Jim Rongstad's Home Page
It's All About Freedom!
Letters to the Editor
It's All About Freedom!
After taking about three years off (2003 to 2005) from writing articles and letters, I have resumed.
The following appeared in the March 30, 2007 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. It was in response to the debate going on in Congress over continuing funding for the war in Iraq.
The lunacy continues. The United States has been fighting longer in Iraq than we did in World War II. American soldiers continue to die and be seriously injured. The sectarian strife in Iraq continues. The Bush administration claims to be dedicated to waging a war on terror, which by definition is never ending. The administration tells us we need to stay as long as necessary to accomplish the mission that it declared accomplished in May 2003.
The Democratic leadership, which says the war was a mistake, takes the bold move of passing legislation to continue funding the mistake for another year and a half. This bold move will allow more Americans to suffer and die, while we continue to add to the bill our children will pay.
The Bush administration pledges to veto this spending bill and tells Congress it must provide a blank check for the war by April 15. Yet, constitutionally only Congress can authorize wars and provide the spending authority.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul said it best when voting no on this spending bill: "... as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it's supposed to protect -- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places. "
The following appeared in the February 6, 2007 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. It was in response to the non binding resolutions on the Iraq War being discussed and voted on in Congress.
Instead of doing something about the war in Iraq, the House and Senate are debating non binding resolutions opposing Bush's policies. A non binding resolution is nothing but political posturing. It shows a lack of true leadership.
The president cannot legally conduct a war without being given the authority to do so by Congress. Congress gave this authorization by passing a resolution in 2002. Congress can just as easily withdraw this authorization by passing another resolution. A bill has been introduced in the House (HR413) repealing the authorization for the war in Iraq. It provides for the safe and orderly withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
If you believe that the United States should end the war in Iraq, contact your representative and urge them to support this bill.
The following appeared in the January 7, 2007 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. It was in response to the the University of Minnesota saying that former Minnesota Vikings coach Mike Tice was not qualified to coach the Gophers because he does not have a college degree.
Mike Tice is interested in coaching the Minnesota Gophers. Mike Tice has many years experience coaching in the NFL. He has experience as a player in college and the pros. The University of Minnesota says that Mike Tice is not qualified to coach because he does not have a college degree.
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? Apparently experience counts for nothing in the opinion of the university. While a college education is a good thing, should it really be required for as many jobs as it is? Isn't real life experience a valuable education also?
I personally have no opinion on whether Mike Tice is qualified to be head coach at the U. I just question the college degree requirement. This is especially true because of the fact that the U graduates only 44 percent of its football players.
The following appeared in the October 27, 2006 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. It was in regards to a State Constitutional Amendment on the ballot to dedicate Motor Vehicle Sales Tax revenue to transit and roads.
Vote No on the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Amendment and tell the politicians to do the job that they were elected to do.
Does something need to be done about roads and transit in this state? Yes, but this is not the way to do it. Budgetary decisions should never be included in a state Constitution. The Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Amendment will require that at least 40% of the revenue from the tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles must be used for mass transit. This requirement will remain even if mass transit doesn’t need 40% of these funds now or at some time in the future. The amendment does not require that even one cent be spent on roads. To ever change this would require another constitutional amendment.
The fact that this amendment is even on the ballot, shows the utter lack and failure of leadership by our elected officials at the state. This amendment does absolutely nothing that couldn’t be done by the state legislature on its own. It is merely a way for them to shift responsibility off of their shoulders and onto the voters.
The following appeared in the September 22, 2006 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. It was in response to a proposal by the Minnesota Medical Association to increase the excise tax on alcohol in "order to reduce teen drinking."
The Minnesota Medical Association wants to increase the excise tax on alcohol to reduce teen drinking? Whom do these doctors think they are fooling? The real reason they want this tax hike is to line their pockets with the $220 million raised being used for treatment programs. Prohibition didn't reduce alcohol consumption, the war on drugs is a failure, a little tax is not going to stop people from doing what they want to do.
If we really wish to reduce the abuse of alcohol, we should look toward the policies in Germany where beer drinking is legal at 16. Germany has far fewer problems with alcohol then we do. By making it illegal for our young people to drink, we merely increase the thrill factor and force the drinking into illegal parties that encourage excess.
