I seek to counter some of the views and remarks by Mr. Charles C. Nash in his "ELECTION DAY 2008" article in the Nov. 15, issue of the Paper. "My eyes filled with tears" is an amazing response by Mr. Nash to the election of one who may be a Bolshevik or leans greatly in that direction. After all, Obama's coterie of friends are of that ilk: the anarchist Ayers, the European American haters Wright & Pfleger, and the Communist Frank Marshall Davis his boyhood mentor. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified Davis as a CPUSA member.
Speaking of Communists, Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon, both of whom Nash degraded in his article, were anti-Communists as members of Congress.
Is this the reason Mr. Nash does not speak well of them? Would Mr. Nash be more comfortable living in Communist Cuba? Then, there is the Obama-Acorn connection. Need I say more about the President Elect's friends. So, what are the tears all about?
Is not the past prologue and a person known by their friends? By their fruits ye shall know them as the Book states.
All this personal history may not be known by Mr. Nash since his source of TV news is obviously NBC, a Bolshevik leaning media propaganda merchant, along with many other media "fellow travelers" who gave "Hussein" a pass because they lean more Bolshevik than American. Speaking of "Hussein," the Muslim middle name of the President Elect, who professes to be Christian, I ask, "what Christian, in light of current events with the Muslim world, given a Muslim birth name, "Hussein," would not rush to the Court House to drop that name"?
Everyone I know would, but not the President Elect. Why? Names are important and tell. Do you know anyone who has named a daughter Delilah or Jezebel? So what gives with tears for "Hussein"?
Mr. Nash clearly does not like Sarah Palin, fine. But, liberals, including Mr. Nash, seem to feel that they can demean, regardless of any accurate description, without restraint, those they oppose. I challenge that. The successful governor of Alaska in doing what few others have done in cleaning up corruption, winning the admiration of millions who also stand with her on not killing her newborn and standing firm on the Second Amendment. She is my kind of gal.
Contrarily, Mr. Nash attacks her Founding Father qualities, at least by implication, calling her, in an attempt to demean her as I presume is his goal, "barely literate and ignorant," but we rural Missourians see her as good, courageous, and noble; qualities found in few in public life and not lacking in her.
Alaskan voters surely do not agree with her being about 70 IQ material implied by Nash. How did one "barely literate and ignorant" reign in big oil and corrupt government officials? Her fruits tell a story of wisdom and intelligence.
Finally, Mr. Nash stated the Founding Fathers gave America a democracy when he said, "I could only imagine any of the Founding Fathers observing Sarah -- and having second (or third) thoughts about the whole idea of establishing a democracy in America. A Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, tells us that the Constitution gave America a Republic, not a democracy, when he said, "A Republic, if you can keep it" in responding to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created. When Americans say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, we say "to the Republic for which it stands. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, states in referring to our government, "the honorable title of republic." The Constitution, Article IV Section 4, "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government. "Madison warned, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10). Who is "barely literate and ignorant?" Palin or __ ?
Madam, editor, my retort is simply to have "iron sharpen iron." I do not know Mr. Nash and have no ill toward him, just his views. As an apparently educated man, I believe he is grossly mislead in his studies and mentors, as so many today are, whereby false presuppositions are formed leading to false thinking revealed by his article with conclusions not shared by rural Missourians, bedrock people of historic America, with whom he is out of touch.