This site was last updated 12/03/10

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090303/UPDATES01/903030345/1009/SPORTS01

March 3rd, 2009 response to a story of a coach not being allowed to pray with players

The second Clause is as powerful as the first

It is appalling that the courts are allowed to trample our religious freedom and the second clause of the 1st Amendment which reads regarding religion: "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." This is clearly a prohibition of religious exercise.

When Darius the Mede ruled over the kingdoms of the world a law to forbid prayer to God was made, much as our Supreme Court has done. Daniel, one of three presidents of that kingdom, refused to heed the law and prayed anyway. For his efforts he was thrown to the lions but was not touched because of God's angel. He was released, his accusers and their families killed. When will men and women today stand up and dare to be a Daniel, defying the ungodly law to not pray and begin praying with their students, teams, and schools according to the command of Jesus, "Men ought always to pray and not to faint." We should be willing to lose our lives or our jobs to obey the Lord. But clearly, "You cannot serve God and mammon."

Posted on Tue, Jun. 24, 2008

Withdrawal is prize

The United States ought to be waging peace, not war, in Iraq. Current insurgent groups in Iraq oppose the continued occupation of their country by U.S. troops. Each group has different political goals for their country, but their military goal is to drive out the United States.

Our nation can change that drive through negotiation, but not at the point of a bayonet or missile. What's needed is a determination to bring peace, not dominance and control of the future Iraq according to President Bush's will.

We cannot kill every insurgent in Iraq, nor should we want to. Those same people are former military who would also protect their country from future invaders. It is time for the United States to pursue peace in Iraq through negotiation, not bombing. It is the Iraqis' country, not ours.

We need only to help the factions meet and to encourage negotiation with the carrot being our complete withdrawal from their land. Continuing to use the stick to hit the donkey is never going to work. But I am not so naive to think that Bush wants to leave that oil-rich region, which we now control.

A solution to the conflict is not what Bush and his inner neo-cronies really want, but it's what Americans want.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

April 16th, 2008

The double-minded

Double-minded Americans and the shallow media — you know who you are.

It was easy enough to see the futility of the Iraqi war leading up to the surge, but then came the tempter in the form of George W. Bush — wait, that's impossible, he's a Christian. He bullied you, called you a coward. He cajoled for "our troops," and finally, the ultimate temptation. "We must win, we must be victorious!" The double-minded and shallow media types rallied. You would be the strong American, the winner, the one who brought victory in Iraq to America. So you voted with Congress, for supporting the surge. You gave the president the benefit of your doubts.

OK, maybe with a few more troops he can win this thing, get it under control. All that's important is winning for America, winning for the Iraqis! Somehow you forgot that this president and his staff lied to you to get us into this war.

Whatever. See what I mean about double-minded? See why I called our Decider-in-chief a tempter — or not?

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

March 17th, 2008

Great job, ICE

March 7 was an awesome day in Lexington. We learned how Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are working in Lexington. The first indictments have been returned against two landlords who had hired and housed scores of illegal immigrants since 2000.

I'm not rejoicing over the arrests; I'm rejoicing that immigration laws made to protect citizens are being enforced. This is wonderful news to all who support the rule of law, and it sends a powerful message to those breaking our laws: Beware. Your day of reckoning is near.

On behalf of Kentuckians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement, I want to thank the ICE officials and all those working behind the scenes. Lexington appreciates their efforts and supports them and their continued efforts in Kentucky.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

Published Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Golden Rule of immigration
Published 2-29-08
Illegal immigrants share the love
 

"Why are you such a xenophobe and bigot to enforce current laws against undocumented workers? If the system wasn't so bad, there wouldn't be a problem. Let's just give anybody who wants one a driver's license. At least with a license, they'll have to get insurance. Let's love our neighbor as we love ourself!"

OK, let's think about how we love ourselves.

How many of you don't care about obtaining a legal driver's license? Would you drive month after month after year without a license or insurance? Or would you wait until you passed the test and paid for your insurance?

"But they can't do that because the state won't let them!"

Indeed, the state won't let them because they are not legally within the country. They were not screened for diseases or felony background as legal immigrants are nor did they apply for a permit to work in a foreign county as every other country in the world requires.

Would you do that in someone else's country? Would you go to a foreign country and try to get a job without papers and then expect them to pay for your babies and their 12 years of schooling?

Would you go to the local forger and have a false identification card made up so you could fool your employer, placing yourself and your family at risk by committing a felony?

Is that how you would love yourself? This is how illegal immigrants love their neighbors and themselves every day.

DOUGLAS ROY

Lexington, Ky.

November 17th, 2007
According to plan

I read much about the poor preparation for the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation. Could it be it didn't matter to our commander in chief?

If control of the oil reserves in Iraq, along with providing for his buddies in big corporations was President Bush's goal, then the mission was accomplished.

The evidence shows that friends of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and many congressmen are making billions directly from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers. Fourteen permanent military bases have been built and occupied to control the Middle East. There's no end in sight to our conflicts in the region.

If you still buy the cover stories about Iraqi freedom, WMD and the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, you're still struggling to put dots together to make the picture work. Good luck.

If the truth were told, those missions were indeed accomplished back in 2003. The real mission is continuing to be accomplished: oil under control and buddies making billions.

Bush is protecting the free world by keeping these massive oil reserves on tap for U.S. citizens, and he thinks that is what we really want. Yet they continue to sell the cover story for those of us who might be offended at trading oil for blood.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2007/as-letters-1008-speakout-7j07v0650.htm

Speak Out ... Encouraging terrorism

Published Sept. 25th, 2007

False prophets

Some pastors in Lexington are promoting civil disobedience. They tell us that it is wrong to forbid certain aliens to enter the United States. They say law that screen felons and contagious-disease carriers and set quotas are immoral.

They say the people of our city must pay for all the extra expense and burden placed on them by unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants, quoting the Bible as they fill their offering plates with the added money of their illegal parishioners. They pronounce eternal life promised by our Lord to those living in disobedience to the laws of the land and our Lord, placing themselves and their patrons to the level of saints, suffering the persecution of a disdaining populace.

We are told to repent and feel sorry for our mischaracterization of these poor, saintly folks. We should open our hearts and wallets for them, paying for their education and their medical needs. We should hire them and house them, as in so doing, we are defending the weak and obeying the laws of Christ.

We should work to change our laws to give them driver's licenses and other legal identification, to pardon any offenses to the current laws they disobeyed. All this in the name of Christ and his words, "Love thy neighbor."

More words of Christ: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Douglas Roy
Lexington

 Douglas Roy, Lexington, Ky.

Published Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Deception designed to control oil

Published September 21st, 2007
Presidential Covetousness Was Cause Of War In Iraq

President Bush has never wanted to leave Iraq.

It is not stupidity; it is calculated, cunning and deception.

He plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq from now on.

The purpose for the war had nothing to do with Iraqi democracy. It has everything to do with control. As a matter of fact, as long as the Iraqi government is weak and impotent, it is an excuse to continue the deception.

Controlling the region means controlling the flow of oil, the real reason behind the invasion, not weapons of mass destruction, not al-Qaida, not Saddam Hussein.

The bottom line is covetousness, the 10th commandment broken.

Douglas Roy Lexington, Ky.

 

Published 9-2-07
Judgment and immigration

Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." Today folks are being judged wrongly as racist, hateful bigots because they oppose illegal immigration.

Throughout our history there have been limitations made on immigration to protect our country. There are requirements made of new immigrants, including learning the English language and American laws. Assimilation into our society was and is essential to promote peaceful relations among different ethnic groups.

There is strife between different cultures, but we cannot attribute the modern backlash to illegal immigrants as simple bigotry. Laws made to unite us as "equal under the law" are being violated daily by illegal immigrants. Now these people and their supporters are asking all Americans to wink at the law and allow them to slip over the fence and butt into line, taking whatever legal citizens receive: jobs, housing, medical help, schooling, legal assistance, etc. They even take the right to protest, holding up foreign flags and signs that judge and condemn those who oppose their lawless attitudes.

Don't allow yourself to be shamed for believing in what's right and supporting the law. The same Jesus who said "love thy neighbor" also commanded us to obey and judge righteously.

Those who hate should be ashamed, but the majority of us simply want our laws obeyed and enforced for all, regardless of race, color or creed.

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

8-14-20078-14-2007
                                                                                               

Dear Editor: “Deadly roadside bombs supplied by Iran," quotes recent headlines supplied by U.S. commanders. I wonder what other countries on the receiving end of U.S. made weaponry say?

“Bombs killing thousands supplied by U.S." or “Satellite guided bomb used on neighbors supplied by Bush administration," or “Shoulder fired missiles taking down planes and helicopters supplied by U.S." or how about, “Worlds most wanted trained by U.S. C.I.A. operative," or maybe, “Dictator secretly helped to power by C.I.A. operatives," (i.e., U.S. government), or “Leader deposed with help of C.I.A. operatives of the United States."

How many times could we see not just indirect involvement through weapons sales by the world’s largest weapons dealer (U.S.), but direct involvement of our secretive spy corporation running “president-directed" coup operations? Just how many wars have we fought as a result of C.I.A. afterbirth?

Wake up Americans!

These spy corporations, intended for obtaining intelligence, are out of control fire starters, attempting to rule the world through covert manipulation and their deeds regularly bite “U.S." in the butt.

Congressman Ben Chandler's great response to my recent request for paper ballots!

August 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Roy:

Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Machines.
 As your representative in Congress, I think the most important part of my job is to understand your concerns so I can better represent the Sixth District in our nation's capital.
 
 In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend of problems with computerized voting machines.
 Even during last November's elections, problems with electronic voting machines were reported.
 In order to preserve our democracy, we have the responsibility to ensure that every vote is counted.
 A paper ballot would be one way to restore the voter's confidence in our elections.ﾠ
 
 As you may know, H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, was introduced in the House on February 5, 2007, and was referred to the Committee on House Administration.
 Having passed through the Committee after debate, the bill has been placed on the Union Calendar and is up for consideration by the House of Representatives at any time during the 110th Congress.
 
 H.R. 811 would require that our voting system use individual, durable, voter verified paper ballots of each voter s vote.
 Like you, I understand that enhancing the voting system in our elections will strengthen our democracy.
 As a result, I have cosponsored this bill and I will strongly advocate for its passage.
 Please rest assured I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that our democratic process is fair and transparent.
 
 I appreciate the time you have taken to contact me about this matter.
 Please feel free to stay in touch and contact my Lexington or Washington office if I can be of any further assistance.  

Sincerely, Ben Chandler

Member of Congress Confirmation# 1138599

 This email account cannot receive email.
 If you would like to email me, please visit my website at http://chandler.house.gov and click "Send Us An Email." I cannot guarantee the integrity of the text of this letter if it was not sent to you directly from my Congressional email account: KY06WYR@housemail.house.gov.
 If you have any questions about the validity of this message, please contact my Washington, DC office at (202) 2254706.

Published July 29th, 2007

Published Tuesday, July 17th, 2007
Withdrawal of troops could breed peace

Many of the 30 percent supporting the war in Iraq are responsible Americans. They believe in responsible government. If we start a war, we should finish it, take the responsibility for it - good or bad. All these motivations are good, but I question the wisdom behind the support of this current path to victory.

Consider another idea. Suppose our troops were to withdraw. It would make it clear to all Iraqis, including the terrorists and insurgents, that it was now up to them. We would not come when a car bomb blows or force our will on the day-to-day decisions of what the Iraqi government should do. If they continue destroying their own society with us out of the way, then so be it. The blame will be upon their heads.

We would pull back, but not out completely. Our troops would begin to draw down and a great number would return home to rest. If signs of foreign invasion appeared on the horizon, some of our soldiers would still be there. Perhaps the way to victory in Iraq may be to back up to allow for war to stop and peace to happen.

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

Dear Editor: In response to the Gerald Jones letter on July 10: If one researched the available information regarding the supposed WMDs in Iraq, as I have, one would find the following about the only two pieces of physical evidence: The aluminum tubes intercepted at the border were to be used for conventional rocket launchers, not a centrifuge, and the supposed bill of sale for yellow cake uranium from Niger for Iraq was a forgery. One would also find that this information was known by the Bush administration prior to the invasion, yet it continued to push for war based on a fabricated threat of a “mushroom cloud." The United Nations Security Council did not go along with the United States request for harsher methods against Saddam because its own inspectors refuted claims of WMDs within Iraq.

By beginning a pre-emptive war on Iraq, the United States was not forcing compliance to 15 U.N. resolutions, rather it was acting in rebellion to the U.N. and contrary to the charter it swore to uphold.

After the invasion and an intensive search within Iraq by our own inspectors, no evidence of WMDs or their production was found. All that remains is the unsubstantiated rumor that the weapons were moved prior to the war, a rumor gobbled up by every Bush supporter, even though the president now admits there were no WMDs. Yes, Bush lies and thousands die. The death toll includes the conscience of undying Bush supporters.
 

July 6th;, 2007

Impeach Cheney

Dick Cheney has been a disgrace to the office of vice president.

His deliberate misleading of Americans to bring us into war was criminal. His involvement in the politically motivated outing of an undercover CIA agent was truly a high crime that undermined and put at risk our intelligence operatives involved in nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran.

His brazen disregard for our Constitution and laws for his own political and financial gain are reprehensible and are cause to begin the impeachment process against him.

Douglas Roy
Lexington
 

 July 5th, 2007

Who’s the real threat?

Week after week we see stories of Iranian involvement in a deadly attack in Iraq. Could someone be trying to turn us even more against Iran? It would be over simplistic to note that every attack in Iraq has ties to the United States, but no more than tying a roadside bomb to Iran.

As the largest arms supplier in the world, the United States sold weapons to the Iraqis when they were fighting Iran, including chemical weapons, which were used. In the case for war against Iran, however, every single link to an Iranian must be exploited. God forbid that the activities of C.I.A. operatives in dozens of countries should be exploited against us. We only do “good” undercover operations, such as Iran-Contra or secretly training and supplying Osama bin Laden and his guerrilla fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Or when the C.I.A. helped the up-and-coming Saddam Hussein come to power. Or when the C.I.A. discredited a democratic movement in Iran in favor of the Shah of Iran during President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration. Those operations worked out well, didn’t they?

I think we need to scrutinize the anti-Iran stories we hear with a lot more skepticism and a lot less hypocrisy. Perhaps it is time the C.I.A. was pulled out of the numerous countries it is currently influencing before its next backfire might be a world war that we lose.

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

(some editing by paper, not for the better in my opinion; below is original)

Week after week we see stories of Iranian involvement in some deadly attack in Iraq. Could someone be trying to turn us even more against Iran? I guess it would be over simplistic to note that every attack in Iraq has ties to the United States, but no more than tying an I.E.D. to Iran.

