Email letters, September 13, 2013
Rep. Tipton must guide House into passing immigration bill
Rep. Scott Tipton is not listening to our farmers/ranchers, small businesses and high-tech companies, or he would support passage by his House members of the bipartisan-passed (68-32) Senate Comprehensive Immigration Bill. In Colorado, many in agriculture cite worker shortages due to limited access to legal migrant workers and competing with oil, gas and construction jobs (Greeley Tribune).
The above categories of job creators deserve the certainty
of a workforce that is legal and plentiful. Rep. Scott Tipton’s insistence on supporting the House of Representatives’ piecemeal approach to immigration reform, with the first and only piece being border security, might be considered a “stall tactic” because 1) border security is the most effective it’s ever been and 2) no definition has been offered as to what a secure border looks like or how long it will take.
His explanation that his stance is a matter of national security loses credibility when a strong economy is our best defense. Also, the guest worker program (which he supports) that the bill provides for will identify
and track legal workers and make it easier to identify illegal workers. And did I mention that the bill includes $40 billion for additional border security?
Colorado’s economy and jobs are issue number one. Mesa County’s unemployment rate is 8.2 percent, which is above the state average. The Immigration Reform Bill has been calculated to decrease the national deficit by $197 billion in the first decade and increase jobs, wages and revenue.
Rep. Tipton, now is the time to serve your constituents instead of walking the party talk. Lead the House members in supporting and passing this bill. It is good for Colorado … and America.
Democrats’ tyranny spurred recalls, calls for secession
Tuesday’s recall results in Colorado Springs and Pueblo were very predictable. Despite being outspent ten-to-one by the opposition, the grassroots, home-grown recall effort succeeded in throwing out of office two very arrogant politicians who not only passed legislation that violated their constituents’ constitutional rights but also refused to give fair voice to debate those ill-conceived laws.
Politicians in Colorado and throughout the nation are now on notice that the Constitution and the people will prevail if put to the test by arrogant politicians who do not take their oaths of office seriously.
This past year an out-of-control political party that does not value the Constitution or constituents who do not subscribe to its liberal ideologies has fractured Colorado to its core.
Several northern counties in Colorado are considering seceding, either to form their own state or to possibly join with Wyoming, as opposed to being under the rule of the liberal Democrats now running the state government. It is sad that this great state, with its tradition of being tourist-friendly, is becoming bitterly divided.
All because the Democrat Party wants to implement a tyrannical form of government that no longer values the constitutional republic form of government on which this
nation and this state were founded.
Since Sentinel uses its bully pulpit, ordinary people can, too
In your editorial on Sept. 11, you chose to bemoan the recall of two radical-left legislators for their willful and intentional abuse of their position to push a leftists’ anti-liberty agenda down the throats of Coloradans.
Say what? Doesn’t The Daily Sentinel often use its bully pulpit to decry official abuse of power, at least as it sees it?
If not, what do you call the railroading of the public trustee in the recent past?
Now you’re saying ordinary people, who don’t buy their ink by the barrel, shouldn’t have recourse when they find themselves the victims of a legislative mugging?
A wee bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
Recalls demonstrated citizens’ objections to negligence, abuse
Your editorial on Sept. 12 indicates that you do not understand what the constituents who oppose gun control legislation are trying to accomplish with the recall election. Your editorial indicates voters should have no
choice when their elected officials do not represent them accurately.
To quote your editorial, recall is “a tool voters should use only to remove people from office who are seriously negligent …”. In my opinion, it is negligence and abuse of power to blatantly disregard the majority’s directive.
I am not talking of the majority in the House and Senate. I speak of the citizens of Colorado as illustrated in the recent recall election. These legislators and Gov. John Hickenlooper are mere puppets of their party, President Barack Obama and his cronies in Washington. They have no conscience or remorse when it comes to going against the voters. Citizens are left with a law that is poorly thought out, minimally researched and totally unacceptable.
I suggest you reread the article of the same date entitled “Colorado recalls show risk of supporting gun control.” Perhaps that will provide a little insight into the reason for the recall election and its outcome.
JOHN E. SMITH
Article on spotted bats spotlighted their value
Thank you for the spotted bat article. It was so good and very educational. Maybe it will teach people that bats are good and eat a lot of insects and that they should be protected.
Voters’ respect for Constitution led to ouster of Morse, Giron
As a lifelong educator, civics instructor and founder and administrator of the grassroots political movement Recall Colorado, I wanted to respond to the article written by Associated Press writer Colleen Slevin entitled “Voters in historic recall angry over gun policies.”
She makes the assertion that voters who took part in the recent recall effort to oust former Sens. John Morse and Angela Giron were angry over “new limits on ammunition magazines and expanded background checks.” This comment illustrates the politically liberal mindset of those not versed in the meaning and history of our Constitution.
What liberals of any political persuasion fail to grasp yet continue to advertise through left-leaning media is that people who expect to be provided constitutional guarantees of freedom are somehow “angry” or are just “gun rights activists.” This sort of journalistic bias tries to push the notion that those of us who simply appreciate freedom and the rights provided through the sacrifice of others who have gone before are somehow “out of touch.”
The bottom line is that the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. In that document we are provided a blueprint for how we can protect ourselves from an overreaching and tyrannical government that seeks to undermine our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The reason that we banded together in our state to oust these so-called representatives is not because we are “angry” over new background checks or ammunition limits — we already have those and have had for some time — it is because those who represent us have failed to abide by the principles required of them in their oath of office. Politicians across America should take notice because “We the People” are staring to wake up.
Look to decisions made in Bush administration for costly examples of America’s ‘exceptionalism’
Regardless of the ultimate outcome in Syria, students of international relations will study the parallels and differences between the run-up to the Iraq War versus the analogous circumstances in Syria. Imagine the following mid-term exam question:
Compare and contrast the Bush administration’s policies toward Iraq following 9/11 to the Obama administration’s policy toward Syria in 2011-2013.
Both involved “weapons of mass destruction” and Al Qaeda. In 2002, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld “knew” that Iraq had sarin gas — because the U.S. provided the constituent chemicals and Rumsfeld personally visited Saddam to review its successful use against Iranians and Kurds — but U.N. inspectors concluded that all remaining stocks had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
That trio then conflated WMD to include biological (“Curveball’s” dispersal units for biological agents were mobile weather balloon trailers) and nuclear (“mushroom cloud”) weapons; aluminum tubes for artillery shells (“centrifuge components”); and imaginary “yellow cake” that evidenced a renewed nuclear program. Cheney repeatedly alluded to nonexistent but “proven” 9/11 connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In addition, intercepts of instructions to remove any remnants of previous chemical weapons – plus Iraq’s denials of any nuclear weapons program – “proved” that Saddam was “hiding something.”
Bush knowingly relied on discredited “intelligence” to snooker Congress, the American public and the U.N. into granting a “blank check” – ostensibly to confront Saddam with a “credible threat” — while touting fraudster Chulabi’s empty assurances that “liberating” American forces would be greeted with celebrations, and would cost only $20 billion.
Despite Rumsfeld’s recent claims that all the appropriate legal “boxes were checked” (Congressional and U.N. authorizations), we now know that the “NeoCons” had always intended to invade Iraq – regardless of what U.N. inspectors found.
Ten-plus years, 37,000 American casualties and $4-6 trillion later, President Obama’s more principled efforts are undermined by these vestiges of American “exceptionalism.”