Hendricks County Flyer, Avon, IN

November 29, 2012

Letters to the Editor Nov. 28, 2012


— To the Editor:

I had hoped our Plainfield Town Council would have had better vision in utilizing the common space west of the Dairy Queen.

Surely we could have had a commons area that described Plainfield's important heritage in transportation with the old National Road and the Vandalia Railroad.

But the best idea our council could come up with was to relocate the Oasis Diner, the "aluminum room," to the center of Plainfield.

In my opinion, it is a bad idea! It might be time to let the 1950s go ... and the food there wasn't really that good anyway.

I'm with the minority of the board on this decision.

Larry Rudy


To the Editor:

With the re-election of President Obama and the fallout of his followers with their crowing, albeit very loudly, about its meaning, I don't believe the Republican Party could have done anything any different to ensure a Romney victory.

Some "pundits" on the left announced a "new America" was making its voice heard. I have to wonder if there's really anything "new" about it though. Socialism has been around for some time and that's what "Obamacare" amounts to.

While noble in its idealism, socialism simply hasn't worked, but some obviously believe it will here. The auto industry and Wall Street bailouts, along with the hit-and-miss Bush-style stimulus are also socialism.

And for the good points of "universal healthcare," there are as many horror stories from north of our border of Canadians traversing to the states for quicker doctor visits, some tired of waiting six to eight months to see one.

So the President wants to nationalize the economy and "redistribute the wealth." Others have done it and it doesn't work. Fifty-nine percent polled after the vote stated the economy was the biggest issue, yet a majority chose a novice over a proven economic success. That's a "new" kind of thinking?

There are also the social issues of morality, which Mitt Romney held the high ground on. Biblical principles were the foundation of this country, and of any successful and benevolent society. The President tragically pays very little lip service to God, let alone really believe in Him or His precepts, asserting the most blood-thirsty of abortionists and proclaiming his support for same-sex lust as equal to God-ordained heterosexual marriage.

Obama has powerful allies in most of the media and entertainment industry, entities which have almost nothing in common with the average American. Yet the cult of personality, which seems to be a Democrat trademark in the Presidency since the days of FDR, justified a vote for Obama, not once but twice.

The "new America" chose style over substance, fluff over fiber, charisma over character. Nothing "new" about that. John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton are substantial evidence of such an assertion.

On the foreign front, where does one begin? The fact Obama's a muslim with little response, let alone justifiable condemnation, of the genocidal inclinations of Iran and others in Israel's annihilation shows a most dangerous pattern. How is it that Nazism is most evil for their hatred of the Jew, but Islam is given a pass for the very same thing?

And I won't hold my breath for justice in the Benghazi tragedy cover-up. This is different than Watergate where the media hated Nixon. In this scenario, they love Obama and will do what they have to to protect him, even though he's culpable as Commander in Chief. How is this "new"?

Finally, in personal associations I remember David Duke ran for office years ago and was subsequently stopped due to his association with the Ku Klux Klan. Yet the President is influenced by his communist grandparents, a communist father, an America-baiting rabid "preacher," and a Weather Underground operative, yet this didn't faze anyone voting for him.

Communism, since the 1917 revolution, has consumed the lives of over 125 million and still persecutes and enslaves over a fifth of the world's populace, yet that didn't ruffle anyone. Maybe Joe McCarthy was right after all. Of course its a major double-standard here, but to the "new America" it's no big deal. This is "new" and those with morals and absolutes and intrinsic values are "old," I guess.

The Founders must be rolling in their graves. So, the "new America," counting the presidency of Bill Clinton, brushed aside two World War II veterans in favor of a woman-abusing draft dodger and ally to the communists in North Vietnam, then, with the bump in the road of Bush's jr, the "new America" again dissed a Vietnam war former POW and more recently a successful business leader for a muslim with a communist upbringing and socialist economic inclinations bent on destroying the greatest economic system ever devised.

The Republican Party didn't fail at all. The voters who put Obama in office twice have failed miserably to grasp what they've done. This isn't "new."

"The Emperor's New Clothes" explains much about the "new America" here. Their version of "progress" equals renovating a bathroom by gutting the whole building. There's nothing "new" about that sort of thinking. Generations have been failing with this sort of lame reasoning for centuries. This generation will be no different.

Doug Edens