Letters

August 8, 2000

The Cincinnati Enquirer Dear Editor:

Why do I keep reading about Joe Lieberman being a “centrist” and a “moderate”? The evidence suggests that he’s just another garden variety liberal. Let’s compare him to someone who is perhaps the most infamous member of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party: Ted Kennedy.

A number of organizations rate members of Congress based on their voting records. Kennedy was rated as MORE conservative than Lieberman by the American Conservative Union (4% to 0%) and the John Birch Society (15% to 10%) for 1999.

Kennedy was rated more liberal than Lieberman by the American Civil Liberties Union (67% to 50%).

Both Senators earned similar ratings from the National Taxpayers Union (7% to 8%), and Christian Coalition (15% to 15%).

Sadly, both men were rated as Zeros by the National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association.

Perhaps Kennedy is slightly more liberal than Lieberman. But does that make Lieberman a “centrist” and a “moderate”?

John E. Becker

September 1, 1999

The Community Journal

Mark Daniels made many good points in his editorial “Politics, church should be separate” (August 25, 1999). For example, he is right on target about; “gently and respectfully presenting Christ to others”, “allow Him to be the central figure in our lives”, and “believe in and follow Jesus.”

However, Mr. Daniels states that, “except in extreme cases, I feel that the church should stay out of politics.” He referred to the central mission of the church being the Great Commission and that politics equated to “coercion.”

I wonder what Mr. Daniels calls the incident when Jesus flipped over the money tables in the temple (Matthew 21:12). If that wasn’t coercion, it certainly must have been intimidating. What about when Saul (later the apostle Paul) was struck down on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3)? Didn’t that lightning bolt go beyond intimidating?

It is not clear what Mr. Daniels was referring to when he said, “the church should stay out of politics.” (Normally, that type of statement is aimed at the bogus issue of “the separation between church and state.”) Based on the context of Mr. Daniels editorial, it appears that he is most likely alluding to social issues that can be directly affected by the electorate.

If the church stays out of “politics”, should she ignore the fact that 4,000 unborn babies are legally killed in this country every day? How extreme does it have to get? What about the condom pushers (Planned Parenthood) in Withamsville? Should the church just wink and nod? What about the two strip bars in Mt. Carmel? Should the church just whisper, “Jesus loves you?” What about Clermont County’s two obscene video stores? Should the church just ignore them and hope they go away? What about that disgusting “Advocate” (homosexual magazine) polluting Clermont County’s libraries? Should the church start celebrating perversion?

I’m sorry Mr. Daniels, but I must respectfully disagree. The church should not only be involved in these “political” issues, but should be leading the charge. A classic example is the Christian Life Center Assembly of God on Roney Lane in Mt. Carmel. Pastor David Cooper (and others) is leading many area churches to rid our community of the two Mt. Carmel strip bars.

Yes Mr. Daniels, we will be gentle and respectful. We will tell the wayward girls and the patrons that Jesus loves them. We will also tell them to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Please join us.

John E. Becker

May 28, 1999

Colonel Kenneth B. Marshall
Superintendent
Ohio State Highway Patrol

Dear Colonel Marshall:

The Cincinnati Enquirer recently published your editorial opposing HB 165 (right-to-carry concealed weapons).
I was pleased to see this because I did not know why the Ohio State Highway Patrol would oppose HB 165.
You outlined three reasons. I have addressed each:

1) Citing “road rage” you asked, “Do we really want to increase the number of loaded guns in vehicles?”
This question alludes to the “wild west” concern.
This concern is without merit. If I remember correctly, only about one percent of those eligible to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons actually do so. Therefore, the increase in the number of loaded guns in vehicles will not substantially increase. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there has never been an illegal shooting due to “road rage” or a “wild west” incident anywhere in the country by an individual legally carrying a concealed weapon.

