him)…”

          And therein lies the rub. He had a Democratic majority. It didn’t happen.

          Why? Because neither party wants it to happen. All they do is blame each other for inaction, while they continue to raise their own pay, increase their benefits, and pad their nest eggs.

          If Romney wins, he’ll have a Republican majority, and still more nothing will happen.
          You want me to promote Romney. I won’t. That’s his responsibility.

          This country is doomed to fail if it’s citizens continue to elect officeials who allow big money and pandering to special interests run everything. Politics should not be a career choice. And those of you who keep saying “my candidate is the lesser of two evils” ought to be ashamed.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            All that has to be done is sit tight and do nothing, let congress and the wealthy scream and shout. If no agreement is reached as of Jan. 1, 2013, Bush’s tax laws will revert to the Clinton era tax laws that actually help the middle class instead of the wealthy. The brinkmanship constantly used by republicans to get what they want will backfire in regards to taxes. They don’t understand that there are many that understand the advantages of ‘going off the fiscal cliff”. They try to make it sound catastrophic and scary instead of beneficial to most Americans. It’s only scary to the wealthy.

          • Another View says:

            But Elinor! Reverting to the Clinton era tax levels will raise taxes on the so-called working and middle classes. How does that help them?

            Moreover, if you are advocating “going off the fiscal cliff”–like that irresponsible demagogue Patty Murray–then you are willing to risk the elimination of much, if not all federal social spending. The problem, you see, is uncontrollable spending.

            The rich will not be hurt. Indeed, even if you confiscated all the rich’s wealth, you could not pay for Obama’s spending.

            No, the folks who will be hurt will be those whom you claim to care for the most. Go ahead. Make my day.

          • It’s the peeing contest on both sides that is the problem. Republicans AND Democrats do it, to the detriment of the country.


          • You make much sense. But I think the democratic congress felt Obama was not liberal enough, am I right? Poor guy, damed if he does, dammed if he doesn’t, meaning, he tried to take the middle road, and the far left extremists blocked him. Get rid of far left and far right and something might get done.

          • Another View says:

            Obama has never taken the “middle road”. He was a FAR LEFT Senator and he is a FAR LEFT President.

          • I said that the democratic congress felt so. Kindly read what was posted, to use your words.

          • Another View says:

            “. . . he [Barack Hussein Obama] tried to take the middle road . . . .”

            I did. These were your words.

    • Another View says:

      Thank you for being specific. It is now clear that you prefer government directed solutions, government regulation of the economy and government regulation of Americans’ lives. You also believe in the redistribution of wealth, so you are a socialist. That is all fine, as it makes it much easier to have a discussion. I know where you stand, and you know where I stand.

      Two (2) things. One, since in your point 10, you make it clear that only women should be involved in certain decision making, I would proffer that to be consistent, you would agree that only men should be involved in certain decision making. Therefore you should refrain from making points 1 and 2, as the military and war are primarily engaged in by men, historically and factually. You really need not have any opinion. Moreover, it is high time to get women out of the military all together. Homosexuals too. We need to bring back the armies of Washington, Grant, Pershing, and Patton, and get rid of the Oprahization of our armed forces.

      Second, we shall definitely have to disagree with your opinion about Barack Hussein Obama’s integrity, diplomacy and compassion for the common man. He has proven himself to be a liar. He has proven that he is totally incapable of understanding what it takes to fix our economic malaise, and indeed makes it worse each passing day. His actions do not help the common man, they enslave the common man. And that is not compassion, it is tyranny.

      Again, thank you for the clarification.

  25. Roscoe Evans says:

    This last comment by The Apologist is so inane that I finally am convinced: he writes only to generate responses and to increase traffic on this site.

    Is he paid to do this? I hope not, because his insistent namecalling is the time honored building block of haters and hate groups, and we don’t need any more hate in this country, now or ever.

    • Another View says:

      What comment are you referring to? I called no one a name, and was politely thankful and gracious to Elinor for her contribution. There was nothing hateful or rude in my post (there never is).

    • “…he writes only to generate responses and to increase traffic on this site….”

      Isn’t that what “we’re all” doing? I wouldn’t be surprised if half of the monikers that seem to appear and disappear daily here are all the work of one or two people who have nothing better to do than create arguments amongst themselves by creating pseudonyms that are diametrically opposed to everything they say, just to see themselves type and make it appear that what they say is relevant anyway.

  26. Another View says:

    Roscoe Evans:

    Thank you for your response. And in turn . . .

    “You believe in the Constitution that was written to preserve the status quo of an agrarian, plantation society, predicated on race-based slavery by descent. I.e. the pre 1800 society that enriched us all with its free labor, for 220 years.”


    “I believe in the modern Constitution and the nation that overthrew that nonsense. So, going tit for tat with you about :the” Constitution is pointless. We are talking about two different animals, and yours is extinct. Mine is supported entirely by prevailing case law, which you reject in favor of your own comic book version of the document. Too bad for you, and those who are ignorant enough to agree with you.”


    “Community organizers do what lawyers are too busy to do: they solve problems for people at the bottom of the economic heap. (If you are a lawyer, which I doubt), you’re obligated to do a little pro bono work yourself. If enough of us did it, poor folks would not need community organizers. So, Since that issue is so problemmatic for you, solve it yourself.”