 As the largest arms supplier in the world, the United States sold weapons to Iraq when they were fighting Iran, even chemical weapons, which they actually used! In the case being built for war against Iran, however, every single link to an Iranian must be exploited. God forbid that the activities of C.I.A. operatives in dozens of countries should be exploited against us (oh, they are by the terrorist recruiter, believe me). But we only do "good" undercover operations like Iran Contra and things like secretly training and supplying Osama bin Laden and his guerrilla fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Or when our C.I.A. helped the up and coming Saddam Hussein come to power. Or when our C.I.A. discredited a democratic movement in Iran during the Eisenhower days in favor of the Shah. Those operations worked out well, didn't they? 

I think we need to scrutinize the anti-Iran stories we hear with a lot more skepticism and a lot less hypocrisy. Perhaps it is time the C.I.A. was pulled out of the numerous countries they are currently influencing before their next backfire might be a world war that we lose.

Semantics  Tuesday, Jul 03, 2007 - 12:05 AM 

June 21st, 2007

You're not getting off that easy

Does going to mass on Saturday absolve a mafia don from his crimes? Neither should going to Bible study on Sunday absolve a President of his crimes.

Douglas Roy
Lexington, KY
 

Published June 19th, 2007
Strategy: Get nukes and you’re safe

To the editor:

“Iran strategy stirs debate in White House,” June 15, The Associated Press). What is our strategy? Iran is one of the “axis of evil.” We talk for a while, push them in a corner, then … whammo!

We preemptively bomb them to prevent nuclear war, just like we did in Iraq. North Korea already has nukes so we can’t bomb them. Now why would Iran defy us and try to get nukes? Do they realize we won’t attack anybody with nukes? Soviets had nukes, no war. Pakistan: nukes, so we won’t set a foot on their forbidden territory to get bin Laden. You get a nuke and America and all other nuclear countries give you respect. You don’t have nukes and you’re like second graders.

The White House strategy: Force everybody to get nukes, and then they’re afraid to nuke each other. Of course! We didn’t understand Bush’s true genius. The world will be safer the more countries have nukes, because no nuclear country will attack you if you have them!

If only Saddam had a nuke, we wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq. Stupid Hussein. He just didn’t get it. Get nukes and you’re safe! Don’t have nukes? Watch out! It’s a brilliant strategy!

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky

Americans are very troubled about Iraq, June 15th
Published June 7th, 2007

Iraq debate masks truth
Dear Editor: Truth has gone missing. Has Iraq become the 51st state of the United States? I look at online papers and watch the national news. It is Iraq this, Iraq that, constant news regarding a place 6,000 miles from me.

People discussing should we stay, should we go, is the surge working, how many were killed today, how many billions of dollars we’ve spent there; look at all the good things happening, look at all the bad things, how can we stabilize this country. It is a constant discussion, an obsession. “We can’t leave, else they will come over here!" “We must stop terrorism." On and on it goes. Generally, people troubled in their minds and hearts talk about it a lot. American’s are troubled about Iraq. It’s not a straightforward conflict. It’s not a simple matter of good versus evil. Oh, people try to make it that way: We’re the good guys, and they’re the bad. Only the Iraqis didn’t start this war. Iraqis didn’t blow up our buildings on Sept. 11. We really don’t know who did. We were told Muslim radicals of al-Qaida did it. We were told planes took them down, but the facts don’t mesh, witnesses heard many explosions and nine of the 19 on the FBI list are reported alive in other countries.

Americans are a troubled people, troubled by liars within and conflicts without. Do “we the people" desire truth or will we be content to live under lies, troubled and conflicted?
 

Published Galveston County Daily June 7th, 2007

Published June 5th, 2007 full version

Pullout makes sense

President Bush continues to propagate the notion that we must win the war in Iraq. Winning means lowering the level of violence to "acceptable" levels.

It also means that the insurgency will have to give up and roll over because this ever-growing bunch of Iraqi terrorists or patriots are getting stronger and better in their insurgent ways.

For some crazy reason, the insurgents think the United States should just pull out of their country and go. How stupid is that? We've just spent hundreds of billions to gain control of this oil-rich region and build permanent military bases.

Now they want us to just leave? Hah! If we leave, the fledgling puppet government will crumble. They know that, so the current leaders don't want us to leave. They need our protection.

Some Iraqi army members are playing dual roles. During the day, they ride with U.S. troops. During the night, they plant IEDs to blow up U.S. troops. They give intelligence to the insurgency. U.S. troops have their work cut out for them; it's a never-ending, growing insurgency.

Or, we could just pull out and leave the Iraqi insurgents without an enemy to kill. We could leave the government to rise or fall on its own merit.

That's crazy. The president's legacy might suffer.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

Published Friday, June 1st, 2007 edited version

       May, 2007                                   
Bush is selling the U.S. down the river

Is our country for sale? George Bush says, "Yes!" We need money for roads, so he sold a chunk of our highways to Mexican truckers. George got a great idea sold some of the military jobs to private contractors. Jobs brought a great price, so George and his friends sold a bunch of them to companies overseas. He didn't get enough so he sold millions more to foreigners, only they had to sneak over the border to make their payment.

Then George got the idea to sell some excess laws. But he first had to sell a war, so he did. We bought it at what seemed to be a bargain price, seeing how somebody attacked us first, but a bunch of our soldiers - Iraqis and Afghanis - had to pay a super high premium. Many are on the lifetime payment plan.

Now George got a great price for the 14th Amendment and in return citizens felt more secure. Habeas Corpus seems so old that he thought he'd trade it in. He sold a piece of the Geneva Convention at a high price. He's constantly thinking, looking for other things to sell. That George is a great salesman.

Douglas Roy

Lexington, Ky.

Published May 4th, 2007
Published May 1st, 2007April 30th, 2007

Speak Out ... Turn war over to Iraqis

Published 3-30-07
Pagan laws thrive without Christianity

Published 3-29-07

Published in abridged form 3-24-07

Un-Christian nation

Many have discussed the Iraq war in light of "just war" theology. What we have failed to point out, according to the Rev. Stephen Brown, a pastor who has a master's degree from Asbury Seminary, is that the main overlying criterion for "just war" theology is that a nation be Christian.

Augustine, bishop of Hippo in the 5th century, lived during a time when his nation's leader had declared the nation to be Christian, promoting and encouraging Christianity and its principles within the government. Christian principles prevented any believer from participation in pagan wars. Augustine realized that Christians could be allowed to serve in the military of a Christian nation that followed just rules of war.

Our government officially rejected its Christian status in 1963 when the Supreme Court effectively banned school prayer. This godless act was never overturned and further acts and laws, especially the acceptance of abortion, have confirmed the pagan status of our government.

Many Christians reside in the United States and some are working within the government, but according to Brown, the official government is no longer Christian. With this pagan government, America cannot conduct any just war, and any Christians within or supporting the military must come to grips with this reality to save themselves from participation in ungodly wars fought for an ungodly government.

Can the cry be any longer for God and country, when the choice is really for God or country?

Douglas Roy

Stephen Brown
Lexington

Published March 28th in response to letter below it. Judging hypocrisy

Speak Out ... Turn war over to Iraqis, April 16th, 2007

HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE ENOUGH TO MAKE BUSH WISER?
Posted 1-28-07

January 23. 2007

Published December 3rd, 2006

What do Iraqis want?

