Letters to Editor
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Letters to Editor
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
- Details
- Written by: Peter Hill
- Category: Letters to Editor
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.
- Details
- Written by: Walter M. Luers, Esq.
- Category: Letters to Editor
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.
Walter Luers
Oxford
- Details
- Written by: Mark Richards
- Category: Letters to Editor
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.
- Details
- Written by: Chris Wuestefeld
- Category: Letters to Editor
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.
- Details
- Written by: Mark Richards
- Category: Letters to Editor
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.)
- Details
- Written by: Mark Richards
- Category: Letters to Editor
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.
- Details
- Written by: Fred Stein
- Category: Letters to Editor
By Fred Stein, Dayton section of South Brunswick
Published in The Sentinel newspaper for June 21, 2007.
It seems that the government on all levels is out of control. While high property taxes are driving the exodus of people out
of the state, our politicians are dealing with frivolous issues. Our local politicians are wasting time on creating new ordinances for massage parlors (“Chief hopes to rub out illegitimate massage spas,” June 7). Is this the number one problem facing the people in South Brunswick?
The state legislature is debating gay marriage. Marriage should be classified as a private contract involving consenting adults. Government should get out of the business. On the federal level, we are being destroyed by our occupation of Iraq. Our soldiers are being killed and crippled. Our civil liberties are quickly disappearing as we grow further in debt.
The question now is what to do. Stand up and be heard. Act as if the next election is your last, because it could be. Do not forget to buckle up your seat belt.
- Details
- Written by: Jay Edgar
- Category: Letters to Editor
Mr. Niewenhuis (New Jersey Farm Bureau President) is correct about one thing: the farm bill before Congress has lots to do with you. The farm bill will cost you, the taxpayer, $211 billion, have negative environmental consequences, is extremely harmful to our international relations, and will end up hurting the small family farm. The farm bill subsidies are an un-American affront to fairness and common sense.
The 2002 farm bill cost taxpayers an average of $85 billion per year between 2002 and 2005. In 2005 it cost the taxpayer $100 billion. The 2007 farm bill is even more bloated. Instead of allowing the free market to set prices (and as a result the levels of production_, the farm bill attempts to micromanage production by paying some farmers not to farm while paying other farmers to farm. The result is higher prices to the consumer. In effect, the prices of some goods such as milk and sugar are set to artificially high levels by a government enforced cartel. The largest beneficiary is Florida's Flo-Sun. The owners have an estimated net worth of $500 million. If the 2007 farm bill is passed, they are expected to receive $125 million annually in farm sugar production price supports.