Letter: Support For Mitt Romney

It’s a lethal combination: politicians who know but don’t care and voters who don’t care to know.

There are exceptions. Marge Fitzgerald enlightened us with her research and cogent remarks (last week’s letter “President Obama Tried, But Failed”). Voters like her encourage us to believe that there are intelligent women who are asking more from our government officials than free contraception. What they want from government is a little common sense, and most of all, they want the truth.

I believe that we can elect a president with the courage of his convictions like that of Rep. Allen West. I believe we will elect a man who understands how to run a country and not run it into the ground. That man is Gov. Mitt Romney, and at his side will stand a brilliant advisor — Paul Ryan, and not Joe Biden.

The truth is that Mr. Obama will win if enough people vote who:

• Are not eligible to vote. (Republicans are trying to limit the vote to citizens.)

• Reject God and reject Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (Republicans believe in both.)

• Want to redefine marriage in their own terms. (Republicans believe in preserving the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.)

• Are the 47 percent who depend upon government handouts to survive. (Republicans want to put them to work in high-paying jobs.)

• Are graduates of liberal universities who blame President Bush because they cannot find jobs and are still living with their parents. (If you don’t believe these universities are staffed with Kool-Aid-drinking progressives, then you either did not have the college education I had or are living in a fantasy world.)

• Are jobless. (Republicans want to recreate jobs in American industries like drilling for oil, mining for coal and manufacturing steel that once were the backbone of American wealth production.)

• Are convinced that CO2 is causing the oceans to rise. (Republicans want reasonable regulations that will not continue to de-industrialize America.)

• Believe that Iran does not plan to destroy Israel. (Republicans stand with Israel and against Muslim terrorism, and are not afraid to say so.)

• Believe that Iran, an oil-rich country, is developing nuclear power. (Republicans use common sense that informs their beliefs.)

• Approve of a president who does not show up every day on the job, slept through the U.S. Consulate attack, and has played more golf rounds while in office than Tiger Woods has for the same period.

• Are voters who have not built a business nor did the government build one for them. (Republicans protect small businessman who built it despite government over-regulation of industry.)

• Believe that a little-known YouTube video started the coordinated attacks that killed an ambassador and two Navy Seals. (Libyan President el-Megarif states that it was an Al Qaeda preplanned attack against the United States, and that there was advanced warning that was not heeded.)

Regarding mindless Democrat-controlled media talking points:

It is preposterous to talk about Romney’s wealth, when we should be talking about a poorer America. The Fed is pumping $40 billion of funny money into the economy, depreciating the dollar and causing inflation.

It is twisted to talk about Romney’s outsourcing jobs when, according to Diane Sawyer, Obama is building a $5 billion bridge with taxpayer money and has hired a Chinese company to do the construction.

It is nonsensical to talk about Romney moving manufacturing to foreign shores when with $80 billion tax dollars CEO Dan Akerson, is building seven out of 10 General Motor vehicles outside the United States, and he has 11 assembly plants in China.

It takes chutzpa to say that Romney fired people when Obama’s record of real unemployment in 2008 was about 5 percent and now it is about 15 percent. We can’t say that Obama ever fired an employee because he never ran a business, but he did have to let his czar Van Jones go when it was publicized that Jones is a 9/11 “truther” and an admitted Communist.

Anyone who wants to challenge anything in this letter can post their answer online at www.gotowncrier.com (find “Letters” under “Opinion” on the drop down menu). I will be pleased to reply.

Frank J. Morelli


  1. Mr. Morelli, You have now shown that you truly do not understand anything about science. With your comment: “In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, two of the Justices affirmed that the issue of whether CO2 is a pollutant has never been litigated, and therefore remains an unproven issue.”

    Basically you are saying that because something has never been litigated it remains unproven. This is the height of moronic reasoning. I am sorry to be so blunt, but this is just crazy. Please let me know if any court has litigated that the earth is round, science has proven it, but I wonder if it has been proven in a court of law. Which court has litigated that gravity does indeed make things fall when you drop them? Science has shown that things do fall when you drop them. I think you get my point.

    And which two justices thought that CO2 might/might not be a pollutant? I can maybe pick out a few of them. If they had agreed it could be a pollutant would they be then labeled by you as an activist judge?

    Mr. Morelli, stop all this craziness, especially when it comes to science. You are not capable of discussing it rationally. As a parting question, which court litigated there are supernovas? Because if no court has done this how can one believe that they exist?

    • One more thing I found out, Mr. Morelli, the issue of CO2 as a pollutant has been litigated:

      in Massachusetts v. EPA 549 US 497 (2007), the court decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the specific sense defined in the Clean Air Act. In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the question didn’t arise, except as mentioned in Alito’s dissent.

      So, I guess if it has been litigated and they found it is a pollutant then it is a pollutant! Whether science says so or not, because we all know the courts are the final arbitor of what is a scientific fact or not. (But it is a scientific fact anyway)

  2. Mr. Morelli, I have found your letters amusing due to the fact that you have created some sort of alternative universe inhabited by no one but yourself, I suspect. You portray Republicans as unified behind some imaginary platform of social intolerance masquerading as religious beliefs, the need to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem at taxpayer expense, lumping the 47% as a single group with the same problems, bashing education and science with a single stroke, moving America back to the industrial age as opposed to forward to the technology age, and generally willing to distort facts to support the unnatural hatred of a President who was handed a very difficult economy. Your “facts” about Obama are so Allen West-like (bombastic, inaccurate and meaningless) and your tepid support for Romney so revealed by your lack of anything positive to say about his ideas. It must make you mad that his best ideas have been used by Dems.

    • Ms. Balch, excellent letter, to the point, well said! My replies to him are usually longer (too long?)!!! I should learn from you!

    • Dear Lynn Balch
      I am pleased that you have entered the conversation. And thank you for the compliment that you find my letter amusing. Thank you for comparing me to Allen West, but I am humbled being compared to such a great patriot. I do not deserve this high praise.

      I didn’t discern any factual allegations in your reply that I need to respond to in substance.

      May God Bless you and your family.

  3. Mr. Morelli, no need to feel sorry for me, I have peace and tranquility in my life and I don’t mind hearing opposing opinions. And thank you for praying for me, not that it does any good for me, but it might help you: it will make you feel like you are doing some good when you talk to an imaginary being.

    As for your Gay Rights argument, it seems you believe in separate but equal laws. Excellent. Should we also go back to the separate but equal laws concerning African-Americans on schools, marriage, and well, just about everything? Your argument of separate but equal is absurd.

    And as far as global warming goes, I agree that we need jobs and a healthy economy, but we also need a healthy planet. There should be a compromise between the two and not base the laws on the economy only as you seem to think. Sir, please read the facts about the environment and global warming and I think you will come the conclusion that it is real and that there needs to be this compromise.

    • Mr Morelli,
      It seems that you are saying that gay couples should have all the same rights under a civil union as heterosexual couples that are married. Is my assumption correct?

      • JR I think I made my point clear. I am not for redefining the word “marriage”. This is not discrimination; it is the English language that is in issue. Gays are not doing anything illegal. Therefore they should be afforded very constitutional right that we all enjoy and that includes freedom of association. The constitution guarantees freedom of association. I take it that this right is not limited to groups of people, but should extend to all legal associations between two or more people. .

    • You say I want to return to “separate but equal”. What? Sorry but you are being incongruent. I simply do not believe it is necessary to redefine the word “marriage”. Would you object to redefine “progressives” as those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and are opposed to abortion, want to lower taxes, reduce government regulations, audit the FED, and believe in Austrian Economics?”

      I will stand with you if gays are discriminated against. As a Christian I know what it is like to be discriminated against.

      I’m curious Mr. Rosen. Do you know what the penalty of homosexuality is under Shira Law? So before you become so concerned about Christians I suggest you look it up. And do you support silencing speech that is derogatory of Mohamed? How about speech that is derogatory of my “imaginary” God? I wonder where you stand on these issues as a “progressive”, and by that I mean as it has been traditionally defined?

      We agree on something. Protecting the planet and protecting the domestic economy. We just do not agree on how to accomplish this. Let me ask you? Does it make sense to send steel mills to China where they do not employ the same pollution controls as we would? If it is “global” then it doesn’t matter if the pollution comes from China or the U.S. does it?

      If the 50 hours of research and about 100 pages of notes is not enough research before I can question with a high degree of confidence that the global warming is not a scientific fact [now called climate change since the earth is in its natural cooling cycle] than what is enough? Mr. Rosen how much do you know about the scandal involving scientists who destroyed datum that showed no anthropogenic warming? I know you don’t like the fact that I mention that I am an attorney who studied Water Policy Management in addition to Austrian Economics, but give me credit for being able to do research, Sir. I may put up some of the research on my website for you.

      And you are in my prayers because I hope you will experience the blessings of God as multiple millions of us do each day

      • Wow, a lot of questions to answer, but I will stick with a few, as time permits.

        I say you want separate but equal because despite defending the rights of Gays, you do not want them to use the word married, or to be legally married. You are allowing them to be equal up to a point. Therefore you are encouraging separate but equal. I know in your religion (not sure what brand of Christianity you follow though), marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not saying that in your sect you can’t have that, but within the confines of legality and the state it should be open for everyone. When you tell the government what can and can’t be done in this case based on your religion you are 1) not separating church and state (I know you don’t believe they should be separate) and 2) are gay-bashing, as much as if someone would say that they will defend African-Americans from discrimination, but do not let them marry a white person – they are racist and race-bashing.

        The penalty under Sharia law does not come into our discussion so I am not sure why you brought it up. We are not in danger of being put under Sharia law in the US, but we are in danger of the Religious Right imposing their beliefs on all of us. If you don’t like religious laws such as Sharia law being imposed on other countries why is it ok to impose your brand of religious thinking on everybody here? Is your religious belief the only ‘right’ one so therefore we must all follow it (everybody thinks their brand is the ‘right’ one by the way) And one more thing, just because Sharia law is harsher on homosexuality then Christianity does not make Christianity right, two wrongs do not make a right.

        I support freedom of speech anywhere and everywhere, every side of the coin, every bit of humor, all speech everywhere should be free. But again, I never said I didn’t. I do not condone hate speech, but unfortunately free speech does allow some hate speech into it. (let’s not get into the yelling “fire” in a crowded theater level though)

        I also believe that the earth could be in a natural cooling state, but it is also evident that human interaction has also done its part to speed things along (the destroying datum you claim has been discredited).

        Mr. Morelli, I do not mind you mentioning you are a lawyer (you just do it a lot) and I do give you credit for doing research, but I do not give you credit for doing good research. Good research is using Scientific Methods Standards. I understand you are not doing an ‘experiment’ or ‘study’, but the standards still need to be applied. You look at things from only a right-wing/Glenn Beckian viewpoint and do not look at things objectively. That is where I take exception. Research should be done with a question in mind and then see where the data leads. You do not go into research with that point of view and therefore your research and analysis must be skewed. An example of research changing one’s point of view come from the Scientist Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and cofounder of the Berkeley Earth project. He stated:

        “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
        were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

        Muller’s about-face was based on the project’s analysis of “a collection of 14.4m land temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753,” according to the Guardian (July
        29, 2012); Muller wrote in the Times, “Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of
        one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

        We do agree on some things, I agree that the federal government should be audited, I do not want work outsourced, I think that every country should adhere to standards for the good of the environment, and you are right, it doesn’t matter where pollution comes from, it is bad! I am also sorry that you feel you have been discriminated against as a Christian. While I don’t believe in your imaginary being I don’t believe you should suffer for that belief, much like I’m sure you would say I should not suffer discrimination for being a devout Atheist.

        (I also did not know you have a website, please send me the Internet address if you would)

        • Mr. Morelli,
          An addition to one of your points concerning the destruction of data (which was not the case). I am sure you are referring to emails/documents that came out in/around 2008-2009 that are known as “Climategate”.

          So far your assertion has been debunked by these investigations:
          1) Feb. 2010 – Pennsylvania State University Inquiry Report
          2) March, 2010 -UK House Of Commons Report On Climate Research Unit (CRU)
          3) March, 2010 – University of East Anglia “Report Of The International Panel”
          4) June, 2010 – Pennsylvania State University “Final Investigation Report”
          5) July, 2010 – University Of East Anglia – Independent Climate change Email Review Report”
          6) July, 2010 – US Environmental Protection Agency investigation
          7) Sept., 2010 UK Government Response to House Of Commons Report
          8) Feb., 2011 Depart of Commerce Inspector General independent review
          9) August, 2011 – National Science Foundation investigation

          All reports and investigations refute your assertions categorically

          I am sure that you (and Mr. Beck) have ignored these reports and investigations because they go against all you believe. But, Mr. Morelli, Science works. When it doesn’t come to the right conclusion the truth is eventually found. i.e. cold fusion in a cup, found to be unreal when no other scientist or group could duplicate the results. That is the difference between science and faith. Science goes into an investigation looking for data that will support an idea, but if it finds something different it is changeable. Faith research (religious investigations. i.e. creationism/intelligent design) goes into an investigation looking only for any fragment that will support their beliefs and then discard the rest.

          • In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, two of the Justices affirmed that the issue of whether CO2 is a pollutant has never been litigated, and therefore remains an unproven issue.

        • RE: 2 notes before this: I stated that the earth could be in a natrual ‘cooling’ change. I meant to say in a natural change. I do infact belieive that the earth is warming. (esp. due to human involvement)

          • Mr. Morelli, if you are familiar with all those reports debunking your stance then are you saying that Penn State, University of East Anglia, UK House of Commons, US Government (EPA/Dept. Of Commerce) and the National Science Foundation are all involved in a conspiracy to clear these people. Surely you jest.

            And, not only were these allegations (“Climategate”) proven unfounded, there is so much more research proving that humans have an effect on global warming then the research these scientists were working on (although their research was excellent). That is the thing about science, it takes many teams/scientists to prove some things and even independent replication of results. Since 2008/2009, when these crazy allegations came out, there has been even more proof.

            It is because of this, and especially now that you say that you know of these reports/investigations, that I say you go into research on a blind one-sided fact hunt, where you grasp onto anything that might remotely support you yet drop the masses of evidence that go against what you believe. This is poor research, Mr. Morelli. It is time you got on board with science in this century and accepted the fact about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
            Mr. Morelli, when you use proper research methods it strengthens your case, when you use poor research methods, as you do, it severly weakens it.

  4. Mr. Morelli, mentions so many inane things that it would take pages to refute him. However, he does use the term ‘Kool-Aid drinking progressives’ which I would like to respond to first. If you read the letter carefully one would realize that it is Mr. Morelli who is the Kool-Aid drinker: If Glen Beck says it, it must be true! Mr. Morelli is obviously a global warming denying, Gay-bashing, “Birther” believing, religious zealot. Truly Scary.
    To refute more of his points would take a book, but let’s limit it to only one more of his statements, the one where he shows that he does not believe in Global Warming. Sorry, Sir, but Global Warming is a fact. As is the effect humans are having on it. The controversy over this is among lay people, not among scientists. The scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced. This is due to repeated studies using Scientific Method and the resulting overwhelming evidence. Yes, there are some outliers among the scientific community who disagree, but they are very, very few and far between. Mr. Morelli, do you also believe the earth is only 6-10,000 years old?
    It is just this thinking that the National Center for Science Education (www.ncse.com) is fighting against. They started out by fighting against legislation to bring Creationism/Creation Science/Intelligent Design into our schools as science and have now branched out to include the fight against Global Warming deniers. They have found an overwhelming match that people who believe one of these usually believe the other. Is this a liberal group who have a leftist agenda to push? Hardly. Although probably liberal in their thinking as many scientists are, they do, however, rely on scientific research to enable them to come to their conclusions and not the belief in a supernatural being or a Glen Beck (who Mr. Morelli might believe is a supernatural being).
    It is people like Mr. Morelli who are divisive and seem to be unwilling to work together with people of varying beliefs to make this country better.
    I could go on, but let me simply end with this: better to be a Progressive then a “Regressive”!

    • “Mr. Morelli is obviously a global warming denying, Gay-bashing, “Birther” believing, religious zealot.”

      I feel sorry for you Mr. Rosen. It must be difficult for you to hear opposing opinions, and I will continue to pray that you find the peace and tranquility that I enjoy.

      I am not inclined to address your puerile assumptions, but I will address the most important ones.

      Gay Americans who know me also know that I am a loving, caring person who empathizes with gays who are the target of unwarranted attacks. As an Attorney at Law I will defend, and have defended gays against workplace discrimination. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to live openly and freely as long as they do no harm to others.

      Gays are entitled to every constitutional right that everyone else enjoys. Who they love, how they love is none of my business, nor is it any business of government. My position on couples that live as a household and share expenses and own property jointly is that government should provide a mechanism for the orderly distribution of those assets. I would favor a law that would guarantee to gay couples the same rights of property disposition and access as married couples enjoy. For example, a gay couple living in one household should have the same rights of hospital visitation as a married couple. This can be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage. I support the defense of marriage act, not because I am homophobic as you might believe, but because I support marriage as the state of being between a man and women living as a household. I believe that gays should have the same guarantees under a civil union guarantee.

      My position on global warming is that it has been used as an excuse to restrict the emissions of CO2, which is a plant nutrient that does not pollute the fresh waters. I have to deal with regulations that are enacted ostensibly to protect the environment. I understand that some regulations are necessary, but they should do no harm to the economy. And those regulations should be passed by Congress and not decided by the fourth branch of government – unelected bureaucrats. Americans do need clean water, but we desperately need high-paying jobs.

      I blame big-government progressive programs that have destroyed the economy and as a result we have 47 million Americans on food stamps, and the Obama administration is advertising for more. 48% pay no income taxes. I am happy that they pay no taxes, because they can use the money wisely instead of giving it to government bureaucrats who will squander it; however, I am also saddened.

      Many are not paying taxes because they are probably standing behind fast food counters. If they were paying taxes that would mean that they might be working in coal mines, steel mills, drilling for black gold on land sequestered by big government progressives. I am talking about people like Florida State Senator Maria Sachs who believes the ocean waters are raising, and the solution is to stop burning coal and oil.

Comments are closed.