Don’t ram the iceberg a second time
To the editor:
I am writing today in response to Rodney Guessford’s letter from July 26. In his letter, Guessford asks why Republicans would vote for Mitt Romney — other than to vote against president Obama.
I had to laugh at Guessford’s assertion that the president’s only failures were due to Congress blocking his every move. I guess Guessford has forgotten that the president had total control of the Congress for his first two years.
He could have passed any bills that he wanted, and the Republicans couldn’t have stopped him. What did he choose to work on for those first two years? Mainly, a health care bill that 75 percent of Americans didn’t want, and most politicians admit they didn’t read.
Maybe he should have been “focused like a laser” on job creation. That is what he said was his priority. Voters didn’t like the direction that President Obama was taking the country in, so they booted many Democrats in 2010. If the president was truly interested in creating jobs, he wouldn’t have taken such an anti-domestic energy stance the past three years. The only energy production he seems to be interested in, is solar energy, which is losing billions at every turn.
As to Guessford’s question as to why we would vote for Mitt Romney — it is simple, he is not a socialist. President Obama wants more and more control put in the hands of government. He has shown already that he would rather make drastic cuts to the military than cut the runaway hand-out programs that are breaking this country. No employer would keep an employee with a record like Obama’s. Obama criticized President Bush for letting the debt get to $10 trillion, but he has proceeded to add another $5 trillion in only 3 years. We now have the largest debt and deficit in our nation’s history. Re-electing Obama would be like backing the Titanic up to hit the iceberg again.
Bill Stryker Jr.
Don’t paint Islam with broad brush
To the editor:
Having previously studied Islam and the Quran, I wonder and worry about those who so maliciously malign all those of that faith. We should take great care to avoid confusing the Islamic faith of approximately 1.5 billion people, with the twisted agenda of some revolutionary extremists, who pervert and subvert that faith into their raison d’etre.
While not Christian, most Muslims also are God-fearing and sincere in their beliefs. Defaming their faith plays into the very hands of terrorist evil-doers.
After all, how would we react if Christianity was judged on the basis of David Koresh’s child abuse or the Reverend Jim Jones’ Kool-Aid drinkers?
Del. Larry D. Kump, District #52
Berkeley-Morgan Counties, W.Va.
It’s better on the inside
To the editor:
We see people all around town holding cardboard signs that say “will work for food,” or “please help me, I’m homeless.” I was driving to work at MCI-H (one of the prisons south of Hagerstown), and I saw a woman on the island at the AC&T on Sharpsburg Pike holding one of those signs.
I’ve worked at the prison for over 12 years, and it occurred to me that if these people were to get sent to prison they would be given everything they need at no charge to them. They would receive three hot meals every day. They would be given a place to sleep, electricity, cosmetics and at least one shower daily.
They would have an unbelievable amount of material things at their disposal. They would have cable television, microwaves and exercise equipment with plenty of free time to use it. They would even receive pay on a monthly basis. In some cases they wouldn’t even have to work for their pay, they would just need to be assigned to a job detail then they would get paid if they worked or not.
I’m sure a lot of these people aren’t in the best of health, but not to worry, because they would receive 100 percent free medical care for as long as they needed it. There is no reason for anyone in this state to go hungry or homeless. The prison system will take care of all of their needs if they can manage to get here.
Here’s why Americans should be armed
To the editor:
Gun possession is legal in Colorado. In spite of this, the Aurora theater banned patrons from entering with their licensed and legal concealed weapons. It seems obvious to me that if even one moviegoer that night had been armed with their privately-owned and licensed pistol, the massacre could have been halted in its tracks. Gun “control,” in that theater on that night, aided the criminal and hampered the victims by creating a “target-rich environment” that could not fight back.
Gun-control fanatic Dianne Feinstein offered her wisdom by stating that those who might have had concealed weapons with them that night would have caused a “bloodbath” and many people would have been shot in the “crossfire.” Huh? Did I hear that right? Excuse me Ms. Feinstein, but you missed something. It was a bloodbath. And it happened precisely because only the killer was armed, and dozens were killed and wounded because there was no “crossfire.”
The price we pay for having a free society in which an individual has the right and the capacity to protect himself or herself against hostile attacks is the occasional eruption of senseless violence. It is a trade-off that we make, much like we do in our mass use of the automobile wherein reckless drivers kill many more people during the course of a year than do guns, in spite of all the licensing and testing and regulation that legal driving requires.
Merl E. Rinehart