I hereby place these in the public domain, please feel free to paraphrase or even copy whatever you want (except sections that pertain to me).These letters are designed to have two major effects. First, you can send them to your Representative and Senators once they appear in your newspaper. This should get more attention than a personal letter because they realize that you are showing the material to the entire community. Second, they are designed to damage the enemy. For example, the Social Security privitization letter shows that Democrat Tom Daschle is dishonest. ("Democrat" and "dishonest" are almost redundant, especially for the party's left wing.)
Social Security privitization (July 2001) Body: 298 words
To the Editor;Senate majority leader Tom Daschle attacked Social Security privatization as follows. "A year ago, if you had the choice of investing in your NASDAQ account or investing in Social Security, which of those two accounts would be better today?" This is yet another example of the half-truths we have come to expect from the party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Clintons.
Almost anything would have been better than last year's NASDAQ but retirement plans span thirty or forty years. NASDAQ (up 785% since inception in 1985) hasn't been around for 40 years. Consider instead the Standard & Poor, which was at 1249.5 on April 1 this year. It was at 65.31 in April 1961, so it gained more than 1800 percent over 40 years. This corresponds to an average annual return of 7.66%, including the year of the Clinton economy to which Mr. Daschle refers.
A precise estimate for a retirement plan would require annual S&P data but we can look at a rough estimate. If you invested $2000 a year for forty years, with matching payments by your employer (as with Social Security), at only 7.5%, you'd retire with slightly more than $900,000. This would pay you, at the same rate of return, $67,500 a year in dividends and interest without the need to withdraw any principal. Social(ist) Security doesn't pay a third of that.
It's all about control. The Democrats want to force us to "contribute" our money to their criminally fraudulent pyramid scheme. When we retire, they can then control how much (if any) of our own money we get back. They can demand our votes in exchange for giving us anything. I've a better idea: vote them all into positions where, like Albert Gore, they will have "no controlling authority" over anything.
Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (June 2001) body 278 words
Although manufacturers are closing plants and cutting jobs in California, the Blackout State still hasn't had enough. The San Jose Mercury News has published an ongoing stream of editorials that support the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. The Kyoto Protocol would force the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by taxing fossil fuels and requiring expensive carbon dioxide scrubbers on power plants.
California's employers prefer Pennsylvania's attitude toward fossil fuels: Pennsylvania digs them out of the ground and burns them. Pennsylvania and other states are converging on Californian manufacturing firms like sharks that smell blood. Michigan, for example, sent 4500 glow-in-the-dark computer mousepads to California businesses with the words, "Michigan. We never leave you in the dark."
Henry Ford said inexpensive power and access to transportation were the two key factors in siting a factory and the high-paying jobs that go with it. (Ford, a Democrat who was foremost in advocating a square deal for working people, wrote things about "big government" that would make Ronald Reagan look like a liberal.) Our ratification of Kyoto would have enabled China, which has no obligations under that treaty, to court American employers the way other states are now courting California's. President Bush protected our jobs and our country by repudiating Kyoto.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, knowingly and willingly signed a treaty that would have, had the Senate ratified it, destroyed American manufacturing jobs. Albert Gore was among the treaty's foremost sponsors and advocates. The party of the Clintons, Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton is not our grandparents' Democratic Party. Republicans and Libertarians now represent the interests of the working people who produce America's wealth.
Gun control politics in the doctor's office (298 words)
Effects: (1) encourages patients to complain about medical practitioners who follow the Physicians for Social Responsibility's agends and (2) encourages physicians to withdraw support from PSR and possibly resign from professional groups that go along with DAHITo the Editor;
Like PLO leaders who encourage teenagers to become "martyrs," the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) have published an unsigned "Counseling Patients on Gun Violence Prevention: A Pocket Guide for Nurses and Physicians" on their Web site. It encourages physicians and
nurses to commit what might be unprofessional conduct by serving patients gun control dogma and junk science under color of medical advice.* A pro-Second Amendment physicians' group (it doesn't present its political views as medical advice) uses the term "boundary crossing."I am not a lawyer and I cannot give anyone legal advice. It's easy, however, to envision a patient complaining to the state medical licensing board if a doctor asks the patient (or his her children) whether there are guns in the home, or says that a gun in the home is far more likely to kill someone you know than a violent intruder. The latter is true if you know people like drug dealers or rival gang members. Gun control groups want ordinary law-abiding people to think it applies to them.
Doctors and nurses, don't martyr your careers for PSR's ideology. If you do get in trouble and call them for help, I suspect that your calls will neither be answered nor returned. They'll hang you out to dry and leave you on your own.
Doctors Against Handgun Injury (DAHI— is anyone for handgun injury, except in self-defense against violent criminal aggressors?) has drawn several mainstream physician groups into its umbrella. This jeopardizes these groups' reputations and 501(c)(3) tax exemptions (if they get too heavily into politics). It could lead members into unprofessional conduct as described above. Medical practitioners can support gun control or the Second Amendment through groups like Handgun Control Incorporated or the NRA respectively while keeping political opinions out of the doctor's office.