GOP Chairman responds to Wilson letter
To the editor:
I read with amusement former Congressman Charlie Wilson's recent letter to the editor in which he talked about how he "stood up" for coal when he was in Congress.
Charlie Wilson's first vote in Congress was to elect Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House. During his four years in Congress, he voted with her 98 percent of the time. This is a matter of public record. Nancy Pelosi, along with President Obama, are the chief architects of the War on Coala war which has decimated Ohio's coal industry and threatens to kill thousands of jobs in Ohio. This is also a matter of public record.
Just last week, in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR), I was astonished to learn that Charlie Wilson said, "We don't need to fire Obamaand we don't need to stop any war on coal." Clearly, Charlie Wilson is in denial. He certainly is out of sync with this region's battered mining employees.
On the other hand, Congressman Bill Johnson has a demonstrated record of standing up to President Obama and fighting to protect coal jobs. Johnson authored legislation called 'The Stop the War on Coal Act' (H.R. 3409) that would prevent harmful EPA and Department of Interior regulations from going into effect that would kill underground mining. Congressman Johnson's legislation passed the House by a bipartisan vote two weeks ago. Ironically, at a recent debate in Marietta, Mr. Wilson said that he would have supported Congressman Johnson's bill. He said he would have followed Johnson's leadership.
Charlie Wilson is an affable enough guy. But he simply cannot claim to be for coal while actively supporting Nancy Pelosi and President Obama who have so feverishly worked to kill the coal industry. And while he may well have the Coal Miners Union backing him, it is obvious by the "War on Coal Fire Obama" signs that are all over Columbiana County that the "people" here are on Bill Johnson's side of Obama's war on coal.
David W. Johnson, County GOP Chairman
Are we at the end of the Republic?
To the editor:
After reading a recent letter to the editor where the writer was describing how America is better off today than we were when Barack Obama took office, it struck me that the nation has lost is philosophical compass.
The writer wrote how students are better off because of government aid, how Medicare is better off as are the people who count on it, how prescription drugs and health screening are now available to seniors at no charge, how veterans have additional benefits, and finally how taxpayer money was used to bailout privately held corporations to the benefit of a small group of unions and employees. Every one of these so called positives of the current administration is a redistribution of wealth scheme. Is that truly what America has degenerated to: using as a gauge of success how well the federal government steals from one American and gives to another?
The federal government was designed to have one objective, protect the freedom of its citizens. The Founding Fathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to win freedom for us and when it came time to create a government they created a limited federal government whose sole responsibility was to ensure that those hard fought freedoms would survive. Even Barack Obama once understood this. He stated, "generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the state can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." What Obama was saying is that under the Constitution the federal government does not have the prevue to do any of those things that some Americans now consider attributes.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th century French political thinker and historian, wrote in his book "Democracy in America" that "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's own money." Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Have we reached the end of the republic? Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" and that includes your freedom.
When did it become socially acceptable to profit from the labor and industry of others, to vote into office those who promise to give that which has not been earned, who promote equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunity. Redistributive policies come right off the pages of the writings of Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," the Communist Manifesto. Is this the kind of country you want to live in? Obviously it is the kind of country the previous letter writer embraces.
When evaluating which candidate to vote for, shouldn't the voter look first as to who will defend most vigorously what little freedom remains? Only, if the republic is to survive!
Jack Loesch, Homeworth