Newspapers listed below the opinion piece are known to have used the letters.
Others may have used the letters without my knowing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Mad Cow', 'Mad Man' disease                    December, 2003

It appears some of the Democrats have dined on some Mad Cow steak.  Blaming George W Bush for not having tightened the required tests to prevent the rare disease is certainly from the ravings of mad men.  Now we have it 'Mad Man' disease symptoms are showing in desperate Democrat leaders.  It seems to me the previous report was in Canada where the US had no control.  The first report was in England; still the US had no control.  The first incident in England, during the administration of the first President Bush, did cause the US meat inspections to be examined resulting in changes in procedure.  If that was not sufficient then President Bill Clinton sat on the deficiencies during his entire administration.  It seems to me the procedures worked.  They detected a rare case of Mad Cow and it is apparently being contained.  To blame any of our presidents is madness.  A desperate attempt by desperate Democratic Party leaders will only reveal the tactics often used by the Liberal Socialist Party, oops, forgive me, the Democratic Party.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor,"   Macon Daily.com, 12-30-2003; Atlantic Highlands Herald, 01-08-04  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anti-Christian bigotry                                    December, 2003

Some larger chain stores are succumbing to the anti-Christian sentiment of political correctness.  I've noticed the decline of Nativity sets and other decorative items avoiding the meaning of Christmas.  At Top Food and Drugs you can find 'Holiday wrap' and at Fred Meyers you can find 'gift wrap ', but you do not find 'Christmas wrap'.  The designs of the wrapping paper are of the pagan and secular aspects that have commercialized Christmas over the last few decades.  It is difficult to find designs that actually depict the true themes of the origin and true meaning of Christmas.
     Our schools remove Christ while promoting other religions.  Our government is forced to deny traditions that have existed since before America was born.  Minority groups seek to deny the display of the Christ child. They win by the majority's failure to speak out in favor of our American heritage.
     Commercialization was the common complaint but now it is that the true meaning of Christmas is being ignored by the offerings of Christmas merchandise.  Over eighty percent of Americans, of all walks of life and religions favor keeping Christ in Christmas.  Some say to mention the real  meaning of Christmas is to avoid offending other religions. Nonsense, Christianity has contributed to the civilization and greatness of America. Christmas is 'Christ's mass'.  To remove Christ from the Christmas season offends American tradition. Denying American tradition offends the majority of Americans.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Washington Times, 12-21-2003; Eat The State!, 1-14-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 12-04-2003    (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Constitution for a Moral People                    November, 2003

Just what is our Constitution about?  The meaning of the U. S. Constitution is being changed. 
   The Constitution was written for a religious people. It was written for a moral people.  The Founding Fathers intended that it protect the people from our government, not necessarily from each other.  The Constitution insures our Liberty not our Freedom.  Liberty is maintained by responsible freedom. 
   The Constitution is being watered down, twisted, and diverted as the river of Political Correctness flows, corrupting our society.  Had the Founders known that sexual deviations would become an actual dialog of public discourse, they would have addressed the situations.  They would have defined what a marriage is had they saw a need. They would have placed in effect a protection for the life of the unborn, had they known the extent of our political follies.  Our Constitution was written by a people, for a people who took for granted, responsibility, respect for life, respect for others, and who had a fear of God. Responsibility would have been spelled out had they thought we would become so irresponsible.
   Today, lacking the moral fortitude the Founding Fathers had, we act as children without responsibility, without morality. The activist Judges read into the lines intent that was never intended; let alone thought of. 
   The U. S. Constitution left much up to the common sense of a moral people.  We are a depraved people and our liberties are waning as a result. Common Sense has ceased.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Atlantic Highland Herald - 11-27-04;  Human Events Online - 12-16-2003;  Lewis News - 11-21-03; Jihad Watch - 05-06-2004   (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More to gain if Ridgway lives                       November, 2003

Gary Ridgway deserves death, but the families of the victims deserve closure. There are several ways to look at this horrendous case.
Insist on death and Ridgway keeps quiet about unknown victims, and the families will never know for sure. The death penalty, with the numerous appeal possibilities, could last for many years, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars more. He not only is a murderer but also becomes a rapist of the taxpayer. I guess he is already that.
Life imprisonment without parole gives Ridgeway the incentive to cooperate with investigators. More families of the victims will now learn the truth of their loved-one’s fates.
Life in prison is much less expensive than the appeal process. Although the families and King County taxpayers have lost much, more is gained by allowing Gary Ridgway to live.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor,"   Federal Way Mirror, 11-19-2003 & 12-22-2003  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Military Women                                                November, 2003

We call ourselves a civilized society.  Yet, we put our women into harms way.  Private Jessica Lynch   should be a wake up call.  We should rethink the role of women in the military.
    Call it sexist I do not care.  Today’s insanity of political correctness over common sense must stop.  What did we think would happen to a woman taken capture?  You have an enemy who hated Americans long before the war.  You have an enemy who does not respect the Geneva Convention.  You have an enemy who has not the morality of Western Civilization.
     Enemy soldiers away from their families, and full of stress without any reason for restraint and we expect them to treat our women with respect.  They do not respect their own women.  We show the same disrespect for our daughters and wives by placing them into harms way.
     Women have served in the military for decades but in positions behind our front lines.  Sure some have even been captured under those conditions but they did not serve out among the enemy.  Not until we lost our civilized common sense. 
     One cause or motive our men have for fervent fighting is to keep the battle on the enemy’s home front not ours where our families live.  Women serving behind the front lines provide a similar sense that the men must not allow the enemy to advance. 
     Women in harms way provide a distraction where a man’s innate sense to protect the “weaker sex” kicks in.  Lets face it Men and women are created different in more ways than plumbing.  Men without a morality will seek their own desires without respect of woman’s person.  Women, even without intent, draw the man’s attention provoking his temptation. It is time to let common sense prevail.  It is time to keep the brave women of our military behind the front lines under the protection of our men.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 11-10-2003; Backtalk, 11-19-2003; Lewis News, 11-07-03  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

King County 9th District election                    August, 2003

   The people of King County’s 9^th Council District have seen fit to vote for Kent Pullen over many past terms.  His passing is a loss to King County citizens.  Councilman Steve Hammond embraces the same values, love of country and King County as had Kent Pullen.  Hammond seeks to uphold your rights as spelled out in our constitutions.  Steve will continue with the programs Kent Pullen has supported.  Steve Hammond and Kent Pullen became close friends with Kent conveying his hopes for King County’s future.
   Steve’s opponent, Barbara Heavey, states the same values.  When you look at her record she supports the opposite, new programs, new taxation rather than cutting costs.  Heavey supports government spending without considering consequences to your pocket-book.  Rather than make government more efficient she supports more taxes.  Heavey supports environmental restrictions upon you over your property rights
   “Government of special interest not the people,” seem to be her motto. We need someone who would maintain the stance of liberty as promoted by Kent Pullen. We need to continue his battles to preserve citizen rights over regulation by government. We need Steve Hammond the only candidate that will work for you and not an oppressive council.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

August 18, 2003     -    Affirmative Action  

     Bigotry is wrong no matter how you color it.  To base actions upon the color of ones race is barbaric.  American society is striving to bring itself above racist barbarism.  It is a slow and painstaking endeavor.  Affirmative Action seeks to equal out, by government mandates, the treatment of American citizens by the color of their skin.  Affirmative Action had its place in history but does not accomplish its goals.  It is time to re-evaluate the accomplishments of Affirmative Action.  One less prideful accomplishment is that it favors one race over others ignoring the “content of one’s character”.  
     Many who support Affirmative Action do so from a narrow perspective.  They see the wrongs put upon one race and wish corrective action.  They do not look beyond to see the perpetuation of government-mandated bigotry within Affirmative Action.  
     Bigots in ignorance will remain bigots.  An enlightened society recognizes there will be ignorance among some of its citizens.  Education is the best tool to effect change in the attitudes of our society.  Affirmative Action has outlived its usefulness and we must move to the next step in effecting equality for all.    
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  August 17th, 2003     -    9-11 Remember

