Vote Miller; stop high- density plan for city's housing
Pleasanton residents need to be aware of a threat to our quality of life. The multiagency initiative One Bay Area is forcing development on local communities. The plan involves transportation and housing trends and is tied to transportation funding to force compliance. The goal is to change transportation and housing habits away from expectations of single-family homes.
High-density housing will bring a high concentration of people, without generating adequate mitigation fees to offset the strain it will cause to our roads, parks, schools and library. Bonds will be forced on residents to pay for these impacts. I support affordable housing when done in a way that properly mitigates its impacts, but this will damage our existing community.
Any housing that is not fully mitigated will further overcrowd our schools. I often think of the rats-in-a-cage experiment. The rats lived harmoniously, caring for one another when the cage was spacious. They multiplied, space and food became scarce; they turned aggressive and began eating their young. In overcrowded public schools, students often get lost in the crowd and demonstrate aggressive survival behavior. Pleasanton must oppose forced housing that will damage our community.
Pleasanton leaders are not standing up to this assault on our community. Legal fees to protect our community will seem insignificant when we are faced with hundreds of millions of dollars, in needed bonds and parcel taxes, to lessen the damage from high-density housing. Pleasanton needs leaders with courage; that is why I am voting for David Miller for City Council.
Miller's resume makes him a good choice
David Miller's business experience is just what the Pleasanton City Council needs.
He has been in the high-tech industry for more than 25 years, worked hard with startup businesses and now has been with a successful Silicon Valley chip company for over 13 years. He has achieved nine patents and inventions as well as led diverse teams working on extremely complex products that range from the world's fastest supercomputers to the highly integrated "brains" of today's smartphones.
David is a results-oriented person who will be an asset on the council to help attract more high-tech companies with their tax revenues and jobs to Pleasanton. I encourage everyone to vote for David Miller, because we will be smart to have his talents on the City Council.
Let's make a deal with Mexico
Since our gracious leader is hellbent on having more illegal aliens become "adopted intruders" in to our country, why not eliminate our borders entirely?
By having the president of Mexico and Obama serve as co-presidents, that would save us billions of dollars and also be a source of income. We could produce their oil and it would not only bless us with untold amount of liquid gold but add millions (monetary and people) to our food stamp program, welfare rolls, not to mention clearing out our prisons and enable us to build additional schools and hospitals. Look at all the cheap labor we would have. Wow, let's play "Let's Make a Deal!"
Headline about guns deceptive
On March 6, there was an article titled "More gun laws, fewer deaths, 50-state study says." This headline leads readers to believe that this is already a proven fact when the article itself makes no such claim.
The study's lead author, Dr. Eric Fleegler, frankly admits that his study doesn't provide any proof but only suggest a possible connection that more gun laws reduce gun deaths. There's a big difference between suggestion and fact.
Furthermore, some statistics used in the study come from the "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence," which doesn't have a lot of credibility in my book. That's like pro-gun advocates borrowing statistics from the NRA. Both have been known to twist the facts to suit their agenda. And last, the writer Lindsey Tanner is from Chicago -- like anyone from Chicago can claim more gun laws reduce gun deaths.
Do your readers a favor and don't insult their intelligence with such deceptive journalism or propaganda disguised as journalism. Can't we have some real honest and unbiased reporting here?
Weapons parity idea a nonstarter
On March 20, Paul Dunton argued that we need more than single-shot guns if we must defend ourselves from our government. He uses the American Revolution as an example of the need for citizens to have "weapons parity" with its government. Four reasons -- location, help, arms parity and communication -- make Dunton's argument flawed.
During our revolution the British were an ocean away and it took months for them to communicate and longer to re-man and rearm. We likely would have lost without help from the French.
Most governments today, especially America, have weapons far superior to their citizens. That is why rebels in Iraq (with two-thirds of its citizens against the government) and Libya were unable to overthrow their governments; it took the United States, et al. Does Dunton have a Blackhawk that can fire 30 mm rounds at 625 per minute?
Our government controls and scans the communication infrastructure. Dunton has company, and not good, in thinking that the U.S. government can be overthrown (e.g. Bin Laden and al-Qaida).
Instead of being delusional, stay informed and vote.
God isn't going to be happy with Obama
Shame, shame, shame on you, Barack Obama, for taking a decent, God-fearing Joe Biden, who stated unequivocally that he, Joe Biden, believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church on Meet the Press in 2008 and turning poor Joe into a messenger for the king of all liars, the devil.
We are not permitted to make judgments, but I would not want to be in your situation at the final judgment by Jesus Christ, who says we should love and help our fellow man to achieve eternal happiness.
Joe told the world in 2008 he believed marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and now you, Barack, have poor Joe saying otherwise. Joe staunchly defended the position that life begins at conception, which it surely does. Again, Barack, you have warped Joe into believing otherwise. The list goes on and on.
Finally, don't you, Barack, want your daughters and all of their generation to have the benefits of Medicare and Social Security and therefore feel obliged to raise the eligibility age and do means testing to save these important programs?
We will continue to pray that St. Joseph and God will soften your heart so you will recognize the preciousness of every unborn child and you will think and act for the long-term good of America and not just the next election!
Richard D. Hickman