|
Column
By Frank
Gillespie
The Madison County Journal
June 14, 2000
Frankly
Speaking
 The search for freedom
When the representatives of our fledgling nation gathered in
Philadelphia to "create a more perfect union," they
designed a government based on several specific principles. They
believed that these concepts would produce the greatest amount
of freedom possible while providing those services that only
a united government could produce. When they finished, they felt
that the plan was the best possible.
They were not as sure that the government they designed would
last. When he was asked "What have you given us?" Benjamin
Franklin said, "We have given you a Republic, if you can
keep it." He was right to be concerned. The government we
have today has little, if any, resemblance to the one they designed.
Here are the most important of their concepts that have been
destroyed:
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES - Our forefathers recognized each
state to be an independent, sovereign government. They recognized
the rights and responsibilities of each state to regulate its
own affairs as the citizens of that state saw fit. They considered
it proper that each state be responsible for such things as law
enforcement, care for the poor and handicapped (when there was
no family capable of caring for their own), the building and
maintaining of roads, and the regulation of commerce within its
own borders.
The federal government was assigned the task of providing for
a common defense, conducting foreign relations, regulating trade
between states, providing for a common currency, and establishing
a court system to interpret the federal Constitution and settle
disputes between the states.
The people of the United States of America were so intent on
limiting the power of the federal government, that they immediately
wrote and ratified the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights)
that made those limits abundantly clear.
A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE - The original idea of Congress was
that the people of the several states would choose from among
their numbers individuals who would lay aside their regular duties
for a period of time to represent their neighbors in Washington.
These duties were to be temporary and those who undertook them
were considered to be making a sacrifice for their communities.
The development of full-time professional politicians is totally
foreign to the basic principles of our founding fathers.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION - That was the battle cry
of the American Revolution. The basic duty of our elected officials
should be to carefully supervise the collection and disbursement
of our tax money. The idea of an all-powerful Internal Revenue
Service that makes up its on rules completely violates the concepts
on which this nation was founded.
These principles are, in my opinion, sacred. The fact that our
present government runs roughshod over these principles disturbs
me tremendously. The fact that the majority of Americans no longer
care disturbs me even more.
Obviously, the government will not solve this problem. Those
who operate the government have too much at stake (their jobs)
to willingly reduce its size and scope. The major political parties
cannot solve the problem. They are under the control of the professional
politicians. If we have any chance of returning our nation to
the sacred principles on which it was founded, new organizations
and new people with new, or old, ideas must step forward. That
means you and I. If we are to regain our rightful freedoms, we
have to win them back by our own efforts. Let's get on with the
job!
Frank Gillispie is founder of The Madison County Journal.
His web page can be accessed at www.mcga.net.
Letter To
The Editor
The Madison County Journal
June 14, 2000
Royston responds
to accusations
Dear editor:
The point in question is that the political parties can place
non-binding questions on the general primary ballot. The Republican
Party chose to place four questions on the July 18, 2000, ballot.
It has been a long-standing position of the Democratic Party
that if questions were to appear on the ballots of another party
that the Democratic Party would like to place the questions on
their ballots if they thought the questions were in order. There
has been a long-standing request that if I heard that questions
were to be submitted that I would notify them. I saw nothing
wrong with this as I felt that if there were questions to be
voted on that everyone should have a chance to vote on the questions.
I feel that if a question is to be pursued for changes by our
leaders that you the voters should have the opportunity to voice
your opinions. I do not see how these questions will benefit
me or anyone else personally or politically as they have nothing
to do with my job.
Mrs. Frances Arndt of the Democratic Party reviewed the actual
questions and stated "I see nothing wrong with this; let's
put them on our ballot." She was advised to put something
in writing, which she did, and it was notarized by Tracy Dean.
Mr. Marlin Carithers was asked to verify that this was done before
12 noon, which he did.
I do not know what time Mr. (Paul) Boatwright and Mr. (Hank)
Burnham left my office, but I do know that Mrs. Arndt gave me
the request before 12 noon.
Mr. Burnham stated to me personally that he did not believe me
when I told him Mrs. Arndt filed her paper before noon. Now if
he doesn't believe me and wants to say I falsified documents,
this is a matter I resent, but he has indicated that Tracy Dean,
Frances Arndt and Marlin Carithers falsified these papers and
I find this utterly ridiculous, uncalled for and outrageous,
to put it mildly.
I never said that I called Mrs. Frances Arndt and got her to
the courthouse in less than 10 minutes. She knew earlier in the
morning that the questions were coming and was prepared to submit
her request as soon as the questions were filed.
Note the last paragraph (on the press release submitted by Hank
Burnham) and you will get the real picture. This was written
by Linda Hamrick (executive director of the Georgia Republican
Party), who knows where to try to undermine anyone in the upcoming
election who is not a Republican.
Mr. Burnham has stated to me that he intends to see that this
election is run correctly. Mr. Burnham, my career and my future
hinge on this election and I have stated to you and I state again:
I will do my very best to see that it is run as nearly perfect
as possible. I am the person who has all of the responsibility
of conducting these elections properly. This is a responsibility
and a challenge that I welcome and plan to face head on and get
the job done just as I have for the 23 years that I have been
here. I have employed excellent workers for elections in the
past and plan to do so again this year and get the job done well.
Further, I am looking forward to several more years of serving
Madison County people, both Democratic and Republican.
Everyone knows that I show no difference in Democrats and Republicans.
We try to help everyone in any way we can. One example of this
is that on the financial disclosure reports we contact both Democratic
and Republican candidates and officials repeatedly to get them
to file their returns so we do not have to report them as late.