2) You stated, “Concealment does not equate to deterrence.” Although I agree with your bank guard example, it is not a valid analogy. FBI crime statistics are very clear on this issue. Violent crime has dropped substantially in every state that has enacted concealed carry legislation. Criminals do not know who is armed and who isn’t. Many therefore, turn to non-violent crime. There are numerous examples of citizens fighting back. And a reduction in the crime rate immediately followed.

3) You stated that HB 165 requires an inadequate training course. Okay, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that issue. I hope that you get involved in designing an appropriate training course for us non-professionals.
You also pointed out the unfortunate fact that some law enforcement officers are killed with their own weapons taken by assailants. I agree that this is a danger. However, being unarmed during an attack is a much greater danger. Again, the statistics are clear that an armed citizen is able to protect himself, his family, and even innocent strangers better than an unarmed citizen.

I intend no disrespect sir, but your above arguments don’t hold water.
Please don’t get me wrong Colonel Marshall. I support the Ohio State Patrol. If your fine organization needs additional weapons, equipment, facilities, or personnel, in order to fight violent crime, please let me know. I will gladly ask my state legislator (Sam Bateman) to initiate funding to get you what you need.
Also, I can back up all of my above arguments with statistics and specific examples. I did not include them here simply because I’m trying to understand why we are on opposite sides of this important issue.
In what way could HB 165 be amended in order to garner your support?
I sincerely hope that your response to this letter will lead to a solution that will be acceptable to the Ohio State Patrol, the legislature, and to Governor Taft.
Thank you for giving this issue your consideration.

_____________________________
John E. Becker

May 5, 1999

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

Steven Abrams drove his car through a California playground Monday (May 3, 1999) killing two children. He reportedly stated, “I was going to execute those children because they were innocent.”

Frankly, I hope that he gets executed after due process of law. However, it seems that his desire to “execute innocent children” could have been carried out much more efficiently if he had been an abortionist. Federal marshals would have protected him while he carried out his evil plot for profit.

John E. Becker

April 23, 1999

Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

Laura Pulfer wrote “Are gun lovers ready to face bloody truth?” (April 22, 1999). As usual, she assumed the role of apologist for her liberal causes. It is no surprise that liberals would use the Littleton, CO tragedy as another excuse to impose gun control legislation. What laws should we enact next: A five-day waiting period on propane? Or gasoline? Or BMWs?

Do these liberals ever consider the facts regarding gun control? Is it not obvious that an unarmed citizenry is vulnerable to attack by anyone carrying a bigger stick? Do they not know that crime rates drop when citizens are granted the right to carry concealed weapons? Why do cities with the strictest gun control laws (such as Washington, DC) have the highest crime rates?

Gun control only applies to honest citizens. Criminals desire gun control because it makes their lives easier. They don’t have to worry about getting shot while committing rapes and robberies. Criminals will always be armed. Honest citizens need to level the playing field to have a fighting chance against them.

Do you remember the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre that occurred a few years ago in Texas? A woman who normally carried a gun in her purse left it in her car on that fateful day. She did this out of respect for her parents’ wishes. Her parents along with many others died that day. She now has to live with that bad decision. Without her gun she was nothing more than a sheep awaiting slaughter. She was helpless to protect herself and her family.

I can’t help but wonder how many lives might have been saved in Colorado, if they had allowed the adults the right to defend themselves.

John E. Becker

April 19, 1999

The Community Journal

Dear Editor:

I would like to give special thanks to some of the unsung heroes of Union Township. They include (among others) Trustees Mary Walker, Linda Wuerdeman, and former Trustee Tim Donnellon. They have worked very hard to try and stop Mt. Carmel from becoming a red light district. They have recognized the destructive affects that strip bars have on communities:

• Increased drug trafficking, drunk driving, and sexual assaults
• Decreased economic development, business retention, and property values
• Increased need for police protection and social services to help repair shattered lives

Our government officials need citizen support and encouragement. If we let the profiteers and the exploiters of the sex addicts win, will our children ever be safe in our near Mt. Carmel? We can all work together to save our community or do nothing and surrender it.

