×

Readers Speak

How we are voting

Dear Editor,

We did not write this in its entirety, but we might as well have as it encapsulates my thinking very well, although I did edit and add a couple original points. We cannot credit the original author, but this was sent to us by a friend in Illinois.

In less than three months, it will be over. The U.S. Presidential and Congressional Election, I mean, not the end of the world, but maybe the end of our nation as we have known it and I am worried.

We will not be voting for Joe Biden or Donald Trump as the ideal leader of this country. We are not voting for a man. We are not rallying for a personality. We are not pushing a person. At this point, we are voting for one thing and one thing only. We are voting for the principles for which this country has stood since its founding. We are voting for Constitutional government.

We are voting for a strong and viable military. We are voting for a vibrant economy. We are voting for the right to keep and bear arms. We are voting for the freedom to worship. I am voting for a national recognition of the founding of our nation on Biblical principles. We are voting for the ability for anyone to rise above their circumstances and become successful. We are voting for my children and grandchildren to be able to choose their own path in life, including how and where their children are educated. We are voting for our borders to be open to everyone who enters under our law and closed to anyone who would circumvent or ignore the law. We are voting for the Electoral College to remain in place, so that a few heavily populated liberal centers do not control the elections. We are voting for a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution rather than rewrites it. I am voting to teach history, with all of its warts, not erase it or revise it. We are voting for the sanctity of life from conception to birth and after. We are voting for the rule of law with fair application, treatment and equal justice under the law. I am voting for equal opportunity towards the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, creed, gender or color, and not preordained or equalized outcomes. We are voting for less government intrusion and control in private lives and more personal responsibility and trust.

Now, there are some things we are voting against. We are voting against open borders. We are voting against a rampant welfare system that enslaves its recipients. We are voting against socialism, in all of its forms, including health care, redistribution, reparations, economics, governmental control, pedophilia, and criminal releases. We would rather pay for prison reform than see the criminals released to repeatedly commit the same crimes.

So, although we don’t give blanket approval to everything our President has done or said in the past, I do support him as our president. We are not voting against Joe Biden, but I am voting against everything that the party backing him and propping him up stands for. It is not the Democratic Party of the past.

At this stage reality dictates the American people make a binary choice, we must make a binary choice. Our rationale is pretty clear-cut at least to me, hence my choice is clear. Our vote matters, so does yours — make it happen. As for us, we are going to vote in-person on Nov. 3 fully willing to prove my identity.

Absentee ballot request works just as well, always has, but not universal actual ballots mailed to everyone on the voter registration list that some states are doing. That method is most certainly fraught with potential fraud and just one occurrence of fraud is too much as it might obliviate my vote.

The countdown is on, what is your personal rationale for making your choice? Get involved with the national news and the political debate within our country and then make a choice and vote.

Curt and Jane Briggs,

Russell

Opinion ‘crossed the line’

Dear Editor,

I just wanted to go on record as saying that there can be no debate without a fundamental disagreement. You recently published a commentary from a writer who is well known locally for his views on the Democrats. I disagree with his views. However, there is no way to debate our issues without having some key ground rules: We should be sticking to the disagreement. We should not be calling our opponents names. That’s just childish and unproductive.

I would ask you to consider his essay. Did it stay on topic? Was it logical? Was it respectful to your readers, or did it pander to those who shared his views while veering off into ridicule and name calling anyone who had the audacity to think differently?

I do not object to his opinion piece because of the opinion. If someone I know wrote a pro-Biden/Harris piece that referred to Republicans as Rethuglicans, if that individual went on to blast all the readers who agreed with that party as racist, morally corrupt, and greedy, I would expect that this article would never see the light of day.

If the writer had stuck to his beliefs, I would have rebutted them. However, he crossed the line and it became an attack not just to the party, but to anyone who claims the same ideals. He crossed the line, and you allowed that to happen.

I’m disappointed in your decision.

Debby Hornburg,

Warren

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
   

COMMENTS

Starting at $4.75/week.

Subscribe Today