Letters for February 16, 2012

Fiddlesticks!

Re “Trump trumps Romney” (Upfront, Feb. 9):

Fiddlesticks, Mr. “Wannabe” Trump. Do you suppose that Romney’s loss to Santorum had any thing to do with your endorsement? Just asking.

Susie Ellis
Orland, Calif.

Fiscal gee-wizards

Re “Friends and family” (Feature story, Jan. 26):

I am amazed that the Republican Party can’t find anyone more qualified to campaign for the party’s nomination.

Newt Gingrich would be a total disaster for the nation. Every federal agency’s operation degraded [in part because of Gingrich’s actions in office]. How could this occur? It occurred because the Republican Party is dedicated to destroying the federal bureaucracy. It is impossible for anyone with Newt Gingrich’s temperament to manage the federal bureaucracy well.

Recently, the nation has experienced a financial collapse approximately every eight years. The next financial collapse is due in 2016, just at the end of the next president’s term in office. The only thing that might prevent or mitigate a national financial disaster is a federal government that works well at monitoring and regulating the financial industry. Newt Gingrich is not temperamentally disposed to pay attention to the minutiae that will be necessary if the nation is to avoid a 2016 financial collapse.

Considering Mitt Romney, who will the nation really get as president? The Mitt Romney who enacted the Massachusetts health insurance plan, or the Mitt Romney who wants to prevent the same plan from operating nationwide? Will one get the Mitt Romney who supported a woman’s right to choose or who now opposes that right? Similar to Newt Gingrich, there are many other issues where Mitt Romney has taken one position when it was politically advantageous only to reverse himself when the former position was politically disadvantageous.

On the issue of defense, Mitt Romney has advocated a larger military. A few months ago the Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner publicly declared that the nation was bankrupt. If the nation is truly bankrupt, how is Mitt Romney going to pay for a larger military?

Considering Ron Paul, he advocates, among other things, returning to the “gold standard.” A return to the gold standard would end the world’s economy. There exists an insufficient amount of gold on the planet to provide the liquidity required for international and national commerce.

And as for Rick Santorum, his performance as a Pennsylvania senator was so poor that he couldn’t get re-elected.

I believe there are good Republican politicians who could well serve this nation as president. Unfortunately, the Republican Party’s base, including the Tea Party, is so out of touch with what it really takes to run this nation that no qualified Republican will contend for the party’s nomination. Such Republican politicians know that becoming the party’s nominee would require taking positions such as those advocated by Gingrich, Romney, Paul and Santorum, which won’t work for the nation or the world.

Donald E. Schreiber
Incline Village

Fraudulent elections

Re “Government-approved voters?” (News, Jan. 26):

The Iowa caucuses demonstrated that Republicans place their controls at the wrong level, the ballot box. After claiming Romney the winner, they found “typos” in the vote counts from 131 precincts. Then they found counts from eight other precincts had vanished. Then they decided that they couldn’t truthfully name a winner due to the close vote and the number of screw-ups. Then they reversed themselves and declared that Santorum was the official leader. Yet they never did finally certify the results from all precincts. They reported zero instances of voter fraud. V.I. Lenin was absolutely correct: People who vote don’t count. People who count votes do. Fraud at the ballot box is retail, difficult to arrange in sufficient volume. Wholesale fraud is far easier at the level where votes are counted, or consolidated, or reconsolidated. Yet Republicans ignore that potential. Their own system in Iowa shows the hazard of so doing.

Robert C. Leavitt
Sun Valley

Freedom>fascism

Re “Welcome to the Machine” (Feature story, Jan. 19):

This article is very well written. I am not a conspiracy theorist or any of the likes, but from the view of the journalist’s article, I can see where it is a likely and probable scenario. So what would Americans do facing this type of government? I wonder if our own military would join that agenda, forcing their fellow Americans to obey the new fascism dictatorship. Or would it spark the opposite reaction and create a revolution? Would our government have the U.N. forces come police American soil against opposing forces? I am sure that in small sectors at a time the government would dominate. On the other hand, a full- on revolution of all Americans vs. the government—well, I would have to throw my money on the citizens for the win. And when I say “win” I mean that there is no way to stop or suppress freedom completely. Just one individual has the taste of it, shares it with another, the desire for it, as we know, will make a man give his life for it. That is exactly what our Founding Fathers did. History repeats itself. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very powerful. They were extremely well written to protect us from the evil fascism and such. Problem is that Americans are clueless to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They don’t even know their own rights and continue to allow themselves to give their rights up. Everyone should take a moment to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, educate yourselves to what you already own, your freedom and your complete control of your government. Government has no authority without you giving it to them. It’s that simple. Just say no! If you don’t, then you deserve to be under a totalitarian ruling society. This is just my opinion, and I am just me, one free American!

Joe Daily
Reno

Fuming mad

Re “This is all true” (Editorial, Feb. 2):

I read with interest the editorial regarding quitting smoking and the unsuccessful public health campaign with the same goal. I agree with the writer’s belief that most smokers could care less about the effects of their drug habit on themselves. Perhaps, then, more success might be met by informing smokers of the effects of their drug habit on others.

In case there are nicotine addicts out there who are not cognizant of how their drug habit affects others, here’s my personal anecdote: I work at a music store where one of the teachers habitually smokes, even while teaching children. The store has become his personal ashtray. The front of the store is littered with the refuse of his habit, the inside smells like an ashtray now, and customers, clients, students and fellow employees are forced to run the gauntlet of toxic, cancer-causing air he creates in order in order for them to enter the store.

It’s hard to believe one person’s drug habit could cause so much destruction and negativity, even harder to understand how one could be so callous as to not care, but there it is. Do smokers care about the misery they inflict on others? If they were made more aware of it, would they be less inclined to force their drug habit on the rest of us? I could care less if someone is foolish enough to smoke cigarettes. In fact, I say smoke ’em up. Smoke so much you render yourself infertile. Just quit making the rest of us share your disgusting, incredibly dangerous and addictive drug habit.

Dennis Fecko
Reno