John E. Becker

March 24, 1999

The Community Journal

Dear Editor:

Leif Torkelson penned: “Healthy and Strong” (March 17, 1999). In this letter, he attacked Ronald Reagan’s record and distorted history. Torkelson described a “huge tax break for the upper class.” Additionally, he claims, “it was Ronald Reagan who ran up the national debt.”

Presidents do not have the power or authority to “run up the national debt.” Presidents can only spend money that has first been appropriated by Congress. The Democrats that controlled Congress are largely responsible for the high spending levels during the 1980s.

Yes, Presidents do influence Congress. And Ronald Reagan is responsible for the large military build-up. We should point the finger at him for:

• Solving the hollow military problem (remember Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage fiasco?)
• The fall of the Berlin Wall
• The collapse of the Soviet Union
• The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact
• The technology and equipment available for fighting the Persian Gulf War

Reagan also influenced Congress to enact across-the-board tax cuts. What effect did these tax cuts have on revenues to the federal treasury? REVENUES DOUBLED between 1980 and 1990. Consumers simply had more money to spend and/or save. Businesses expanded which created new jobs. Interest rates and inflation both declined. America enjoyed an unprecedented eight years of prosperity.

At this point you might be asking yourself: Okay, so if Ronald Reagan is responsible for our safer world, the doubling of federal revenues and an unprecedented economic expansion, then why did the federal deficit and national debt soar? Unfortunately, the Democrats who controlled Congress demanded massive increases in social spending and pork barrel projects. Compromise is the name of the game in Washington. Reagan was forced to submit to the Democrats wild‑eyed spending in order to get his tax cuts, strong economy, and a powerful military. Although revenues doubled, the Democrats still managed to spend too much of our money.

Ronald Reagan is (arguably) the greatest President in this century. But one question remains: Why do the Democrats hate him so much and vilify “trickle down Reaganomics”? Liberals attack Reagan’s success because they wish to build popular support for higher taxes, more regulation, higher government spending, and centralized power and control. The country clearly needs another Reagan Republican in the White House.

John E. Becker

March 8, 1999                         

Dear Governor Taft:

Thank you for your response letter dated March 1. It is regarding the proposed legislation to allow Ohioans the right to carry concealed weapons.

I am concerned that you do not appreciate the positive effects that this type of legislation has had in other states: Crime has dropped. Why? Because criminals take the path of least resistance. They minimize the danger they face just like the rest of us. Simply put Mr. Taft: Gun control only applies to honest citizens.

• Currently, only criminals carry concealed weapons.
• Do you think that they are concerned about gun control laws while engaging in rapes, robberies, and murders?
• Can the police protect all of us all of the time?
• Why can’t my wife have the ability to effectively protect herself while out jogging?

             Furthermore Mr. Taft, I voted for you primarily for three reasons:

1. You and your Lt. Governor support the Right to Life
2. Your campaign people assured me that you support the right to carry concealed weapons
3. Smaller government and lower taxes

One of your opponents, Mr. Mitchel, was also strong on these issues. Had I thought that you were going to waffle on any of these issues, I would have voted for Mr. Mitchel. Please don’t make me wish that I had.

Finally Mr. Taft, if you veto (or torpedo) this legislation, I will work to ensure your defeat in all subsequent elections. Please help me to continue to be one of your supporters.

                          Sincerely,

                          John E. Becker

February 25, 1999

The Community Journal

Dear Editor:

Michael Brill penned a great letter: “Wrong Message Sent” (February 24, 1999). He correctly pointed out the travesty of justice committed by the U.S. Senate regarding the Clinton impeachment.

Travesties of justice seem to be catching on. Remember O.J. Simpson? It appears that he and Bill Clinton have a lot in common. Both were:

·       Confronted with DNA evidence of their crimes
·       Clearly guilty as charged
·       Acquitted via jury nullification

Humm. Now that I think about it; maybe the nickname of “O.J. Clinton” would be fitting for our president.