The following appeared in the September 13, 2006 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. Each week they run a feature called Hot Topics seeking reader input on a issue selected by the newspaper.
A Whole New Crop of Terrorists
The so called "War on Terror" is a failure. We are less safe today then we were five years ago. We are told we are in a war to "eradicate terrorism." It should be obvious that can never happen and if we pursue that as our goal we will be in a state of constant war.
The Founding Fathers laid out as a proper role of the federal government, that of national defense. They were also very clear that we should not get entangled in the disputes of other nations. The "War on Terror" as pursued by the Bush Administration violates that role. It is obvious now and should have been obvious five years ago to anyone who understood the Middle East that Saddam Hussein was not involved with Al-Qaida. By invading Iraq we have unleashed a whole new crop of terrorists in the Middle East. We have sacrificed the blood of our young and burdened them with a huge financial burden in the future. All this at the same time our most cherished freedoms are being slowly eroded in the name of protecting freedom.
The following appeared in the August 17, 2006 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. It was prompted by a flap over Republican Representative Gil Gutknecht getting ballot petition signatures before the filing period. The ballot petition signatures for non major party candidates must be obtained during the two week filing period. Major party candidates can obtain theirs at anytime, even months or years in advance.
It is heartwarming to see our elected officials' and major party leaders' dedication to equal and fair ballot access. Yeah right. The Gutknecht filing petition issue shows their true agenda, which is to limit the voter's choices to those in power.
Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer's comment that the petition time limitation applies only to independent and minor party candidates says it all. Those in power make the rules to enable them to stay in power. The major parties craft the election laws to make it difficult for anyone to challenge them. Having different sets of rules to get on the ballot depending on what party you belong to, does not meet the criteria of fair and open elections. Truly a shame in a country that is suppose to be the bastion of freedom.
The following appeared in the July 12, 2006 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. It was in response to an article by Kelly Doran on changes needed to get more people involved in the political process. Doran had sought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota Governor in 2006.
Kelly Doran is correct that the election process is too tightly controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Doran says it is time for serious change in order to get more people involved in the process. However, his proposed solutions sound like suggestions for tinkering with the present two party system.
I would argue that it is time to scrap the present State supported, two party system and give equal access to the ballot for all Minnesotans. Party affiliation should not be used to give an advantage in ballot access as it is currently. Having State-funded primaries that choose the candidates to represent the major parties is an absurd idea. The primaries should be open to all candidates and be used to winnow the field regardless of party.
The following appeared in the April 7, 2006 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin.
Local columnist Gary Mullen-Schultz is correct in his assertion that the Republicans really don't give the people the power to lead their own lives. However, he misses the larger point in that neither do the Democrats.
Both parties are about power, control and serving their special-interest groups. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to medical marijuana. Under the Clinton administration, federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents arrested author and AIDS sufferer Peter McWilliams for possessing his medically prescribed marijuana. McWilliams was arrested in California where the people had passed a law allowing the use of medical marijuana. McWilliams was sent to a federal prison and later died from choking on his own vomit because he was denied the use of marijuana to control his nausea.
Another area where the Democrats don't wish to let the people decide is in the area of school choice. Instead, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to continue the stranglehold of government-run education.
The sad fact is that there is little real difference between the major parties. If you keep on voting for them, you will just get more of the same.
The following appeared in the March 22, 2006 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. Each week they run a feature called Hot Topics seeking reader input on a issue selected by the newspaper.
Not a Proper Function of Government
The city of Rochester shouldn't even consider teaming up with the Rochester Area Family Y or anyone else in building a waterpark.
Waterparks are not a proper function of government. If the Rochester Area Family Y and the hospitality industry really think the park will be profitable or a benefit to their businesses, then they should take the risk and build the waterpark on their own.
The following appeared in the February 26, 2006 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. It was in response to a proposal by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch to sue the manufacturers of Sudafed and other drugs containing pseudoephedrine to "recover" the State's costs in the "War on Meth".
I'm glad to see Attorney General Mike Hatch is looking out for us again
with his proposed lawsuit against the manufacturers of products
containing pseudoephedrine. This will most certainly bring an end to the
scourge of meth in Minnesota. How do these big evil companies think they
can get away with producing this substance that forces people to become
drug addicts?
Thank goodness for politicians like Hatch and our state legislators who
last year passed the bill limiting the sale of pseudoephedrine. If it
weren't for them, who knows how many more people would become addicted to
meth? I do. None. The only thing these laws do is allow politicians to delude themselves
and others into thinking that they're actually doing something to fight
drug abuse. All they're doing is making it harder for average citizens to
relieve their cold and allergy symptoms and, if Hatch is successful, pay
more each time they buy a decongestant.
The following appeared in the January 21, 2006 issue of the Rochester Post Bulletin. Less than a month later the city sold the liquor store to a private owner.
I commend the Pine Island City Council for its decision to sell the city's liquor store. Based on the continuing operating losses, it is obviously the correct decision financially.
More importantly, it is the correct decision because selling liquor is not a proper or necessary function of government. The selling of alcohol should be handled by private business in a competitive atmosphere.
The following appeared in the November 15, 2001 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Since the terrorist attacks, many letter writers, radio talk show hosts
and their listeners have demonized anyone who suggests that the foreign
policy of our government may have played a role in generating the
attacks. Those who question our foreign policy are called "unpatriotic"
and are accused of being part of the "blame America first crowd."
The accusers need to realize that the country is not the same as the
government. America is a country founded on the belief in individual
liberty, justice and tolerance. American foreign policy over the past 50 or so years has often been in conflict with those ideals. Our
government's foreign policy too often is designed by politicians and
their appointees to serve the desires of powerful special-interest
groups. Our government has a history of supporting immoral leaders and their
governments. In the past it has supported and allied our nation with
luminaries such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Even this year we have provided millions of dollars in aid to the Taliban. We cannot "eradicate terrorism" from the world; that is utopianism.
However, we can restore peace and security to this great country of ours. But that requires taking a long, hard look at our government's foreign policy and understanding why terrorism is directed at this country. If we stifle this discussion, we may be dooming ourselves to continuing attacks and the loss of our precious freedom.
The following appeared in the October 17, 2001 issue of the Woodbury Bulletin. Woodbury is a fast growing suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota. A much edited version appeared in the September 20, 2001 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
As a result of the fear generated by the barbaric attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. we are hearing calls for more "security." This "security" always involves ever increasing infringements on our individual liberties. At best any security provided by such measures is a false security. At worst it will lead to the eventual loss of everything that makes this Country great. In either case the terrorists will have won. Those who seek to cause destruction and are willing to lose their life in the process will not be deterred. Israel is often held out as example of a country that has implemented strong security measures in the face of terrorism. Has this stopped terrorism in Israel? Liberties lost are not easily regained. Every incident leads to ever increasing measures that restrict freedom and invade privacy. These measures are merely treating the visible symptoms rather than the problem itself. The terrorists despise and fear America’s freedoms, let’s not let our fear and abhorrence of the terrorists lead us to destroy those very same freedoms.
The following appeared in the July 7, 2001 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. This letter is a much shorter version of the Fourth of July article.
The Fourth of July holiday came with its parades, picnic and fireworks. As we went about our activities with family and friends, we all should have taken some time to reflect upon what the celebration is all about. Yes, it is a celebration of our Country’s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, but it is more. It is a celebration of the idea of individual liberty and the legitimate role of government.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest advocates of individual liberty of all time, turned the British idea of liberty on its head. In the Declaration, Jefferson rejected the British view that rights were granted by the government to the people. Instead Jefferson declared there is a higher law, "unalienable rights", that every human has by mere existence. Government only has those powers granted to it by the people, to protect these natural rights.
We should take time to reflect on Thomas Jefferson's vision that has inspired millions around the world in the 225 years since it was written. Celebrate your birthright of freedom and work to protect it.
--- Jim Rongstad, Woodbury
The following was published in the October 25, 2000 Woodbury Bulletin. They didn't edit it!
This year when you cast your vote for President, you have a choice among candidates who claim that they are the most qualified person to run your life. But there is another choice, Harry Browne. Harry Browne is the only candidate who really believes that you, not the government, should run your life.