Polls are taken in our country almost daily to determine the views of the majority of Americans. Some politicians, like Bill Clinton, closely followed the polls and were influenced by what they said. President Bush neither follows the polls nor listens to the American people.

A few polls taken in Iraq show that 70 percent of the people want U.S. troops to leave. They think things will get better if we go. Iraqi leaders tend to be like Bush and don't listen to the people.

Bush is down to a 31 percent approval rating with the majority wanting the pullout of our troops to begin soon. It seems that the majority of Americans and Iraqis are on the same page, yet the leaders refuse to listen.

We are able to pressure our leaders in a variety of peaceful ways. Iraqis have their own ways, one of which is an insurgency to drive us out. Some citizens are trying peaceful means to affect the withdrawal. It's time to let the majority rule.

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

War on Drugs and Illegals

Published January 27, 2007
Published Dec. 1st, 2006 and
Published Dec. 1st, 2006

Immigration war

After reading Bill Estep's Nov. 25 article, "After 20 years, war on marijuana changes," I had an interesting thought. What if our police forces and National Guard worked together in an effort to curb the crop of illegal aliens?

This crop has been springing up all over our state and wreaking much havoc on the landscape. Like marijuana plants, there is a certain segment of the population that is addicted to the use of cheap labor and the temporary fix that illegal immigrants provide to the economy.

But also like marijuana, there is a deadening affect to the conscience when folks employ illegal immigrants in their business or home. Unlike marijuana use, a single use of illegal aliens -- to house them or help them gain a job -- is a federal felony.

Thousands of Americans are committing such felonies every day with complete disregard for the law, much like the people who grow marijuana. People also are involved in illegal trafficking of these human beings, sneaking them across the border.

The National Guard can help, as is already allowed on the borders. For police departments, there is something called a "Memorandum of Understanding" that gives state and local police the right and training to arrest and deal with federal felons and receive reimbursement from the government.

Working together, this illegal crop and its growers can be brought under control, but there will be withdrawal pains.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

Published November 20, 2006
Also published in Crawford, Texas paper: The Lone Star Iconoclast, November 26, 2006
http://lonestaricon.com/2006/PDFs/41-d-iconoclast.pdf

11-15-06
Also published in Galveston Daily News - November 12th, 2006, 
Consider war’s effect on troops
Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.
November 12. 2006 3:30AM

Dear Editor:  

The Marine guarding a checkpoint obeys orders and shoots a vehicle because it didn't stop. Do you think your magnetic ribbon makes him feel better when he opens the door of the car to find a mother and her kids bleeding to death? Do you think he sleeps better at night knowing you supported his commanding officer that gave him those orders? When the Ranger breaks down the door of an Iraqi family late at night searching the home for weapons, screaming at the mother and father, breaking their furniture, dragging away their oldest boy to Abu Ghraib, does that magnetic strip give you comfort that you're "supporting the troops?" When you meet the soldier that "fought for you" and find he is so debilitated from the trauma that he can't remember anything but his buddy being blown up and three Iraqis falling to the ground from his rifle fire, the magnetic ribbon seems so trite. Do you care enough to find out what's really happening and why we are still there, or will you continue supporting the troops with your magnetic ribbon, dreaming the American dream?

A response to my letter published  in the Tuscaloosa News.

Fighting mad (Published November 5th, 2006, Sunday before election day)

When anyone maligns the president during a war, it makes Americans mad. Many go so far as to call it traitorous or aiding and abetting the enemy.

After 9/11, the fight against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was such a war. We wanted to see bin Laden pay for what he had done to our country.

When bin Laden was driven through Tora Bora most of us thought, "now we're going to get this sucker."

What we didn't know at that time was that President Bush was advised by CIA operatives in Afghanistan to replace the Northern Alliance pursuers that were cold and weary with 1,000 or more motivated U.S. troops who were nearby, to cut off bin Laden's escape and finish the job.

Bush said no, and bin Laden escaped with a few hundred elite al-Qaida troops. Bush inexplicably allowed the very guys we started the war to destroy to slither away.

Meanwhile, $700 billion of the funds designated by Congress to fight the Afghan war was diverted by order of the president to give Gen. Tommy Franks the means to prepare for war in Iraq, a war not yet even on the radar of Congress.

I wonder if my fellow Americans are as mad about this as I am, mad enough to call it traitorous or aiding and abetting the enemy?

Douglas Roy
Lexington

Exit strategy? Published Sept. 28th

Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, says America will be in that country until 2010. I guess the Iraqis can't train enough police or troops even with our help. How could they possibly do it without our help?

If you are Iraq and a powerful country is supplying you with soldiers to do your dirty work, why stop a good thing and force your people to step up to the task? And you sure don't want to stop or interrupt American contractors who are busy rebuilding your cities, roads, schools, sewer and water systems,

The United States owes you. You don't want to pull precious resources from your cities to guard the oil wells as the American and coalition troops have been doing since the war began. You sure don't want Halliburton to leave; it keeps rebuilding the oil wells and lines when they get damaged.

Gee, Iraqi leaders know a good thing when they see it.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

War for self-defense must be for that reason

In response to Mr. Frank Randall's letter of Aug. 31st: When a man is scrutinized for why he killed a fellow human being, self-defense is the only valid reason accepted by society. When a jury looks at the case and discovers that the man was fearful of his neighbor because the neighbor was an angry bully that owned guns and cursed anyone that came on his property, but did not directly threaten this man, the jury will not justify him walking onto his neighbor's property and shooting the bully because of irrational fears.

War conducted for self-defense must truly be for that reason if its people are to stand justified. The death and destruction of Sept. 11 were felt by all of us. But I think we can clearly say, nearly five years later, that Iraq was not responsible. Because we Americans are so close to the situation, our fears and political viewpoints can cloud our judgment.

Could it be that the death and injury to thousands was the result of a mistake in our judgment? Or should we start a global war against Islam for the sake of the radicals among them like Mr. Randall suggests?

Douglas Roy

Lexington, Ky.

The Tuscaloosa News  Newspaper
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Christians oppose unjust war
Douglas Roy Lexington,  Ky.

Dear Editor: I am compelled to respond to Stella Roger’s letter of Sept.  1 that states that the pullout of our troops in Iraq would bring a bloodbath and  hurt our country.

First, many of us who oppose the war in Iraq do not hate President Bush. My opposition to the war is based on Christian principles  of a just war. War conducted for any reason beyond self-defense of country or ally provoked by actual attack, not simply a threat or paranoia, is unjust and wrong.

The “enemy has the technology and will to kill by the thousands,"  is a reality that fits many countries threatened by another. We have greater  technology than our enemy’s and have also shown the will to use it. Is this  sufficient cause to war with every enemy out there?

This longing for “the  light of freedom," are we the only ones able to fulfill it? That must come from  the hearts of Iraqis; it cannot be forced upon people.

Consider that we  went to war against Saddam Hussein to remove him from power to eliminate this “supposed" threat. Now he is gone, a new government [is] in place, and yet various Iraqi militias and insurgents are still fighting us. Could it be that our continued presence provokes this reaction? Would not we do the same to occupying forces in our country?

Ms. Rogers has made support of this war about loving or hating the president. Do you think the majority of Americans who now oppose this war are really that narrow-minded?


Stella Rogers Tuscaloosa
September 01. 2006  3:30AM

Dear Editor: Those who hate President Bush with such  ferocity that you long for the United States to bow its head and slink out of  Iraq, making it another Vietnam, would do well to study the true aftermath of  that pull-out.

The dominos did indeed fall and bloodbaths ensued not only  in Vietnam and Cambodia but to some extent in Laos.

The entire region is  still under a communistic oppression.

A “give up" in Iraq would unleash a  blood bath in our country. We are fighting an irrational enemy who has no regard  for any human life that does not fall under its particular branch of Islam and  is more than willing to obliterate any and preferable all life that does not  agree with it.

It is an enemy who has the technology and the will to kill  by the thousands those who won’t bow the knee to them.

It is an enemy  that despises freedom because it is an enemy that cannot exist in the light of  true freedom.

It is an enemy that will destroy this country at the drop  of a hat because they hate it as much as you hate President Bush.

Shame  on my country if it fails to bring the light of freedom to those who hunger for  it.

I have four teenage grandsons; I make these observations with a heavy  heart and their future in  view.

War isn't free Posted on Thu, Aug. 24, 2006

I agree in part with Jennifer Block's July 5 letter: We should spend money on our troops.

We should provide the best armor and equipment needed. No soldier should pay a dime for his own care, travel, armor or future medical bills. Veterans' hospitals should be fully funded and provided with the finest doctors and equipment. We should provide the best medical care for the thousands wounded.

So shouldn't we care enough about their lives to provide the best political leadership? Let's reconsider the so-called wisdom of our current leaders.

Can we establish democracy in anyone else's country? Isn't it up to the Iraqis? Our presence is hindering that process now. We've reached the point of diminishing returns.

The Iraqis have established their government; now they must secure their country and gain the support of their people. The longer we stay, the more we are distrusted and the more dead and wounded we bring home.

What foreign leader wouldn't take the free dirty work we're doing in Iraq -- the free training, the free equipment and so on? It's not free to us and especially not to our soldiers. Let's support our soldiers and work to get them home, saving their lives and morale for times when they are truly needed.

Call or write your U.S. representatives and senators and president -- and vote this fall.

Doug Roy
Lexington

Tuesday, August 15th, 2006
Justified killing?

When a man is scrutinized for why he killed a fellow human being, self-defense is the only valid reason accepted by society. When a jury looks at the case and discovers that the man was fearful of his neighbor because the neighbor was an angry bully who owned guns and cursed anyone that came on his property, but did not directly threaten this man, the jury will not justify him walking onto his neighbor’s property and shooting the bully because of irrational fears.

War conducted for self-defense must truly be for that reason if its people are to stand justified. The death and destruction of 9/11 were felt by all of us. But I think we can clearly say, nearly five years later, that Iraq was not responsible. I would submit that this lack of a just reason is behind the division among the American people. Because we Americans are so close to the situation, our fears and political viewpoints can cloud our judgment.

We must re-examine our actions as a nation. Could it be that the death and injury to thousands, including our own sons and daughters, was the result of a mistake in our judgment?

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

pdf link of this day's paper:  http://www.dailyhome.com/PDF/2006/081506_A.pdf#search=%22%22Douglas%20Roy%22%2C%20Lexington%22

A Letter published Sunday, August 6th, 2006 in the Courier Journal of Louisville
Putting 'commerce first, law second'

"Deporting 12 million individuals wouldn't be wise, practical or humane," U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said while in Louisville pitching the President's immigration plan -- or lack thereof.

I guess importing 12 million illegal workers is the practical, wise and humane thing to do -- paying for their children's schooling and all hospital bills, while collecting very few taxes; letting them live unregistered anywhere during a time of terror threats; letting companies hire them without any threat of penalty, profiting heavily from their cheap labor, lowering the wages of American workers and devaluing the value of law-abiding businesses.

Yes, all this is "good" for America. We need more law breaking and less law abiding, thinks Gutierrez.

It's impractical to demand obedience to our U.S. immigration laws. It's impractical and inhumane to enforce laws that protect U.S. citizens from communicable diseases and unwanted felons.

Yes, the U.S. Commerce secretary says, commerce first, law second….

Douglas Roy
Lexington, KY 40504

Posted May 17th, 2006 Response to:
Bomb kills 2 soldiers from Fort Carson

A letter published Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006 in the Herald-Leader

Published May 5th, 2006
A Letter published in three papers, including USA Today, Friday, May5th, 2006, the Louisville Courier-Journal, Wednesday, May 3rd and Wed, Jul. 05, 2006 Lexington Herald-leader.

 'Angrier' after marches . . .
Well, the illegal alien marches are over, and America is still standing, a bit angrier.

Angry over a group of law-breakers and their misguided supporters with the audacity to protest in our streets. Angry at seeing the fruit of this and other administrations' inaction over the past 30 years, allowing the number of illegals to swell to millions.

Angry at seeing our tax dollars fund the education of children of illegals and pay for their medical care while American citizens are denied. Angry at how they thumb their noses at our laws …. Angry with the felons and gang members among them, spreading violence and drugs, and the unscreened sick, spreading once eradicated diseases like tuberculosis.

Yes, the march is over, but the lawlessness continues. Fake driver's licenses, fake green cards, fake Social Security cards … fake citizens, fake patriotism, exploiting the sympathy of well-meaning and religious Americans….

Meanwhile, the righteous immigrants who went through proper channels, diligently waiting and working to gain acceptance to our great land of opportunity are befuddled. American citizens are befuddled in general.

Where are the immigration agents? Where are the police? Who is enforcing the laws of the land? Did they take a vacation? The answer is: yes, a paid vacation.

DOUG ROY
Lexington, Ky. 40504

This is a letter written and sent to be published 4-19-06. Published May 7th, 2006 in two papers: Anniston Star and Lexington's Herald-Leader
Iran War
I am very troubled over conversations I hear on various shows about potential military strikes against Iran. These talks of going to war with another country over supposed future threats displays a disturbing callousness toward human life, both our soldiers and the citizens of Iran.

 Let's talk about this future Iranian war then, without the façade of justice in preemptive war. When we shoot a missile into Iran to take out a nuclear facility, we commit an aggressive act of war and violate international law.  That missile or bomb doesn't just blow up an unoccupied facility; it kills and maims hundreds of civilians. The blast allows radioactive material to contaminate the atmosphere and irradiate the surrounding people, animals, crops, and water supply for the next million years.  Overnight the United States moves on the scale of hate in the Muslim countries from an 8 to a 12+.  Those Iranians trying to bring democracy to their land join in that hatred of Americans.  More Americans begin to despise their own government and feel ashamed of what we have done.

 Then the real war breaks out and thousands more die and tens of thousands are maimed. Those former allies, now on the fence, become our enemies. A world coalition begins to form against the United States. Iraqi soldiers turn their new guns and training on the trainers. The "Iraq War" is now the "Iran-Iraq War" and world war against America is on the horizon. War only against al Qaeda starts to look good.

Doug Roy
 

Doug Roy

Galveston County Texas, "The Daily News"
Texas' Oldest Newspaper: Since 1842
Letters to the Editor
May 2, 2006
Read the unedited version
Iran Is Key To Pullout Of Troops From Iraq

Let’s talk again about the probable consequences of pulling out of Iraq.
The prime consequence is that the Bush administration thinks it would lose face.
The insurgency, initiated to oust the United States, would diminish.

Some have said that it will be a victory for Islamic zealots.
Really? The Shia zealots have already had a victory in the elections and have the majority control of Iraq’s government.
The majority of Americans will have a victory when we leave Iraq, because that’s what they want, as do most of the troops over there.

