Email letters, July 30, 2012

By Staff
Monday, July 30, 2012

Facism defined as political movement linked to corporatism

I missed Bill Grant last week, and, as a lifelong Republican, I enjoy his rants.

One point he makes brings to mind those paranoid zealots who crow about rampant voter fraud when a member of our Secretary of State Gessler’s office testified under oath, he knows of no cases nor were any under investigation. Maybe in the delusions of fraud, those behind voter manipulation were unable to see, or believe, “innocent until proven guilty.”

Now, those who don’t meet the new ID requirements are assumed guilty of fraudulently identifying themselves until they can prove themselves innocent. Doesn’t seem like American justice to me as voting seemed to work properly until 2000, when all the votes weren’t counted, though fraud wasn’t the issue then either.

Are these voter fraud debacles just a warm-up for a national ID? Be careful what you wish for, as Bill Grant reminds us the real ID Act takes effect in January, when we’ll all have to get national IDs to again prove we’re not guilty, but in fact innocent, of lying.

Another issue comes to mind with the banter of socialism. Many things in democracy have socialist leanings, and some work very well, but what has me wondering is the fascist leanings coming to light. Here’s a definition of fascism: a political movement that is linked to corporatism—the sociological concept of structural functionalism. Oooh, 1984, Soylent Green and Logan’ Run.

And with corporations—I mean people able to give unlimited amounts of money unaccountably—it makes me wonder if it, and this time I don’t mean people, is planning to run for an elected office. It has nearly all the requirements.

Isn’t fascism by definition practiced when corporate lobbyists link with politicians to decide the future of laws without American’s input?

RALPH HICKS
Clifton

President Obama has a long list of broken promises

The White House just announced that Obama will not push for stricter gun laws this election year.”

Whew, that is a huge relief for those of us that are dedicated proponents of our Second Amendment rights.

Nothing in life builds a person’s confidence and respect more that having a leader with impeccable credibility. And there’s no question that many other conservative American citizens, like me, really would appreciate having a president who’s willing to take a stand, discerns the will of the people, places substance over style, serves our nation with dignity, demonstrates through patriotism his love of country, and, above all, relies on his track record to document his performance.

For all you naysayers who fear that Obama may not be true to his word, simply consider this small sample of promises that are well documented:

• I will have the most transparent administration in history.
• I will close Guantanamo within a year.
• I will cut the deficit in half by end of first term and won’t take PAC money.
• I don’t have lobbyists.
• I didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was radical.
• I barely know Rezko.
• I will get rid of earmarks.
• I never practiced Islam.
• I was a constitutional lawyer.

Although, POTUS is my main source, my back-up for confirming facts is Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary. Jay often helps the media by more clearly defining the intent and logic behind the president’s Teleprompter Of The United States proclamations.
In his press briefing on July 26, Carney succinctly clarified Obama’s stand as follows: “... we do need to take a broader look at what we can do to reduce violence in America.” 

And it requires a multi-faceted approach that looks at this problem from a variety of angles, and that’s not just legislative and it’s not just about gun laws.” Since “broader looks, multifaceted approaches and varieties of angles” are essential elements of procrastination, be patient. It may be a while before we hear again from POTUS.

“If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.” - Abraham Lincoln

God bless America.

RICHARD DORAN
Parachute

Poll conducted over telephone included a disturbing question

Heads up people! I responded to a telephone poll that was, I’m sure, being done on behalf of the Christian anti-gay movement. Most of the questions were what one would expect of such a poll. However, one question, as I understood it, was very disturbing. There was a comment to the effect that it has been determined that children fare much better in a household with two parents and implied they be of different sexes. Would I be in favor of a law that would require that children be in such a household?

Now, such a law would require governmental removal of children from the households of gay people and, probably, the homes of single parents. Couple such a law with laws in various stages of implementation that give the government control over the conception of children, and then we will soon have a society in which individuals have no parental rights whatsoever. This is a whole lot scarier than the wildest claims about health care that are coming from some of the same far right political spectrum.

Barring a revolution or being subdued by an outside force, we can easily lose our individual human rights by slow erosion if we don’t pay attention and take the necessary steps to stop the erosive process. Keep in mind that laws conceived to protect children can be changed. A little tweak here and there could be laws implemented to destroy selected children (keep Nazi Germany and China in mind); to determine who is fit to conceive a child; and to determine how a child will be prepared for adulthood and what prospects that child will have.

