I know the Daily News Journal will never run this so I will.
Dear Editor, by Leah
An Open letter to Mr. Ransom Jones,
I am responding to the article that appeared in the April 14 issue of the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal concerning the Election Commission business.. . In an April 12 article of the Journal Mr. Jones is quoted as saying, “We have to restore credibility.” Now two days later on April 14, Mr. Jones is quoted as saying, “These people look like complete nuts. This crowd is the most extreme unreasonable people.” So much for credibility!!!!!
Well, Mr. Jones, I am one of those “extreme nut cases “. I also want you to know that I have worked for the election commission for many, many years. I was hired as an election worker that goes all the way back to when Amy Williams was Administrator of Elections, plus I worked every election when Mr. Penuel , was Administrator. I have worked in the main office. I have been sent to Lavergne to work. I have worked in Smyrna, and have been sent to Nursing homes all over the County. I have worked in several precincts in Murfreesboro , plus I have worked early voting at Vine Street for several years, and for many years I have worked in my own precinct on election day. This past election season, in addition to working at the polls, I put many miles on my feet, putting on door hangers, and knocking on doors, and stuffing many envelopes.
How many door hangers did you put on?? How many envelopes did you stuff??? How many doors did you knock on?
My husband and I, for years, have spent a lot of time, money and energy supporting many true Republicans. Republicans that would support the Constitution. Republicans with a conscience and who would be careful with my tax dollars. This past election our hard work paid off and we finally have some good Republicans in office, and you have the asinine arrogance to call us “nut cases”. It is all reminiscent of that sentence in Animal Farm when the pigs say, “Some of us is more equal “ and it tells me and a lot of real Republicans something about your character. It is because of “nut cases” like us that the Republicans now have the pleasure of being the majority party, and the reason you are chairman of the Election Commission. In other words, without “nut cases” like us you would not have this chairman’s job and you would not be getting paid that $75.00 a meeting of my tax dollars.
You owe every hard working Republican voter in the city and county a great big sincere apology and you would do us all a great service if you, yourself would resign from the commission and give the position to a real Republican. You have lowered the “credibility” to the septic tank level.
By the way— did you know the County Mayor’s job does not require a college degree? I also suspect by writing this letter I will no longer be asked to work an election.—well so be it, because it becomes a matter of principle.
Leah Jaeger 2418 River Oaks Drive Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 37129
Well said Leah, we need more people like yourself to step up and provide direction for our local party. As a voting member of the executive committee I hear your voice and agree with you whole heartedly!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Remember in November
I was very disappointed to learn that the Republicans, especially my congress woman Diane Black, did abandon their plans to cut the 364 million that Planned Parenthood got from the federal government. I knew that Planned Parenthood was the largest provider of abortionists in America and they only had a budget of about a billion dollars.
A cut like this would cripple them in many ways. Yes, it is true that none of the 364 million goes for the actual abortions, but it goes to pay for the counselors that tell young ladies that they can solve all their problems by getting an abortion.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The Gun Is Civilization
I wish I had written this, but it details some of the reasons why I own firearms and think others should as well.
The Gun Is Civilization
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
The Gun Is Civilization
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)