Some people still equate America defending itself with the war in Iraq.
However, Afghanistan was a war of self-defense.
But it was unsuccessful in taking out Osama bin Laden because it was fought on the cheap, with few American forces used. What a mistake in judgment that was.

But could one reason for staying in Iraq be to have a base for attacking Iran?
Will the new Iraqi army turn on the Americans if we attack?
Will we undermine our own efforts to stabilize Iraq?

Pulling out could prevent a war with Iran, a war some neocons want to see.

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

READERS' VIEWS posted 4-18-06 in the Lexington Herald-Leader

DANGEROUS TO CONFUSE LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY

The Bush administration seems to think democracy is the answer to the world's problems. I beg to differ with that over simplistic idea.

Our democratic republic has worked only because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, which makes every person and organization equal under the law. If today's lawmakers were writing the Constitution, some of those rights would be left out. Our president, it seems, would like to see the 14th Amendment excluded.

The God-fearing majority of citizens and leaders in the late 1700s were a special breed. They came from countries where certain religious sects were persecuted, and they saw this same sectarianism spreading in America.

The founders felt very strongly about freedom of thought, speech and religious choice, and several insisted that a Bill of Rights, with protections to citizens from government interference or coercion, be added to the Constitution immediately.

In Islamic countries, Muslims are taught that Islam should be the law of the land and established by government edict. To most Muslims, freedom of religious choice is not an option. So what kind of democracy will such people create?

A wise man once said that if the American people became evil, this democratic republic would become the worst form of government.

Liberty and democracy are two different things. Without an understanding of what liberty really is, how can a people form a government that secures it?

Douglas Roy
Lexington

A positive response by David MacMillon III www.standonbible.r8.org

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2006/as-letters-0309-speakout-6c08r2155.htm
Speak Out, Thursday, March 8th, 2006

In the editorial "Making sense of Dubai ports" (Feb. 28), the author seemed to skip right over the notion of turning over operations to foreign-owned companies.

Let’s stop right there! In Bill Clinton’s reign he allowed Red China to take control of operations in several ports on the West Coast and part of the Panama Canal. I was aghast at this, but few Americans were even made aware of it happening.

This was pre-911, mind you. But since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and now this Dubai ports deal, Americans have become aware that U.S. companies do not control our ports. This type of globalization is a huge step in the wrong direction.

The greatest outcry that I have heard recently has been against any foreign company running our port operations and especially not a "money rules" kingdom like UAE. They do business with anyone — terrorists included. They are not our "ally," as our misguided president likes to call a business partner.

An ally is a country that holds a similar philosophy as yours concerning liberty and one that will stand up and fight with you against a common enemy. Does anyone really believe that UAE is this kind of ally?

Hear ye, hear ye, mayors and governors of all the port cities, you have the last word, not the president! It’s your state and your city. Do something about it!

Douglas Roy
Lexington, Ky.

Posted on Tue, Mar. 07, 2006
READERS' VIEWS Lexington Herald-Leader

No confidence in Bush

I'm a conservative and a Republican, but I don't back President Bush's war in Iraq. I never have. In fact, I'm downright opposed to this pre-emptive war and its immoral beginnings. I guess some conservatives don't cater much to lying. I'm a conservative who believes in lower taxes and less government, but did the rich folks really need tax cuts?

And where's the "less government" in the Bush administration? I see it expanding by leaps and bounds. I see billions of dollars funding a war of choice, while several Gulf cities still lie in ruins. I see our borders more porous than a cotton drop cloth over a stack of drywall in a thunderstorm.

What about all the conservative talk show hosts? I can barely stand listening to them anymore. I call them Bushites. No, not all conservatives support Bush.

I did not vote for him in the last election, and I would not be surprised if the House decided to impeach the man for overstepping the bounds of power and lying to the American people.

Doug Roy
Lexington

Published 2-14-2006
Not all conservatives

All conservatives back President Bush! Hold on ... I’m a conservative. I’m even a Republican. But I don’t back President Bush’s war in Iraq. I never have.

I’m downright opposed to this pre-emptive war and its immoral beginnings. I guess some conservatives don’t cater much to lying.

I’m a conservative who believes in lower taxes and less government, but did the rich folks really need tax cuts? And where’s the "less government" in the Bush administration? I see it expanding by leaps and bounds. I see billions of dollars funding a war of choice, while several Gulf cities still lie in ruins.

I see our borders more porous than a cotton drop cloth over a stack of drywall in a thunderstorm.

No, not all conservatives are supporting President Bush. I did not vote for him in the last election, and I would not be surprised if the House decided to impeach the man for overstepping the bounds of power and lying to the American people.

Doug Roy
Lexington, Ky.

Posted on Wed, May. 18, 2005 http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/11673207.htm

Published in Herald-Leader of Lexington, March 19th, 2005

Judge Ignores the People's Will

“A California Superior Court judge ruled on Monday”, reads today’s headline.  One-person ruled to proclaim against the majority of Californians who had legally voted in a law to ban homosexual marriage. One person ruled and overturned the wishes of the masses, calling it “unconstitutional”.  Hmm, and I thought our constitution and state constitutions promoted government of the people, by the people, and for the people. California had a population of 35,484,453 according to the last census. California has an assembly of 79 legislatures and 40 senators representing this state with the largest population of the United States. The California Constitution allows for issues to be put to a vote by the people and this latest issue of homosexual marriage was just such a case.  The people voted to not allow it in the state. This was the legal determination of the majority of Californians done according to the Constitution of that state. But somehow, a single judge is telling the people they can’t do that. America fought a bloody war to gain our freedom over tyranny. We set up a representative government with three branches, each with separate functions and each with checks and balances to prevent too much power from falling into the hands of one man. Yet today almost 219 years since we declared our independence from tyranny, we read of one man ruling against the law of millions.

A response from another reader:

ALL AMERICANS DUE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

In response to Douglas Roy's March 19 letter, "Judge ignores the people's will":

Roy seems to be good with numbers concerning California's population and their representatives and senators but is lacking in knowledge of government.

The California Supreme Court ruling was made with complete support of the judicial branch, citing the historical Brown vs. Board of Education case that says "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.

California voters may have declared their preference for who should be allowed to marry, but that does not automatically trump the Constitution or previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Roy seems to consider this to be the tyranny from which Americans fought to free themselves. Gaining freedom from tyranny has been an ongoing battle in America since its founding. I'm sure any Native American, African-American or woman would agree.

Gay marriage may very well be the most unpopular social agenda challenging America's courts today, as homosexuals continue to be condemned by the majority of religious and social organizations. There will always be issues and realities that we don't like, agree with or understand, but that is when democracy should be at its best -- ensuring that each and every American receives his due in pursuing life, liberty, and happiness in this so called land of freedom.

Laura Jean Spence
Nicholasville

Some on right don’t care for Bush
Published February 21st, 2006

Not all conservatives (Published 2-14-2006 in "Speak Out")

All conservatives back President Bush! Hold on ... I’m a conservative. I’m even a Republican. But I don’t back President Bush’s war in Iraq. I never have.

I’m downright opposed to this pre-emptive war and its immoral beginnings. I guess some conservatives don’t cater much to lying.

I’m a conservative who believes in lower taxes and less government, but did the rich folks really need tax cuts? And where’s the "less government" in the Bush administration? I see it expanding by leaps and bounds. I see billions of dollars funding a war of choice, while several Gulf cities still lie in ruins.

I see our borders more porous than a cotton drop cloth over a stack of drywall in a thunderstorm.

No, not all conservatives are supporting President Bush. I did not vote for him in the last election, and I would not be surprised if the House decided to impeach the man for overstepping the bounds of power and lying to the American people.

Doug Roy
Lexington, Ky.

Posted on Sat, Feb. 11, 2006 in the Herald-Leader Newspaper of Lexington, Kentucky

READERS' VIEWS

PROVE IT: GOD, SCIENCE, DESIGN AND INTELLIGENCE

I read a couple letters railing against the intelligent design theory and implying that is a simplistic, unscientific idea of a few lay people.

If these folks had looked seriously into the writings of the scientists who have been studying this concept, they would find some extremely complex, sophisticated studies.

The ID writers do not necessarily link their study with creationism. Their studies have to do with microbiology and the recognition of extremely complex alignments of basic elements making up living cells and organisms. Math and statistics play a heavy role in their research, as that is the way we scientifically differentiate from the simple and the complex.

In the 1800s, Darwin thought the simplest of life forms were very elemental in design. Molecular biologists have since proved how far from the truth this really was.

The most basic life forms (bacteria) are extremely complex and, by using intelligent design research and methodology, a scientific way of probing this complexity has been developed. Suffice it to say that it is indeed a scientific approach to one aspect of the study of living things and how they evolve.

Douglas Roy
Lexington

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/10744835.htm

READERS' VIEWS
January 27, 2005
Lexington H-L newspaper

Accountability?

Accountability is what we need in schools, according to President Bush, with big daddy government looking over the shoulder of every school to make sure it is on track.

So how does accountability work in the Bush administration?

Bush supposedly gets bad info from the CIA chief and he resigns, then a couple months later, the president gives the same guy a big award for achievement.

The national security adviser fails big time before 9/11, and she gets promoted to secretary of state.

The president gives us bad intelligence and we go to war, lots of people die and he's elected again.

So, I'm all for accountability.

Doug Roy
Lexington

This next one is a letter in the Jan. 19th Herald Leader that I responded to:

Thursday, January 06, 2005

READERS' VIEWS
December 17, 2004
Lexington H-L newspaper

What's the difference?

For weeks the story of the stolen election in Ukraine blazed hot in the news media.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the similarities in the Ukrainian and U.S. elections are stunning: voter suppression, suspected corruption, vote numbers that didn't correlate with registered numbers and, most telling, exit poll numbers.

Now if only one state was off, that would be an anomaly, but six battleground states were off by a huge amount, so much so that statisticians in California and Pennsylvania noted a 250 million to 1 chance of this happening -- statistically impossible. And yet, almost no national news about it.

While we decry the folly in the Ukraine, Americans aren't hearing about the election theft of the century right under their noses -- with unverifiable electronic machines with no paper trail of actual ballots, the door's wide open for the unscrupulous.

Thousands of blogs and Internet news services are abuzz with the topic, yet the national media is quiet. Ohio is being recounted, yet almost no one knows it.

A free press is one of the main securities of our republic, but when so many fail to report such a huge story to the detriment of all Americans, I smell a rat, lots of rats -- or maybe it's fat cats.

Doug Roy
Lexington

Letter to editor 1-5-05 (not printed) 

The 2nd inauguration of the 43rd president will soon be upon us. Most are resigned to another 4 years while a few claim something was wrong with our last election. In Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida we hear things like: "The exit polls don't match with the vote tallies!" "Foul!" they cry. "Voter suppression!" "More votes than registered voters in some districts!" "Purged registration lists - my name was removed!" "I punched in Kerry and the vote registered Bush!" "I couldn't wait in line 5 hours, I had to work!" "My provisional ballot was not counted!" “My absentee ballot did not come in time.” “A card in the mail told me the wrong polling place!” “The machines broke down!” and on and on they babble. What a bunch of sore losers! As a Republican, what do I care if a few thousand voters got screwed over? Hmm, that sounds pretty harsh. What would I do if it happened to me? What if I had to wait even 2 hours to vote? Could I afford it? Everybody should be able to vote and have it counted, and why should anyone have to wait in line more than a few minutes? Nah, didn’t happen here. Why should I care?

Letter to editor 1-21-05 (not printed)

So President Bush wants to rid the world of tyranny. Well, he’s the man to do it. Fight evil with evil, fire with fire, I say. Blow the @%*$%’s to kingdom comes! That’ll teach ‘em for attacking the good ole UsofA. And while he’s at it, he might as well rid the world of the whole Islamic threat. That should be the starting point of this world war. Let’s cut the terrorists off at the source. Every Muslim nation aught to be quaking in their boots by now ‘cause GW is going to clean the world house. And all you commies pinkos are next. Goodbye dictators and hello new world order. Go get ‘em, George Dubya! Bye the way, thanks, for supporting the troops! 

Doug Roy, Lexington

I also write under the pseudonym: Doomar.  If you do a Google search for "doomar" you will find some of my posts. Here is one of the sites I visit periodically:

Skeptic Friends Network  where I've posted the following subjects recently. Anyone can join if you just want to read what others think, or, if you want to post something and have the stomach for scathing criticism.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3405  

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3707  

I also have a blog site at this address: http://www.blogger.com/profile/5093776   

Some opinions from the past

Written 2-8-2004

When will the day come that Americans become angry...downright fed up with judges who block their representative's laws from being enacted?  Time and again we hear of decisions by judges ruling in favor of some lawsuit that is holding up a clearly defined law from enactment.  Here in Lexington, Kentucky the city counsel made a law to prohibit smoking in public places, including restaurants.    Federal Buildings already have that law in place.  The law was prevented from going into affect by the injunction of some local judge.  Keep in mind that judges derive their power from local and state Legislative bodies, which includes the city counsel, and the laws they rule by are also written by these bodies of elected representatives.  This process is known as "Representative Democracy".  It is the very foundation of our government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". When judges overturn written law for some supposed unwritten legal reason, they are really acting outside the law and preventing the will of the people from being done.  Regardless of which side you may be on in the particular issue mentioned above, surely you can see the danger of allowing this lawless form of judicial activism to continue.  Maybe you can't.  That is why I am writing this letter.  I get angry whenever I hear of judges overturning a legally enacted law.  Who do these people think they are that they can make some asinine decision based on no clearly written law, opposing a clearly written law!  It is so common for judges to make law nowadays.  These people are supposed to uphold the written laws and make their rulings accordingly.  Instead, some of them will step outside the law and make up their own law without the consent of the state or local constitution.  They will many times use the U.S. Constitution as their reason for "courageously" striking down "this unconstitutional law".  What a crock!  They wouldn't know the correct interpretation of constitutional law if it leaped off the page and bit them on the nose.  Do they think that we Americans are so stupid that we can't read the constitution for ourselves? Or do they just know that so many are so busy working to support their families that they don't have time to do much about these crazy rulings.  Friend, have you ever picked up or downloaded a copy of the U.S. Constitution? Just spend about a 1/2 hour some time and read it.  Yeah, I said a 1/2 hour, as that is all the longer it takes, maybe 45 minutes if you're a slow reader.  It is a very succinct document (not many words, but to the point).  These forefathers weren't full of themselves or a lot of bull, like so many judges and politicians today, so they wrote plainly and to the point.  Does one need a law degree to interpret what they said?  No, just a bit of common sense and a little understanding of our history. For an example, let's take the most used First Amendment and look at it. "Congress shall make no law...."  Is this hard to figure out? "Congress"  that means the Senate and House;  "shall make no law", meaning no tax, no rule regarding whatever they list next.  To substitute, it could read, "The U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives shall not make any law....."  I think that is not too hard to follow.  The next part is a little more hairy, as a couple words are difficult or archaic.  "...respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  This word "respecting" is a somewhat archaic word not used much.  We hear more about "dissing" or disrespecting nowadays, which means not regarding somebody or something. Respecting means "with regard to".  Of course the subject following is what they should regard, that is, "an establishment".  Here's another somewhat archaic word.  The dictionary thesaurus gives me many words: an organization, business, firm, company, concern, enterprise.  There are other meaning for the word, also: " the act of establishing" is one of them.  If we use the latter meaning, as many judges and lawyer suppose, the amendment could read, "The U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives shall not make any law with regard to the act of establishing religion."  Of course I've left out an important little word that doesn't seem to fit in and changed another little word, but what difference could that make?  I changed "an" to "the" and left out "of" in the phrase "an establishment of religion". Usually, when one uses the correct definition of a word in context it fits very well.  Let's try the other definition, "organization".  " The U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives shall not make any law with regard to an organization of religion."  Hmm. This definition seems to fit without altering any words.  So, let us assume I have interpreted correctly this somewhat archaically worded sentence.  Of course, I would be at odds with the common interpretation used today, so maybe I should study what the founding fathers have said about this.  I'll be back.......