S. JOHNSON
Grand Junction

President Obama lacks understanding of sacrifices small business owners make

A search of U.S, Bureau of Labor statistics reveals that four years after they start fewer than 50 percent of US businesses still exist. The rest have failed.

Whether successful or failed, all businesses depend on the same infrastructure, laws, and social structure, etc.. So, how come the majority fail, what makes the successful different?  The answer is: the owner/owners. This is why Obama is wrong when he said in a speech at Roanoke, Va., “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Although I have never owned a business, I have worked for several small business owners and what they all had in common is that they took the risk and worked longer hours and harder than everyone else. They built their businesses. Other employees and I were paid to assist them, No one else “made it happen.”

This is just one of many things that Obama doesn’t understand and why he demonstrates nothing but contempt for business, even though it’s business that pays for the infrastructure he says enables business to succeed.

It’s this contempt that breeds the policies that have our economy stuck in the doldrums. And, it’s going to remain stuck until this naive, inexperienced, ignorant president is removed.

RICK L. COLEMAN
Grand Junction

Small businesses often succeed despite governmental interference, not assistance

Without being political, I think it is only right to clear up some misunderstandings about the president’s comments concerning small businesses. First and foremost, they are not in business because of anything the government has done for them. They are serving a need that they have identified.

If their success is a result of government help, why is it that two people can open the same business with the same and equal government input, and one person will be successful while the other fails? Either blame the guy that failed, or give credit to the guy that met with success. It obviously had nothing to do with the government’s help (or lack thereof).

I was a sole proprietor of a repair business for more than 25 years, and the government never did anything but get in the way and cost me money. In Durango they tried to tax me for all my equipment, even though most of it came from garage sales and was several years old when I bought it.

Then, of course, there is licensing. If the government does not want you to be in business, it does not have to provide you with the required license. In Florida a sole proprietor with no employees still is required to purchase workmen’s comp insurance that he, as the owner, cannot use but still must pay for.

Long story short, the government does more to prevent and discourage people from going into business than being responsible for a business’ success.

Then there is all the support infrastructure that Obama talks about. The government did not build roads, giving Ford the idea to build cars. Ford built cars, and then the government realized it needed to build roads.

If the government would just get out of the way, more businesses would be started and get the economy back on track a lot sooner than if the government “helps”. The only reason the government ever gets involved is to make money through taxes, fines, fees, and any other thing they can do to make a small businessman miserable.

I do not expect anyone who has never owned a small business to understand this —including President Obama.

DAVID SHRUM
Grand Junction

Members of Congress elected to serve citizens, not themselves

To our elected representatives:

We put you in office to perform a relatively simple duty. That duty is to listen to what the majority of us believe is the right thing to do and to vote it for us.

We The People did not put you there to vote your own salary, pass legislation that you did not write and do not understand, put principle of party above our will, tell us what to say and what not to say, tell us what to eat or drink or what not to eat or drink, or tell us what to buy or what not to buy.

Above all, keep in mind that we are citizens … not subjects.

RONALD BRAUKHOFF
Grand Junction

Photo in ad shows ‘medically risky’ piercing

I am writing regarding The Daily Sentinel’s half page ad in Saturday’s paper on page 4A that headlines “Need a reason to read The Daily Sentinel today?” The ad pictures a crew cut young man biting into some pizza. He has a piercing on his upper cheek near his eye.

Ear piercings have been around for centuries. Face and other body piercings have come to be part or the modern “culture” in recent years.

This type of piercing in the photo is medically risky. It also is very poor modeling for kids. Is the Sentinel trying to keep up with what it thinks is the cool culture of today? What message is the Sentinel trying to send?

I think the piercing photo was a poor choice and in poor taste.

PHYLISS FLOWER
Grand Junction

Abuse of environment turns Earth into a sinking ship

The story in The Daily Sentinel on Saturday July 28 on the threat to amphibians due to the lack of water is another red flag by Mother Nature on the impending peril to life on our planet, including human life.
Over the past 250 years, atmospheric temperatures have been increasing, ice caps melting, oceans rising, huge dead zones occurring in the world’s river deltas (note the Mississippi river), or no water in the delta (the Colorado River), coral reefs dying, commercial fisheries depleted, ocean acidification rising, ground water contaminated, and the extinction of species at a rate unprecedented since the demise of the dinosaurs.

