Pen and Quill

Dear NPRI,

I want to thank you and your Board of Directors for the honor you have bestowed upon me — the Freedom Award. I was unable to express adequately my feelings at the forum, overwhelmed by the honor and by the beauty of the plaque. I never thought that what I believed or had done would be worthy of such an award.

I believe in this country — I always have and I always will. To think that I, Eloise Anderson, a “chocolate” woman, born to a poor black family in Toledo, Ohio whose great-grandparents and grandparents were slaves, have been able to have such a myriad of opportunities both as a citizen and worker is a wonderful testament to the spirit and nature of the United States. The opportunities are not ones that have been uniquely granted to me. It is the American way. However, I am fearful that we will lose these wonderful gifts of citizenship and freedom. We as a people no longer understand freedom or the responsibilities that go with it.

My voice is not the only voice. There are surely not enough voices addressing the issues of freedom — especially free labor. This is the reason we fought the Civil War — state against state, family against family, and brother against brother — to be able to sell both our products and labor in open, free markets. They both are important principles we must not lose or fail to understand.

The rethinking of welfare is the first of many public policies that the nation must review to determine how existing policies fit with freedom and fair competition. It seems to me that we have a lot more work to do to put this nation back on the path envisioned by our forefathers.

I continue to pray that my small efforts will be meaningful contributions to that vision. I hope to leave my children and grandchildren in a nation and in a world in which they can utilize their talents and labor in the marketplace (which will for them will be global) and they will be free to compete. Outcomes are never guaranteed, nor should they be. That is the way of life.

I again thank you for your kindness and honor. I hope that I live up to the trust you have bestowed on me.

Eloise Anderson, Director
California Social Services


Dear NPRI,

In his 1992 campaign President Clinton said we’re only one paycheck away from poverty. Now we’re cutting welfare and he’s asking businesses and churches to hire the poor. Since American workers are only a paycheck away from poverty, business and churches already hire the poor, right? Besides, he’s talking to the wrong people.

Rather than begging others to pick up the debris of The Great Society he should tell its benefactors that the ride is over. He should take action that allows business people to create the needed jobs. He should announce that he’s stopping the fine that government makes them pay when they create jobs: the capital gains tax.

Whining never befitted a president and Mr. Clinton’s begging of business and churches is not a manifestation of great leadership. Besides, how can history judge the success of this approach to the problem?

History judges presidents on decisions that are bold and historical. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Clinton can cut the capital gains tax —the job creation tax. And Clinton would finally have a legacy to leave his country.

Bob Gore
Las Vegas


Note: NPRI President Judy Cresanta wrote an opinion editorial on the Lautenberg Act which Dennis Myers bashed in his weekly Sparks Tribune column. The following is a reader’s response to his criticism of Mrs. Cresanta.

Dear NPRI,

Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I did not see any quotation marks around the word “right” in that sentence. Nevada Constitution, Article I Section II: “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”

I did not see quotation marks around the word “right” in that sentence. It is the tradition of our entire legal system that fundamental, unalienable rights are not to be abrogated for a mere misdemeanor conviction.

If you and the rest of those who believe that domestic violence is solely the responsibility of the male partner and that special punishment should target the male despite the guarantee of equal protection under the law, then you should address the failure of government to prosecute such offenses as a felony. Instead you have blindly joined the ranks of those who attack perceived government failure by attacking the rights of individuals.

The tragedy here is that the use of a gun in domestic violence situations is most often by the woman and not the man. A 1984 study of 6,200 cases found that 86 percent of female-on-male violence involved weapons. By contrast, only 25 percent of male-on-female violence involved a weapon. (McCleod, “Justice Quarterly 2” (1984) pp. 171-193.)

You prefer the path of political correctness which allows the taking of a fundamental right for the political “cause celebre” of the moment.

To answer your question, Mr. Myers, perhaps the states have refrained form passing legislation such as the Lautenberg Act precisely because they are wiser than the run away federal government.

Brendan Trainor
Chair, Washoe County
Libertarian Party


Return to May Index Page