Letters to the Editor

Health Care Reform offers rewards

Bill Cole

There is a lot more to Obamacare than you have listed, even in 2010.
COSTS: There has been nothing but lies about the cost. The budget forecasts are just that, forecasts with numbers presented by the majority party. These costs are only the federal costs that are other than fees, fines, etc., and monitored by the IRS. The state taxes will go up with most of the states in financial trouble already. There has alredy been costs to all of us in less than a week. With companies like AT&T having to pay billions of extra dollars which will show as increases in our monthly budgets.
ILLEGAL: There is nothing in our Constitution that alows the federal government to force us to buy health insurance and it will be found to be so.
There are many more problems with this legislation but I will not bother you with them. I am not naive about political ways, but I have never seen such obvious and backroom maneuvers to get people to vote YES as with Obamacare. Yes it happens in every session, but never like this. People know and will remember in Nov. Fire them all, Dem, Rep, and Indep, and elect all new people who knows whom elected them. Obama didn’t elect them, Reed didn’t elect them, and Pelosi didn’t elect them, we the people elected them and WE will not forget.


Oh please James, please leave the standard Democrat class warfare tactics out of it. The upper class already pays a majority of the taxes-the top 10 percent of earners pays 70 percent of the taxes. To the writer, apparently the Congress didn’t bother to read much of the bill either. Pelosi: “We need to pass the bill so people can know what’s in it.” The whole process was a joke and history tells us that government programs rarely, if ever, become defecit-neutral. The Massachusetts universal healthcare plan passed in 2006 was slated to cost $88 billion, but is now over budget at $190 billion. This bill needs to be repealed for the fiscal sake of our future.

Texas politics corrode constitutional values


Seems to me what is more dangerous than the far extremes of either hand is the man who falsely claims to be wandering in the middle as if that were some safe haven to voice a position. The true ‘middle ground’ of the constitution is this, that it takes a neutral stand on religion, demanding of government a neutral position regarding religion, not excluding religion from itself. It simply cannot show preference to one or the other. I don’t know about you, but it seems pretty clear to me that the framers were smart enough to spell SEPARATION should they have had that in mind. But then again, ‘we the people’ might as well be ‘we the government’ these days and from the looks of it they have separated from any religious beliefs long ago. Oh! for the good old days when men wrote what men meant!

Ed Koban

As our ultra-divided country bickers over the “alleged” details of the recently passed health reform bill, we as a country are not paying close enough attention to a serious problem arising in America. That problem is the schoolbook controversy in Texas. My ghast is completely flabbered that in the year 2010, the religious revision of our important history is taking place, with barely a mention in the media. The irony of a conservative policy, replacing historical fact with Christian mythology, while at the same time, dividing us over who deserves to get health care and who doesn’t, is overwhelming. Letting the poor suffer does not have a “What Would Jesus Do” kind of feel to it, thats for sure. There are so many reasons why this is twisted and wrong. I will focus on a simple point, It is simply not true.
The idea of rewriting the facts about the creation of our country, to line up with conservative and religious ideals is crossing the line. I am appalled at the blatant rewriting of history in order to serve a fascist political movement masquerading as religion. In any fascist regime or dictatorship, the first move is to rewrite history to support the ideology and goals of the movement; next come the book bonfires. The reason for the Nuremberg Trials of 1945 was not so much to convict Nazi war criminals and their atrocities, as it was to have an irrefutable and accurate record of what happened. This was excellent foresight; there are now, today, people such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who are trying to erase the Holocaust from history by simply denying its truth, regardless of the indisputable facts. This is very, very alarming to me. A giant step in the wrong direction.

The erosion of states rights

Barry Hirsh

The 14th Amendment horse has already left the barn. While it doesn’t eviscerate the 10th Amendment, it does give the central government the authority to ensure that citizens of several states cannot be denied fundamental rights. The Incorporation Doctrine was developed so that the government could have it both ways, and is really a dubious doctrine – on its face, the 14th Amendment already guarantees the second, and imposes it on the states.
What the 14th Amendment doesn’t do, however, is affect legislated rights – only fundamental ones, i.e. life, due process, takings, etc. Any level of government can legislate “rights,” but they are not unalienable.

Mike Ebel

So in Chicago I have no right to defend myself with the best means I deem fit. But in Texas I can. If you start cherry picking what rights are allowed by state than by your argument some states can check editorials for content before they are printed. Yours would fit right in with their agenda so at least this one would of been printed still. A right does not change by state.
Freedom of Life – The right to defend myself and my family how I see fit. The Freedom of Speech – hence your article. The Freedom of Religion – I can choose to worship pine cones if I want. I know you don’t think much of the Second Amendment by your article, but If you lose the threat of force to protect your rights you lose all your rights, they then become state privileges at their discretion.

Ed Barney

What a bogus article. If you are going to opine on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you should at least explain how the southern states violated the rights of freed slaves after the Civil War and how selective incorporation was invented to restore those rights. States and localities cannot violate rights no more than the federal government can; i.e. your local city council can’t vote to require people in that town to get a permit to view violent or pornographic movies in their home; can’t require a permit to go to a mosque, nor prohibit people from gathering together. Sorry, forgot to mention the 14th amendment before implementation of selective incorporation.