    “ACORN: Bullcrap.”


    “The Equal Protection Clause is the basis of judicial decisions that have found that adult Americans can marry same sex partners. You can read the cases that led to those decisions for yourself, if you are capable of finding them. Read the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, if you are too “busy” to do the research.”


    “The former law students who endorse President Obama are legion. I mentioned one judge; there were several, which surprised me because they are so young. Look it up yourself, Einstein. Satisfying your endless inquiry of ignorance is a matter that is not high up on my agenda.”


    “The ignorance of Scripture nd the Bible? Those texts were written by men who pretended to know God. What hubris! And their words have been edited and interpreted and misundertood countless times over the intervening centuries, including the countless years when the “texts” were passed on by oral tradition and hand written notations. Ignorance heaped upon stupidity, topped by simple mistakes is what we now have, and much of it is bastardized by self-aggrandizing charlatans.”


    “I believe I’ve seen folks on this board say that Paul’s letters to Timothy support the proposition that marriage must be limited to a man and a woman. Well, for all practical purposes since the beginning of time, that’s what made biological sense. But the fact is that these “letters” were written by an unknown source years after Paul and Timothy were dead. They were not the writings of Church authorities from the beginning, and they never were relevant to the Constitutional basis for our rights to marry. I would not have cared what Paul said in any event. But his decendants, writing as though they were he? Pure bunk.”


    “I don’t care what the President’s religion is, or even if he has a “faith:” and I find it hard to believe that you do. It’s none of my business or yours. Grow up. Live in the real world. Your opinions don’t matter to anybody outside of your own house.”



    “Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Do some good. Be happy.Don’t worry about socialism or communism They don’t grow in American soil.”


    • ElinorDashwood says:

      Has anyone ever told you that using caps lock is the text or post equivalent of shouting?


      Here, again, you proffer your over-heated opinion as a “fact” to support your mission to defeat Obama. Yet, as very clearly indicated below in Article VI, 3rd paragraph of your most-hallowed document (i.e. the US Constitution), there is NO religious test OR requirement for any elected office in the federal government.

      “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

      It is sad, really, that you rail so one-note-esque against those who disagree with your flawed logic and misplaced hatred and bile and loathing. Unless someone avers lock-step with you, they are summarily and tritely dismissed as less-than-American or whatever. You are in the decided minority, have been, and – sadly – are wasting your considerable education and energy on remaining so.

      • Another View says:

        I know that the Constitution forbids a religious test as qualification for high office. It should. BUT PLEASE NOTE, that the Constitution applies only to restrain government. Citizens are not so restrained.

        I did not argue that there should be a religious test for holders of high office. I opined that only God fearing men should be elected to high office. That is my opinion, and I exercise it, as do, I am sure, many others.

        I do not know if I am in the minority or not; neither do you. But on this question, I stand with both Washington and Adams, both of whom opined on this matter, and whose opinions are consistent with mine. If we are in the minority, I am comfortable there.

  27. ElinorDashwood says:

    “Therefore you should refrain from making points 1 and 2, as the military and war are primarily engaged in by men, historically and factually. You really need not have any opinion.” -AV

    War and the military AFFECT everyone, men women and children. I will tell you that I agree that women shouldn’t be in the infantry based purely on this. If an infantry soldier is wounded, his squad carry his body, weapons, rucksack and ammo out of the fray. A full rucksack weighs about 65 lbs. A soldier wearing a helmet and body armor, a minimum of 170lbs. Women lack the physical strength to be effective in these situations and that is the ONLY reason they shouldn’t be in combat.
    My husband is an 11 Bravo combat veteran. I certainly deserve an opinion where the military and war are concerned.

    • Another View says:

      No you don’t. If you believe that ONLY women should have decision making authority in the areas of abortion and free contraceptives–which is what you wrote–then you have NO RIGHT to any opinion on the military or war.

      Women are incapable of procreation by themselves, so their decisions on abortion and contraceptives affect everyone. Certainly they affect their husband/boyfriend, as well as the unborn baby. If you believe in restricting decision making authority in this area, then consistency requires you to relinquish decision making authority on the military and war.

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        “… so their decisions on abortion and contraceptives affect everyone.”

        The most inane of many inane comments I have heard on the subject.

        Men are jerks. That’s all anybody needs to know about the abortion “controversy.” They get women pregnant, then hit the road.

        And logical consistency as a reason for leaving war-making authority to men? Logical consistency is the next least forceful argument one can make, next to your usual ad hominem attacks. Stick to the Constitution, buddy. That at least gives you something to quote and to fake some sort of knowledge.

        Elinor, you are a breath of fresh air, in a cigar-stunk humidor of a room, often empty of rational thought. Even when I disagree, I enjoy your opinions. Thank you.

        • Another View says:

          “Men are jerks. That’s all anybody needs to know about the abortion ‘controversy'”.

          And you claim to have won most of your trials? What happened; did you secure a lot of default judgments? Because your reasoning lacks any reason.

          Pregnancy requires 2 parties. For Elinor to claim that only 1 party should have any say in the matter is just plain wrong. If a woman decides to abort a child, that decision most certainly does affect the child’s father. And it certainly affects the child. To claim otherwise is pure nonsense.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            Tell it to the judge, who will authorize an abortion on the spot, regardless of what a husband, boyfriend, lover, rapist, father or any other male jerk has to say to limit a woman’s right to protect her own body from additional assaults by men.

          • So if the woman is attacked, a victim of incest, or her “man” deserts her after forgetting “his” protection he promised he had on, mom to be must consult the “father”? I think not.

            That scenario aside, women are in fact the final decision makers on whether to carry the child to term. Now, I would want the woman to communicate with the father, especially if married, but it is not necessary, by law.

          • Another View says:

            Both you and the liar are ignoring what Elinor wrote, and my response. Elinor demands that abortion and free contraceptives be solely decided by women. And my response is that in order to be consistent, war and the military must be solely decided by men.

            It has nothing to do with incest, rape, forgetting or the law. It is not a constitutional question. Lighten up, and read what is written before you hit “Post Comment”.

          • I am very lightened up, so do take your own advice before you blow a vein. 🙂

  28. Roscoe Evans says:

    If I recall correctly, The Apologist (for the antebellum, agrarian, plantation and slave based South), claimed, on the basis of his legal expertise, that “Obamacare” would be found unconstitutional.

    Sorry, but the affordable care act is getting more popular support with each passing day. And your opinion has proved to be for naught.

    Next time you go to court, be sure to tell the presiding judge/magistrate/decisionmaker (I have no idea where you claim to practice), that you don’t accept judge made law unless it comports with your personal Constitution.

    I never fib. I do lie, because, when necessary, all men lie. I doubt I lie as much as you do, though. And dealing with you necessitates no lies for me. You can catch up on the Obama supporting students on your own, or not. I don’t care. You no doubt would just call them names.

    I’ve been a member of the bar for nearly 40 year. I’ve won the majority of my trials and appeals. I don’t claim to be the best, but I know that I am better than a name-calling blowhard.

    You have called people on this board, and our President, fascist/communist/socialist, etc. You seek to engender hatred. for your verbal opponents. What sort of man does that? Certainly not an intelligent, intellectually honest, lawyer who is proud to be a citizen of the U.S.A. You show disrespect for your fellow man, and for our democracy on a daily basis. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    You’ve talked about overturning a second Obama administration, and implied you’d use violence. You’ve talked sedition, and you sound like you mean it. That’s just sick.

    Slavery remains a stain on this nation’s soul. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that you claim the wrong side won the Civil War. Fine. That’s so very much in tune with your avowed seditionist leanings.

    Nobody needs to fear God, and no President needs to pass a religious test.

    You don’t know Jesus, and you show no respect for him or what he may have said.

    Go ahead. be hateful and hysterical.

    I’m going to work harder. Earn more money. Pay more taxes. Do some good. And have some fun.

    • Another View says:

      1. Everyone needs to fear God. And while no President need pass a religious test, no responsible, educated voter should cast a vote for a non-believer.

      2. I do know Jesus, and he said what I wrote he said. You cannot refute it, so you attack me personally.

      3. Slavery is over. You need to quit dwelling in the past, and get over it. Not that you experienced it; you just wish to be a victim by proxy. How sad.

      4. I have called people on this Board and the President socialists, fascists and communists, based upon their writings, and in the case of the President, his actions. Why are you afraid of the truth? Please call me a conservative, an originalist (concerning the Constitution) or a Christian. I embrace my beliefs, and proudly proclaim them. Why do you run from yours? Why are you afraid of the truth?

      5. I’m not a liar, but I acknowledge that you profess to be one. I’m not surprised, but it does disappoint me.

      6. You need to quit watching MSNBC. Obamacare is not getting more popular. It is at least as unpopular as it always has been, and its unpopularity is increasing as people are faced with its realities. It will be repealed. When it is, you and others will have to buy your own healthcare. As you should.

      7. What bar are you a member of? My guess is–if you are a lawyer (you admitted to lying)–you were a government or so-called public interest lawyer. No private client would pay their own money for legal reasoning such as you offer in defense of your positions. No. You are a true believer, and wish to use the law to attain your political goals. That is not lawyering, by any definition.

      8. I make successful arguments all the time–every day, in fact–on behalf of my clients, using the Constitution. Not judge created law, but the actual Constitution. And private clients pay me handsomely to do so. How ’bout that?!?

      Quit name calling. Read more. Educate yourself. Make more reasoned arguments.

      • We are a diverse country and no, not everyone needs to fear “God” , because we have freedom of religion here, as well as separation of church and state.

        I do not look at a person’s religion when casting a vote. As long as the person is “moral”, who am I to say what religion, if any, that person should be? I didn’t much care for the Jewish scare when Lieberman was a vice presidential candidate….”he can’t work on Saturday, what if there is a crisis” was the mantra of some.

        I don’t much care for those who think a Mormon is a non Christian, because it doesn’t matter.

        AV judges people very narrowly: You must be Christian, you must be heterosexual, you must fear God. Or you are not somehow “worthy”

        I personally don’t think Jesus would like that attitude, but hey, you personally know him and all.

        • Another View says:

          If not for God, how do you determine someone’s morals?

          Jews and Christians believe in God. I have never said anything about favoring Christians, but I did say, and repeat, everyone should fear God. It is foolish not to do so.

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        The Constitution that you claim to know guarantees to us all the right to political opinions and religions of all sorts. Americans are entitled to believe in communism or fascism, socialism or Rastafarianism if they choose; or in any other theory of politics, economics, or religion. We also have the right to believe in nothing at all.

        Nobody has come here to proclaim a belief in any of philosophy other than traditional American orthodoxy; yet you have chosen to throw epithets at other commentors as though they have, and as though they are not entitled to their beliefs, whatever they may be.

        You have shown no evidence of being a Christian, a conservative, a lawyer or a constitutionist. I really do not care how you make your money, and I do not care what you claim to be.

        • Another View says:

          You yourself wrote earlier today that socialism/communism/fascism “does not grow here”. Have you changed your mind? Or were you lying earlier?

          Traditional American orthodoxy includes a belief in God. The first settlers came here looking for religious freedom; freedom to practice their belief in God. Not Buddha, not Allah, but God. The Founders believed in God. Presidents from Washington forward have invoked God. Thanksgiving is a national holiday. God is traditional American orthodoxy.

          Traditional American orthodoxy includes a belief in private property. It is in the Constitution. American orthodoxy rejects socialism, communism and fascism. Democrats used to know this–Truman, Kennedy and Johnson all fought against communism. Indeed, the Democrat Party’s rejection of communism caused, in part, Henry Wallace’s split from the party in the 1948 presidential election.

          Traditional American orthodoxy includes a belief in individual rights. It is in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence. It is in the writings of the Founders. Can you believe in communism/socialism/fascism and exist unmolested in America? Sure. Can you believe in communism/socialism/fascism and be considered an American? No. Communism/socialism/fascism are antithetical to freedom and liberty; freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of America.

          Read more. Educate yourself. Preserve freedom and liberty. Act like a real American.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            Communism and socialism will not thrive in American soil. Yes, I said that, and it is true. And none of the other commentors who have responded to you have said they were communists or socialists, or have said anything in their remarks to suggest they were. That conclusion came from your psychosis.

            I do not recall saying that fascism cannot survive in the United States. If I did, you have proved me wrong. You are an idolator, a bibliolator, and yes, a fascist. Your rigid mindset is classic.

            I don’t care who you consider American, or what you consider American beliefs. Your have no authority over anyone, and your opinion, as noted earlier, is meaningless; and our Constitution guarantees that it will remain so.

            As for lying, I do it when it is essential for my clients’ interests and for my family’s well-being. For the ignorant among us, the ‘essential” requirement assures that it is a very rare occurrance. And all of my lies have been of the sort that Jesus would have forgiven.

            But I confess, I tell homely women that they are lovely, once a week, at least. Not because I am a leacher (like Ben Franklin, a FF that you seem to ignore), but because my uncle convinced me that it is a small way to spread a little joy.

          • Another View says:

            You are not and never have been an attorney. NO ATTORNEY LIES “when it is essential for [his] . . . clients’ interests”. You sir, stand exposed as a fraud.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            Hold on, AV. You don’t even know if I am a ‘sir” in real life, so how about ditching the pomposity about lawyers. (I am a lawyer. I try to avoid using “attorney” cause it sounds so pompous, but my black clients always called me Attorney Evans. I admit, I was flattered.)

            There are two qualifiers to my conscious “lies:” they must be essential, and they must be of the sort that Jesus would forgive.

            If you were mature enough, you’d know that many great lawyers lied. Perry Mason did it. So did Clarence Darrow. Heck, Darrow even bought jurors, or at least rented them.

            Next time you are chatting with Jesus, ask him about me. No doubt, he will explain to you how some of my lies are easily forgiven. if he can’t recall me by name, remind him that I’m the guy who pleaded his client guilty so she’d get medical care in prison. I could have pleaded her down to a lesser charge, but she was homeless, and would have died of exposure in the winter. Instead, she got jail time, a warm bed, and treatment for breast cancer. If he recalls that, please don’t ask him anything else about me. But you will know he’s got the right guy/gal.

            Work harder, and so on…

          • Another View says:

            I have never met a woman named “Roscoe”. You would be the first.

            Lying is a sin. Read the Ten Commandments.

            Lying by a lawyer is never necessary, never essential, and it is grounds for disbarment–IN EVERY JURISDICTION IN THIS COUNTRY (and I know, as I practice nationwide). I defy you to identify a single jurisdiction that permits lying by attorneys under any circumstances.

            Perry Mason–a fictional character; you did know that, didn’t you?–NEVER LIED. I’ve read every Perry Mason novel, and seen every episode at least 5 times. I own the DVD collection. He never lied.

            Clarence Darrow was a hack. He was a political figure. He was the epitome of immoral. He was a criminal. And he is no role model for any attorney, aspiring or established. Rather, he is a lesson on how not to practice law.
            Lie less. Seek forgiveness. Act like a real American.

