Destruction of lawn signs is an attack on free speech

Sometime between Oct. 22 and 23, someone came onto my property as well as my neighbors' and proceeded to steal political lawn signs. This is extremely disappointing.

As a community activist, Baltimore County Republican Central Committee member/Webmaster, and Patapsco Valley Republican Club Webmaster/secretary, I find it appalling that free speech is not being considered and theft of political materials is occurring.

I also find it disturbing that no one has addressed this issue, considering that around the country people have been stealing signs and even setting others on fire.

This type of activity should be addressed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is ludicrous to think that this is acceptable behavior.

I would never think to do this to the other parties' property. This is a total lack of respect on the entire political process, not to mention a total disregard for the amount of money each candidate spends on those materials.

Sheila Faulstich
1st Councilmanic District Representative,Baltimore County Republican Central Committee

Bush will give us victory; Kerry, appeasement

We are a nation at war. For those readers who may have forgotten, our nation was savagely attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Make no mistake about it the events of that day were an act of war against the United States.

In this war, we are dealing with a different kind of enemy, one that operates not under the auspices of a nation, but rather operates under the auspices of their religious beliefs. This is a much different situation than the Cold War.

The Communists, while our enemies, were at least rational individuals who held a greater interest in subjugating the West to their political and economic system rather than killing Westerners. In the final analysis, they blinked because they were as scared of mutually assured destruction as we were.

The current enemy has no such fears or reservations. Their stated goal is to kill as many Westerners, especially Americans, as possible, even at the cost of their own lives.

The current war traces its beginnings back to the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian students and has continued through numerous attacks to this day. These were not isolated incidents.

However, administrations of both parties were either unwilling or unable to put the pieces together.

Every presidential election represents a crossroads for the nation, but none more than this year's election.

We face a choice between President Bush, who is pursuing the war on terrorism as a war and is putting American interests first by taking preventative action, and John Kerry, who has stated that he will pursue terrorism as a law enforcement matter (resuming the Clinton Administration policy), but will strike back if we are attacked.

Excuse me, but the idea of defense is to prevent being attacked in the first place. Mr. Kerry's slogan is "A Stronger America," but I wonder how he will strengthen the country, given his consistent votes against military and intelligence spending, his support for a nuclear "freeze" and his seeming obsession with pleasing the United Nations, France and Germany, which he refers to as putting things to "the global test."

These things are part of Kerry's lackluster 20-year career in the Senate, which he conveniently omits from his campaign. Kerry has also stated that he would like to negotiate with the terrorists. This is appeasement, plain and simple. The terrorists see negotiation as a sign of weakness, which would place the nation in further danger.

Kerry has also said that he would increase the size of the Army and would not defer to other nations to defend the United States. Which version of Kerry are we to believe?

History has its parallels, and today's world is no exception. Great Britain in 1940 had Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. The United States in 2004 has George W. Bush and John Kerry.

What would today's world be like had Chamberlain prevailed? I shudder to think about it.

What will the future be if John Kerry prevails? I shudder to think about that too.

Much has been made of the domestic agenda, but if the war on terrorism is not won by the United States, and won decisively, the domestic agenda will not matter.

To achieve victory in the war on terrorism, President Bush needs the support of Congress. Rep. Elijah Cummings' and Sen. Barbara Mikulski's opposition to the president at every turn has been nothing less than shameful. Cummings' call for the United Nations to monitor the upcoming election is especially shameful, being a threat to U.S. sovereignty and an affront to all Americans.

I am an American and will vote for America first. Therefore, I will be voting for George W. Bush, Tony Salazar and E.J. Pipkin on Nov. 2.

Gary A. Smith

Here's hoping for American unity after the election

Driving through Catonsville, it is hard to fail to notice the lawn signs of the opposing presidential candidates. Sometimes those signs appear in the yards of neighboring houses.

As poll after poll indicates, this nation is about evenly divided on who should be the next president. But on Nov. 3, the day after the election, those houses will still be side by side. The citizens of Catonsville will still remain neighbors and our country will still remain a Republic of 50 United States.

Unity and being a good neighbor are certainly important to Americans. Shortly before the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln quoted the Bible, "A house divided against itself can not stand."

But it is also true and more important to note, again from the Bible, that a house built on a foundation of shifting sand will fall with a great crash when storm winds blow.

And that will be true regardless of whether or not those who dwell within the house get along with one another or not.

In the final analysis, we must strive to remain united as Americans but, more importantly, we much each decide on which presidential candidate we believe provides the firmest foundation of leadership to keep this country from succumbing to the forces that aim to undermine its foundation every day.

Without a doubt I believe the person who best exhibits the quality of leadership we need is President George W. Bush.

Scott Appelbaum
Catonsville

Kerry's Vietnam testimony emboldened communists

I find Ann Power's contention that John Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971 shortened the war (letters, Sept. 22) to be absolutely preposterous.

Once again, she proves herself to be in need of a history lesson.

In his 1985 memoirs, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap credits the antiwar movement in the United States with giving his country the strength to continue on to win the war.

It was the actions of John Kerry, Jane Fonda and their ilk that emboldened the communists to fight on. Recordings of Mr. Kerry's testimony were played by the North Vietnamese to torture their prisoners of war.

Yes, it is our God-given right as Americans to criticize the government, but in Mr. Kerry's case that criticism went far beyond that. When coupled with his meetings with the North Vietnamese in Paris, he ventured into the realm of offering aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

Kerry's testimony, if anything, helped to prolong the war, and the blood of those who died is on his hands.

God help America if this man becomes president.

Gary A. Smith

Kerry's actions show more than his debate prowess

As someone who is a solid backer of President Bush, I will confess that I was impressed by John Kerry's performance in the first presidential debate. He lived up to his billing as an effective debater.

But, after reflecting on his comments, I have to conclude that it was those debate skills and not the man's substance that impressed me.

Some have pointed to the following as Sen. Kerry's best line of the night. "I made a mistake in how I talked about the war. But the president made a mistake invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

This statement was made in reference to the often-replayed quote from the senator that he actually voted for the $87 billion supplemental funding of our troops before voting against it.

But Mr. Kerry's statement that he made a mistake in how he talked about the war belies the fact that he did vote against appropriating the funds.

His vote against the supplemental funding was much more than mere words. It was a definite action communicating a lack of support for our troops. This is not a message a commander in chief can afford to make.

Mr. Kerry's campaign tries to explain his no vote as a protest against the funding of the $87 billion, stating Mr. Kerry preferred it be funded with a rollback of tax cuts. The core truth is that Mr. Kerry felt it more important to make a protest over the esoterics of economic policy than providing the material our troops needed to keep safe.

John Kerry picked the wrong time and the wrong place to make that protest. And the inevitable result is that John Kerry's actions, not just his words, communicate to our troops he doesn't support them.

Scott Appelbaum

Thanks to the Moxley team for much-needed crosswalk

I, along with the staff and other parents of students at Arbutus Elementary School, owe a debt of gratitude to Bryan Sheppard, aide to Councilman Sam Moxley, for securing a much need crosswalk at Willy's Avenue and Sulphur Spring Road.

Our children will now have a much safer crossing after being dropped off by parents. The safety of our children must never be compromised.

Thanks again, Bryan, for all of your help.

Sheila Faulstich
Arbutus

This page last updated November 9, 2004