Dear Editor,

It has been my personal experience that in every human being, there is the need to believe in the worst. This is especially true when it comes to other human beings. I find it fascinating and sad at the same time. For example, we want to believe the worst of a neighbor or another person when we have never talked to him or her or know them on a personal level. We ridicule  and demean them. This habit is prevalent in every small town in the U.S. and my hometown of Kenilworth, New Jersey is no exception.

We want to believe rumors or innuendos about a group of individuals, when we have never had discussions with them or met with them personally at all. This has happens to be the case with groups associated with libertarian and conservative causes.

This is especially true about political figures as well; even before they take to the microphone. The mainstream press wanted to believe in the worst about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, particularly the rumor about how her Down syndrome infant was not hers. We want to believe that those who have differences of viewpoint or opinion from our own are ugly, morally inferior, uneducated and narrow minded. Often, the direct opposite is true.

What is needed in this society, and what is surely lacking because of political correctness, I believe, is open-mindedness. It is unfortunate that those in charge of the culture-i.e. the press, entertainment, television, etc-and those dominate in the community do not practice that at all. We are left to believe the ugly and the abominable and because of this, we close our minds to humanity and to the human good.

Sincerely

Alex Pugliese

Published in the Home News Tribune, February 8, 2009

For more than 60 years there have been many in power and elsewhere who stated that to mention the word "God" or anything of a spiritual nature violates the law. They have stated the so-called "separation of church and state" must be maintained, a phrase that is nowhere in the Constitution. I have now come to a different conclusion. Those who advocate that spirituality should be forbidden in the public square do so for one reason: irrational fear. These individuals, whether they be on the courts, in political office, in the legal profession, in religion, in the press, or where have you, fear that if one follows a particular form of spirituality, then people will turn away from other beliefs or philosophies. They believe that philosophies like existentialism, utilitarianism, Marxism or others cannot compete with the Bible, the Torah or other holy books. So these individuals have to force it out in order to make their "morality" dominant. It is foolish. None should be forbidden from competing in the public square. It is time that we realize this truth and not give counsel to fears.

ALEX PUGLIESE

Kenilworth

Published at Delaware Online. Vist link and leave a comment.

Between the liberals who can’t keep their hands off our wallets and the conservatives who can’t keep their noses out of our bedrooms, American government has made a mockery of the ideals of our founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson said, “That government governs best that governs least.” He might as well have been from Mars.

Voters have a third choice for president

Saturday, August 30, 2008

As the Democratic Party anoints its presidential candidate, and the Republicans will soon do so, voters have a third choice -- the Libertarian Party candidate for president, Bob Barr.

Libertarians stand for lowering taxes and reducing the scope and reach of government. The most frequent objection I hear to voting for Barr from people who agree with Barr and the Libertarian Party's goals of lowering taxes and reducing government is that voting for Barr is a wasted vote.

Nonsense. For a political party to participate in the national presidential debates, it needs to poll at about 15 percent.

For a political party to qualify for campaign matching funds, it must receive 5 percent of the total popular vote of the prior election. According to Zogby International, Barr is currently polling above 5 percent in many states, including 11 percent in New Hampshire, 8 percent in Georgia and Colorado, and 6 percent in Texas, and his numbers are going up.

Therefore, each vote is important -- including those for third-party candidates.

Walter Luers
Oxford

World War II has been over for more than 62 years now, but it never ceases to amaze me how that conflict continues to be “protected” event in history that you must never question or subject to any serious scrutiny. The recent letter by Neil Grieco attacking a previous letter by me as a case in point.

The following was sent to the Star-Ledger’s letters-to-the-editor in response to an article that appeared on today’s front page.

By Mark Richards, resident of West Milford and guest contributor
Published in West Milford AIM on November 16, 2007 and also in Suburban Trends November 11, 2007

In a recent “Guest Contributor” column, a writer expressed are discussed with Congressman Scott Garrett’s voting record. She was also upset that three local candidates appeared in a photo in another newspaper with Congressman Garrett.

I have to be honest, I voted for Scott Garrett once in 2002, the first time he ran for Congress. I truly hoped that he would be another force for individual liberty, limited constitutional government and free market economics, like the truly great and principled Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (the only sane presidential candidate of those Republicans seeking the 2008 nomination.)

By Mark Richards, Guest Contributor
Published in West Milford AIM on September 28, 2007 and also in Suburban Trends September 23, 2007.

Our U.S. Representative in Congress, Scott Garrett, has been taking a lot of heat lately by not supporting the animal fighting prohibition enforcement act, which grew out of the frenzy over the Michael Vick dogfighting case. Far from being attacked by “animal rights” groups and the press, Rep. Garrett should be praised for his clear understanding and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I have before me my pocket size edition of the Constitution published by libertarian Cato Institute.