   September 11 has become the day to commemorate the fallen and the heroes of the attacks on New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon in Washington, DC.  Since that day in 2001 we have learned much.  Our liberty and our heroes have been and are being defined.
   We have learned that security in a free society is not secure.  Liberty is maintained by restricting some freedom.  If all freedom is to be allowed then we cannot expect to have secure liberty.  Liberty is maintained by responsible freedom.
   Hero material is in everyone and manifests itself by action when the need arises.  Our military, police and fire forces are heroes just for making themselves available knowing the dangers they may face.  Fortunately only some will have their fortitude tested.  Many civilians who survived, and some who did not, showed us bravery by acting upon the needs at hand. 
   September 11, 2001 is a day that will be remembered for the loss of that day and to honor the heroes of our society.  Those who have sacrificed and those who still live proving our American resolve.  We give our gratitude to all of our American heroes.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Iraq War News, 08-16-2003;  Atlantic Highlands Herald, - 08-21-2003;  The Daily News, August 22, 2003;   New York Newsday,   Seattle Gay News, 09-05-2003   (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

August 1st, 2003         -    Traffic this election season
 

July 11th, 2003   -   The Political Racial Divide

The Republican Party was the first party to actively work against slavery.  Today it still is in favor of equality for all, judging each by their character.  The Democrat Party caters to the selfish nature of the individual, "what can I get for myself."  The Democratic leadership will push for special treatment of specific races rather than equality for the individual.
     On July 6, 1854 activists against slavery met forming the first plank of the Republican Party, “to prohibit… those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.”  The Republican Party still carries the plank in principle and follow the words of  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  Affirmative Action is contrary to Dr. King’s dream, putting one race over that of another.  In Affirmative Action, discrimination is perpetuated by Government policies that are dividing this nation between the skin colors of its citizens.  Support the Democratic Party and you support continued separation between the races.  Support the Republicans and you will support the principle that each person by the content of their character makes of themselves their status in society.  
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Eat The State, 7-30-2003;  King County Journal, 7-13-2003  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 4th, 2003    -       World Peace

   Wars usually break out because of an aggressor.  In these modern times aggression becomes the means to battle tyrants.  Evil cannot be reasoned with.  Evil does not negotiate in good faith.  Evil, if understanding anything, understands strength.
   It becomes the responsibility of the more righteous nations to stand up to the tyrants of the world.  World Peace cannot be achieved by diplomacy. 
   World Peace will never be achieved because of diplomacy.  Opposition to force enables the evil that prevents World Peace.  Peace supporters that protest the actions of the more righteous nations believe avoiding war is peace.   Avoiding War is ‘sticking your head in the sand’ allowing the evil forces to remain; expanding their power. 
   If America had not become involved in World War II, Europe and possibly the US would be speaking German.  Hitler could not be reasoned with.  He would not compromise.  He ‘fought to the death’.  Diplomacy did not work but served to allow his expansion into many European countries.
   America when gaining victory over an oppressed country should keep possession of that country.  Allow them their own rule but overseen by America.  American bureaucracy is not one person holding the reigns.  America is a nation ran by a bureaucracy built around a philosophy of liberty.  No more righteous reason exists for war than to maintain or promote liberty.  It will not happen but America should over rule the nations she has set free.  America with or without the support of the United Nations should move on from one Rouge leader onto the next.  The removal of tyrants is the only means by which ‘world peace’ can be achieved.  The over-ruling of a nation is the only way to protect the world from that country’s future tyranny.
   Avoiding war has never promoted a long-term peace.  Through negotiation France enjoyed a longer peace until Germany invaded in World War II.  The ‘Cold War’ was extended allowing peace for much of the western world while the USSR expanded itself through Europe and building up the evil regimes of North Korea and Cuba.  Avoiding war will always end in the necessity of war or the oppression of the apathetic country.

-  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enron and Unions.                           June, 2003

   We complain about the misdeeds of Enron executives, Qwest last CEO and other executives while ignoring the misdeeds of union officials.  The Unions themselves have lobbied for laws that make corporate accounting more understandable and more transparent.   Over the last half century many union officials have been indicted over misuse of money that make the Enron scandal look like child’s play.  The Unions lobby for more accountability in corporate accounting while opposing it for themselves.  If I am to enjoy the benefits of my union I want to know fully how the money is spent.  At one time members of my union, CWA voted 60% Republican while the leadership supported the Democratic Party.  The unions support the Democratic Party to increase their political power not necessarily for what is good for America.  The unions support labor issues to the extreme.   Socialist policies in our government seem to be the goal of the labor union.  I want to know how much of my money is used to support policies I do not agree with.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Atlantic Highlands Herald, 06-26-2003;  American Reporter, 08-26-2003;  American Reporter, 06-01-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrats not doing enough.        June, 2003

The Democratic Party is not doing enough to support the American Way of Life.
They consistently support ‘one issue’ special interest groups regardless of the value or lack of value to our society.  The Democratic Party seeks to diminish the Civil Rights advances by promoting special rights and preferential treatment of one race over another. If a socialist group promises to vote Democrat, the Democratic Party will embrace them.  If a homosexual lobby promises votes, the Democratic Party ignores their agenda for sex with minors of the same sex, or other deviant behavior.  I have began to wonder when the Democratic Party will openly support the Organization for Wife Swapping?

-  Roger W Hancock

Submitted to many newspapers as a "Letter to the Editor" it is unknown if any had used it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2003, Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 4th, 2003    -     The Pro-Death Agenda

The ‘Right to Choice’ is a guise, a cover for the ‘Pro-Life’ movement to promote the right to convenience.  ‘Right to Choice’ an agenda to delete the inconvenience of living up to the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of irresponsible sex.
An embryo being not a person is a philosophy only.   It is a contrived philosophy to legitimize the killing of a baby for the convenience of the mother, father or both. 
It is in the argument of philosophy blended with the stretched facts of science that has allowed the misnamed “Right to Choice” their successes in the killing of unborn babies and sucking the brains out of others during the birthing process.
The evidence is that a human is a human from before conception to decay in the grave. Philosophically a human is not a person until a personality has been developed.  By that definition a baby is not a person for a month or two after birth.  The elderly, after senility sets in, loses their personality.  Are we to expand abortion to that point?  Are we to abort our parents for convenience?
The argument is a discussion of philosophy when the scientific facts support the ‘Right to Life.’  ‘The Declaration of Independence’ says we should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It says, “Life,” not, “Life contingent upon others.”  The founding document says “pursuit of happiness,” not “happiness.”  It is in the pursuit of happiness without responsibility that one seeks to snuff out the life of another.  The ‘Right to Choice’ supporters seek an unrealistic ‘right’ to ‘happiness’.
 When a woman changes her mind after deciding to have an abortion, either by reasoning with her or by bribery the “Pro Choice” ranks get up in arms.  A woman changes her choice from declaring death upon her baby to her choice of life for the infant.  That choice is not acceptable to the Pro Choice, leadership.  They often oppose the choice of life, thus earning them the unofficial title of ‘Pro-Death’.
-  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 11, 2003          Liberty

"I believe in Liberty not necessarily freedom.  Liberty is being free from undue government restraints.  Some restraints are necessary to preserve a responsible freedom; liberty.
The founding fathers sacrificed for freedom to form a new nation that men may live without government oppression.
We must stand against undue laws that abate our liberty.  We are responsible to the liberty of others so that our rights do not infringe upon the rights of others.  Liberty is maintained by responsible freedom."
               - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 11, 2003   -   Letter in response to an inquiry as to opinions about property restrictions that require one to not store junk autos and other debris in view of the public.

