Printed Letters: April 23, 2014

Conservatives want rule of law applied evenly
This is in response to a letter printed April 15 about conservatives wanting rule of law only when it fits their purpose.

Conservatives don’t want rule of law only when it fits their purpose; they want rule of law to be enforced at all times. I think someone has it backwards. Members of the current administration are the ones to look at when it come to picking and choosing what part of the current laws they want to enforce.

The Department of Homeland Security has been instructed to detain and then release illegals. When making contact, if they haven’t committed a crime, let them go. The Department of Justice has instructed attorney generals not to include the amount of drugs seized in reports, so the accused won’t get maximum sentences. Even the Supreme Court has stated that one cannot pick what part of the law one chooses to enforce; yet that doesn’t seem to matter to this administration.

The point being made by ranchers in Nevada was that the federal government was overstepping its authority. It is my belief the land belongs to Nevada and not the federal government. If you check, the rancher did pay all fees related to the state.

Just imagine what could happen if the government used that much manpower on securing the border. Cattle are on some land illegally, and we get 200 armed BLM personnel with snipers, yet people crossing the border illegally get free money, free education and free housing. In Denver they might even get to become teachers.

BRADLY STEGALL
Clifton


Grant uses Orwellian language in column on women’s choice
I love reading Bill Grant’s column’s because he is one of the best examples of Orwellian logic available. In Orwell’s “1984,” we learn the crafty art of double-speak, as well as how to subtly change the meaning of a debate by changing the meaning of terms.

Grant is correct to mention the four-decade struggle between the pro-life movement and the pro-abortion movement. What Grant and all the major news outlets have done is to change the terms. What used to be called pro-life is now called the anti-choice movement. What used to be called the pro-abortion is now called pro-choice movement. I happen to believe that “choice” is a fine word, much nicer than “abortion. I believe putting “anti” before choice smears those who are for life.

Recently, a Utah woman was arrested for murdering six newborn babies. The question I have for the Bill Grants of this world is: Do you know the difference between that woman’s choice and the choice of a woman to have a partial birth abortion? The answer in clear language is: minutes.

I am for life. The movement that represents my view has always been called the pro-life movement. I do not care what Grant calls the movement that represents his view — pro-choice, pro-abortion, abortion rights, etc.— but please get our name right.

JIM WELCH
Montrose


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy