Attention, Secret Service: Watch this letter writer

Tue, 11/17/2009 - 4:02pm
By: Letters to the ...

After reading Mr. Gilmer’s latest diatribe in your newspaper, it is obvious that rational thought is not part of his make-up. But for you to publish his letter advocating the overthrow of the government makes me wonder about your newspaper.

It is interesting that Republicans, when Bush was president, often said that “we are a country of laws,” and yet, now that they are out of power, would choose not to follow laws they don’t like.

Mr. Gilmer advocates not paying your taxes — sorry, illegal. And advocating the overthrow of the government is illegal. Yes, I hope the Secret Service notices this clown, because people like him ARE a threat.

As long as people like Mr. Gilmer continue to be the voice of the Republican Party, the Democrats don’t have to be worried about being the minority party anytime soon.

Bob Myers

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by PTC Observer on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 2:08pm.

Your response to Mr. Gilmer's "diatribe" reflects your party's not so hidden agenda.

Using the power of the state to subdue opposition. Those that have a political philosophy that has no moral or ethical foundation can only exist by using the power of the state.

Calling the Secret Service on someone who expresses his opinions with the aim to suppress those opinions is moral corruption at its very core. Advocating that we serve the State above individual freedom of speech is a socialist concept.

When we begin to inform on fellow citizens in the name of protecting the state, we become tools of the very power that will ultimately enslave us.

If a citizen chooses to not pay his taxes because he believes that the government has lost its moral authority it may be illegal but it is morally justified if that person really believes this.

The founders of this country had no intention of having a redistributive government, whether you believe this or not is immaterial. It is a fact.

People like Mr. Gilmer are a threat; they are a threat to people like you. By not paying taxes it deprives the state of its power and thus is a threat to its ability to gain more power. The state exists only for power and the founders knew this as well and it is why we have the unique form of government we have.

You want others to follow the law, and we are in fact a nation of laws, but as Thomas Jefferson correctly observed there can be tyranny in law.

When a government that was formed deriving its power from the people, instead turns on those people to rob them of their rights and property, it has lost is moral authority.

Thus, if this happens it is not only our right to change the government but our obligation as free men to do so and if necessary, by force.

I am not a Republican and have no desire to be one.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 10:22pm.

It's called Free Speech.. You should look into it..

Where were you when your side advocated the assassination of "W"..? Or being hanged as a traitor..?
Give me a break.. If the Government stops being afraid of the people we no longer have a Republic we have a dictatorship. A Monarchy and this Administration has ceased to fear us..

""The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." " Thomas Jefferson

DanTennant's picture
Submitted by DanTennant on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 5:00pm.

I read Gilmer's letter and you know what? The guy not only has a major pair, he offers plenty of options. The secret service is going to need to order several million extra pairs of handcuffs because Gilmer speaks for a lot of us in terms of his frustration with the disentigration of our liberties and the very scary trend toward socialism in this country.

Hey Myers, instead of being a crybaby tattle tale to Uncle Sam, why don't you actually fess up and admit that your party is the one that is sending us down the road to total destruction, and unless we act sooner than later, there won't be a USA that we even recognize in our children's future. Gilmer, a lot of people are gonna say you're a nut case, but your basic tenets are correct.

Oh and Bob, lots of good men died just so you could have the ability to write a letter to the editor, so don't waste it trying to get those who still believe in the First Amendment arrested, OK pal?

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 7:46pm.

But if you must keep using danimal as your avitar, I'll get ok with it.
Chill, because Myers is not a real person. No one could be that clueless and survive in today's enviornment unless he were a retired gummint' worker or maybe an alter ego for Bonkers.

Submitted by Bonkers on Thu, 11/19/2009 - 1:51am.

Are you accusing me of being "clueless?"
What does that mean anyway?

DanTennant's picture
Submitted by DanTennant on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 8:41pm.

I understand why bloggers here hide behind fake names and write letters to the editor with fake names, I really do. I don't agree with it, but I get it. Yet I strongly contend that it would be far more interesting and certainly far more honest if people had the guts to put their name by their comments.

Just don't tell the Secret Service I'm lurking around.

Submitted by tgarlock on Thu, 11/19/2009 - 8:41am.

Dan, it's good to see someone with the honor to put their name behind their public comments instead of throwing rocks in the form of insults from behind the figurative bushes. It seems that anonymity prompts weak people to do and say things they would not be proud for their parents or children to see. Which is why, in my opinion, comments in this forum too often resemble a food fight.

Terry Garlock

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 10:02pm.

Anonymity does not exist everywhere. For instance, should someone show up at one of the rare coffees, where some of the bloggers meet up to put a face on the blogging name, you can see the real deals at that time.
Anonymity does have its virtues, the best one being: allowing a chat persona to develop, which is why at the coffees we go by our chat names.
And I would say, in my opinion, that having an active email contact is not being totally anonymous.
Anonymously, or not, good intentions or not, insults are still insulting, and good manners are appreciated. Food fights are a terrible waste of food but a blog site is different. Blog sites are entertaining at the least, and informative and thought provoking at their best.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

Submitted by bowser on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 7:25pm.

Your real gripe is with Cal Beverly, a small-time capitalist trying to generate more hits and make more money by allowing anonymous comments.

If you feel so strongly this enables weak and dishonorable people to engage in weak and dishonorable behavior, I expect you to stop participating in Beverly’s enterprise immediately.

Submitted by PTC Observer on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 11:50am.

tell it to:

Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin
John Jay

Just to name a very few, publishing political thought under a nom de guerre is as old as the Republic.

They of course would be more eloquent than anyone writing in this forum.

I am sure you are not suggesting the founders mentioned above are "weak people"?

cogitoergofay's picture
Submitted by cogitoergofay on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 9:09pm.

Your castigation, Mr. Garlock, that the anonymous are "weak" may in some instances be true. However, many cannot comment for fear of reprisal. Take for example a county or city worker. They most assuredly could not raise the slighest even admirably constructive criticism.

You should also read the history of the Letter to the Editor. Benjamin Franklin wrote anonymous letters to the editor which were published by his unknowing brother. Ben's pseudonym was Silence Dogood and he successfully conveyed the air of an elderly widow.

No, the answer in a free society is not to restrict free speech any more than needed. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said that the best antidote to unsatisfactory speech is more speech.

Respond as you have so very capably Mr. Garlock but do not advocate more censorship.

Submitted by Bonkers on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 5:21am.

is directed only to those who criticize the military for their shortcomings. They have the biggest budget yet always feel unappreciated....and make no mistakes. They are an excellent bunch but make mistakes.
Garlock won't criticize Cal. He writes for Cal.
Go along to get along.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Thu, 11/19/2009 - 9:06am.

Who cares about names, handles, or whatever. When does the food fight begin?

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 9:56pm.

Dan you're an expert alright.

In your case Dan, 'Ex' is a has-been and 'spert' is a drip under pressure.

Why don't you run for office so we can show you once again the respect and admiration we have for you?

What a looser!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.