Sent to Auburn City Councilperson :   Sue Singer,  
 Such concerns show your ties to conservative values, keep it up. 
Our rights and responsibilities to other's rights must be in balance.  We tend to either cater to others, denying basic rights or we cater to ourselves denying the rights of others.  When what we do on our property affects the value of the property next to us we are wrong.  Junk vehicles in view of the street can mean the difference between a quick and no sale when attempting to sell a house.  Junk vehicles in view of the street can lower the potential value of other houses on the street.  To enjoy the rights of liberty we must be responsible to the liberties of others.  “Liberty is maintained by responsible freedom.”  “When your rights suppress my rights our liberty cries.”  
I suggest that you word any restrictions so as to plainly spell out the citizen’s responsibility to his neighbors’ rights.   
  In a free society restrictions are necessary to preserve liberty but must weigh the value of the freedoms that are restricted.  All freedom for one will infringe upon the liberty of another.  Liberty is not always freedom and freedom is not always liberty.  Liberty is a balance of freedom and responsibility.  This can be a tough balancing act, but the rights of all parties involved must be considered.
                            -  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Morality in Schools                        April, 2003

   Morals in education can break or make a civilized society.  Our society is struggling through many tribulations brought about by a lack of moral fortitude.  Some have said the morality should not be the job of schools but be left to the family.   Today’s American family often is too busy to instill and prohibited from enforcing basic morality.   The public schools should, as do the private schools, re-enforce basic morals to ensure our society remain a civilized society.  Often the morality of the family is undermined by the anti-morality taught in the schools.
    Basic morality is simple ethics.  Basic moral ethics are the foundation of most if not all religions, although said in different ways.  “Thou shalt not murder.” is a moral statement that sane persons cannot argue against.   “Thou shalt not steal” is another that is inadvertently taught when simple common courtesy is taught.  Respect others and you will not kill or steal from them.  “Thou shall not commit adultery.” is one that reveres the traditional family and the sanctity of marriage.   Ethics concerning marriage and monogamous relationships reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
    Morality is taught one way or another.  It is either a bad morality or it is a morality that strengthens our marriages, our families, and our American society.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Auburn Reporter, 05-28-03;  Seattle Gay News, 4-25-2003 (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brute force needed                        April, 2003

   Brute force is respected by the Arab nations. We now have more respect from the neighboring nations because we went all the way to deposing Saddam.
   When coming up against Hitler, Mussolini, Japan's last emperor and the many others, brute force has brought about peace. Doing nothing allowed the expansion of the USSR into Europe.
   Peace, when achieved, cannot survive without brute enforcement. Twelve years of allowing Saddam to continue has facilitated the killing of many more than was killed in both the Gulf war and the Iraqi wars.
   When madmen control nations, peace cannot exist and to watch and do nothing is a most grievous act.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 04-17- 2003  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Status quo won't bring peace         January, 2003

   Through history, peace has only been achieved by one nation overpowering another. When the aggressor had been victorious it resulted in an oppressive peace, which is no peace at all. How can we expect peace by allowing the status quo in Iraq?
   Saddam Hussein is a man who attacks his own people without any concern for human life. Doing nothing may allow a semblance of peace for a time, but it will allow Iraq to attack what little peace exists in the Middle East.
   Short-term peace now, or a longer peace by forceful restraint of rouge nations led by madmen: the right decision is clear.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 03--03- 2003  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tax Breaks                                    January, 2003

