Email letters, September 23,  2013

Founding Fathers were concerned
about the citizens being disarmed

I thank Bill Grant for his Sept. 18 example of the best way NOT to, realistically, solve ANY problem, — carefully consider/present only one side.

I’m sure t Grant is very aware that the Second Amendment was second, when the Founding Fathers began considering the Bill Of Rights in 1789 for good reason.

I’d expect that a substantial portion of the population, at the time, depended on wild game for some part of their food source, but, even way back then, a favorite initial tactic of evildoers planning take-over of a country, was to first disarm the citizenry. The Founding Fathers intended that this not be excessively easy in our country. So the Second Amendment was the number two consideration, right behind freedom of speech, including religion, the press, assemble, and petitioning the government.

Grant obviously made the strongest case he could imagine—that there ain’t no good in guns, PERIOD.’ The truth is that the gun, like the knife, the automobile, the airplane, like sports and many other items or activities, can well be good or bad, depending on the application and situation. I’d say that We probably owe the gun more than any other device or the very existence of our dear country.

Each month, for at least the last 10 years, the NRA has published seven or eight accounts in its journal of citizens saved from harm, violence and death by guns in the hands of citizens — just people like we all know. At only seven per month, for Grant’s referenced period 1999 to now or about 14 years) that comes out to something over a thousand lives saved by guns in the same period. And I’m told the seven-per-month represents only a part of the reports received by the NRA.

Grand Junction

Some ideas to make government
more responsive to citizens

Let’s simplify our lives, shall we? Put Congress in their most effective state, Recess.

Give Congress, the president and every other government organization, union or not, Obamacare. Give every college Obamacare. Give every state employee and union Obamacare.

Give every American a flat tax rate of 5 percent. Give Congress positions of unpaid service. Give the president a pay cut of 68 percent like I got because of Obamacare. Oh yeah, sign him up with the private mandate.

Give Congress the mandate that they have a 5 percent budget. Better decide what we need and the rest is cut.

Take away licenses to hospitals, doctors, employers and companies that hire any illegal citizens.
Take the money saved by cutting Congress, the president and cost’s
consumed by illegal aliens and pay on the budget deficit for two years. Because if your an illegal you don’t pay for Obamacare.

After that time, laws should state that only legal residents may apply for and receive any state or federal aid, any compensation for work performed in the private sector, and ID will be required to vote, gain said services, jobs, or any other form of compensation.
Grand Junction

GOP wants to fund military,
and assist the needy

I would like to respond to the editorial on 9/22/2013. Full disclosure, I am a hard core Republican.

I do not understand the content. Don’t we as conservatives have the right to object to the liberal views that everyone deserves to be covered by the Obamacare plan that is going to bankrupt the country, with only a few of us to pay for the coverage?

There is not one Republican that does not want to support our military and pay for whatever services they require. In fact, it is a travesty how they have to fight for the services they deserve.

I think the Republicans are tired of being blamed for not caring for the needy. We are more than willing to give a helping hand. We are not interested in helping those to don’t want to help themselves. So what was the point in the editorial on Sunday?

Grand Junction

Republicans should concentrate
on doing jobs they were elected to do

After wasting their time and ours by taking 40-plus votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)because it would be so harmful to the American populace, maybe the far righties ought to try a new approach. Allow Obamacace to be implemented as scheduled, and if it is as harmful as they claim, the American people will call for its repeal, both Democrats and Republicans, at the ballot box.

In the meantime, maybe they should concentrate on doing what they were sent to Washington to do: legislate, pass budgets, pay
the bills they have authorized, etc., instead of obstruction of the process.

Grand Junction

Knock off the rude stereotypes
of people who come from Boulder

Who’s to say that those rude bicyclists were from Boulder? Boulder really gets a bad rap from folks on the Western Slope, and I’d venture to say that most of the critics have never spent much time, if any, in that city.

I spent 40 years of my adult life there and am neither a tree hugger nor a rude cyclist. I would wager that the majority of Boulderites are considerate and courteous on the bike trails and in other walks of life.

Every city, even Montrose, has its rude, arrogant bicyclists, so let’s knock of the Boulder stereotype, shall we?

