Letter to the Editor:

People are so accustomed to viewing politics as a choice between two slightly different flavors of collectivism (Democrat and Republican), that when I bash one side, some people automatically accuse me of being for the other side. For example, recently I've been continually bashing the Republican establishment. So, in case anyone thinks that means I like the Democrat tyrants, here's a little "equal time" for leftist bashing. 
When I stated that Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually wants significant "change" in our system, even though ALL politicians say they do, someone opined that Dennis Kucinich also wants significant change. Well, that just may be, but what kind of change? I went to Mr. Kucinich's web site to find out. 
Mr. Kucinich is against the war in Iraq. Good. But WHY is he against it? Because it is unconstitutional? No. Because it is immoral? Nope. He is against it because he thinks being against it will get him votes. How do I know this? Because he openly advocates all manner of OTHER unconstitutional, immoral violence against everyone in this country. So it obviously isn't actual principles determining his positions. 
Like all tyrants, he buries what he really wants under so many layers of euphemism that there's almost nothing left of the truth in his words. As you may have noticed, I am very literal and blunt about what I believe. I'll give you an example. The following story tells how, in this "land of the free," a gang of Nazi thugs did an armed invasion and forcible kidnapping of an American child, because some moronic bureaucrat (aided by an evil fascist pretending to be a "judge") decided that the parents weren't quite making the right decisions. 
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59581 
So here is an example of my literal, spin-free opinion: Though it would have been dangerous to do so, so I wouldn't recommend it for practical reasons, I believe the family had every right to blow every SWAT team thug's head off, if that's what it took to stop them from kidnapping their family member. Notice I don't bother with saying they had the right to "take action," or "demand justice," or any other vague niceties. I mean, quite literally, that it would have been justified for the father to point a gun at the head of the first fascist into the house, pull the trigger, and kill the guy dead, and to keep doing that until they stopped the invasion--either by choice or because they were all dead. Is that blunt enough? 
Whether you agree or not, I think you'd agree that I say what I mean. I don't bury my opinions in decorations and icing to disguise the meaning, or to make it more appealing to more people. You don't have to guess about when I believe violence is justified (only in defense), because I'm as blunt as possible about it. 
Now let's see an example of how Dennis Kucinich advocates massive, unjustified violence, without the spine to be honest about it. Here are just a few examples: 
1) His web site says he wants a "Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for- Profit health care system." Any mention of violence in there? Nope. It sounds nice and benevolent. But what does it actually mean? It
means you would be FORCED, under threat of VIOLENCE, to fund the government-controlled system of "health care" that HE wants you to use. If you resist, you will be put in a cage. If you forcibly resist being put in a cage, you will be killed. I hate to have to repeat the obvious so often, but ALL "law" is backed by the ability and willingness to use deadly force. Otherwise, it's only a "suggestion." 
2) Mr. Kucinich also says he would "make it a national priority to fight poverty worldwide." Well, that sounds good and charitable, doesn't it? But what does it literally mean? It means that he would use the FORCE of law to take your money from you (and put you in a cage or kill you if you resist), in order to do "charity" HIS way. (Of course, it's not charitable to be robbed, nor is it charitable to give away someone else's money, which is why I put the term in quotes there.) Like all tyrants, his propaganda emphasizes the giving, and omits any mention of the VIOLENCE that must come first. 
3) He wants to "renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban." Again, what does that mean? It mean he wants to put people in CAGES if they own a weapon he doesn't approve of. Of course, that won't apply to thugs who would be ENFORCING his every whim upon you. They get machine guns, tanks, bombs--whatever they want. Oh, and you get forced to pay for them, too. 
4) His web site says that, "[w]here the private sector fails to provide jobs, the public sector has a moral responsibility to do so." Wow, that sounds swell, too. What does it mean? It means that, for those who "can't" get a job working for someone who WANTS to hire them, he will use the VIOLENCE of government" to steal money from everyone, and use it to hire the unemployed. 
5) He wants to "restore the value of the federal minimum wage." That sounds nice. What does it mean? It means using VIOLENCE to prevent mutually voluntary trade that he doesn't approve of. Yes, even if the employer AND the employee agree to the deal, Mr. Kucinich wants MEN WITH GUNS to make sure the deal is forcibly stopped. 
The list of euphemisms used by Mr. Kucinich goes on and on, as is the case with ALL leftists. (Ever heard a Democrat tell the literal truth, and say, "I want to use force to take your money and spend it how I think it should be spent, instead of how you think it should be spent"? I doubt it. Yet that is the truth for EVERY "program" they advocate.) 
Here's an appropriate example: Who could possibly be against "ensuring that all American children have access to and receive proper medical attention"? Doesn't that sound swell? Well, that would be the tyrant-speak description of the story at the link above, where overt VIOLENCE is used by the thugs of "government" to forcibly impose THEIR choices upon us. It doesn't matter how you describe it, it's still FASCISM. 
I don't want to sound like I'm picking on Mr. Kucinich in particular. I could point out exactly the same things about EVERY Democrat candidate, because they ALL advocate the extensive, widespread initiation of state-sponsored violence to control and rob several hundred million Americans. And NONE of them have the honesty to admit it. 
There. Does anyone still think I like the Democratic party?

Larken R.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Hilltowns Online:

With the Patriots on the verge of going undefeated, the Red Sox winning the World Series, and the Celtics again an NBA powerhouse—its hard to understand how Mike Franco is still stuck on the gay marriage issue. Contrary to his letter, it seems that most Massachusetts residents have moved on to bigger and more productive things. As for Rep. Puppolo “paying a price,” one billboard from an out-of-state organization is hardly indicative of a mass uprising. Personally, I think it was courageous for Mr. Puppolo to meet with the people and families who actually would have been affected by the defeated amendment, and to change his mind in light of their experiences. From what I’ve heard, the meetings and letters were quite personal, and compelling. It takes a strong person to admit that they have made a mistake. For a politician, it’s almost superhuman! Too bad Mike Franco can’t move on like the rest of us and enjoy the beautiful New England winter with family and friends, of all types and colors.

Mike Youba

Florence, MA

Letter to the Editor: