Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
To the Editor:
With regard to your Outlying Landing Field (OLF) news articles and editorials, I would ask the question: Did Members of the U.S. Congress and Military violate their Oath of Office and act as agents to deprive citizens of rights guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution; and specifically the XIV Amendment?
I believe that the prospect of a decisive, concerted and active effort to deprive citizens of their due process protection of property rights by the federal government would draw serious concern from anyone who holds the Constitution as the foundation, structure and security of our society of united states.
I've read the motion that cites communications between Naval officials, held personal conversations and exchanged correspondences with Senator Dole, Congressmen Jones and Burr, Naval operational readiness, engineers, pilots and public affairs officers, and listened to Navy courtroom justifications for taking land. I also served 14 years in Marine Corps aviation, worked in military real estate procurement and government construction contracting (civilian); and witnessed the corruption and ineptitude that accommodates the general "ends justify the means" policies and practices found not infrequently in federal government.
So, did Congressmen and Navy officials determine and permit the assertion of false facts and circumstances, withhold information, skew statistical interpretations, lie about aircraft physical characteristics, effects and decibel levels, justify ignoring Navy safety regulations, perform shoddy environmental impact assessments, and keep changing the reasoning, purpose and mission for the OLF?
Should it be discovered that skullduggery was afoot, will it be justified in the "interest of national security or combat readiness?" And if the deal was "rigged" on the federal level, was anyone in state government involved? Who, how and why?
If it is the case that federal government officials and the military have failed "to support and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic;" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" then they are at the very least, guilty of dereliction of duty. If they intentionally operated without regard for and in violation of their sworn oath, then they are guilty of attempting to sabotage rights granted and enforced by direction of the United State Constitution -- sabotaging the very purpose for which government officials and officers exist.
Men and women have sacrificed, suffered and died in support and defense of those rights.
CLAUDIA RODGERS
Raleigh
----------
To the Editor:
The most important thing county commissioners will do is to elect a chairman who can control and will moderate what has become until now rancorous demonstrations of incivility, arrogance and insolence devoid of any parliamentary decorum. Voters are not only incensed, angered and disillusioned, but as a consequence are losing confidence in our elected representatives to govern.
Several letter writers recently have already addressed these concerns. It is not likely that their comments have escaped the attention of our commissioners. But there is the realism that these expressions of concern may go unheeded at the commissioners' meeting on Dec. 6 with "politics as usual" replacing sensibility and their sworn responsibility to the public.
It's time to restore confidence and respect in county government if there is to be change. It begins with the chairmanship. What is needed is a firm, but fair and impartial chairman intolerant of rambling nonsense. One who unhesitatingly will gavel down rancorous incivilities whether directed at other commissioners, demeaning speakers or the public audience. And it is imperative that the chair have a strong understanding and command of parliamentary rules and procedure if order is to prevail over the chaos.
Commissioner Richardson received an overwhelming majority of votes in his re-election bid. And in a third term he can bring to the table a wealth of valuable experience if used prudently and wisely. He obviously is regarded by many as able and intelligent. Some see him as the "conscience of the county's purse strings" and he has worked hard and diligently furthering those interests. However, as has been pointed out by other writers, the plurality of his votes is neither a mandate nor a coronation bequeathing the chairmanship as the victor's prize. In any appropriate context some 16,000 other voters thought otherwise. In the chairmanship selection process we expect commissioners to elect from among their number one who, as I have said, will be firm and fair, without bias and who would be nonpartisan.
Under the commission's rules of procedure, the chairman has a right to vote on every matter. Whether he votes with the Democratic minority or with the Republican majority should not be a partisan issue. The voters and the public expect he would vote his conscience and, foremost, what is in the best interests of county government.
It will be interesting to note if our commissioners will rise to the occasion and do the right thing. There certainly are men of ability among them capable of restoring civility to the process. Collectively they owe it to us. Enough is quite enough.
ROBERT E. KUBICEK
Washington
I believe that the prospect of a decisive, concerted and active effort to deprive citizens of their due process protection of property rights by the federal government would draw serious concern from anyone who holds the Constitution as the foundation, structure and security of our society of united states.
I've read the motion that cites communications between Naval officials, held personal conversations and exchanged correspondences with Senator Dole, Congressmen Jones and Burr, Naval operational readiness, engineers, pilots and public affairs officers, and listened to Navy courtroom justifications for taking land. I also served 14 years in Marine Corps aviation, worked in military real estate procurement and government construction contracting (civilian); and witnessed the corruption and ineptitude that accommodates the general "ends justify the means" policies and practices found not infrequently in federal government.
So, did Congressmen and Navy officials determine and permit the assertion of false facts and circumstances, withhold information, skew statistical interpretations, lie about aircraft physical characteristics, effects and decibel levels, justify ignoring Navy safety regulations, perform shoddy environmental impact assessments, and keep changing the reasoning, purpose and mission for the OLF?
Should it be discovered that skullduggery was afoot, will it be justified in the "interest of national security or combat readiness?" And if the deal was "rigged" on the federal level, was anyone in state government involved? Who, how and why?
If it is the case that federal government officials and the military have failed "to support and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic;" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" then they are at the very least, guilty of dereliction of duty. If they intentionally operated without regard for and in violation of their sworn oath, then they are guilty of attempting to sabotage rights granted and enforced by direction of the United State Constitution -- sabotaging the very purpose for which government officials and officers exist.
Men and women have sacrificed, suffered and died in support and defense of those rights.
CLAUDIA RODGERS
Raleigh
----------
To the Editor:
The most important thing county commissioners will do is to elect a chairman who can control and will moderate what has become until now rancorous demonstrations of incivility, arrogance and insolence devoid of any parliamentary decorum. Voters are not only incensed, angered and disillusioned, but as a consequence are losing confidence in our elected representatives to govern.
Several letter writers recently have already addressed these concerns. It is not likely that their comments have escaped the attention of our commissioners. But there is the realism that these expressions of concern may go unheeded at the commissioners' meeting on Dec. 6 with "politics as usual" replacing sensibility and their sworn responsibility to the public.
It's time to restore confidence and respect in county government if there is to be change. It begins with the chairmanship. What is needed is a firm, but fair and impartial chairman intolerant of rambling nonsense. One who unhesitatingly will gavel down rancorous incivilities whether directed at other commissioners, demeaning speakers or the public audience. And it is imperative that the chair have a strong understanding and command of parliamentary rules and procedure if order is to prevail over the chaos.
Commissioner Richardson received an overwhelming majority of votes in his re-election bid. And in a third term he can bring to the table a wealth of valuable experience if used prudently and wisely. He obviously is regarded by many as able and intelligent. Some see him as the "conscience of the county's purse strings" and he has worked hard and diligently furthering those interests. However, as has been pointed out by other writers, the plurality of his votes is neither a mandate nor a coronation bequeathing the chairmanship as the victor's prize. In any appropriate context some 16,000 other voters thought otherwise. In the chairmanship selection process we expect commissioners to elect from among their number one who, as I have said, will be firm and fair, without bias and who would be nonpartisan.
Under the commission's rules of procedure, the chairman has a right to vote on every matter. Whether he votes with the Democratic minority or with the Republican majority should not be a partisan issue. The voters and the public expect he would vote his conscience and, foremost, what is in the best interests of county government.
It will be interesting to note if our commissioners will rise to the occasion and do the right thing. There certainly are men of ability among them capable of restoring civility to the process. Collectively they owe it to us. Enough is quite enough.
ROBERT E. KUBICEK
Washington
 |
||
| A threat to the electoral process |
