To the editor:
Once again I opened up my newspaper and was confronted with the socialistic dribble advancing the Chris Mathews "thrill down my leg" platitude for Obama and his "...work for the working class." What part of the 8.3 percent unemployed or food stamp recipients is included in that collective?
Obama is simply a Cloward/Piven strategist who advances the concept to expand the social welfare programs in the hope of overloading the U.S. welfare system and bankrupting our nation. And of course those who make claim falsely that our nation is a democracy obviously do not recognize, as did the founders of this nation, that we are a republic (article IV, sec. 4 of the Constitution) guided by the rule of law, not dictatorial czarist policies under the guise of democrat principles.
It is within this frame of mind that the socialists try to precipitate a transformative economic crisis as guided by such as Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," to wit: orchestrate a crisis and somehow convince the ignorant that only the government who created it is able to correct it.
The constant attacks on Romney by the adherents of Obama seem to continually ignore how dangerous this radical occupying the White House really is. His bailout programs have not helped anyone but his cronies in the Solyndra-type companies and the unions who robbed actual owners, the stock holders of GM, in reward for filling up the Obama campaign coffers.
The argument that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich is a false dichotomy. What Obama wants to do is protect his base, many of whom pay no federal income tax at all so as to create a sub-status electorate whose dependance will forever be on the government largesse at the expense of those who actually pay taxes and want to preserve our founders' creative genius in the protection of our constitution and its limitation on the federal government.
The socialists first need to rip out, one page at a time, the tenets of our constitution: freedom of speech and religion; the right to bear arms; rearrange the 10th amendment so as to deny states rights; create "mandates" and then accept the truth it really is a tax they previously denied, etc.
Another term under Obama will allow a continuance of the lies and divergence and the destruction of our nation's framers' establishment of our republican form of government.
How is it that the social constructionists are always arguing for protection of socialistic programs that in fact the United States Constitution denied them the right to create in the first place?
And let us face facts. Social Security was established as an insurance program, not a welfare program nor a Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamp mirror image. In fact, under Obama, Medicare will face a $500 billion reduction in benefits, all the while those on Medicare had an increase to their already existing withholding insurance coverage deducted from their monthly checks; somewhat matching the sparse increase in the mislabeled COLA raise. And might the electorate understand that those on Medicare only get limited 80 percent coverage (more so with the establishment of a government medical review board under Obamacare) while those on Medicaid pay not a penny for theirs and to add insult to injury, get more benefits than those who continue to pay into the Medicare program after retirement.
And it needs mentioning that the only one who is out to destroy Medicare is Obama through his transferring of billions of dollars from Medicare to the Obamacare fiasco. Neither of the Romney or Ryan programs would eliminate Medicare but would change its structure and options that would protect it for current beneficiaries and over time save it as a choice for the benefit of future generations.
If the socialists are so eager to support Obama and make demand for Romney's years past tax records (not required by law) then perhaps they might well convince him to show us his real birth certificate, his passport records, how he obtained a Connecticut Social Security number since he never lived there, how he was eligible for a Fulbright scholarship only awarded to foreign citizens, and why did he and his wife lose their law licenses? I could go on and on but that would require a tome not permitted in this venue.
Mrs. Diane L. Logan