This is the same action as calling Mrs. Arndt. We just try to
help everyone.
Actually, thoughout this whole (press release) very little has
been said about the questions being on the ballot. If these people
were upset about questions, why not protest them being there?
Fact is, they are not interested in the questions; they are after
Hoppy.
The entire board of elections reviewed the ballot before it was
printed and no one voiced any opposition to the question being
there.
Sincerely, Donald "Hoppy" Royston, Madison County Probate
Judge and Elections Superintendent
|
Column
By Zach
Mitcham
The Madison County Journal
June 14, 2000
County sees first
gusts of election storm
If 2000 holds a major political storm for Madison County, this
week provided the first good gusts of the election season.
There was a conflict over hiring procedures between county commissioner
Nelson Nash and BOC chairman Wesley Nash, who both seek the chairman's
seat this year, though tensions between the two are nothing new.
But the hottest sparks this week flew between county Republican
leaders and county probate judge and elections superintendent
Donald "Hoppy" Royston.
Republicans Paul Boatwright and Hank Burnham claimed Royston
violated state elections laws by allowing Democrats to pose the
same questions on their primary ballot as submitted by the Republicans.
They say Royston could not have legally allowed these questions
to be placed on the Democratic ballot, maintaining that the Democrats'
request was not done before the deadline and with proper specificity.
Royston said the Democrats' request was submitted in time and
that he was acting in the public's interest, giving everyone
the opportunity to voice their views on issues, such as changing
the state flag and staggering the terms of county commissioners.
The state election code should certainly be followed without
compromise. If there is hard proof of an impropriety on Royston's
part, the judge should face consequences of that action.
But there is a question that deserves close examination: Why?
Why pursue this? Is it simply a matter of Republicans set on
having a flawless election? Perhaps.
Or could it be a smear campaign in an election year?
The latter seems distinctly possible.
Republican Party leaders maintain that attracting voters is a
major motivation. By posing four non-binding questions exclusively
on their party's ballot, the Republicans believe they will draw
voters to their primary elections.
But that seems like shaky logic. Would you switch your party
affiliation to check yes or no on four questions that won't ostensibly
change anything? Do you believe those who aren't motivated enough
to get to the election booths to choose a representative will
suddenly be inspired to do so because of the non-binding questions?
And here's a real catcher. If Republicans were actually interested
in having the questions answered in the most complete way, wouldn't
they have asked Royston to include them on the Democratic ballot?
Wouldn't knowing how local Democrats feel on the issues prove
useful to Republicans?
Accusers should be held to the magnifying glass with the accused.
And when you do this in this case, there is a possible motivation
that cannot be ignored.
It's true, of course, that Royston faces a Republican opponent,
Lynn Smith, in the November general election - though it should
be strongly emphasized that there is nothing to indicate that
Smith has any connection to the Republican allegations against
Royston.
But those who want a Republican in Royston's seat may also be
considering these facts: Political advertising costs money and
will never get you on the front page, since 99 percent of newspapers,
including this one, refuse to run advertising of any sort on
the front.
But if you can generate a scandal or an investigation, you avoid
advertising expenses and you get the front page coverage with
big headlines smearing your enemy.
It's the Washington way, the ugliness of partisanship we've come
to expect. Mask a mud pie in a suit of righteous indignation,
then hope the media will lend some credibility to the story by
playing up the allegations.
Only those involved could actually know if that's the case here.
But it's certainly an angle that deserves consideration.
Likewise, those who want non-partisan elections in the county
could certainly use this week's conflict as support for their
argument.
Hopefully, Madison County can avoid that Washington touch we've
come to view with disgust. But all indications are that we're
in for a stormy political season.
Too bad it's not the kind of storm we really need around here.
Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.
Letter To
The Editor
The Madison County Journal
June 14, 2000
Says her father
deserves flowers at his grave
Dear editor:
With Father's Day fast approaching, I just needed to voice an
opinion.
My father passed away on Dec. 6, 1998. Ever since he died, my
mother, sister and myself have tried to keep flowers on his grave.
Someone in this area doesn't believe he deserves them.
I hope that whoever does this can sleep at night.
I was taught by my parents to respect my elders and also the
sacred ground of the deceased. To be able to carry flowers and
leave them with your loved one is a part of the grieving process.
If there was a point to be made, I think it has been made. If
you can't afford flowers, I am sure someone could help you get
them. All I ask is that we can have flowers on his grave.
It is my prayer that whoever this person is will someday find
Christ and have a whole new look at his fellow man and the world
around him.
Sincerely, Beth Strickland, Hull
Letter To
The Editor
The Madison County Journal
June 14, 2000
Thanks rescue workers
for help after wreck
Dear editor:
I am writing this to thank all of those who saved
my life on Sunday, May 14. Hi, my name is Gary Parham and I would
like to thank the Madison County Emergency Services techs who
helped me, Hull Volunteer firemen, all of my friends for their
support, and anyone who was involved helping me that day. If
I forgot anyone, I'm sorry, but thank all of you so much! Also,
for those who know what I'm speaking of - thanks for not cutting
my leg off. Whoever out there who said "we gotta cut it
off," talking about the emergency brake stuck in my leg,
I'm sorry for assuming you were speaking of my leg. I was quite
delirous, so forgive me. There is no way I could ever thank any
of you enough. I would just like to tell everyone to be careful
and don't speed; it's not worth risking your life to get somewhere
quicker. Being late is more important than never getting there.
Sincerely, Gary Parham
|