Web site critical of chamber
is informative, thoughtful

Grand Junction’s chamber of commerce website is obscure in itself, not to mention the extension. Moreover, on a search engine, comes in seventh after the chamber’s.

On an unlikely chance to be found to begin with, once the website loads, a series of signs and people’s midriffs appear on the banner. This is a strong clue that it’s not the intended website.

This would be a good point for the attorneys to come in, especially if the site intended false charges, innuendos and allegations, but it doesn’t. It seems to be informative and thoughtful and documented.

If the website was personal or myopic, it could be written off and/or
ignored, but in light of other points made by individual citizens, the council and the chamber have some explaining to do, to us, the people.

Grand Junction

We need local candidates
who won’t make excuese

I see Greg Palmer has entered the race for Mesa County commissioner. It would sure be great if we could get candidates who were not “yow butts.”
Where are the Wayne Aspinalls, the Tillie Bishops, who did not have to make responding answers with a “yow but,” like we have today with the Scott McInnis: “Yow, I did something with some charges for clients on the Front Range, but I paid it back.”
Rep. Jared Wright: “Yow, I spent too much money, got fired, but some good folks thought I could do right in the Legislature.”
Greg Palmer: “Yow, I was on the Grand Junction Airport Authority and approved the ugly black fence part way around the airport to the tune of some 4 million bucks plus a couple of gates for 2 mil, and now we’ve we got no services for small piston-driven aircraft as provided by mechanics and electronics tech, and most of general aviation folks have left for other neighboring facilities, hanger owners can’t sell their no longer un used hangers because they can’t get prospects to them, and the million’s of dollars we lost from folks not coming to GJT any more; but, I’m not on the authority any more. Well it’s hard to un-ring a bell.
Can’t somebody come forward who won’t have to make excuses?

Grand Junction

Defund Congress until
members act on budget

What has gotten lost in all the hyperbole surrounding the sequester, another continuing resolution to keep funding the government short term and the political rhetoric over Obamacare is the simple fact that we are in this situation because the overpaid and over-perked people we elected to protect us have refused to come up with a budget in five years.
Let’s defund Congress and also the White House and lock all 536 of them in a room until such time as they agree on a budget. My guess is personal greed will overcome political grandstanding and something will get done!

Grand Junction

Nation’s debt is like
a cancer that we ignore

I found Sunday’s Sentinel Commentary section to be a real study of contradictions. The editorial headline implies our federal government is operating with a budget. There hasn’t been a federal budget approved since
April 29, 2009. That’s 53 months!

The now almost-accepted (and evidently recognized) Senate way of operating our federal finances is so fiscally irresponsible there’s no recognized accounting procedure to describe it properly.

“Continuing resolution”? Wow! I guess the closest comparison would be to diagnose breast cancer and then tell the patient to just continue doing whatever they were doing before – but do more of it every year. Don’t even treat the symptoms, much less the disease. If another diagnostician suggests changing something – like providing a recognized, proven successful treatment for the cancer – call them “quacks” and immediately begin discounting any suggestion they may have to treat the widely recognized ailment as absolutely irresponsible because it “might” have side effects worse than the cancer.

Hey, it’s cancer folks – left untreated it IS going to kill you.

Our nation is suffering from increasing national debt cancer and the
“continuing resolution” method of automatically spending more each year (without even considering a change in the way or why we spend) is killing our nation. Look around – you can see it. You probably feel it.

So who should do what to fix this? The House of Representatives has sent numerous budgets to the Senate each year since 2009. The Senate has continuously shirked its responsibility to process the budget for approval – many times not even acknowledging receipt.

This year the House budget includes de-funding ObamacCare. That immediately defines the House as “quacks” (see above) by the administration, the Senate and to some extent by The Daily Sentinel.

Left untreated ...?


Views on issues, not labels
are important in school elections

The School District 51 board election is approaching and already we see a spattering of semantics applied to all courageous candidates who have announced their intention to run. It is fascinating how quickly each candidate is labeled, compartmentalized and their motives are examined.
The usual labels of course are applied: Democrat, Republican, libertarian, liberal, conservative, member of a group acting in concert, an axe to grind or other attempts to get each candidate known in some light, and unfortunately selected. In my, labels are distracting and should serve no purpose in selecting candidates for a vital board, which makes policy that affects our most vital resource, students.