          • clarke conservative says:

            Wasn’t Perry Mason a fictional character? … and Darrow was so crooked even the labor unions dropped him as their attorney.

            If these are great lawyers then Barack Obama is a great President …

    • “… I do lie…”

      Then why should anyone ever listen to you?

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        Because I admit that I do, unlike the other guy, who swears that he never does.

        If you disagree that everybody does it, clearly you are inexperienced, ignorant or both. (that’s an old joke, but true. You do know the one about the three biggest lies, don’t you?) Anyway, I say everybody lies because that is simply the truth. Go ahead, read Science magazine, Scientific American, National Geo. Any science journal will tell you that humans do it routinely. You can be fundamentally honest, and still lie. Sometimes, it simply is necessary.

        As for listening to me, do what you wish. I don’t give you my opinion about the Constitution, and lie that it is so. My comments about the law and history are based on decided cases and majority opinions. When I give an unvarnished personal opinion, I make that clear. Example: I think Governor Bob is a dope. And that’s no lie.

        Soccer player, huh? I played soccer in high school. Also football, and track. I mastered the bicycle kick, was a fullback, and scored a goal. My team was miserable. We scored two goals all season.

        As for listening to you, sometimes you seem smarmy. But sometimes we all are. I think you generally are doing your best.

        Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Do some good. Be happy.

        It’s the American way. Thinking it’s socialist is just dumb. Go ahead, read up on the reasons for a progressive income tax. Don’t be fooled by the Mittster.

        • Another View says:

          The progressive income tax is a basic tenet of Marxism.

          Go. Read upon it. It’s there. It is also a tenet of the Communist Party. And interestingly, the Democrat Party.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            So what?

            Who is in fear of Marxists, communists, or even Democrats these days?

            If an economic theory works, fine. If not toss it on the scrapheap of history. Democracies do that, and we’re still a democracy.

            You sound like you hide under your bed at night, afraid the Keynesians might come from the Planet Keynes, and eat you up.

            Grow up. Work Harder. Earn More. Pay more taxes. Do some good. Enjoy life.

          • Another View says:

            You claim to be a lawyer, but you write that this is a “democracy”? Please. Neither the federal government, nor the government of any State is a democracy. This is civics 101.

            And no, it is not a matter of which economic theory works best. The Constitution–the one you know nothing about–rejects communism/socialism/fascism. The Founders believed in freedom and liberty. The “isms” you love to tout–communism, socialism and fascism–are antithetical to freedom and liberty. They are un-American.

            Capitalism and free markets are American. Learn it, love it, practice it.

            Change your ways. Keep more of your money. Reject authoritarianism. Embrace freedom and liberty. Act like a real American.

        • Well golly gee, “Mr. Evans”. Where are you licensed to practice law? I don’t see your name in any attorney listings on the web, nor in the yellow pages.

          Since you are a self-avowed liar, I don’t see how your “opinions” matter at all. Stick to farming.

  29. ** Work Harder **
    Millions on welfare depend on you

  30. Roscoe Evans says:

    Fine, Smitty. Be indolent if you wish.

    I’ve never worried much about the people who sponge off the system; and I never have understood folks who do.

    I work hard enough to take care of my family, and actually do donate to the needy. My guess is that some of my dough goes to the sponges in this world, too. So what? I’m no better or worse off. If I find out, I make changes. That’s life.

    • That’s the point. You find out if people are sponging off you, YOU can make changes. If people are sponging off the government, then the GOVERNMENT should make changes.

      It isn’t.

      So, change the government.

      BTW, throwing around big words as well as admitting you’re a liar makes you even more irrelevant.

      Tell the truth, keep more of your hard earned money, be charitable to the truly needy.

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        So, you what, hate all politicians, all lawyers and all liars? And you expect me to care that you are upset with my word choice and my “relevance?”

        How about dropping your anti-intellectual approach to life for a moment, and reading some of the many studies on why all men lie. Maybe it will give you a better insight into your fellow man, and understand why people do some of the silly things they do in this life, and why some of our survival techniques exist. Go ahead. Visit a library. The further study of man will better your life.

        I find it hard to believe, but you sound sometimes as if you hate humanity, and when you write off whole professions and categories of men and women, that just confirms that suspicion. That’s just a shame.

        I am sorry you wasted some time looking me up to see where I practice law. Did you also index “Another View?” I hope not, because then I’d really be wondering about you. You know, you could have just asked, and I would have told you where I practice. But what difference would that make? My opinions are no more or less credible because of where I work, where I went to school, how old I am, or what I do for a living. (Go ahead–take it–I’m giving you and The Apologist an opening for all the cheap shots in the world today.) I’m writing off the cuff here. When I write for attribution, or give legal advice, I’ll have my citations and legal authorities lined up like ducks in a row, just like I am supposed to. You seem to suggest I need do that, or lose “relevance.” Posh. You are free, clearly to ignore me or laugh at me, as you wish.

