Former BOS member wants officers noticed
When I was on the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, I appreciated when citizens gave me a heads-up, so here is yours.
“Proud Parent of a COP” -- my shirts were finished July y. I plan on wearing one to the next Hanover County Board of Supervisors meeting, and asking during citizen time for yard signs (I saw them in yards outside Philly two years ago) and bumper stickers (my old one from the Hanover County Sheriff’s Office is ragged out).
I am requesting the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, in coordination with Col. David R. Hines, sheriff, allocate funding to provide for these, in support of our law enforcement officers who provide our “Thin Blue Line”.
When people start leaving this job, it will be the good ones who leave. The idiot protestors do not understand that this is no video game and there are no do-overs.
When they lose the police, and police powers, they end up with people like me, and, believe me, they do not want that.
If the incident that happened to the young mother on the Fredericksburg 911 call had happened to either me or my wife, the outcome would have been significantly different.
Paul Harvey wrote “What is a policeman”. I encourage all to hear this. I have known many in my years, and all but a very few fit his description.
Our deputies now are the first first responders.
A time long ago in a galaxy faraway, when rescue sSquads dispatched their own, many times we were first on the scene.
I remember the anxiety, fear, and adrenalin-rush responding to a “call-unknown”.
These are life experiences for me, but our deputies face these every day. They need to know that the people in the community are covering their “6”, and they need this moral support now. They need to see these items displayed in communities and on vehicles so that they realize, they are not alone or unappreciated.
C.E. “Kip” Davis
Resident reaches out to leaders about name changes
(Editor’s note: The following was sent to all members of the Hanover County School Board and Hanover County Board of Supervisors, as well as Dr. Michael Gill, superintendent of Hanover County Public Schools.)
Hanover County School Board
Dear Member of the Board,
The first thing that came to my mind last night (Tuesday, July 14) as I learned of the atrocious four votes to change the names of the two Hanover County schools were the words of Thomas Jefferson’s “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” and Edmund Burke’s “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
There has never been an issue that came before the Hanover County School Board, I am certain, in which the people of Hanover County had expressed their will more clearly and more overwhelmingly. Yet, these four members ignored that clear and overwhelming voice of the people. The good people of Hanover County, ever trusting but this time obviously mistakenly trusting!
Many thanks to Chairman John Axselle and members Norman Sulser and George Sutton for doing the will of we the people of Hanover County. The four members who thwarted that clear will of the people and bowed to the mob should resign or be removed from their positions.
Michael T. Reardon
Responding to Letter about Fox News staff
This letter to the editor is in response to the letter from Melvin Mozingo, which appeared in the July 15, 2020, edition of this newspaper.
In his response to me, Mr. Mozingo honestly quoted me when I said, “I made the wise decision not to watch that channel (Fox News) ever.”
I choose to watch MSNBC, which the current occupant of the White House and his supporters refer to as “treasonists”, “fake news”, “agents of the Deep State”, ad infinitum.
The hosts of the MSNBC shows that I choose to watch play sound bytes of the ilk named Sean Hannity, Jeannine Pirro, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, spewing their hate for everybody who has dark skin, has female genitalia, had a D on the right side of his/her name or dares to tell the truth about the pandemic (which the current squatter in the White House continues to refuse to acknowledge, and has called the virus a hoax multiple times), while fawning over that squatter.
The above named Fox “News” hosts don’t make any effort to deny what they have said.
I would refer to the squatter by the name has parents gave him, if he didn’t so boldly show his intent to get Vladimir Putin to help him steal the 2016 election, starting the moment he began campaigning.
“Russia: If you’re listening, do you have those 30,000 classified emails?” had to be the code word for Putin to start his dirty deeds.
I would refer to the squatter by the name his parents gave him, if he didn’t continually take Putin’s assurances (also known as outright lies) over the word of career Intelligence Officers (who have served under presidents of both major parties).
I would refer to the squatter by the name has parents gave him, if he hadn’t refused to allow staff members to testify at the impeachment hearings (which he and his disciples to this day still refer to as “that illegal, unconstitutional coup attempt”).
If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, and then immediately started showing her obvious guilt of recruiting a foreign hostile leader to help her get that win, I would be referring to her as “her fraudulency”, “her illegitimacy”, “the naked Empress”, “thief in chief”, “commander in thief”, “she who shall not be named”, etc.
