Email letters July 27, 2012
Pro-Obama letter writer
made Mitt Romney’s point
John Borgen’s attempt to spin the President’s now infamous “you didn’t build that” speech is the sorry spectacle, not Josh Penry’s July 20 column. Borgen, like a host of other Obama apologists, apparently knows better what the president meant to say than the president himself.
The simple truth is that the president believes that government is the ultimate cause of success in business, not entrepreneurial ability. The majority of small business owners do not have a favorable opinion of the president because they know that he said exactly what he meant to say.
Good luck, to Borgen, in future attempts to spin the president’s increasingly outrageous and strident rhetoric. The difficulty you are likely to encounter is that it is 2012 now, and many Americans have come to see that the emperor has no clothes.
Mayors would be stupid
to ban Chick-Fil-A
I intend to be eatin’ mor chikin on Aug 1. I appreciate the values manifest
by Chick-Fil- A and by their President, Mr.Cathy.
I am weary of the homosexual activists using terrorist tactics to punish
anybody that disagrees with their immoral lifestyle choice. Marriage under
American Law was a reflection of the Judeo/Christian Bible based morality
since James Wilson taught American Law at the College of Philadelphia and wrote one of the consequences of marriage under American Law is that the two become one—a
clear reflection of the model used by Moses in Genesis ; Jesus in Matthews
Gospel;and the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6.
According to the American Bar Association guidebook You and the Law—and the World book Encyclopedia from 1986 No State recognized same sex marriage until Massachusetts violated law and reason by changing state law to legalize fornication. It is the reprobates that have divided the Nation—not the Christians. Those mayors who wish to ban Chick -Fil-A have found they would be stupid to so do.
Robert James Burholder
Republican policies show
government does create jobs
One oft-repeated tenet of Republican ideology is that “government does not create jobs, small businesses do”. Actually, the real “job creator” is demand for goods and services – most of which are provided by the private sector of our free enterprise economy, while others can only by provided by the public sector (i.e., our tiered layers of government).
Because the Bush recession eradicated 170,000 small businesses and the financial crisis immobilized the private sector’s job-creating resources, the federal government stepped in – with President Bush’s TARP, President Obama’s compromised “stimulus”, and the auto industry “bail out” (which Romney opposed).
While Republicans still claim – contrary to all objective data – that both the “stimulus” and the auto bailout “failed”, President Obama has proposed the “Jobs Act” – which would enable local governments to restore 400,000 public sector jobs (i.e., teachers, police, etc.) and create 1 million construction jobs by investing in infrastructure (ala Eisenhower).
However, because Republicans believe that a struggling economy improves their chances of denying President Obama a second term, they refuse to pass the “Jobs Act” – even though it contains proposals once supported by responsible Republicans.
Last year, irresponsible Republicans engineered a crisis over increasing the debt ceiling – creating worldwide financial uncertainty, threatening the stability of the world economy, and interrupting what had been vigorous job growth—by demanding budgetary offsets for the amount of any debt ceiling increase and requiring “sequestration” of that $1.2 trillion beginning Jan. 1, 2013.
However, as the Sentinel reported today – “Defense cuts could mean massive layoffs of civilians” – the $600 million in defense cuts legislated by Republicans could eliminate some 80,000 jobs. But, if “government does not create jobs”, how is it possible that cutting the defense budget could eliminate jobs?
Obviously, this is just another example of Republican hypocrisy in action.
Bush team is responsible
for federalizing education
After reading Mr. Little’s letter regarding federal spending in local schools, it appears that Mr. Little didn’t spend much time working in public school. If he had, he would have seen that the biggest impact on local schools came from former president Bush and “Leave No child Behind” law. That law dictated what is to be tested and when, thus controlling curriculum. The law also dictates what type of training teachers should have.
Under Obama, states have been give some leeway on ways around the law. Letters like this just add to the divisiness in this county.
Having been a principal for 16 years in a school with a large Federal budget and an educator for 31 years, I saw first hand how the Federal government tried to influence and control what happens in local schools. That control reached its high point during the Bush administration, not during the present administration.
The sentence about “arrogance and narcissism on their part are abhorrent.” is not based on facts in regards to education, and shows the how one tries to inflame and anger people with looking at the facts.