        I’ll be skipping your advice about the “truly” needy, though. It’s not my job to interview some poor kid to see if his parents really are so poor as to “need” help from me with books or clothes or lunch money; or to demand that some mom show me her Social Security number and tax returns before I help out with some cash. Who pretends to be poor, who is not? Again, it’s not my job to ask, to embarass, and to humiliate. And if it were, it would be a job I’d turn down. I know poverty. I know hunger. I know divorce and child abuse and domestic violence. I try not to add to those ills.

        I’ll be giving some cash to FISH shortly, because 600 pounds of food (see the story here on CDN), sure won’t last long. You might want to join me. It’s easy, and you’ve got to know there are needy families even here in Clarke. Otherwise, I give to Heifer, SmileTrain, and Oxfam, month in and month out. Go ahead. Check them out. See how much money I am wasting. Maybe, if you decide otherwise, you can write a check yourself.

        Now, I hope you loved soccer. I played on a miserable team, with coaches who only knew as much about the sport as they read in some “Dumb Guy’s Approach to Coaching Soccer.” But I loved to play, and wish I had started earlier on. But It’s the most boring thing in the world to watch. Too bad.

        How about rugby? When I got bigger and stronger, I played that in college. I took Mrs. Evans on a rugby date, and won her over. But that’s for another day.

        Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Try to share your good fortune with the needy. Don’t worry. Be happy.

        • “…How about dropping your anti-intellectual approach to life for a moment, …”

          Nope. Intellectuals only want to talk with each other. I’ll talk to anyone. If they choose to look down on me, that’s their loss.

          • Another View says:

            Right Winger is right; intellectualism as practiced in this country produces the biggest fools. And before “Roscoe Evans” attacks, let me state that I am not, and never have been, an intellectual.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            Yet another (though small) swath of humanity that you totally dismiss, huh? Well, I won’t bother to mention any other discernible groups of your fellow man, out of concern for riling you up further, and bringing out the “Smart Guys are Dumb” crowd, too.

            I hope you got along with a teammate or two. Perhaps the guys who helped you score?

            Work harder. Earn more. Pay more taxes. Try to share your food fortune with the needy. Try to remember we’re all in the same boat, in the same ocean, on the same planet. Don’t worry. The poor won’t come knocking on your door to steal your lunch. Be happy.

          • Another View says:

            The “poor” don’t have to come knocking on your door, because the government does it for them.

            There is a huge difference between charity and government welfare. I, and most, believe in, and practice, charity. What you advocate is government confiscation of some people’s monies in order to redistribute it to others.

            And the others includes not just able bodied folks who claim SS disability, unemployment, food stamps, etc. Rather, the others include Solyndra, General Electric, the UAW, GM and Chrysler. Are these the “poor” you are so worried about?

          • I believe it is you that dismisses the swath of humanity that do not converse at your “intellectual” level. I prefer to speak plainly and clearly, so the likelihood of misinterpretation is lessened. Those who choose to speak “intellectual” (read vague), do so to attempt to confuse and obfuscate. But then again, you did admit that you do so.

    • Mr. Roscoe, you or no one else will find a lazy bone in my body. I have worked hard for everything I own. I have no problem with welfare if the people recieving it truly need it. But those able body folks who refuse to work and think they are entitled. Should not get one thin dime. Why should my tax dollars support the indolent .

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        Smitty, I am sorry to have offended you.

        I try not to worry much about things I cannot control, and welfare, like much that goes on in this world, surely is outside of my purview.

        I know there are plenty of people who have no excuse whatever for not working and for not taking care of themselves and their families. I cannot do much of anything about them, so I try not to concern myself with them.

        But I am experienced enough to know that there are a slew of people who are unemployed, even chronically, for no good reason of their making; and others who have sicknesses or handicaps or illnesses that simply are not obvious to the eye, and who cannot work and who cannot create their own businesses.

        I just try my best not to lump all of them (or all of us) into any one category, and to write them off.

        We’re not just taxpayers. We’re citizens and we’re neighbors. I try to remember that daily. I am sorry I failed to do that in my remark to you.

        Best wishes.

        • Oh, so now you’re going to play the “I am more charitable to my fellow man than you are” game?

          Save it.

          None of us are experts at governing a country. But when we allow our elected officials to waste our hard-earned money because “it is outside of our purview”, then we are doomed as a democracy to slide into socialism.

  31. Since everyone on here seems to have decided who they like and don’t like……I might suggest everyone letting go.

    As far as I can see, it doesn’t much matter. No one will do anything different. No matter who wins. Not much will change.

    Carry on for what it is worth.

    Can we say lots of broken records?

  32. Shaun Broy says:

    This entire thread of comments have gone a little too far off this topic. I think the partisan, sometimes radical spiral of attacks and sermons given to antagonize each other, versus deciding to find some common ground between us. This has turned into a bunch of rants and raves about topics simply unrelated to Mr. Marts original letter inviting simply those who wish to participate.

    If you want to trash people, slander and antagonize others who are weighing in with their honest opinions, Then write an editorial or letter to the editor regarding something you are passionate about promoting or disagreeing with that can be kept on topic.

    The amount of time a lot of you have spent bashing each other and pretty much getting no where….

    I’d advise dedicating some time to help out the campaigns and organizations. There are plenty of campaign volunteering opportunities…. roll up your sleeves up and dive into the process.

