E-mail letters, Feb. 1, 2010
Obama’s goal is total control
Suppose that Obama and his congressional buddies decide, for whatever reason, that having an armed population is not good for them and they decide to confiscate all firearms from citizens. Is that against the Bill of Rights? Yes, but that does not matter because of the threat that lingers over him and his buddies. Besides, the Bill of Rights is outdated and can be ignored, as he and his buddies have already demonstrated.
As commander in chief of the armed forces, he decides to begin the confiscation process, say in Grand Junction. To occupy and control the town, he sends in a battalion of infantry, 1,000 soldiers along with some armored vehicles. A house-to-house search is conducted for weapons, repeating this scenario throughout the United States until we have a totally disarmed citizenry.
Is this a fairy tale, it will never happen?
I was sergeant in the Indiana National Guard in the mid-‘50s. Though the motivation and outcome were different than the above scenario, our company was called upon by the governor to occupy Hagerstown, Indiana. Deadly violence occurred during a union strike against a Perfect Circle
plant. Other towns were also occupied for several weeks.
Armored half-tracks with quad .50 machine guns were placed strategically around the town; soldiers carried weapons and were issued live ammunition; curfew was enforced from 6 pm-6 am; during daylight hours, groups no larger than 3 people were permitted on the streets; vehicles entering/leaving town were inspected at roadblocks.
Am I an alarmist? Perhaps so, but I have been around for many years and am astounded by what has occurred in our country during this past year.
Obama’s is determined to make good his promise: “bring about fundamental change within the USA.” His goal is total control and it will happen, if we allow it!
Eliminating exemption is arbitrary
Eliminating the sales-tax exemption on candy and soft drinks may seem reasonable on the surface, but if you take a closer look you will see it is arbitrary and discriminatory. The Daily Sentinel’s Jan. 31 editorial asked, “Is there any reason that soft drinks and candy — which are hardly nutritional necessities – should be exempt from the state sales tax as other food is?” The answer is, most definitely, yes.
Candy and soft drinks are being singled out. However, they are made from the same ingredients as many other foods. Levying sales tax on soft drinks while exempting other high fructose-based drinks, that have the same or worse nutritional profiles, discriminates against the soft-drink industry.
Taxing candy while exempting, for example, ice cream, fudge brownies and potato chips in regard to their nutritional benefits is absurd. Candy and soft drinks may just be the easiest of targets.
In addition, taxes on food are regressive in that they penalize low-income families to a greater extent.
We are very concerned with the budgetary dilemma Colorado is currently facing and are more than willing to pay our fair share. However, using the budget crisis to discriminate against one or two sectors of the business community is unfair.
Obama continues spending
Less than a week after our president, in his State of the Union address, mouthed his deep and abiding concern for the country’s fiscal crisis and announced his intention to cut discretionary spending, an AP story outlines his plan to spend $200 million on security for the trials of Muslim terrorists in an as yet un-named U.S. city.
And yet while $200 million is likely viewed as chump change in light of the trillions he proposes in his upcoming budget, how stupid must he believe the American people to be not to see through this apparent double-speak?
Worse yet may be his cavalier ignorance of the implications involved with trying these enemy combatants, including the 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in U.S. criminal courts instead of in the military tribunals created for the purpose.
In so doing he most generously grants constitutionally provided citizen’s rights to foreign nationals, guarantees them a world stage from which to spew their bile and heedlessly brings ashore the virtual assurance of further attacks on American soil by the radical Islamic organizations who sponsored these thugs in the first place.
Congratulations to Mr. Obama. He is about to score a trifecta for the bad guys. And that, combined with his most recent double-speak gets him a triple-double for his stats. Way to go, buddy!
Natural gas drilling can be unsafe
There are many empirical and case studies that demonstrate that there are adverse health and safety consequences from the operations of natural gas drilling. And although much attention has been given toward the protection of animal species residing in the locales of such industrial activities, not enough has been done to protect the well being of humans.
Recently, minimal yet reasonable gas industry regulations were passed in Colorado. However, our state government chose to leave out the most important restriction that could have gone a long way toward protecting urban homeowners and farmers from harm to their well being and safety. I am referring here to the quarter-mile setback rule. Such setbacks would ensure that air quality of inhabited dwellings would be at least minimally maintained and that fires would not so easily spread from wells to inhabited dwellings.
Representatives from natural gas extraction companies talk much in public about their mitigation of drilling impacts upon communities. Yet they will not voluntarily impose upon themselves the one mitigation that would most ensure the protection of the public welfare, the quarter-mile setback rule. This rule would stipulate that well drilling should not be undertaken nearer than a quarter mile from any home or other inhabited dwelling.
Our state Legislature must act quickly to pass the quarter-mile setback rule. I don’t care if the lobbyists are opposed to such regulation. Human decency demands such action!
Obama’s record goes against campaign promises
President Obama’s record in office does not square with his campaign promises or with many of the statements made in the state of the union address. One way to measure his performance during the first year is to evaluate his record against three fundamental principles of leadership.
First, do what you say your going to do. Second, prioritize your tasks. Third, when you take on a difficult task begin with the end in mind. Candidate Obama promised transparency in government, no earmarks, bipartisanship and no role for lobbyists in government.
The president’s record in office shows that those promises were a clever fiction. His campaign staff used them to appeal to the electorate’s desire for change in the Washington culture. They never intended to make good on their promises. However, they failed to realize that one’s creditability is a precious resource. Once lost you can never regain it.
President Obama and his administration can finesse this issue while in office; but when he runs for re-election the American people will wonder if they can believe his promises the second time around. A leader when faced with many critical tasks must rank them in order of importance. Once they are prioritized, he must pursue those that take precedence until completion.
President Obama took immediate action on the economy on entering office. However, he did not finish the job as he turned to other tasks. The result is now a year later we are going to reset our priorities and focus again on the economy and jobs. Finally, when one undertakes a difficult and complex task one needs to frame what he/she wants to achieve when the job is done. The more complex the task, the more detailed the planning. President Obama rather then taking a leadership role in formulating the stimulus bill and health care reform abrogated these responsibilities to the Democratic-controlled congress.
We have seen the results of this hands off approach. President Obama need to show “change we can believe in” if he wants to lead this country. PETER REKEMEYER