Al Gore, George Bush, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan all propose new government programs, new regulations, new taxes, and more intrusions into your personal life. They all believe in more government. Harry Browne wants less government and more freedom for you. The freedom to make your own decisions on how to raise your children. The freedom to decide what to do with the money you earn. The freedom to live your life as you choose, the way our nation's founders intended. Only Harry Browne believes in you.
This November don't waste your vote on a candidate who wants to control more of your life. Vote for a candidate who truly believes in limited government and individual liberty. Vote for Harry Browne, Libertarian for President.
--- Jim Rongstad, WoodburyThe following appeared in the September 28, 2000 issue of the Star Tribune (Minneapolis), they edited it quite a bit .
Al Gore, George Bush, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan all propose new government programs, new regulations, new taxes and more intrusions into your personal life. They all believe in government. Libertarian Harry Browne wants less government and more freedom for you: the freedom to make your own decisions on how to raise your children; the freedom to decide what to do with the money you earn and the freedom to live your life as our nation's founders intended. Only Browne believes in you. This November don't waste your vote for president on a candidate who wants to control more of your life. Vote for a candidate who truly believes in limited government and individual liberty.
-- Jim Rongstad, Woodbury.
Only Browne believes in you
Jim Rongstad
Woodbury
TAINTED: The major media for providing endless coverage of the most obscure and unimportant details of the two major party presidential candidates. Meanwhile, they almost completely ignore Harry Browne, the Libertarian presidential candidate. How can the people make an informed decision when the major media only cover the entrenched powers?
This letter appeared in the October 2000 issue of Liberty Magazine. It was in response to a chart by David Boaz on the political spectrum adjusted to show where libertarians fit in.
David Boaz (Reflections - September) has added a Libertarian column to David Horowitz's chart of the political spectrum. To my continuing dismay, once again Jesse Ventura my governor is listed as a libertarian. Please, just because he once claimed to be libertarian doesn't mean it is so. Since Jesse has been governor, he has been a ceaseless champion of government education, light rail and "smart growth" government land-use planning and control. In addition he favors state programs to promote economic development, job training and tourism.
-- Jim Rongstad, Woodbury, Minnesota
-- Jim Rongstad, Woodbury, Minnesota
NO "Jesse may lean libertarian on some social issues and he may sometimes make libertarian-sounding statements. But just like many other politicians, his actions do not match his rhetoric."
This letter appeared in the July 1999 issue of Reason Magazine. It was in response to an article on Jesse Ventura in the April issue of Reason where Jesse calls himself a libertarian.
Jesse's education views are the most glaring example of his big government slant. He also wholeheartedly supports building a light rail system and statewide land use planning. Jesse, a self-described libertarian? Yes. A libertarian at heart? I don't think so.
Sincerely,
Jim Rongstad
Jesse Ventura may be a self-described libertarian, and sometimes his rhetoric is libertarian, but his governing, so far, is not. The teachers union is more than happy with Jesse's proposed budget, which throws more money down the rathole of government education. Minnesota already spends a third of its budget on K-12 education. Jesse states that the proposals to give parents the ability to send their children to private schools are too limited. Therefore, he supports "fixing" government schools instead of offering a choice. The Minnesota Libertarian Party has proposed that all taxpayers, whether they have children or not, be given an education tax credit. This tax credit could be directed to specific students, to a private scholarship program, or to a private or government school. Jesse should embrace this proposal.
This letter appeared in the March 9, 1999 issue of the Woodbury Bulletin and the March 10, 1999 issue of the Woodbury - South Maplewood Review. The purpose of the letter is to let people know the real goal of "The Profiles". The Education establishment has quite successfully sold "The Profiles" as "high standards".
The major education controversy of the moment is the "Profile of Learning." According to most reports in the local media, this is a battle between those with a supposedly new improved vision of education, suited to the modern world and those who want to maintain a more traditional method of education. This view is a very superficial one at best. This battle over the Profile is really a battle about freedom and the uniqueness of each individual. It is a struggle about the purpose of education. The long held traditional view is that the purpose of education is the creation of well-rounded individuals, who can make their own decisions. The Profile and the closely related School to Work program view education as a system that produces "human resource capital" to meet the needs of government and big business.
