Opinion
Problematic Presidential Children
A few weeks ago saw the indictment and guilty plea of Hunter Biden, son of President Joseph Biden, on two counts of misdemeanor tax evasion. While these were the first crimes the younger Biden has been charged with, they are far from the only ones to which he has been linked.
Republicans have charged Biden for years with corruption and influence peddling, mostly with Ukraine and China. These recent charges and Republican allegations will surely be major issues in the upcoming presidential election. Republicans are already claiming coverups, and former President Donald Trump, who is under investigation himself, has weighed in writing, “Wow! The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’ Our system is BROKEN.”
Historically speaking, having a wild child is not new for presidents, yet there are few who have had the potential to wreck a campaign like Hunter Biden. Yet in the 1940 campaign, FDR’s favoritism of his son Elliott did lead to real problems for Roosevelt’s reelection.
Kids embarrassing their parents is nothing new, and that goes for presidents as well as for most of us. Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti posed for Playboy and released a tell-all book. Amy Carter, daughter of Jimmy Carter, was arrested four times while at college for protesting. George W. Bush’s twins were hellraisers when they were young. Not unlike their father when he was a president’s son, several times, the twins were caught drinking while underage.
Malia Obama, daughter of Barack Obama, was caught smoking what some claimed was marijuana. But my favorite was Alice Roosevelt, daughter of Teddy Roosevelt, who had a reputation for outlandish behavior, especially partying. When asked if he could please control his daughter, TR stated, “I can either be President of The United States, or I can control Alice, I cannot possibly do both.” The situation and accusations with Hunter Biden go beyond embarrassment to criminality and, if proven true, could derail Biden’s hopes for a second term.
While neither FDR nor his son’s actions in 1940 were criminal, the president’s favoritism was seen by some as corruption. In 1940 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was already susceptible to the accusation of authoritarianism as he was the only second president to run for a third term (TR had run but lost his bid for a third term). With the outbreak of WWII in Europe, FDR felt his leadership was needed more than ever, even though it did cause some in his party to jump ship.
Most Democrats supported the move and insisted Roosevelt was indispensable with the uncertain future. Republicans ran an unlikely candidate in Wendell Willkie, a corporate lawyer from Indiana. What made Willkie unlikely, apart from not holding office before, was that he was an interventionist in a party full of isolationists and actually supported FDR on most of his New Deal policies.
Willkie attacked Roosevelt for running for a third term, claiming, “If one man is indispensable, then none of us is free.” But what really gave him momentum is when he claimed FDR would pull American boys off to Europe to fight. Roosevelt had given Willkie all the ammunition he needed when in September of 1940, FDR signed the Selective Service Act, which required men between the ages of 21 and 30 to register with their local draft boards.
Americans were hesitant to join another European war, and so when FDR’s numbers dropped, it forced him to come out and state, “While I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
While Roosevelt’s statement seemed to calm most voters’ fears, there was one issue with the draft that he could not shake. Instead of having to sign up for the draft, FDR commissioned his second eldest son Elliott as a Captain in the Air Corps, leading to cries of “I want to be a Captain too.”
Suddenly there were songs with the same title, and even clubs formed calling out the president for his favoritism. One editorial criticized FDR in a similar vein as Trump towards Biden, “President Roosevelt is a master at soft-soaping the people on special privileges to none, equal rights for all and similar commendable ideals come election time…While Roosevelt is engendering class hate by his hypocritical appeal to the so-called “average man,” he approves when his family receives the boons of special privilege…The appointment of Elliott Roosevelt, the president’s second son, as captain in the Army Air Corps Specialists Reserve, is a good example of how President Roosevelt espouses the principle of equal rights to all.”
Baltimore Sun columnist Frank Kent wrote, “The First and most obvious thing, of course, is to say that Elliott could not have secured a captaincy in any such way and any such speed but for the fact that his father is in the White House…Here is a man well within draft age, utterly lacking in any sort of military training, experience, or special equipment, who simply makes an application and immediately is made a captain in the army, assigned to the procurement service, which is an office job…this of course, makes Elliott exempt from the draft.” Kent ended his column with, “Compare this lavish treatment with the military record of Wendell L. Willkie. Mr. Willkie enlisted as a private the first day America entered the World War, and he had served six months in France before he earned the right to a captain’s title.”
