Email letters, January 15, 2013
Tipton correctly holds line against DC spending frenzy
As expected, there are those who are critical of Congressman Scott Tipton’s vote against the Senate bill (actually it is more accurate to call it a “deal”), which some claimed would avert the so-called fiscal cliff. Those same critics would have us believe that Tipton actually wants to see a recession and a government shut down. That’s absolute nonsense.
Rep. Tipton voted exactly the way he told his constituents he would vote if he were called upon to raise taxes, absent some unforeseen and compelling reason. Moreover, the Senate package did nothing whatsoever to address the bigger problem, a need for meaningful spending reform.
Along with most of his House colleagues, Tipton is correctly bent on cutting wasteful spending in Washington. Those who think that the House of Representatives is doing nothing are uninformed. For example, the Republican-led House has passed two budgets in the 1,350-plus days since the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. President Obama and the Senate Democrats, however, won’t act on the House budgets, presumably to protect special interest spending and government waste that would otherwise be cut by Republicans.
It’s ironic how Democrats continue to warn that Tipton and other conservatives are somehow a threat to Medicare and Social Security. The truth is that these conservatives realize that those programs face bankruptcy if Washington doesn’t do something now to curb wasteful spending.
We in the 3rd Congressional District should be relieved to know that Tipton did not give his stamp of approval to the so-called fiscal cliff “deal” that tap-danced completely around the obvious culprit of the problem, irresponsible government spending. Nor, by the way, did he go along with the part of the “deal” that punishes small-business people with higher taxes, job reductions and a plan that crushes economic growth.
Tipton is making good on his promises to fight against higher taxes and to stop the spending frenzy. We need more of his kind in Washington.
T. MICHAEL HOLMES
Knowing that life is not fair reminds us that we also know right from wrong
I’m compelled to ponder the significance of “moral imperative” — especially the consequences resulting from its absence. A church sermon on the subject came just when had I experienced untruths, deception and unfairness, resulting from an absence of moral imperative in our “justice” system.
The term is defined as having a deep instinctive sense of right and wrong that creates a desire for fairness and justice which prevails in humans throughout civilization in all the world’s cultures.
Significantly, moral imperative is an inborn human instinct — not one that’s acquired. It’s well documented by recent scientific studies proving that infants, as young as six months, possess this strong moral code enabling them to discern the difference between good and evil.
Isn’t there ample proof in our daily lives that we know right from wrong? Notably, accepting the adage that “life isn’t fair” proves we do know the difference.
Nowhere is the lack of moral imperative more obvious than in the politics of government at all levels. Best examples are the politicians we vote into office based upon their pledges to represent us. They then break their promises and through their actions choose to ignore what is right and wrong and what is fair and what is unjust.
In regard to moral imperative, I’ve spoken to many people who’ve had occasion to seek help from public officials — almost always with the same outcome, broken promises with no apparent results.
As a way of life, moral imperative could mean less crime, less discrimination and less governmental control, resulting in fairness and more individual freedom. Certainly the greatest impact would be in running the government with less inane legislation, innocuous rules and regulations, illegal executive orders and unfair court decisions, all of which negatively affect our daily lives and livelihoods.
Just ponder if you will — what if moral imperative were to become a way of life — a social absolute and a government priority? Would it not attest that we ordinary citizens, as well as our political representatives, would simply be doing what comes naturally?
Moral imperative has even more incredible spiritual truths for all who chose to learn.
RICHARD D. DORAN
Bill Robinson deserves respect of community, press coverage
Thank you very much for duly honoring a fine gentleman who used his enthusiasm, talents and expertise to guide so many students during his many years of service to Mesa State College (now CMU) and this community.
Bill Robinson is so deserving of this community’s respect and appreciation, and may Robinson Theater retain that designation for the life of CMU.
It was so good to retrieve The Daily Sentinel Monday morning and see/read something positive and heart-warming for a change. Thank you.
Gail Collins cites wrong reasons for declining abortion support
Gail Collins in her opinion piece in Sunday’s Sentinel was right in observing that abortion advocates are reeling and support is declining, but she was completely wrong in trying to sort out the reasons for this decline.
As technology has advanced, more and more people have seen with their own eyes that the fetus developing within the womb is recognizably human and not a lump of tissue. Clinging to the notion that ending the life of this developing human is simply a matter of choice has become increasingly problematic when we live in a society that is constantly being rocked by appallingly bad choices.
Slaughtering innocent children at school, shooting moviegoers and abandoning children in a running car for 90 minutes are just a few examples of choices that must be opposed. While Americans are a generous people when it comes to matters of autonomy, approval of a choice must always be conditioned by what is being chosen. When it comes to abortion, more and more people are coming to the uncomfortable realization that it entails the ending of an innocent human life, and therefore should be opposed.
Her most obvious error was in her concluding paragraph. She wrote, “The anti-abortion movement … is basically about imposing one particular theology on the rest of the country.” Nonsense. Opposition to abortion has little to do with imposing a theology on anyone.
Based on the science of embryology, however, we want the rest of the country to face the facts of what is involved. We seek to awaken all to the reality of what abortion entails. We refuse to buy into the mythology of the “lump of tissue.”
To point out the folly of giving blanket approval to what has become increasingly apparent: The ending of innocent human life cannot and must not be reduced to a simple matter of choice.
CARL A. MALITO, MD
President of Mesa County Right to Life
Society must examine what makes people want to kill
The Connecticut school shooting tears at the heartstrings of every parent. We must find ways to stop such violence, but more gun laws are not the answer, as statistics prove and common sense verifies.
Law-abiding citizens are the only people affected by laws; others will find ways to get guns. The problem is not that people can get guns, but that people want to kill.
Many of us had guns as kids. We got angry sometimes, but it never occurred to us to turn our guns on strangers, parents or anyone. What has happened since then?
Some parents are too busy working, out of necessity or to buy things, to spend time with kids. Some don’t know what their kids are doing, whom they’re hanging out with or how often they’re watching programs with gratuitous, graphic violence or playing video games that teach them to kill, kill, kill. Some are afraid to discipline because they think the kids won’t love them or that Social Services will step in.
The ACLU has made it very difficult to institutionalize people with mental problems. Too often, dangerous psychotropic drugs are instead prescribed for people who can’t handle problems.
We’ve taken God and morality out of our schools. We’ve raised kids with no concept of heaven or hell or of an omnipotent presence watching what they do.
Many homes are fatherless. When the government became the financial provider for single mothers, fathers were no longer required – although they are desperately needed.
Those are a few of my reasons. Please send in yours. Maybe dialogues will find solutions.