Though it is true that natural phenomena occur in cycles, the cycles are a small part of a curve that increases exponentially with time. Since the Industrial Revolution approximately 250 years ago, this increase in climate change has been very dramatic and alarming.

In the current political cycle where we are passionately concerned about dog parks, same sex marriage, the moral availability of contraceptives, etc., etc., we ignore the fact that natural selection is a rigid law of nature. It is at work, and we humans are subject to it, the same as all living things.

Seven billion of us demand of our leadership that this death spiral not affect our consumption and depletion of limited resources. Auto manufacturers are boasting 30 miles per gallon highway when 50 mpg, city and highway, is already on the street and more than 100 is possible. Renewable resources that are technologically available and limitless in abundance are mostly ignored. Conservation, requiring a small effort or none at all, is not stressed or implemented, even though it can be a major factor in the environmental problem’s solution.

We put great emphasis on the jobs lost through intelligent consumption, whereas in reality being proactive, through the introduction of new technology and scientific innovation would create many more jobs. We are ignoring the wave of the future, as well as its necessity for survival.

Our planet Earth is like a sinking ship with people bailing water, but no one wants to fix the leak because it will put the bailers out of work. Others prefer to ignore or deny the problem since it makes them uneasy, while still others can only see the bottom line. Are we to be looked at by future generations, our progeny, as an era of hedonistic fools?

ROBERT A. TALLARICO
Grand Junction

Successful entrepreneurs often do ‘get there on their own’
 
In letters to the editor published July 27, John Borgen’s discourse was headlined: “Penry parrots thoughts of other conservatives.” 

This brings to mind that Borgen’s letters usually parrot thoughts of other liberals. In this instance Borgen is trying to explain away Obama’s statement: ““If you’ve got a business, you did not build that–somebody else made that happen,” at a campaign event in Roanoke, Va.

Well, I have news for Borgen and other liberals. Entrepreneurs go out on a limb to create a successful business.

They may buy, rent or build a building. The government does not do that—except maybe for Solyndra, an abject failure. We have a system of highways in the country. The federal government built many; state governments built others. So?  These are needed because we have a ton of people here.

Obama also said: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I am always struck by people who think, ‘It must be because I was just so smart.’” 

Well, Mr. President, the government did not come up with that “smart” idea. The “you” above did come up with that smart idea. Successful business owners do “get there on their own,” some at great personal expense.  Obama cannot justify all large government budgets by selling the “you did not get there on your own” fabrications.

Borgen makes the comment that in “countless countries” your “entrepreneurial talents” will not “get you very far.”  So what?  That does not justify a huge tax increase on successful businesses/owners.

But, to justify that, Obama said: “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back.”

CREIGHTON BRICKER
Grand Junction

American Constitution Party is the original tea party

I want to take a moment and alert readers to the existence of Colorado’s third major party—right here in Mesa County. “What are you talking about?” someone’s bound to ask. Well, you know about the Democratic Party; you know about the Republican Party.

In Colorado the American Constitution Party is classified as a major political party. Which means the ACP can run candidates just like the “big boys” do. It participates in the political process in ways minor parties such as the Libertarians cannot. (The ACP recently participated on the Mesa County Canvass Board, while the Libertarian there was only acting as an observer.)

This is your chance to get in on the ground floor. The Mesa County American Constitution Party is open for business and we want you to participate. How?

Well, for starters, go to this Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/MCACP and send a friend request. While you’re browsing the web, go to this site: http://mcacp.weebly.com and learn more about the party and the local organization.

If you are already affiliated with the ACP through voter registration, you have a chance to become part of the local party’s organization. We are looking for everyone from precinct captains to candidates for county chair. (Elections to be held in February 2013)

Why the ACP? It is the original tea party. Don’t believe me? Go the web site http://mcacp.weebly.com/ and check it out. Libertarian in ideology without the abandonment of our Judeo/Christian values in the process. Smaller, smarter government. Candidates such as you and I: people who believe in limited, responsible government at all levels. People who value the individual over the politics; principle over party.

