|Dear Editor, |
I have not been paying much attention to the Republican candidates for our District #8-Tennessee Congressional seat.
I have been watching their commercials on television and am quite frankly very disappointed in their rhetoric. All of them say nothing!
They merely voice that they will “Take The Country Back!” Whatever that means? However, candidate Stephen Fincher, says he will stop Obama-Pelosi Care, that he will cut spending and stop all of these programs such as (Social Security-Medicare).
If I may, I would like to suggest to Mr. Fincher, that he stop taking all of the farm subsidies program.
According to government records, Mr. Fincher has averaged $350 million over 10 years.
Mr. Fincher says that’s an overstatement, and that he has averaged between $50,000 and $75,000 per year only. He says he will work on that if elected.
Does Mr. Fincher realize that he makes more on his farm subsidies than most of his constituency, if elected, does annually?
As far as where he stands on the important issues, no one knows, – issues like Unions, jobs, big banks, Wall Street, trade.
We only know that he wants to repeal health care and cut Social Security and Medicare. I might suggest to Mr. Fincher, as to your farm subsidies, “Just Say no.”
Try to practice what you preach. You sound like a typical Republican politician – take care of you and the rich and the working middle class can do the best they can do.
And just as you should have said “no” to all that money, I say “no” to you and your candidacy for District #8-Congressman.
Please just stay on your farm and collect all that money. The people of the 8th District in Tennessee will be better off for it.
Don V. Jones
Something is always happening about which I want to tell you. I know that you know that nature abounds with wonderful things. Late one afternoon I saw grace in motion as I looked out the kitchen window when I saw two visitors walk into the backyard.
I stood motionless as I watched them stop and look around. One of them was the mother and the younger one was her offspring.
The younger one stayed very close to its mother and after a moment or two, the younger one moved a bit closer.
I watched to see if they were likely to come closer to the house. The mother looked around carefully and upon seeing no danger, she moved a little closer while the younger one stayed very close to her side.
After determining that there was no danger, the mother began to eat while the offspring stood nearby.
These two visitors may be those that are frequently seen nearby. I can’t tell because they have no distinguishing marks that would identify them from others that might also be in this vicinity.
I’m glad to see those visiting creatures because I’m willing to share this idea with them and the other creatures I’ve seen in this area, such as rabbits, coons, foxes, groundhogs, wild turkey and other birds.
All of those should be allowed to share nature’s bounty in a peaceful existence and each kind of animal has a part in nature’s plan. Even the buzzard has a part because it is nature’s scavenger.
Oh, I forgot to tell the names of the two visitors. They were a mother deer and her fawn. Isn’t Mother Nature wonderful? Not only does it provide the beautiful things we see, it also provides the warbling of birds that is nature’s music.
“When did that happen?” I often ask that question, and occasionally I have caught the “thing” on its cutting edge.
This time it has to do with the popular Military Channel on television. Very recently, the “Military” of it suddenly came to include “City Cops” and perhaps probably other such non-military, strictly civilian police shows.
Nothing that happens in the television industry’s programming decisions happens “by accident.” In fact, all such changes as well as theme choices are the product of studious contemplation by the highest-ranking moguls in the business.
Somebody in that channel’s hierarchy or in its parent corporation, Discovery Communications of Elizabeth, NJ, if not inside the closets of “Propaganda Central USA” has strategically determined that the time is ripe for the clouding/confusing of America’s traditional and constitutional distinctions between National Defense on the one hand and Law Enforcement on the other.
My last question, then, is not just the “why” of it, but also, that of “Pursuant to exactly what (and whose) objective?”