E-mail letters, August 23, 2010
Lack of confidence in Obama has spurred debate over Ground Zero mosque
Regarding the mosque slated to be built in New York City: This project has been approved by the mayor of New York City. A city community board voted 29-1 in favor of the proposal, and it has the blessings of the president.
On August 3, the final hurdle was cleared when New York City’s Landmarks and Preservation Commission approved the project. The Ground Zero building that the Muslims bought and intend to modify was built in the 1850s and is under the classification of an “historic landmark.”
The above steps have eliminated any conflict with the Constitution and cleared up any issues regarding Freedom of Religion.
So what’s the problem? Simple, people don’t trust the Obama administration.
The Americans promoting this issue emulate narcissism, tread on our dignity and soundness of moral character and have complete lack of respect for America’s self esteem. Our belief system has been trampled on by what appears to be people with little or no faith.
The Muslim leaders have also shown their true colors. They don’t give a damn what America thinks, they got Obama in their pocket and Obama doesn’t give a care what America thinks. What is the big deal about killing 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001.
It is difficult to express, but Obama has humiliated the American people on more than just this issue and currently our response has been muted. The Democrat majority has built a wall around him and we are going to tear that wall down this fall.
America needs sanctuaries and quite places for reflection. We also have to remember the thousands of people who have died and are currently dying fighting Islamic terrorism.
WILLIAM F. MCKNIGHT
Grand Junction is becoming a bum’s paradise
If as a recent article on the front page of The Daily Sentinel implies, that Jacob Richards is the de facto leader of the area homeless, then maybe he could be encouraged to lead them somewhere out of our valley? He and his friends never had it so good since this valley has become a bum’s paradise.
They are fed, clothed and sheltered for the most part by the good folks of this valley. They come in droves from other places cause the word has gotten out that the Grand Valley is a soft touch. What I also find amazing is that the good people of the valley and even The Daily Sentinel encourage these bums by giving them so much and running news articles about them.
Come on people wake up, let’s help residents of this valley who have fallen on hard times and send the drifters who come here for all the hand outs to keep drifting somewhere else. Let us not turn our beautiful valley into the bum’s paradise that it is becoming. How many parks and riverfront trails to we have to give up to these people?
Democrats are truly the big spenders
A recent letter to the editor with the headline “Record shows Republicans are the real big spenders” attempts to make its case quoting deficit spending for past Republican administrations using then-year dollars not adjusted for inflation or economic growth.
Not adjusting the then-year dollars for inflation, population and economic growth is misleading at best – that is why economists express deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Congressional Budget Office published data shows that annual deficit spending at the end of World War II peaked at 28 percent of GDP, but only averaged around 4 percent during the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. After the disastrous economic performance of the Carter administration, deficits ran around 6 percent at the start of the Reagan administration, but returned to under 4 percent of GDP by the end of his administration.
Deficits during the first years of the Clinton administration were around 5 percent a surplus of over 2 percent of GDP was achieved after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. Deficits returned to about 4 percent of GDP during the Bush administration but have skyrocked to above 10 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration and are projected to stay at that rate given the social programs planned by the Democrats. So you see, the real spenders are the Democrats in Congress, not the Republicans.
Meaning of ‘liberal’ has changed
The August 13th opinion by Henrietta Hay entitled “Despite claims by some conservatives, ‘liberal’ is not a dirty word” deserves an answer. She claims that many use the word “liberal” as an obscenity. She then spends considerable space defending political liberals as noble, reasoned, and altruistic. However, like so many words, “liberal” does not mean what it once meant.
When Henrietta was born, to be a Liberal was to defend the freedom – the Liberty - of all people who made up our great nation. To be a Liberal was to trust individuals and families to run their own lives as they saw fit. To be a Liberal was to create a nation where anyone could excel if they were willing to do the work. If only that were the case in 2010.
Liberals of today want to be benevolent with other people’s money, using the police powers (read: prison) of an ever-growing government to force, through increased taxation, adherence to a set of values as defined by liberals themselves.
Instead of “Liberals” and “Conservatives”, the two largest political mindsets in the U.S. should be termed “Statist-Progressives” and “Constitutional-Conservatives”. Statist-Progressives adhere to Woodrow Wilson’s theory of limitless power of dispensing. They believe that our Constitution is a living, evolving document. This thinking by our leaders has led to continuously bloated government which attempts to define all the voters’ needs as “rights”. The natural progeny of this philosophy is
for government to tax another segment of society to finance any new-found “rights”. Example: When housing becomes everyone’s “right”, then congress passes laws taxing the productive to fund housing for the unproductive. When personal healthcare becomes a “right”, then taxing the productive to fund healthcare seems like the simple answer. Further, regulating (rationing and withholding) housing and healthcare soon follows “for the good of all”. Naturally, within the Statist-Progressive philosophy is the assumption that every person exists only because the state allows it; that the “community good” supersedes the individual. Do you see where Statist-Progressivism leads?
As for “Constitutional-Conservatives”, this segment of society believes in the original intent of America’s Founders, that of limited government at all levels. This belief leads to modest taxation of private citizens, who have already given this limited power to government. They believe that government should stay out of the way, not interfering with each citizen’s God-given right to own property and have peace. He believes in the absolute rule of law. The Conservative believes that government should be involved in only the most necessary of community needs, such as national defense, the courts, and local police. He recognizes that unfettered private business can provide almost everything else cheaper and better than government. Additionally, a Constitutional-Conservative believes that the Second Amendment means that each citizen has a right to protect himself, his family, and his property.
This November our country will be deciding which type of political thought will grow, or diminish. We will be voting for expanded personal freedom, or our gradual imprisonment by all-powerful federal rulers.
King demonstrates confusion over conservative ideas
As an “unaffiliated” voter who attended the recent debate between incumbent 54th District representative Steve King and Claudette Konola — his Democratic challenger for Josh Penry’s vacant 7th District state Senate seat — at the monthly Republican Party luncheon, it became obvious from King’s remarks that Republicans still refuse to take a coherent approach to Colorado’s fiscal challenges.
Once upon a time, Republicans opposed tax increases, but insisted that “user fees” were acceptable (even if distasteful). In 2006, responsible Republicans leaders like Penry and former Gov. Bill Owens recognized that “Referendum C” was necessary — even in good economic times — to avoid a TABOR-induced education-funding crisis.
At the debate, King disingenuously claimed that the “Dirty Dozen” user fees — having not been subject to voter approval under TABOR — were illegal “tax increases” and that the mill levy freeze was “the biggest property tax increase in Colorado history,” even though its effect was to prevent further property tax decreases (which — because of TABOR’s “ratcheting down” effect — would have made the state responsible for an even greater share of K-12 education funding and thereby further exacerbate the state’s already daunting budgetary crunch).
In both cases, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the measures were constitutional, but King — despite his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of Colorado — still insists on demagoging those issues for partisan political gain, while offering no cogent solutions to the state’s budgetary crisis, particularly as it affects education (where Colorado ranks right down there with Mississippi and Alabama in per pupil funding).
King also asserted that “past performance is the best predictor of future behavior.” If so, Ronald Reagan’s deficit-tripling “VooDoo economics” and George Bush’s gratuitous (even by John McCain’s standards) deficit-doubling tax cuts for the wealthy prove that — despite their rhetoric — Republicans cannot be trusted to “practice what they preach.”