The Profile of Learning is how Minnesota will implement the Federal Government's Goals 2000 and School to Work programs. By implementing the Profiles, control of education is being further removed from parents and the local community. More control will reside with bureaucrats and elitist planners in Washington, D.C. As stated above the vision of these bureaucrats and elitists is one where individuals are merely raw material to be directed and molded as needed by government and big business. Is that how you view yourself and your children? Is that your view of the purpose of education?
Sincerely,
Jim Rongstad
To the Editor
Woodbury Bulletin
Woodbury - South Maplewood Review
This letter appeared in the March 3, 1999 issue of the Woodbury Bulletin. It was in response to a couple of local government school controversies. One regarded what math program should be used and the other was whether to have uniforms.
Another week, another school controversy. This week the controversy is over whether school uniforms are a good idea or a bad one. A few weeks ago the controversy was whether to teach integrated math or traditional math. So which side is right? What is the correct uniform policy? Which math works best? The answer - all of them!
The problem is not the policies or the teaching methods. The problem is the delivery system. As long as we have a government run school monopoly, we will have these controversies. Each individual has different strengths and weaknesses. A policy or method appropriate for one student might be a disaster for another.
It doesn't have to be this way. Let's return to freedom of choice in education and away from the present government monopoly (socialist) system.
But how would poor children be educated? What about irresponsible parents? Don't we need the government schools to protect these children? No, we don't! If these arguments where valid we would have government run grocery stores supported with your tax dollars. These government groceries would ensure that poor children and those with irresponsible parents are fed, while at the same time providing "free" groceries to rich and middle class children. We don't have such a system for food, why do we have it for education?
Government schools came into being in the mid nineteenth century. Their purpose was not to educate the poor. Rather, it was to indoctrinate. Horace Mann and other education elitists feared the large tide of immigrants of the day. The fact that large numbers of these immigrants were Catholic, was viewed as a threat to what was a largely Protestant nation. The purpose of the government schools was to indoctrinate these immigrants in the correct Protestant viewpoint.
For the sake of our children we need to move toward greater choice in education and away from government monopoly.
Sincerely,
Jim Rongstad
To the Editor
Woodbury Bulletin
This letter appeared in the February 26, 1999 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. It was in response to an article that appeared about a week earlier, on a religious group lobbying at the Minnesota Legislature for more social programs.
Jim Rongstad
The article ``Religious group members learn faith has place in government'' would more accurately be titled ``Religious group members learn to place their faith in government.'' One member, Bob Atkins, states that he is in the 29 percent tax bracket and thinks he can afford to help others with his money. Good for him; that's what he should do. Instead Atkins is at the Capitol lobbying for the state to take other people's money to do what he wants.
Christian charity is about love and giving of oneself. Instead of practicing charity, the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition is advocating the use of the power of the state to force others to finance the JRLC's desires. This group is abdicating the church's and the individual's responsibility for charity and instead is worshiping at the altar of the state.
This letter appeared in the Summer 1998 issue of the American Experiment Quarterly. This journal is published by the Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
My letter is in response to a speech given by Chester Finn, that was covered in the previous American Experiment Quarterly. Chester Finn is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Mr. Finn believes in reforming government schools.
Chester Finn never ceases to amaze (irritate?) me, but then again I am a member of that "loopy band of school-state separatists" ("Reforming Education: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good Ideas?" Spring 1998). Mr. Finn says he is not ready to surrender the responsibility of the state for providing elementary and secondary education and describes the state as "our vehicle for transmitting the views of organized society." Whoa! When did "conservatives" become socialists? Mr. Finn's arguments for the necessity of "public education" parallel the leftist's arguments for state-run health care. To wit:
I cannot name any advanced society in the world today that leaves education of the young exclusively to parents and the private marketplace. . . . We can't legitimately exempt the state . . . from providing elementary and secondary education. If we did, we would have people who never get an education.
There is one major problem, and only one, with all education reforms: they all involve the state. Mr. Finn almost recognizes this when he lists government and political entanglements as a common problem education reforms have run into. The state is politics and politics is about power. A well-organized, well-financed, and politically active minority such as the education establishment can throw its weight around quite successfully at the legislature. They will use their power to impose their views on everyone. In a free market, individuals can choose what they believe is best.
Jim Rongstad
Woodbury, Minnesota
Page Updated: April 8, 2007
© Copyright 1999 -2007 by Jim Rongstad.