I don't have the space to properly educate Mary Newsom (Sept. 18 Enquirer-Herald) on economics 101 and freshman political science. I only hope she is not a product of U.S.C. School of Journalism.
If she will make the effort to look it up she will find that Obama and Michelle are both Marxiists from early in their lives by their own admission; but since they have become public people they can't afford to admit it. They detest Capitalism and every thing a free market stands for. They hope to take the profits from the little free market left and give it to the undeserving in exchange for their votes and worship.
Their mantra is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Folks, I know Obama and Biden are promising you the world; food, clothing, health care, college, a home, everything from cradle to grave. They tell you that they will make the rich and businesses pay for it all, not you. If you sell your vote for government handouts you will deserve what you get, but your fellow citizens who will be forced to pay for you won't.
There are only two types of economic systems possible: A completely Free Market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) and a Socialistic (Marxist/Communist) type.
There is a third type but it is a "mixed" system; part Free Market and part Socialistic and is temporary because the Socialistic part will infect the free part and just as one rotten apple will eventually ruin the entire barrel, so will Socialism ruin the entire economy.
Obama and company want to re-distribute the wealth. Make no bones about it. The first thing they intend to do is to impose Socialized Medicine onto a gullible public and then use various means of taxation to take from the honest and productive citizens and give it to the rest.
Our nation has been heading for Socialism big time since the Federal Reserve was established. The past few days have seen several, huge, private businesses become Nationalized by our government with no Constitutional grounds and no one knowing how many more. We are becoming a "banana republic", a "Third world" entity.
All of the reason, truth and common sense in the world will not change the mind of "Yellow Dog" Democrats, bless them. "My Daddy was a Democrat" trumps everything.
I understand that Mary Newsom more than likely has to write that liberal garbage and the Enquirer/Herald (and perhaps the Rock Hill Herald and Charlotte Observer) has to print it since they are all owned by McClatchy Newspapers and she works for them.
On the smoking issue
Shortly after I finish writing this letter, the Fort Mill City Council will hold a "public discussion" that will be attended by members of the York County Council. At this meeting, these Councilmen will pretend to give a good gosh darn what the residents of Fort Mill think about a proposed county-wide smoking ban. They did the same in York and Clover last week. What I learned from the York meeting (kept suspiciously hush-hush) is that a group exists calling themselves the York County Medical Society. What I have yet to learn is who is in charge of this organization, who makes up its membership, where their funding comes from, etc. Dr. Nichols (first name?) represented the YCMS at York's "public discussion," and laid out their stance as pro-ban based on the dangers of cigarette smoke. They want smoking banned in ALL public places, even (and especially, it seems) in privately-owned restaurants and bars. Also, no smoking within 75 feet of the front door so you can imagine what sort of service you would get in an outdoor seating area--HA! I also learned that the County is already geared up to get this ban passed. They do not care what any of us actually think of it.
The YCMS and the County Council are attempting to protect people from themselves. No argument can be made that smoking is HEALTHY, but if smoking is such a detriment to your health, you have the right not to walk into my (or anyone's) restaurant. No one is forcing you to be at 105 Garner St., inhaling secondhand smoke. If Dr. Nichols wishes to have a smoke-free restaurant/bar, I whole-heartedly encourage him to open one. But DO NOT tell me or any other property owner that I MUST ban a legal activity in my place of business. It is legal for me to sell cigarettes (though, I no longer do). How absurd if this ban passes for me to sell a man a pack of cigarettes and him be unable to smoke those cigarettes in the very building in which he bought them! The good doctor gave all sorts of statistics on how people are dropping like flies from secondhand smoke. Ban cigarettes outright if they are such a hazard to everyone's health! Wait, hold up, a ban would eliminate tax revenue from cigarettes so we know that ain't happenin'! Hypocrisy wins out!
So, Dr. Nichols is tossing out all these stats (Liza Minnelli once said, "Smoking is the leading cause of all statistics," by the way), and what he made it sound like is that EVERYBODY is going to die. Oh, yeah, that's right everybody IS going to die, but not necessarily from secondhand smoke as Dr. Nichols would have us believe. People who partake in cigarettes know good and well that they looked like a smoked ham on the inside. I was taught in elementary school how terrible cigarette smoke (both direct and indirect) is on the body; therefore, if I smoke a cigarette or patronize an establishment that allows smoking, I am behaving in a manner contrary to logic, but it is my choice to do so. The government allows the sale of cigarettes. It is a LEGAL activity. Consider this: every 39 minutes someone in the US is killed in an alcohol impaired driving accident. In other words, almost every half hour some drunk driver kills either himself or an innocent bystander/other driver. Every 39 minutes--outrageous! If you wreck your car while you are drunk, you've likely been out in public. Ban public drinking. That would take care of a lot of public smoking at the same time. Two birds, one stone, done deal. Sound absurd? Well, that's only because the drinkers outnumber the smokers. 66% of Americans imbibe while only 20% light up. What politician is going to take on 66% of the public opinion? Mark another one down for hypocrisy.
The funny thing about Dr. Nichols and his little study is that there are countless studies out there to refute every one of his points. Again, no one could ever make the argument that smoking is good for a body, but if you investigate the issue, it is not half as dire as Dr. Nichols and the YCMS would lead us to believe. Thomas A. Lambert, professor at the University of Missouri Law School, cites, in an article of his that spoke against smoking bans, a study done on 35,000 never-smoking Californians who LIVED WITH smoking spouses. This study went from 1959-1998 and was published in 2003 and found no causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and tobacco-related mortality. While we're banning smoking in the county, let's just go ahead and ban non-smokers from marrying smokers. That ought to be next on the political agenda since we're so concerned with protecting people from themselves.
All this statistical garbage does not even phase me one way or the other. To me, this is not a smoker vs non-smoker issue. This is a private property rights issue. Patrons (and employees alike) choose to come into my restaurant of their own free will. If I am doing something they don't like, they protest by not spending their money here (or in the case of employees, by quitting). Our founding fathers roll over in their graves every time a smoking ban is passed affecting private property owners. As un-American as this ban is, the County Council seems to be turning a deaf ear to the business owners of York County and like wise to the Constitution of the United States.
The Coal Yard