Sign up now. Participate now.

STEVE HENDERSON
Grand Junction

Doonesbury wrongly links photo ID laws to Jim Crow laws

The cartoon strip Doonesbury incorrectly compares the photo ID laws for voting in elections to Jim Crow laws.

Photo ID laws are designed to help prevent voter fraud. This is crucial to insure the integrity of our elections. A photo ID is required to cash a check, board a plane, and engage in many other commonplace activities in the lives of all Americans. A photo ID simply verifies you are who you say you are.

This could hardly be compared to a practice to exclude “undesirables” from voting.  What are these people who so passionately cry foul so afraid of? Are they afraid they won’t be able to tilt elections their way if verification is required?

Just wondering.

DIANE COX
Palisade

After governmental loan, couple built business on their own

I am responding to an article in the Friday, July 27th letter by John Borgen, concerning his disagreement with Josh Penry’s editorial.

I do not disagree with the president’s saying, after his statement, “You didn’t build that business … somebody else did.” I once owned a small business, and the government did provide a small business loan so that we could purchase that business but that was all it did.

I worked for over a year with no salary, and my wife and I worked many nights till 11 p.m. or midnight. Never once did I have anyone from the government come in and say, “Let me help you build this business.”

If we’d had the exorbitant taxation then that we have now, we’d have never been able to make it.

JAMES C. SPARKS
Grand Junction

It’s absurd to define people by their circumstances

I am a proud member of the National Alliance on Mental ill ess, NAMI Greater Seattle, Downtown Vineyard Church, Putting a Face on Suicide and the Mesa County Suicide Prevention Coalition.

After reading today’s editorial about the difference between homelessness and vagrancy, I have to say that I am at a complete loss regarding which point of bigoted idiocy to address first.

Maybe that the writer managed to seek “precision” by lumping together “addicts” with “mentally ill” people as those who spend “much of their days panhandling and partaking” of our local services? Or the absurdity of trying to define groups of people by their circumstances of not having a place to live.

Are you seriously unaware that 20-25 percent of people who live without homes are “veterans that society chooses to ignore”? How about using that as a descriptive term? Or how about using “children without beds,” as they represent 25-40 percent of people without a regular place to sleep at night?

Here’s one – “grandparents who have no family to help them” who represent a small but important piece of this puzzle. As for people with mental illness, really? Get educated.

“Individuals living with mental illness” represent 5-7 percent of the homeless population. I wonder how anyone reading this would cope with being productive during active severe mental illness, often resulting in ongoing psychosis?

My husband and I attend church each Sunday with a lovely man who is one of these “vagrants” you speak of.

What is wrong with this picture? What’s wrong is a longstanding worldwide bias and simultaneous support of a caste system.

How about asking the community to each spend four hours per month working on behalf of these veterans, children, grandparents and individuals living with mental illness?

I think this editorial is exactly as “mean-spirited” and rude as it claims not to be, and that by pretending not to “denigrate or demonize people who are different” you have publicly failed at the task. I am truly embarrassed for you.

ERICA KITZMAN
Grand Junction

Sloan may get free lunch at Chick-fil-A Wednesday

Do I detect racism here? Or is it just good old-fashioned leftist press –- the kind of stuff that thrills the Hustler porn crowd? Unlike some of the crowd the paper now favors, I can’t say I disagree with such vitriol with the politics of Kelly Sloan.

Certainly seems more rational and reasonable than any of the Obamanation. And seems as well that unless one is an undocumented Democrat smuggled across the Southern border by an unsavory bunch of criminals richly favored by the pointy-eared progressives.

It seems that crowd that so loudly trumpets our nationalism as if it were vile bigotry and xenophobia. Hate Canadians who are not Franco-Socialists more than they ate Chick fil-A. Kelly Sloan is welcome in my state—as he is welcome in my home.

But I admit, if he were more like the paper’s favored journalists and audience we wouldn’t have much to discuss. The story was the stuff of leftist dreams, a non-issue. Eat mor chikin. If I see Sloan on Wednesday, I just may offer to pay for his lunch.

ROBERT JAMES BURKHOLDER
Fruita