Liberal's letter helps define today's Democratic Party
Liberal's letter helps define today's Democratic Party
EDITOR:
A Nov. 17 letter to the editor written by an astronomy professor at YSU graphically illustrates the elitist liberal philosophy rejected by a majority of voters in the last election. In his opening sentence, the writer opines that President Bush and his recent re-election have caused a great fear that the "liberties and freedoms" enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are in danger of being lost. The inference was that one of the causes of fear is the loss of the undefined right of homosexuals to legitimize their relationship under the guise of marriage, a religious institution that has until only very recently been recognized in strictly heterosexual terms.
Other fear mongering mantras were recited, including the possibility of becoming afflicted with a life threatening disease and suffering needlessly because of the failure to legalize and explore the use of a "10 cell blob of protoplasm" (embryonic stem cells) to find a cure. And by voting Republican, those folks are somehow responsible for immorality in the form of polluted water, no national resources, air that won't support life and oil derricks in our national parks. I shouldn't even mention the references to the death penalty and the effort of our soldiers to free Iraq.
If the professor had been content with reciting these tired old distortions of the liberal left, I could have simply moved on to the other comic section and enjoyed the rest of my evening. However, he went on and chose to malign and impugn the Bible, the clergy, and Christian folk in general who take their faith in God quite seriously. He made a common and fatal mistake when he attempted to define moral values without accepting that the very concept comes from God himself. It is not surprising that such people will also try to justify their obvious contempt for the Scriptures and the church (God's people) by dredging up sinful mistakes from the past.
Submitting such remarks for public consumption and demeaning religious leaders of our community will serve to further define the real base of today's Democratic Party. Keep those letters coming.
GREG CALKO
Canfield
Redefining 'conservative'
EDITOR:
I find it very odd that so many members of President Bush's cabinet suddenly are resigning their posts. I feel as if it is an omen of what is in store for the president's administration. For those of you who claim allegiance to the "conservative" party. I believe that description of the Republican Party cannot be farther from the truth.
They have totally abandoned the policies that they claim to champion. President Bush's budget projects a deficit that will plunge our country so deep in debt that I cannot see how we can climb out of debt. He makes President Reagan's "trickle down" policy that tripled the national debt pale in comparison. David Stockton, who was President Reagan's financial adviser, admitted that it was an ill-conceived notion that could not work.
Does the figure $7,009,333,811,289 astound you? That was the size of the deficit last fall. How could anyone label the Democrats as the "tax and spend party"? The only time the Republicans begin to rant and rave about debt is when a bill comes up that will help the blue collar worker, who is the backbone of the nation. Incidentally, the figure that I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph would amount to over $24,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in America.
The president would be well advised to go back to Yale and take a course in cooking the books. When it comes to determining the cost of living in regard to increasing Social Security benefits, the government has some very astute C.P.A.'s to figure that out. My wife got a $2 raise in her Social Security. That brought her monthly stipend all the way up to $388 per month. Her monthly drugs cost just about double that amount. Do you blame me for being cynical? After she raised nine children I believe she deserves better than that.
BEN PAULSEY
Warren