However, I can think of one difference: Sam Donaldson asked Bill Clinton if he could “forgive and forget,” of course referring to the House Republicans. I don’t recall O.J. Simpson ever being asked if he could forgive the Goldbergs or the L.A. prosecutors.

Additionally, It is unfortunate that Mr. Brill, like most Americans, think that Bill Clinton has been doing a good job. The economy has done well. But who should get the credit? Should it be the first Republican Congress that we’ve had in 40 years? Should it be the Federal Reserve for managing the money supply? Should it be the state governments, which have been overwhelmingly Republican since 1994? Or should it be Bill Clinton who initiated the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. (This occurred during his first two years in office while the Democrats still controlled Congress.)

It is clear that Republican initiatives have been the driving force behind this successful economy. They have held the line on spending increases and have provided some tax relief. Unfortunately, Clinton has vetoed many good reforms. He then has the audacity to take credit for the ones that eventually passed and that he fought against. But we all know that he has no shame.

With another great leader like Ronald Reagan in the White House and a strong Republican Congress, we will then have the best possible combination: Lower taxes, controlled spending, smart foreign policy, and (perhaps above all) integrity.

John E. Becker

January 4, 1999

The Community Press

Dear Editor:

After reading “Christ’s Trials Remembered” (December 23, 1998), one could argue that Priscilla O’Donnell has shocked the conscience of Christianity.

She referred to Christ’s crucifixion as “… the story of the temporary triumph of evil over good.” She goes on to say that, “Ever since then Christians have been called upon to fight the battle over and over again.”

Christ’s death was the blood atonement for our sins. The crucifixion was not a triumph of evil, temporary or otherwise.

Furthermore, we have not “been called upon to fight the battle over and over again”, as O’Donnell asserts. We are helpless on our own against Satan’s power. Only the power of Jesus Christ can overcome evil.

O’Donnell went on to state that “The parallels between Christianity and the central tenets of the Democratic philosophy are manifest.” She mentioned school lunches, Head Start, public education, Social Security, and Medicare.

All of these programs have one thing in common: The government forcibly confiscates (under penalty of law) the resources of one group of people and hands them over to another who may or may not need them. Is that Christianity?

Jesus expects us to help those in need. We as individuals are to choose how to help. Options include financial contributions to the Red Cross, United Way, or others. Or working in soup kitchens. This is the Christian way and it squares with the central tenets of the Republican Party. Lower taxes frees up more time and money for us to help those in need without bureaucratic government interference. Jesus never suggested that the government should take this responsibility (charitable giving) away from the people or the churches.

Does Jesus Christ approve of the central tenets of the Democratic Party, as O’Donnell seems to think? Would Jesus be in favor of child pornography or pornographic “art”? Would He be in favor of homosexuality? (The King James Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. See Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Timothy 1:9, 10; and Jude 7.) Would He be in favor of handing out condoms in schools in place of Scripture tracts? Would He be in favor of abortion for any reason? The Democratic leadership even favors partial-birth abortions through the ninth month for any reason including sex selection. Furthermore, they want to take our tax dollars to pay for it. Would Jesus Christ be in favor of these things that the Democratic Party leadership has been fighting for?

The Democratic leadership thinks that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows for these atrocities. Would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson think so? No, but Larry Flynt and his fellow Democrats sure do.

O’Donnell crossed the line from outrage to insult when she drew parallels between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the impeachment of President Clinton. Clinton has disgraced himself, his family, his party, his office, and our country. He doesn’t even have the dignity to resign.

Bill Clinton seems to be the Al Capone of politics. The government could only convict Capone (a notorious gangster) of income tax evasion. Likewise, Congress has only been able to impeach Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice. However, Ken Starr is still investigating Clinton’s other numerous scandals.

The Democratic Party leadership has chosen to stand in the gutter with their president. Could this be “guilt by association”?

Clinton should be removed from office, prosecuted in a criminal court and (if found guilty) sentenced to five years in a federal penitentiary. This is what any other unrepentant perjurer would face. Why should Clinton be held to a lower standard?

John E. Becker