Letters to Editor
Congratulations to NJLP member, Mark Richards for having a letter to the editor published in the Suburban Trends:
Sunday, January 29, 2012
I would like to thank John Aiello for having the courage to write that recent letter defending councilmember Lou Signorino to have Libertarian beliefs.
Mr. Aiello should not be surprised if he draws fire from his fellow school board members and also fellow Republicans for defending Libertarians.
Dear NJLP Friends,
I have reached out many times asking for assistance and help, and until now I believed that the only rewards available were glorification and knowledge that you aided in an important cause, liberty. Well today I address you all with some information I came across. It appears that besides the chance to help the liberty movement and your fellow NJLP members, it appears you can obtain tangible rewards. That’s right, you can win prizes.
The following letter to the editor by NJLP member, Eric Hafner, was published in the Two River Times, The Examiner, and the Atlantic Highlands Herald.
Has anyone been able to keep track of how many gang-related shootings there have been in Monmouth County, so far this year?
Our elected officials are quick to give useless, politically correct answers to stopping the violent street gang epidemic, often by wasting your tax dollars on youth sports programs that do nothing to fight gangs.
Journalists should be ashamed of themselves — all of them
It has been said that gossip is a polite form of murder by character assassination. Those who engage in this type of activity claim they are trying to "help other people understand" the person being gossiped or reported about. In reality, this activity is designed to give the reporter or person a false sense of superiority and to proclaim his or her own self-righteousness. That is all. It is the equivalent of condemning a person to jail without the benefit of a trail.
In most communities, societies and groups, gossip is a constant activity. It is like sport. Even if the gossip, innuendo or rumor is not true, if you tell it often enough, it will be considered gospel. This action has not only attempted and destroyed reputations; it has attempted and destroyed lives.
In the 1980s, there was gossip that was reported about actor Burt Reynolds claiming that he had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS, for short). There was no proof or truth to the charge, but the newspapers, gossip columns and the broadcast media ran with the story. Finally, the controversy ended when Mr. Reynolds held an interview. He did not have the virus whatsoever. Reynolds was offended and, I have to say, rightfully so.
Also in the 1980s, a rumor surfaced about actress Bridget Nielsen. The gossip claimed she aborted a child that she conceived with former NFL player, Mark Gastineau. The gossip columns in Hollywood also ran with the story. Nielsen then did an interview and stated that it was not true at all. The truth was she had a miscarriage. The controversy was laid to rest once an interview was given. There was no doubt, however, that Miss Nielsen was offended there as well, and who could blame her.
Other similar gossip, innuendo and rumor mongering can be witnessed in politics. For example, when Senator Edward Kennedy spread an innuendo about one time Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, claiming that he was going to "bring segregation back to the U.S.," for example, the press ran with the claims when they should have looked at Bork's judicial decisions and record. They did not. They failed in doing their research.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the press ran with rumor a story claiming that Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's Down syndrome child was not hers, but was her daughter's. The press ran with that false charge never checking it out until after the fact.
In each of the cases that I have described, journalists chose to believe gossip, innuendo and rumor and not do its own investigation. If anyone were to tell me that journalists are in fact a lazy bunch of parasites, considering all the evidence seen over a period of two decades, there is no question that I would think that that statement is correct.
There was a time when journalists, before they ran with a story, checked and rechecked the facts. However, now, where journalists and editors are in competition with other news outlets, to be the first to get the scoop, they throw checking the facts all out the window, stating that it is passe. It is this kind of behavior and work ethic, along with others, that is hurting the institution of the press and the credibility with viewers and readers.
I wish I could tell them all to stop, but journalists, arrogant, condescending narcissists that they are, they will ignore my plea. They will ignore any critic and will try to self justify their actions.
To this, I remind them all of the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Our Critics Are Our Friends; They Show Us Our Faults." God save these people.
Here's a letter that I sent last night to U.S. News & World Report:
You report that President Obama today "challenged" his cabinet to "cut the budget by $100 million" ("Obama to Cabinet: Cut $100 Million from Budget," April 20). What courage. A President who proclaims the importance of making "hard choices" calls upon his government to trim away a whopping one thirty-six-thousandth of its projected expenditures for the year - or, alternatively reckoned, one twelve-thousandth of its projected budget deficit.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.