The coming school board election should by all means be totally non-partisan. But we do need to know in absolute terms where each individual candidate stands on pertinent policy issues that can be clearly identified.

I will be listening to each candidate to hear their views on such topics as: avoiding the federal money trap from the U. S. Department of Education; the belief that educating our youth is the responsibility of local school districts and each state; their belief that students can and must be taught the basics of language, reading, math, science and the arts; how each candidate can communicate their desires to improve teaching and learning directly to the educational leaders in our district. And I will listen intently about their convictions about federal control and proposals for requiring education for students much earlier in age than currently in use.

There are so many issues facing our schools today that board members can influence positively. Testing and other policies stemming from the U. S. Department of Education and Washington with the enticement of federal money will be a question that I will ask when attending the candidate forums. Examples are: No Child Left Behind, Race to The Top and Common Core.

A basic question to be asked of each candidate should be “What can you as a board member do to improve education in District 51? Please try to attend at least one and leave your labels at the door.

Grand Junction

Sportsmen support funding for
Land and Water Conservation Fund

As summer winds down and fades into fall, many of us enjoy this time of year to get outdoors to hike, hunt and fish. For me, it’s elk hunting on public lands in southwestern Colorado’s wild San Juan Mountains.

It’s important to understand that many of these special places were made possible by a law passed nearly 50 years ago. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF, was created with the purpose of reinvesting money from offshore drilling projects to aid in the maintenance and protection of our country’s natural resources.

Throughout its history, the LWCF has protected land in every state and supported over 41,000 park projects. Hunters, anglers, and other outdoorsmen and women are thankful that they can take their children to hunt, fish, and hike in places like the Ophir Valley of the Uncompahgre National Forest, Great Sand Dunes National Park and the wildlife refuge complex of the San Luis Valley. These are all past beneficiaries of LWCF in Colorado. Because of these protected places, Colorado’s 919,000 hunters and anglers invest $1.36 billion in our communities and support 18,693 local jobs.

Each year the government is supposed to set aside $900 million for LWCF projects, but often those funds are taken away and spent on unrelated projects. In the program’s history, the government has diverted more than $17.5 billion.

And now, for the first time in the program’s successful 50-year history, the House of Representatives is proposing to eliminate all funding for a program that has benefited the entire nation. These cuts would do real, irreversible damage to the wild places and wide open spaces hunters and anglers and all Americans care about.

I urge Congress to keep their promise to the American people and fight for full funding of the LWCF.

DAVID LIEN, Co-chairman
Colorado Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Colorado Springs

Federal influence has led
to poorer education system

I’m a believer in good public education such as I received along time ago, not the national embarrassment it has become.
Federal involvement, with its costly and worthless mandates and standards, has generally dumbed down our children over the years and leaves many of them ill- prepared for college and the real world.

States, and especially local communities, should be running education and setting standards as they see fit. When this was the case, before President Carter established the Department of Education, children received better educations than today. They learned the basic subjects well, patriotism and good morals were encouraged and they were not plagued with social programs.

Then it started changing as more and more progressive/Democratic ideas were incorporated into our educational system. More and more money from taxes was demanded to “make our schools better,” which it never did. Now we have a real mess on our hands.

Two years ago, Mesa County elected Jeff Leany and Ann Tissue to our school board. Their hands have been tied when they wanted to make real and meaningful reforms in our schools to benefit the children and the teachers.
The highly partisan school board and teachers’ union have seen to this. (Yes, politics is very obvious in how our local schools are run and the board votes; just attend a school board meeting.)

Now, there are three District 51 School Board candidates running in Districts C,D, and E: Pat Kanda, Mike Lowenstein and John Sluder. They all want education to progress forward to a high standard of excellence for all Mesa County students. They have the educational experience and background to achieve this.

My advice: Go hear all the candidates speak and listen with your intellect. Kanda, Lowenstein and Sluder will impress you. Then vote for them in November. You will be doing something really positive “for the children.”

Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy