Printed Letter: Sept. 18, 2016

Kaepernick critic was able to have his say
I don’t necessarily support the NFL quarterback in his effort to bring attention to social issues in the U.S. by kneeling during the national anthem.

He takes his chances with his employer and the public as far as his viability as a player or as a representative of the team. We all know he has a right to do what he is doing. A veteran of the armed forces (Patrick Mosbey) wrote a letter here expressing his dismay and condemnation for the act. I respect Mr. Mosbeys’ opinion and his willingness to serve in the armed services, yet he goes too far by playing the “persecuted Christian” card. If Tim Tebow was persecuted I would like to see some video or viable proof of such an event. As far as I know, the NFL didn’t stop him from kneeling on the field or audibly expressing his belief in God on national TV.

I think you can produce video of many professional athletes thanking God for their successes during sporting events. There’s no bleeping it out or suppressing it at all. The bakeries he mentions as persecuted chose to discriminate against U.S. citizens, which expect the country and its inhabitants to act as if they live in a secular state, as the U.S. was designed to be. When the bakery issue arose, there was much more than a peep uttered by the press. The subject was discussed in every publication I read or watched or listened to. No one is forcing Mr. Mosbey to agree with anyone. After all, he wrote to this paper complaining about a liberal agenda and I’m willing to bet no one went to his house to shut him down and at the very least he got his Christian “peep” by having his letter published here.


Ask your doctor what he or she thinks of Amendment 69
Why does Colorado need a resident of Massachusetts to tell us how Amendment 69 is going to be such a benefit to us with free health care?  What the writer Virginia Ryan fails to mention is the mandated 10-percent tax on wages (6.67 percent paid by employer and 3.33 percent paid by the employee) and ALL other income including Social Security.

This tax will be above what individuals already pay in Colorado income tax and make Colorado one of the highest taxed states in the Union. It will start with a 15-member appointed board and then expand to a 21-member elected board, with no guarantee that any of the board members are from the Western Slope. The board members do not need any experience in the medical or insurance fields. They will have no oversight from the Governor’s Office or the state Legislature and cannot be recalled except by their own board members. They will set the parameters of what will be covered, what the reimbursement will be to health providers for health care, medicine, all medical devices and can increase the taxed amount if they find they are short of funds. Ask your doctor for his or her opinion of this amendment. Vote “no” on Amendment 69. It’s a disaster for Colorado.

Grand Junction

Schwartz misleading public on Tipton’s public-lands position
Gail Schwartz’s radio and TV ads keep playing. “Stop Scott Tipton from selling our public lands.”

She goes on to say she is for all uses on public lands, including energy, grazing, tourism.

On July 8, 2016, The Daily Sentinel, at her announcement to seek office quoted her regarding federal lands: “We should not be selling them, we should not be leasing them,” Schwartz said.

Now she claims Scott Tipton wants to sell public lands?

He has never said that.  It polls well, but is not accurate.

Scott served on the board at Mesa Verde National Park. He was instrumental in Chimney Rock becoming a National Monument. He has always been for multiple use on public lands and has fought against wilderness designations that would limit public access. 

For freedom to use public lands, vote for Scott Tipton.

Grand Junction

Ethanol in gasoline creates more problems than it solves
When are we going to wake up and stop mandating more ethanol mixed into our gasoline? Corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than it saves, raises the price of corn for agriculture feed as well as consumer food products and is playing the devil in gumming up small-engine carburetors. Another great government program making a problem worse trying to fix what they don’t understand.

Grand Junction


Page 1 of 1

Contrary to Sunday’s fawning letter from familiar Republican apologist Lois Dunn (“Schwartz misleading public on Tipton’s public-lands position”), it’s not so clear who is “misleading” whom when it comes to Scott Tipton’s position on “selling public lands”.

For example, on July 14, 2016, Tipton voted against Rep. Jared Polis’s amendment to H.R. 5538, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. Polis’s amendment would have preemptively thwarted attempts to divest from federal control any of America’s parks and public lands that remain outside the established land-use planning process.  See:

Likewise, in his periodically e-mailed “Updates”, Tipton has previously expressed his support for bills that would transfer control of federal public lands to states.  Common sense and the public pronouncements of such bills’ avid proponents suggest that any transfers of national public lands to states would inevitably result in some states selling off our public lands to developers and polluters.

Moreover, these same avaricious “developers and polluters” have been generously supporting Tipton with campaign contributions since 2010.  What do these self-interested contributors—and Gail Schwartz—know that Dunn and Tipton refuse to admit?

Remember, this is the same Scott Tipton who “represented” his 3rd C.D. constituents by joining his fellow “Tea Partiers” to threaten the full faith and credit of the U.S. in 2010 (costing taxpayers billions in additional interest expense), by voting to “shut down” the government in 2013 (then publicly lying about his vote), by voting to cut Food Stamps, unemployment benefits, and medical care (50+ times) for displaced coal and oil & gas workers on the Western Slope, and by supporting a Farm Bill that benefited millionaire and corporate farmers at the expense of small family farms in western Colorado.

For freedom from such disingenuous dishonesty, vote for Gail Schwartz – not Scott Tipton.

What is wrong with calling a bomb a “bomb”?

Mrs. Kelsey,

Why don’t you also mention that the tax increase you mention would be in place of any health care premiums and deductibles that the individual is paying now, not to mention that the entire family would be covered. I don’t know about you, but I’m paying a lot more than 3.3% for less health care right now, and my employer is paying a whole lot more than 6.7% for it.

At the given levels, it will raise just under the amount of money that Coloradans currently pay for health care. However, without the overhead of insurance companies, nearly all of that money will go towards actual health care. Will it be enough? Maybe not, but it can be increased a fair amount before it comes close to what we are spending now.

“Public lands” belong to the public, and for the use of “all the public”, not a select few;  i.e. those who want to use and abuse it for their purposes, be it personal use or for business purposes, thus “at the expense of the public”.  That can also be put in another way, for those who want either their personal or business interests subsidized by others.

There appear to be some in this world (locally even) whose idea of property rights extends well beyond what they actually have title to, and change the definition of “property rights” to say the following.  “I own everything I have title to, and everything else I can get my hands on.”  If they actually believed in that very noble sounding term “property rights”, they would respect the “property rights” of others (even that of the public) as well.  Otherwise, their definition of it is little else than “self-serving”.

Ms. Kelsey:
  Some of us speak to doctors, attorneys, etc.  In fact we speak to all types of people.  And, on this issue, the real question is really “How good or of what value is medicine and medical technology (including medicines) if it does not reach those in need of it?”

Now, while you may object to Amendment 69, what would you propose in its stead, in order that the objective of it being available to those in need, is actually achieved?  So far, the opponents of Amendment 69 (as well as the ACA) have never really presented any type of substantive proposal or suggestion to do so.

It is fine to disagree with something and someone Ms. Kelsey but “Just say no” is not policy, nor does it ever achieve anything.  I would therefore suggest that, instead of merely “opposing” something, you concentrate upon finding a better solution to what we all admit is a long-standing problem.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

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

© 2016 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy