NATIVE AMERICANS DISPLACED BY EUROPEANS DISPLACED OTHERS
I enjoyed your editorial, “Politically correct on Columbus Day?” in Monday’s paper and I agree with it. But I would like to add that when the American Indians came to this continent, they replaced another race of people called the “Old Americans,” (or Paleo-Americans), who were already here. Later, the American Indians were displaced by Europeans. That’s the way it has always been throughout the history of mankind on Earth.
Mr. Goodpasture’s recent letter lamenting our dysfunctional government was right on target. His comment about a return to federalism hit the nail square on the head.
A little history is in order to help understand how we got to the chaos which we are experiencing at present. During the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton and others espoused a strong central government similar to the one from which they had recently freed themselves. However, at the end of the day the “Framers” recommended and the “Ratifiers” (the people of the sovereign states) approved a union of states which delegated “limited powers” to the central government; mainly for “the common defense.” The majority of the leaders and people had no desire for a strong central government.
Nonetheless, those who lusted for power, as Hamilton did, never gave up in their hopes of gaining the immense power of the sword and the purse, of a potential imperial force, as they envisioned the union could become if all the might of the combined states was centered in one government.
They realized this hope in April 1865 after federal forces crushed the sovereign states which had opted to dissolve themselves from what they considered an overreaching government.
The trend since that time has inexorably gravitated immense power to Washington.
Until the people of the states demand a return to the basics of the Constitution nothing will change. It will only get worse.
David E. Pierson
What is President Obama’s objective? Seriously, what is he trying to accomplish? It is obviously not creating more jobs or lowering our deficit or debt or improving our economy or getting more income by strengthening the free enterprise system.
It is certainly not following our Constitution and the Bill of Rights that protects our individual Rights and Freedom. It must not be our image abroad among our allies, who cannot now trust anything our government says. It surely is not strengthening our military or increasing his approval with military families.
But wait — could it be Obama’s objective is a bigger more powerful federal government that can rule without restraint or guidance from Congress or citizens? Maybe that is getting close, as the IRS prepares to run our health care system.
I truly do not know what Obama wants or is trying to do or accomplish. If anyone knows, a lot of people would like know.
Through his fear laden rhetoric of the consequences of not raising the U.S. debt level Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew is crafting his own “Waterlew.”
In his speeches, he says that he cannot prioritize spending on government programs. That’s strange since the Secretary’s job is to prioritize money flow into programs which serve the public good. He says he can’t make choices which involve the elimination of either veterans’ benefits or feeding children.
That’s fine, Mr. Lew, why don’t you compare veterans’ affairs and feeding children to grants for National Public Radio, cutting travel and sales conference costs to all government agencies.
In addition, the secretary could do away with the subsidies for corn and sugar, and cancel the free cell phone program and federal grants for frivolous research, e.g., shrimp on a tread mill.
Finally, maybe Mr. Lew could put his staff to work auditing the thousands of obscure, useless government programs. After all, the secretary’s job is to reduce the national debt, not increase it.