This country has been around for 236 years, a dynamic culture and standard of living the world has never known. Then along comes Barack Obama. This dedicated Marxist came in not as our leader but as our ruler. Remember the phrase "we will be ready to rule from day one.'' And since that very day he has carried on a frontal attack against our Constitution, our liberties, our freedoms, our very way of life.
Now if you think there is nothing we can do about what he is trying to do, please think again. We can register and vote in November. It is the right thing to do.
JOANN WHITLOW, Harrison
July's reasons why you should not vote for Obama.
The Obama administration claims Romney would and did ship jobs overseas. Why then are we now giving tax incentives to First Solar, which is building its solar panels in Germany?
In Columbia on April 12, Obama told Hispanics that he would address immigration in his first year of his second term. While campaigning in 2008 he told them he would do this in his first year in office.
Obama called President Bush unpatriotic and said he should be voted out of office for raising the debt limit. Obama has now tripled it. I guess then by his own admission, we should vote him out of office.
Under the Obama administration, the United States has, for the first time in history, been downgraded from a AAA rating.
Why are we building a $12 billion dam for Pakistan when they hid Bin Laden and gave our stealth secrets to China? Our own roads and bridges need repair.
If Obamacare is so great, why is he giving waivers to the unions, his contributors and his friends? Make sure to vote in November.
TOM FRICKE, Spring City, Tenn.
I remind my Soddy-Daisy friends, family and neighbors to vote for our own Marty Lasley for Soddy-Daisy judge.
As judge and Soddy-Daisy resident, Marty's decisions will not only impact us, they will also impact him, his family and his neighbors.
I am disturbed that residents from Signal Mountain, East Brainerd, East Ridge and Chattanooga and other cities have tried to convince us to vote for men who live on Signal Mountain and in Chattanooga and other cities. In fact, the majority of judicial candidates in this race do not live in Soddy-Daisy.
The son of the Rev. Don and Ilene Lasley, Marty graduated from Soddy-Daisy High School, Carson-Newman College and Vanderbilt School of Law. He chose to return to Soddy-Daisy. Today, just like us, he spends his hard-earned dollars in Soddy-Daisy and pays taxes to support our town.
With 25 years of courtroom experience, Marty is highly qualified to be our judge. We are blessed that he knows us and has a heart for Soddy-Daisy.
We know our community, we know Marty Lasley, and we trust him to care for us as our Soddy-Daisy judge.
JAMES CARDEN, Soddy-Daisy
In response to the writer (June 3) who, if he lived in Hamilton County, would seek an injunction against the "prayer plaintiffs," I make three points:
He assumes that the plaintiffs are atheists when that is not the basis for their objections. Instead they are asking for a moment of silence that would be inclusive of anyone of any persuasion. He puts them in a minority of unbelievers in which they may not belong.
Even if they do belong in that minority, they are appealing for protection against "the tyranny of the majority." The framers of the Constitution were concerned about more than the tyranny of rulers. That's why we have a Bill of Rights -- 10 amendments, the first of which he would deny the plaintiffs.
All of us have some trait, action or belief that puts us in a minority. For example, there have been dozens of letters to the editor in opposition to the plaintiffs' request, but his is the only one that calls for the revocation of the citizenship of those who disagree with him. That means he is in a very small minority. He should consider applying his own logic to see if he should be excluded from a pluralistic society.
This letter is in regard to the story about the Nevels family (they lost their son to AIDS) who stayed away from their church for a number of years because the minister refused to compromise his beliefs regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. The article, which was published June 24, seems to demonize Dr. Fred Steelman for his beliefs. He was completely "right" for standing up for his beliefs and what the bible plainly says. The Bible says it is an abomination in at least five passages. No amount of trying to "explain it away" is going to change what God says about this subject.
It is unfortunate that the Nevelses lost their son to AIDS, but the Bible is very clear on this. Dr. Steelman should be commended for standing up for God's word and for his beliefs. It seems that many people will keep trying to justify this behavior no matter how plainly the Bible says it is wrong.
JEAN RICKARD, Hixson
Many years ago the story of the Nevels family took place, but why is it written now after 17 years? Yes, it is a sad, heart-throbbing story. The community responded sympathetically to both the Nevelses and the homosexuality. However, the family suffered the most because of their son's lifestyle, illness and premature death.
I wonder, under what circumstances, and why at this time the story is written. Every day we hear the tragic stories. We live under tension of good and bad, right and wrong.
Why has this particular story been sensationalized and stirred up the emotions of the community?
I believe there is a hidden motive to make a point that homosexuality is OK. Often, we romanticize to justify our actions, especially when they're bad. The writer succeeded in doing so.
Yes, we must accept all people just as they are, but there are consequences to reap when we cultivate bad acts. We all do bad things, but we must never condone that which is bad.
The church community never left the Nevelses; they left it. The father loved his son, but the acts of the son brought sorrow, pain and the premature death to himself.
AMOS TAJ, Ooltewah
It's logical that drafters of the Affordable Care bill would want to have all purchase insurance or pay tax/penalty. It's claimed these non-insured individuals supposedly increase costs for other participants.
It's not logical that others who are known to increase health-care costs of all participants are excluded from paying additional tax/penalty. It's well documented that those with pre-existing conditions -- from smoking, certain groups such as premature babies (born to crack, cocaine or meth mothers), morbidly obese, those with lifestyles which incur STDs, alcoholics, drug abusers, daredevils, hypochondriacs, etc., etc. -- increase the cost of health care overall.
What should be done with those not wearing seat belts but injured in automobile accidents? Those injured while violating safety rules or traffic rules? The list is quite long!
Ambulance-chasing trial lawyers and juries awarding unreasonable damages also should be taxed out of existence in proportion to the amount that they increase costs.
But none expect Congress to act logically.
JOHN LYNCH, Whitwell, Tenn.