    Many of you post lengthy comments… that totally stray from the original topics and just go on…. and on … And on…. This was a well written letter from Mr. Marts and it was a very simple
    attempt to reach out to the community for new memberships. It is just a simple, professional letter.

    We have much more important issues to address, while this blah blah blah attack mode that goes both ways
    in a manner that accomplishes nothing.

    Put Up…. OR…. Shut up!

    Enough Said.


    • “…Many of you post lengthy comments… that totally stray from the original topics and just go on…. and on … And on…. ”

      Most pompous “lawyers” do that. Especially the wannabes and the liars.

    • Another View says:

      Just like a Leftist to try and suppress free speech and debate. Typical.

      • Ummm…actually…he’s right, this time. This thread has gone on FAR too long (how’re those page view tallies going, CDN?), and he’s merely asking that we all get off the roller coaster here and move on to different rides.

        Nobody has gained any rhetorical ground, nor lost it. This pixelated squaredance is getting tiresome.

  33. Another View says:

    HEY! Support’n Clarke!

    “~ the right to vote is an honor, and we should perhaps be sure what we are voting FOR (not just what we are voting against….)”

    There is not “right” to vote for President. It is not in the Constitution. Your vote for President is a privilege that can be revoked by a State legislature at any time.

    “~ the greatest threat to our society is not baseless rhetoric, but the concentration of too much wealth and the power it controls. We must be wary, and not be mislead. (As a borderline Republican I find it difficult to dismiss the Brooking’s Institute report, and Romney’s refusal to disclose personal tax records…)”

    The concentration of power in government is a threat, and it is the threat we face today. That some have great wealth is no threat at all. Mr. Romney’s tax returns are no one’s concerns, and it is a petty and mean spirited distraction. WHO ARE YOU or anyone else to demand to see another’s income tax returns?

    ~ opinions are not facts… although people are swayed by them all the time.

    “~ Must we throw arounds words like “socialist”, “communist” and “fascist” as empty and baseless scare tactics? Really, this is America. And as mentioned before, we can organize, share similar views and have a voice in shaping the future of our country. Be PROUD of our diversity!”

    Yes, we must, because these words are NOT “scare tactics. Rather they are accurate descriptions of Barack Hussein Obama’s ideas and actions, and those of today’s Democrat Party. Socialism, communism and fascism underlie Obamacare, the auto bailout and the regulation of financial institutions. They are antithetical to freedom and liberty, and thus to our Constitution and way of life. It is important to identify evil and call it by its name.

    “~ Has any other President been referred to with such a lack of respect during his entire term? (Really folks, like it or not, he is “President Obama” after all!)”

    Yes. George W. Bush. Ronald Reagan. And Richard Nixon. Memories are apparently quite short.

    “In the words of Maya Angelou: “Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet.””

    Nice slogan. What does it mean? Don’t oppose evil? That would be silly. Or are you applying it to the despicable charges being levied against Mr. Romney by Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats? No? I didn’t think so. Borderline Republican=Democrat poseur.

  34. American founders rejected the income tax entirely. During the US Civil War, a progressive income tax was first enacted. Ten percent was the maximum rate and it was repealed in 1872. When Congress passed another income tax in 1894 that only hit the top two percent of wealth owners, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. In 1913, the 16th Amendment allowed for the income tax. Congress first set the top rate at 7 percent. Government got greedy and grew. Under Hoover, the top rate was hiked from 24 to 63 percent. Under Franklin Roosevelt, there was the Great Depression and World War II. The top rate under Roosevelt rose to 79 percent then up to 90 percent. TODAY, people are upset with taxes. Reduce the Corporate Income tax and eliminate the loopholes. That would be more fair and allow US business to be more competitive in the global economy. Right Winger is correct that both parties fail to seriously persue tax reform. In 1996, Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax. Another View is right that many people pay no individual federal income tax, but have their hand out. Presidents have used the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) against their opponents. President Nixon wanted a ruthless IRS that would hound his enemies and ignore his friends. I agree with Elinor that we need to shrink corporate welfare. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was running for US President against Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater campaign signs said, “In your heart, you know he is right”. The Democrats had a sign that said, “In your gut, you know that Barry Goldwater is nuts”. I think for myself, but enjoy reading the diversity of views expressed in comments.

  35. Roscoe Evans says:

    Sam, you’re great at giving us historical facts and context, and pointing out some of the great natural beauty in this area and in this country. But your comments about the Depression and Roosevelt are devoid of any context or meaning. Roosevelt saved this country, slogged along for a few years, then did the same thing a second time. And, the hand out remark? Bunk. Some folks need a helping hand, given how badly the financial system and the economy have suffered since the turn of the century.

    How about we all reach out a little, instead of putting them down? If that’s really too much to ask, just let them live with a little dignity, and be grateful for your own lot in life. Putting down the poor is just inane, no matter how much it may be part of human nature. We’ve all been taught better.

    Finally, if you can name a President other than Nixon who used the IRS to punish his fellow Americans (his “enemies”), please do. That would be news. Thanks.

    • Another View says:

      1. Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy all used the IRS to punish their “enemies”. News it is not; historical fact it is.

      2. FDR took a recession and made it into a Depression. But for his relinquishing government control of the economy, at the urging of then GM’s President/CEO, we never would have been able to shift into war production and employ folks toward that effort, thus ending the worst of FDR’s Depression.

      3. THE DEMOCRATS created welfare programs–FDR, TRUMAN, JOHNSON AND OBAMA–and today we have the greatest number of Americans on some form of government aid ever. It is a basic tenet of economics that if you give something away, people will flock to it. THE DEMOCRATS are to blame for the sorry state of spending and welfare dependency in this country.

      4. The so-called “poor”, who are richer than many wealthy folks in times gone by could have imagined, need to get off their collective tukus, and go to work. They need to pull in their begging hand and lend a hand pulling the wagon. They need to support themselves and their families. And they need to pay taxes.

  36. Sam Card says:

    In my previous comment, I stated facts about taxes. The world is a better place because of Roscoe’s kind deeds. I am named after my father and he was born in 1917. My mother, Henrietta Renshaw was born in 1921. They lived through the Great Depression and World War II. In an earlier CDN story I commented about the Civilian Conservation Corps and the misery of the Depression. My older lawyer brother is named after my grandfather, Dr. Daniel Parker Card. He was a colonel in the US Army Medical Corps and served from World War I to World War II. He received citation awards from the World War I governments of France and Italy. During World War II, Colonel Card was at Fort Meade, Maryland and did surgery at Walter Reed Hospital. My Uncle Bob Renshaw fought in the Battle of the Bulge in Europe and became nearly deaf. In 1993, I visited the June 6,1944 D-Day invasion beaches in Normandy, France. I read the six volume books by Winston Churchill from “The Gathering Storm” to “Triumph and Tragedy”. My father, Samuel Card, graduated from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in 1940 with a BS degree in Engineering Administration and a minor in aeronautical engineering. During World War II, he supervized the production of military airplanes for North American Aviation in Dallas, Texas. I have been watching on PBS television the World War II movies by Ken Burns. The December 7, 1941 bombing attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii motivated my father and mother to have a quick wedding on December 26, 1941. President Franklin Roosevelt saved the country and needed money for the construction of the Alaska Highway during World War II. The North West staging route was flying supplies to the Soviet Union from Alaska. Executive Order 9066, signed by Franklin Roosevelt, sent 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps. In 1942, 881 Aleuts were removed from their homes in the Aleutian Islands and Pribilof Islands in Alaska. They were forced to relocate to camps in southeast Alaska against their wishes. The US government required anyone with one-eighth or more Aleut blood to be evacuated from southwest Alaska. Japan occupied Attu and Kiska temporarily and bombed Dutch Harbor, Alaska on June 3, 1942. The four Aleut camps in southeast Alaska were Killisnoo, Burnett Inlet, Ward Lake and Funter Bay. About ten percent of the Aleut evacuees died from inadequate housing and poor sanitation. My 92 year old stepfather, Bev Whiting, is active in the American Legion and served in the US Army during World War II. He met his first wife Lorene at a USO dance in Oklahoma. My two older stepbrothers were in the military during the Vietnam War. Mike Card served in the US Marine Corps and Tom Card served in the US Coast Guard.

    • Another View says:

      What kind deeds? Roscoe Evans calls for wealth confiscation of OTHERS, so that the monies can be given to those deemed worthy by the government. Roscoe Evans cares not for freedom or liberty, because he believes that government knows best; it is wiser and better than individuals. Indeed, according to Roscoe Evans, individuals are too stupid and helpless to take care of themselves. They need people like Roscoe Evans to direct their lives.

      Whatever his motives, Roscoe Evans enables the creeping totalitarianism that has engulfed other formerly free countries. Roscoe Evans’s ideas are antithetical to freedom, liberty and the American dream.

  37. Sam Card says:

    I was referring only to Roscoe’s individual charity. “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck and “Worst Hard Time” by Tim Egan give an insight into the terrible Dust Bowl during the Depression. In 2000, I traveled in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and Iceland. In Poland, I toured Auschwitz World War II concentration camp.

  38. Shaun Broy says:

    I can see Russia from my front porch.

    • Hard to do from Hawaii, isn’t it? On the other hand, you can in fact see Russian from Alaska. Look up the Diomede Islands,

      • Shaun Broy says:

        Probably… But… It’s REALLY hard to do from HERE in VIRGINIA! 😉

        • You’re the one who said you were going to Hawaii. Sarge is just wondering why you haven’t left yet.

          • Shaun Broy says:

            I left close to six months ago for Hawaii. I never said that I wasn’t going to be returning at some point. The time I spent in Hawaii was very productive and enjoyable. I certainly stayed in the “loop” on things here in the area from afar.

            The fact is that I am back and very happy to be home. I missed the mountains….


  39. The Tea “Party” wants less government. So why are they all running for government positions of power? It seems to me that they would want to be anarchists instead, since anarchy is the ideal of less government (i.e.; No government). Sid Vicious was all about less government. Why half-arse your beliefs? Why not be 100% for less and support there being 0% government? I think the Tea “Party” is mixed in their message.