Elliott’s appointment did hurt Roosevelt with the veteran crowd. One prominent WWI vet, Henry Lee, wrote a broadside in which he imagined Elliott saying the position “ought to make Mother feel swell,” to which he answered, “But maybe 16 million other mothers won’t feel so swell.” With all the controversy, Elliott decided to resign his commission, but his superior officer denied his resignation claiming Elliott was indispensable. The wording led to criticism of FDR, who one editorial claimed was also calling himself indispensable while running for a third term.
In the end, criticism of Elliott nor Republican calls for authoritarianism made a difference. Roosevelt’s promise not to enter the war seemed to calm the fears of voters who elected him to a third term, 54%-44%. Roosevelt would go on to serve four terms as president, even though a year after he won his third term, he asked for a declaration of war against Japan and Germany.
Like with Elliott, Hunter’s two tax convictions alone are probably not enough to sink Biden’s reelection bid. However, unlike Elliott, these charges may remind voters that there are other crimes under investigation — some involving his father — and, in that case, these crimes could play a part in convincing voters that Biden is not trustworthy.
James Finck, Ph.D., is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and writes for the Southwest Ledger. He can be reached at Historicallyspeaking1776@gmail.com.
Opinion
Candidate Forum and The Real Issues Plaguing Our Community Pt.2 – Affordable Housing
I have been a construction professional for over 30 years, serving in capacities such as sales, building, project management, development, operations, and directorships. I have a bit of professional capital that allows me to comfortably comment on the issue of affordable housing from many sides, including building, developing, and financing.
I am happy to see that affordable housing is part of this year’s election narrative. What discourages me is that this is simply an empty observation with many, if not most, of the candidates, repeating the mantra that “we need affordable housing” without offering meaningful solutions other than changing the zoning code and building smaller houses — the former will have minimal impact, and the latter almost zero.
There is one very simple solution to affordable housing in this region, which the entire slate of candidates has missed or failed to properly communicate. Our community leaders, both current and future, have not, and clearly don’t have a plan to begin constructing the foundation of a meaningful affordable housing program. Without establishing a formal program, the town government has basically surrendered itself to “hope being a strategy” that someone will come in and rescue our community with shiny new apartments at below-market rents.
Let me develop a simple construct for you. Larger communities have a housing agency managed either publicly through Housing Authorities or have established partnerships with non-profits whose primary mission is accumulation, conversion, building, and managing properties, and finally, there are public-private partnership transactions. Front Royal already has most of these tools in place. Leadership needs to redefine and reposition existing governmental and human capital assets so they can be leveraged to begin establishing a fully functioning agency. How is this done, one may ask?
- Re-evaluate the community proffer model for re-zoning requests. The few proffer models I have seen include impact fees for schools, fire-rescue, public safety, parks and rec, transportation, etc. Why hasn’t the proffered model been adjusted to account for the need for ADUs or MPDUs? (Affordable Dwelling Units and Moderately Priced Dwelling Units). National builders such as NVR and Van Metre are in our backyards; they will be importing labor from outside our region, and they will extract every dollar they can. This is their mission, and I respect that. However, our community leaders need to consider preventing our residents from being totally displaced, both physically and financially. Re-zoning requests can be tied to include affordable units.
- Re-define the role of the Front Royal Economic Development Authority. With little fanfare and much controversy, the FREDA is essentially defunct. The entity is all dressed up with no place to go. This is not the fault of the current dedicated members who want to advance local economic development. The council can reposition FREDA’s core mission and include housing as a primary objective. By state code, communities without established Housing Authorities can leverage their EDAs for residential housing purposes. You have the legal structure in place and dedicated members willing to lead it. Just leverage it.
- Front Royal Town Council should delegate one of their council members to be the Affordable Housing “Ambassador.” This individual should be motivated, willing to learn, and not be scared to take chances by asking tough questions and thinking outside the box. They should be lobbyists to Virginia Housing, Peoples Inc., and the other public and private agencies that have successful track records in housing. This person should become fluent in grants, housing tax credits, and other financial tools leveraged to bring new housing units to Front Royal.
In business, I have been told not to bring up a problem, re-state a problem, or dwell on a problem without offering solutions or ideas to mitigate the issue. Many ideas will fall flat, be ridiculed, or may never reach their intended objective. This is okay. It just takes one idea to make meaningful change. Don’t champion the problem, champion the solution!
Front Royal Town Council Candidates, what are your solutions and ideas for building the foundation of an affordable housing program?
Gregory A. Harold
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Danger! Voting Matters!
An August 7, 2023 letter, “Analyzing Delores Oates’ Hypocrisy,” is worth revisiting before we vote. My perception is different, but your readers can decide from their own perspective.
After withholding budgeted library funding to “protect children”, accusing innocent librarians of unthinkable behavior, and an unsuccessful attempt by some members of the Board of Supervisors to just quietly assume control of a private library without revealing it to taxpayers — or it appears even to all Board members, on Sept. 6 Delores Oates tried to un-ring the bell: “What I’ve noticed is that everyone wants the same thing. Everybody appreciates and loves our library, and the other thing that I want you to know is that everybody wants to protect kids — everybody.” Oh, Wrong! Wrong! And, wrong, Delores!
Let us be absolutely clear because children are watching. We clearly do NOT all want the same thing! Appreciation is NOT expressed by accusations of pornography, grooming, and inappropriate behavior! That is NOT “love”! It is bullying and intimidation, backed by secrecy, dishonesty, and abuse of power, perhaps even misuse of $20,000 for notoriety. This was NOT about “protecting kids”. Delores advertised her disregard for children by proudly posing for photos beside a totally nonsensical “Guns Save Lives” sign posted on Facebook for kids to see. Guns are the leading cause of death in children in America! Military weaponry has NO place on the streets of America. Children should not be worried about being shot in their classrooms! And shame on the military veterans sitting silently watching this!
Delores Oates flipped a finger at the Hatch Act, promising in a meeting of the Board of Supervisors that, if elected Delegate, her first priority will be changing some irrelevant exception to obscenity in libraries in VA Code that few have ever seen or heard. Watch that crash head-on into Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal laws precedence over states, keeping us unified and orderly. What self-serving abuse of elected office for someone claiming such love for the Constitution.
If we want safety for our children, our first priority is to ensure a stable government free of corruption, intimidation, and secrecy. Books don’t leave kids orphaned, frightened, hungry, injured, abused, or dead. Irresponsible voters do.
C.A. Wulf
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Sheriff Butler’s Legacy: From Disorder to Trustworthy Governance
Once again time to vote for Warren County Sheriff, and I feel disappointed in the disparaging remarks against our current Sheriff.
The environment of these heinous back alley deals we encountered prior to Sheriff Butler has been an ordeal of the past. The citizens were robbed of our humanity, costing the citizens millions because of greed, ego, and “good ole boy mentality.”
The past crimes have filled the pockets of the thugs that ruled our citizens. We were given the leftovers of the wolves and managed to stand because of our strong, steadfast faith that someone with the commitment to protect and serve our community and help us to grow and be productive.
We had to entrust our family and children to the atrocious mishandling of this community. Have we not learned lessons from the deception we encountered in the past? Perhaps our eyes have remained closed because of past misdeeds.
Many goals have been met, just as Sheriff Butler promised.
Evaluation of the entire office to ascertain strengths and weaknesses. Self-evaluation was conducted while he has been Sheriff. This evaluation has made a difference in enabling the citizens to have confidence in the Sheriff’s Department and change when problems are encountered.
The foundation was started and will continue to be built on while Sheriff Butler remains in office.
I believe he has been truthful, committed, and standing steady to ensure our community is safe and growth ensues. Sheriff Butler’s Open Door Policy is in full force, and if you do not step through, it is not because you have not been invited.
