Change for the better still the expectation
President Obama hasn't been in office three months already and the propaganda "machine" of the former administration is running at "flank speed." Someone needs to remind them of these truths:
1. The mess our country is in was caused by Bush-Cheney's near "dictatorship."
2. Greed, lies, deception and cronyism lie at the feet of the "radical right."
The mishandling of the Iraq War and Katrina, sores that festered until most civilized countries lost respect for America. They also say the global economy's recession started here on Wall Street.
Go home, Cheney, and tone down your venom toward the Democrats and their leader. You and your cronies should be glad "Impeachment" so far has been spared you and all that blindly followed. Haven't you done enough damage?
Mr. Obama ran on change and change for the better will come. In closing, remember these words that follow.
"Change is our ally" and we face squarely those who fight change because the status quo has been good to you, either by "hook or crook." The divine right of the successful is as false a notion as is the divine right of kings.
Questions for Obama
According to a recent Associated Press column, President Obama, you spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast stating, among other things, "... there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."
Based on this statement alone, then, my question, Mr. President is: Knowing this, why do you, not only personally, but as president, support killing the unborn? None other could be so innocent. And, to accomplish this evil inclination, you, et al, basically, steal monies from we, the people, to pay Planned Parenthood and their cohorts, including worldwide, to do exactly what you say God would not condone.
Based upon our acknowledgment of God, the Creator as the source of our nation, do you really expect we, the people, to believe you?
My next question is: Do you really expect God, the Creator of all life, to be unaware of what is in your heart when you tout upholding His laws yet so brashly reject them?
Motorcycle helmets save lives; keep expenses down
In regard to those who believe that adults should have the choice of wearing a helmet, congratulations on increasing your insurance rate because of the massive amount of head injuries that result due to the lack of safety helmet wearing in the state of Nevada.
For those uninformed, the state would be paying for hospital costs through taxes (those taxes paid by Nevada citizens).
Though it is true that "helmets do not prevent accidents," those with helmets on are much more likely to live (with a functioning brain) than those without.
The helmet law was first enacted for motorbikes federally in 1967 (EzineArticles.com). Soon after, many states were enacting their own laws. The reason for this was simple: People were getting hurt more often and more severely without protection.
The same precautionary mentality was used for the invention of seat belts as well; so should seat belts be optional, too?
Would it give one a sense of adrenaline-inducing danger? That would be the only benefit from not enforcing these laws that are meant to protect citizens. Laws are made for a reason.
The reason for a mandatory helmet law would be to prevent people from being killed more frequently than without helmets.
It also would help reduce the taxes citizens are paying for people in hospital beds with head trauma because they would rather "feel the wind" in their hair than wear a basic, inexpensive and effective helmet.
Why doesn't the Navy stand up against piracy?
Enough already. Where's John Paul Jones? Why doesn't the Navy take on the pirates where they live?
Attack the ports that are used by them. Without the ports or their boats " we have no pirates.
Voters will remember smoking law reversal
We are very disappointed in our state senate for voting to bring back indoor smoking in Nevada. We are especially disappointed in our Sen. Mark Amodei and his remarks minimizing the affects of secondhand smoke on everyone, not just children.
We are also very tired of the legislators and courts over-riding the will of the voters.
Our voters, by a large margin, supported this smoking law to finally get the secondhand smoke somewhat controlled.
We have observed that restaurants have enjoyed increased business since the ban.
What about the employees' health who have to work in the polluted environment?
Now the secondhand smoke will creep right back into fine restaurants.
Why didn't these businesses speak up?
The voters will remember.
VAL AND DONNA JENSEN