   Tax breaks do not penalize the poor. Nor do they reward the rich. Tax breaks are a reduction to those who pay taxes. If you are poor and pay no taxes, then you do not deserve a tax break. If I pay $10 in taxes and get one back, I save 10 percent. I do not gain 10 percent. If you pay $100 and get 10 percent back, you get $10 back. That seems fair to me. 
I get back 10 percent and you get back 10 percent. 
   When using the logic of the Democratic leadership, you benefit because you get more dollars back than I do. They do not consider that you have paid more dollars in taxes than I have paid.
   You only penalize by taxing more, just as we tax the "rich" who pay most of the tax revenues. The poor are not penalized by tax breaks. They will receive the same percent of tax break as do the so-called "rich."
   The top 10 percent of taxpayers pays more than 60 percent of the tax revenues. The "rich" do not pay their fair share? That is right. They pay more than their fair share. It is you and I, the so-called "poor," who do not pay our fair share. We, the lower income earners, the bulk of the population, pay less than half of the revenues.
   You may say the "rich" should pay more. That would be so--if this were a communist country.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Chicago Tribune, 01-23-2003;  Eat the State, 1-15-2003;  King County Journal, 01-20-2003  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Selective Outrage                            January, 2003

    Senator Lott resigned as Senate Majority Leader. He made an uplifting remark to an old man, failing to consider the historical context of the statement.  The statement contained the smoking gun of history’s bigotry.  A simple apology should have sufficed. Democrats, the party of historical segregation, made a circus around the Republican Senator’s remark.
     Democrats demonize in their ever-present double standard.  In the Presidential elections Al Gore sought to over turn existing law while George Bush attempted to uphold existing law.  Democrats still whine about the ‘stolen’ elections.  Then there is Bill Clinton who lied, stretching truth as a mode of operation.  Defending Democrat leaders claimed personal life has nothing to do with ability to govern.  Democrats then drudge up every little innuendo to attempt to demonize President Bush.
     They have the Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a Ku Klux Klan member in the 1930’s, writing about ‘race mongrels’ in the 1940’s.  It’s more recently reported that up through 1992 he was in a group that promoted lynching African-Americans.  Byrd filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has voted against every Black appointee to the US Supreme Court.
     On March 4, 2001 Democrat Byrd, not once but twice used the N-word on television.  Not a single condemnation from Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, or Kweisi Mfume.  Not one leading Civil Rights leader including Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton commented. 
    It is time to take a stand. Where racism rears it’s ugly head it must be dealt with but not selectively.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Eat The State, 01-01-2003;  Federal Way News, 01-01-2003; New York Times, 01-21-2003;  Insight On The News, January 21, 2003  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONSERVATIVES Gaining ground with public      January, 2003

    The liberal bias in the news is obvious when simply comparing the reporting of the two parties. The Democratic leaders are attempting to diffuse the attention of news bias by claiming conservative bias in the media. They compare apples with oranges. Talk shows are not news shows.
    Conservative talk shows are more successful due to the fact that the mainstream media, by omission and spinning of facts, often show their liberal bias.
    Conservatism is a winning concept. As more citizens awake from their apathy the conservative movement gains ground. The public is waking up and beginning to see the Democratic Party leadership for what it has become, a self-seeking power hungry elite that will stoop to any lows to promote the liberal, almost socialist, agenda.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 01-16- 2003;  The American Reporter, 10-18-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Submitted to 'Eat The State' - 2-6-2003     ( Not Published )

This is a Response to Russ Newsom’s letter of January 20, 2003.   No matter how you add up the taxes you do not penalize anyone for giving some of it back.  Increasing tax rates upon one who succeeds in business is a penalty.  It is a penalty for hard work and risking one’s savings.  If a person does not pay taxes, how are they penalized for not getting anything back on their $0.00 paid?  Tax revenues were increased when Democrat President John Kennedy gave a tax break.  What makes the difference now?  Is it because it is a Republican that is doing what is right for the people.
-  Roger W Hancock

Sent as a "Letter to the Editor" (Not Published).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2002 Archives    -2003-    2004 Archives