I don’t care what letter -- D or R -- appears next to an elected official’s name when it comes to corruption or election theft.
Mr. Mozingo, I’ll reverse the question you asked of me.
If Biden wins this upcoming election, with the results determined beyond a reasonable doubt (perhaps by a non-partisan panel of lawyers and judges) to be honest (no fraud, no interference from a foreign government), will you respect that outcome and refer to him by the name his parents gave him: Joseph R. Biden Jr?!
Disputing slavery as start of war
How often do we hear or read, “The South fought to preserve slavery”; “The war was fought because of slavery”; “The Civil War was about slavery and not states’ rights” and so on?
Each of these so-called explanations turns on a single word or group of words, e.g., “preserve”, “about” “keep” “because of”, etc. They are used interchangeably by the media when buttressing the claim that slavery, and slavery alone, took the nation to war in 1861.
There can be no doubt that slavery played a significant role in the cause of the Civil War, but the South did not fight to “preserve”, “keep”, or “maintain” slavery; it already was protected by the U.S. Constitution and the 1857 ruling of the Supreme Court.
Why did many of the Southern states secede, and How did the Civil War begin, are two separate questions with two dissimilar answers.
What evidence supports the statement the South started the war “preserve slavery”?
Wasn’t slavery already preserved following the Dred Scott ruling in 1857?
The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed that citizens could not be deprived of their property and slaves were considered property.
How many Local readers know about the Corwin Amendment, the original proposed 13th Amendment, which was passed by Congress on March 2, 1861 (without the participation of representatives from the seceded Southern states!)?
The Corwin Amendment guaranteed the protection of “domestic institutions”, i.e., slavery, from any future Congressional interference to include abolition.
In other words, it guaranteed the preservation of slavery forever in every state in which it existed in January 1861 (including Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky).
After he was inaugurated, President Lincoln signed the Corwin Amendment on March 16, 1861, and sent it to the states for ratification.
In his inaugural speech, Lincoln, when referring to this amendment, stated, “had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”.
Kentucky, Rhode Island, Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois ratified the Corwin Amendment, but the firing on Fort Sumter brought the ratification process of the original 13th Amendment to an end.
Had it been ratified, the Corwin Amendment would have become the 13th Amendment, forever protecting slavery instead of abolishing it.
For the South, the issue of slavery was not about its preservation; rather, it was about the future expansion of slavery into U.S. territories.
Lincoln was always clear he would oppose the spread of slavery into new territories, but he also recognized he had no authority to abolish slavery where it existed and that is why he faced no personal dilemma in signing the Corwin Amendment.
Historians, high school teachers, college professors, and Hollywood gloss over the fact that President Lincoln signed a congressionally passed amendment protecting and preserving slavery in all states in which it was legal in 1861.
Once slavery was elevated later to be the single cause of the war, and following his assassination, it became essential for Lincoln to be acknowledged as the “freer of slaves” and not the President who “had no objection” to the Corwin Amendment.
As further evidence countering the perspective that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, on July 2, 1861 (after the Civil War began), the United States House of Representatives (with no voting members from the seceded Southern states) overwhelmingly passed the following resolution:
“That this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights of those states; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states unimpaired; that as soon as the objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”
This Congressional resolution made it clear that the Civil War did not originate as a war to eliminate slavery.
In fact, it clearly stated when the Union was again unified, slavery could continue where it existed before the war began.
Lincoln did not send 75,000 Federal troops into Virginia on May 24, 1861, to free slaves. Rather, his objective was to restore the Union as soon as possible.
Richard A. Marksbury, Ph.D.
Inequities still exist in sports
We are one decade plus into the 21st century; however, the inequities in all sports events are still present.
The enlightenment that has fueled the zeal to make a perfect world in every aspect of American society has yet to address fully the sports sphere.
The gender gap has been closed, the race barrier has been removed, so all that is left is the offensive shame of losing.’
Children and adults crying, fighting, throwing things are the results of losing. Often even the officials are threatened.
Now, you would ask what more could be done to address the issue of losing. The shame and mental anguish of the loser must be addressed!
In youth sports everyone gets a trophy.
From youth leagues to major leagues, the leveling must be done immediately.
The perfect sports outcome should be that everybody is a winner.
How, you ask?
"The Solution" is to not keep score.
Imagine that! Utopia is now achieved, and we all live happily ever after.
Oscar Thomas Walker