I fully support Sheriff Butler in this coming election, and may we all have open eyes and ears to vote for this man of integrity and values what is noble, trustworthy, and not in this for personal gain. Character and self-confidence make Sheriff Butler the man who will continue to enhance and protect our community.
Linda Winfree, RN
Front Royal
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Forum Reaction: Real Issues Plaguing our Community, Part 1
While I was unable to attend the Chamber of Commerce’s sponsored candidate forum due to travel issues, I was hoping to catch a glimmer of hope in the recorded session, watching the candidates read their prepared speeches without offering any potential solutions to the problems, both perceived and real. For this installment of the Real Issues Plaguing Our Community, I want to focus on Shenandoah District Candidate for Board of Supervisors John Stanmeyer.
Being relatively fresh off the Board of the “re-constituted” EDA, I am astonished that Stanmeyer, or any other candidate for that matter, is campaigning under the guise of “ensuring that EDA-like fraud never happens again.” Well, I hate to tell Candidate Stanmeyer that he missed that ship years ago, and statements like this are no better than the typical campaign rhetoric of “wanting to improve County-Town relations” that candidates use as a crutch when they have no other platform or offer of solutions to the immediate issues.
If Stanmeyer is serious about his candidacy, I would like to know his solution to how he is going to address the $20-million-dollar deficit that both the county and town governments are morally obligated to because of the co-overseen fraudulent activity. There is no shortage of understanding that the EDA’s liabilities far outweigh the value of any assets it possesses. But how are you going to bridge the political divide, navigate the legal intricacies, and bring these issues to closure? There is a high probability that this deficit will land on the backs of the taxpayers, both town and county. How is this going to be reconciled? This is a real issue plaguing our community.
As you are an economist by education, I would love to understand your calculus on the matter.
Gregory A. Harold
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Beyond Business: Front Royal’s Invitation to Explore Warren County’s Inner Workings
I would like to alert Warren County/Front Royal business owners and government managers to an opportunity for those wishing to become more knowledgeable about and involved in our community. My comments are unsolicited.
Each year, the Front Royal/Warren County Chamber of Commerce hosts a Leadership Program. This eight-month program provides participants with up close and personal sessions with local government, business, education, and nonprofit leaders, providing an outstanding opportunity to become much more familiar with the workings and available resources in the County and Town. The once-monthly sessions, preceded by a leadership assessment and coaching day, offer those attending a structured and efficient immersion into essentially “all things” Warren County. Each individual session focuses on a theme, such as Law Enforcement/Emergency Services, Education, Local Government, Business, or Social Services. The sessions feature leaders who provide comprehensive overviews of their functions and allow participants to ask questions particular to their interests.
Although not free and not necessarily for all, I personally believe the return on investment for my participation as a private citizen was high. I can certainly see where other citizens, business owners, and government managers would realize similar returns from attending themselves or having employees attend. Participants also have an opportunity for networking and building relationships that will last into the future. Those interested can learn more about the program and obtain an application by visiting the Chamber’s website at https://www.frontroyalchamber.com/programs-events-1
David McDermott
Bentonville, VA
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Backing Crystal Cline: A Veteran Sheriff’s Endorsement for Warren County’s Future
I am writing to support Crystal Cline in her pursuit of the office of Sheriff of Warren County. Crystal has demonstrated all of the qualities needed to be a Sheriff, including respect for her peers, honesty, and an ability to analyze the needs of her community.
All of these are necessary traits, but I recently discovered, by mistake, a trait I had never experienced. Crystal is a very thoughtful person.
In the past week, Crystal and I have exchanged text messages as she has sought advice. During our exchange, she sent me a text that was intended for someone while she was following up on a difficult family issue. She demonstrated to me in a text that she exhibits a wonderful personal touch.
Sheriffs, I believe, need to exhibit compassion and empathy. We respond to assist people at the toughest of times. Even potential defendants need to be shown respect. Crystal is obviously a person who can do this. If I have learned anything during my 45-year law enforcement career, being approachable is so important. I know she will be, and I believe she will be a wonderful Sheriff.
Anthony Roper
Sheriff of Clarke County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
