Email letters, Nov. 23, 2012
Pravda writer: Americans will go ‘down into slavery without a fight’
“American capitalism gone with a whimper” was the headline in a recent online edition of Pravda, a Russian newspaper. In this article it says, “like the breaking dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”
After reading Jim Spehar’s column on Tuesday about letting the “slave states” secede from the union, I wanted to remind Spehar about how we the American taxpayers will have to bail out California, Illinois and a number of Obama-voting states. Yes, this will be the next bailout we the American taxpayers will be asked to pay for out of our future and our children’s future.
I must also point out the state of Texas by itself has the world’s eighth largest economy due to people and businesses moving to a right-to-work state and the outrageous state income taxes in the people’s republic of California.
His point about some of the poorer states such as Alabama and Louisiana receiving more money from the federal government than they pay in shows that Spehar has drunk the Barack Obama Kool-Aid and that he has not read Karl Marx or done his own research and due diligence on Obama and his lifelong association, partnership and friendship with known radicals, socialists and, yes, communists.
I have read Karl Marx, and what we are seeing out of this president is right out of The Communist Manifesto. Even the Russians can see us sliding down the slippery slope into communism, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin is warning Obama “not to go down the path of Marxism, it only leads to disaster.”
So, I would like to say to Spehar and the other people who voted for the president, the last sentence of this Pravda article by Stanislav Mishin says, “The proud American will go down into slavery without a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.” So, who are the real slaves, Jim Spehar?
Tone of Spehar’s column on E.S.A. was elitist
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of racism is “the notion that one’s ethnic stock is superior.” Jim Spehar’s Nov. 20 column with his “humorous take on succession” could qualify under this definition. The general tone of the Enlightened States of America Internet piece is not one of enlightenment, but one of elitism, perhaps another form of racism.
To assume that one is better than others just by the way they vote or live is elitist/racist. To equate the southern states with the slave states and to imply that Alabama or the University of Mississippi are somehow not worthy of being good enough to associate with the “blue states” is a disgrace.
Reconstruction ended 125 years ago, and the civil rights movement was more than 40 years ago. Those “slave states” now have two Latino senators and two governors of Asian descent; the proposed E.S.A. states have one senator and zero governors who fit these criteria.
There are several African-American congressmen from predominately white districts in the South, but since several are Republican, they do not count? One other bit of info: If present trends continue, the proposed E.S.A would have a dropping population, as many of these states are losing population drastically while the Mountain States and Deep South are gaining migrants from other states.
Perhaps these people leaving the E.S.A. just do not appreciate all that Harvard has done for their employment prospects. Adding $83 billion a year in new taxes on the rich could do wonders for a $1.2 trillion yearly deficit, according to Harvard math.
Nation needs more discussion on exactly how to solve problems
In the Nov. 22 Sentinel, several things in George Will’s column, plus the letters section and the piece on Fast And Furious, reminded me of something the instructor of a course on writing technical reports emphasized on the first day: the five Ws (who, what, when, where and why) and the one H (how). We see and hear great volumes of very clear information on the Ws regarding our national problems but awfully little, to no, complete, clear, practical, doable H information - - exactly how we “getter done.“
I’d like to suggest something that may be a contributor to the cause of this shortage. It appears to me that we have developed an elected “royalty class” with some troublesome special privileges.
What about the idea of having the punishment fit the crime? It should include the perpetrator’s position since the probability of greater damage to greater numbers related to higher status should elevate the severity of any penalty.
Now it appears, especially in our government, that the direct opposite is true. If a vice president were caught taking bribes or a president found attempting to illegally manipulate an election, should they just be allowed to retire to “senior celebrity “ status to become even richer by giving speeches and writing books, or should they face actions such as might befall, say, a used car company’s board member caught guilty of similar job-related activity?
We could cure malfeasance in public office with our vote, but we don’t. We effectively approve of the work of our elected folk by sending most of them back to Washington every election.
Civil discourse is absent in current political debate
Why can’t those on the left and right have civil discussions on the proper role of government? A couple of weeks ago I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the present administration on its failure to protect our consulate personnel in Benghazi or come to their assistance when they were under attack Sept. 11. I, of course, included my name and city of residence.
In response I received the clipping with an anonymous letter in the mail. Had the author of this response been interested in a dialogue, he could have included his identity. He did not. He instead chose an anonymous and threatening response.
In the past I have received communications in disagreement with my opinion and have engaged in an exchange of letters and/or phone calls with the author. Although we were decidedly on opposite sides of a dialogue, we had a useful exchange of ideas and parted ways in a friendly manner. On occasion I think I changed someone’s mind.
More recently, however, the pattern is that the response is threatening and anonymous such as this most recent one. A cowardly response I can only imagine stems from the author’s inability to articulate a lucid response.
If a conservative doesn’t like a product, he doesn’t buy it. A liberal wants the product removed from the marketplace. If a conservative doesn’t like a program, he changes the channel; a liberal wants the program silenced.
Had the anonymous author had the courage to identify himself, we might have had the chance to understand each other a little better. I suppose the point of the anonymous letter was to attempt to intimidate and silence my point of view. He doesn’t know me.