I since found this link with a description of the debate in the first congress over the wording of the 1st Amendment
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/levy-1stamend.html check it out!

Written 3-31-99
Dear Editor,

Many people are upset at the horrific plight of people in Kosovo, and rightfully so, but did you know that it is only one of many conflicts throughout the world and would not rate within the top 10 for human suffering? (Bill Clinton may be raising that status a bit higher now.) Armies in Ethiopia lost 10,000 in a recent battle. Did you hear about it? Bill Clinton and the nation’s media have focused our attention on Serbia and in particular, leader Milosovich. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, a man who’s sat across the table from this despot said he is the world’s biggest liar and very crafty. Hmmm....Sounds allot like someone I know: Bill Clinton! So it’s Bill Clinton vs. Slovadan Milosovich. Liar vs liar. Wow, what a match! Tune in next century to find out who the winner is! Meanwhile, America’s men and women in uniform under the direction of our infamous Commander and Cheat go to warring for who knows how long.

Friends, it’s not that the plight of the non-serbian people isn’t pitiful, it’s that the Commander in Chief of our people is more pitiful in his ability to lead our troops into victory. Not that the time isn’t right to act, the cause just, the villain, thoroughly evil, it’s that America’s time is not right, our leader, unjust, our goodness, tarnished with many of our own national atrocities. If we hear of a country that kills its babies and eats them on a stick, we are upset and ready to revenge the laws of righteousness, but our mother’s routinely kill their unborn by the millions, even at birth (partial birth abortion) and have done so for 2 1/2 decades, and our scientist’s harvest the baby’s fluids and tissue for research. Not to mention certain businesses make billions doing so. Many of our leaders commit crimes and go unpunished just like in third world countries, just like Milosovich. And we tolerate this. We the people of the United States of America. How have the mighty fallen? No, America is not on the moral high ground it once occupied. Many of it’s people have and are falling down the slopes of freedom (from morality), tolerance (of evil), and civil rights (for the ungodly) and are stuck on the muddy slopes of hypocrisy, cursing the Milosovich’s of the world. Some have not even attempted the climb and sit in plush Whatever Feels Good resort in the valley, enjoying their self induced stupor and indifference. Can corrupt leaders fight a just war? Can a morally weak people stand for freedom and justice in the world? Yes, but not without a high cost being paid for the lack of wisdom, mistakes in judgment, and just plain foolishness that such corruptness exudes.

Note: my spelling of the Serbian leader’s name may be incorrect.

9-14-98

Dear panel member of Kentucky Tonight,

I tried dozens of time to get through on the phone, but was unable. I wanted to share a different point of view that was not discussed tonight. That point of view is a different interpretation of the 1st and 2nd clause of the1st Amendment based on the actual language used by the writers. Let's review: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof...." Notice the use of the key word 'establishment.' Let's look at a modern day sentence using the currently accepted definition of 'the act of establishing' as the meaning. "Congress shall not make a law regarding an act of establishing a religion, or to prohibit the free exercise thereof." Pretty confusing, I must say. The sentence doesn't make sense in context with the ending phrase. Now let's use another definition of the word, 'an institution' (or 'a thing established', note: religions are already established without the government's help) as the meaning: "Congress shall not make a law regarding a religious institution, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Now this sentence makes perfect sense. But why didn’t they just write what many think they meant, "Congress shall not establish a national religion." I think it was because they meant to encompass much more in their statement than just national religion. They wanted to establish the freedom of religious institutions from controls, or laws of Congress. Laws that could regulate religious groups by taxes, or by telling them what they could and couldn't preach, or any other type of control you could think of. And to make it perfectly clear, they gave the double whammy with the second clause prohibiting laws made by Congress that would limit a religious group's free exercise of their beliefs. This makes perfect sense to me and it naturally incorporates the idea of preventing state church's without putting a damper on religious freedom. The false (my opinion) interpretation of these 1st and 2nd clauses, which led to the Supreme Court's mandate of limited religious influence in public schools and a unfavorable outlook on public prayer and Bible reading as "unwanted acts in schools" is a reprehensible and outlandish act by several liberally jaundiced justices. The harm it has caused has been studied and written about in several books. Where were the many books and the public outcry prior to or since1962 about the supposed harm that prayer and reading of the scriptures in classrooms caused? But, the greater good that was accomplished can be attested to by many. Those arguments can be and were debated by learned men on the panel tonight, but who will debate with me the true meaning of the actual words used by the writers of the 1st Amendment? Is there an English language scholar that can justify the "act of establishing" definition being used in this context, or the use of the extra verbiage in the sentence: 'respecting' and 'an'? And what about the nonsensical meaning it brings to the second clause? Would such great copyrights as the writers of the Bill of Rights be wordy and abstract in their meaning? I think not. There is much more that could be said about these two short phrases, but this is enough for now.

Please review your interpretations with the English prose and grammar in mind and I think your conclusions may be enlightening.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Douglas M. Roy
Lexington, KY

Dear Keith,

What has happened to the idea of trusting God with your life and health? So many people think a person is foolish to live without health care, but I think a person is foolish not to believe and trust in the living God. And I don't mean in the false concept of "divine health", but trustingGod to supply your needs in sickness or in health.

People are brainwashed who believe insurance is a necessity of life. How ridiculous can you get? What do they think people did before there was insurance? Some people are trusting in their health care like others trust in the government to supply their food stamps and welfare check even though they're perfectly healthy! I am not against health insurance. If the rates were low for healthy, single people, I'd consider getting it, but I can't afford that 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month. Insurance is a luxury, not a necessity.

My point is we Americans are losing something because of insurance: common sense! The idea of for paying for your own health problems is becoming unusual. The fellow who was concerned for you, Keith, because you didn't have health care showed this wierd attitude I'm talking about. It's probably an unusual day when a clerk at a hospital or medical center meets someone without insurance.

America's coin logo would probably be more accurate to read, "In Insurance We Trust".

Yours truly,

Doug Roy

August '97

11-17-96 letter to G Gordon Liddy after hearing his discussion about 1st Amendment on talk radio

E