Printed Letters: Aug. 31, 2016

Column about Clinton foundation not factual
Charles Krauthammer’s editorial in the Aug. 28 Sentinel cannot go unchallenged. The issue of Clinton Foundation donations while Clinton was secretary of state will continue to be controversial as long as the campaign lasts, even though their practices are not uncommon with other charities.

However, Krauthammer’s charge that the foundation is a “massive family enterprise disguised as a charity” is close to libel. Charity Watch gives it an A rating, indicating 87.2 percent of the funds actually went to the charitable recipients in 2014. GuideStar gave it a platinum rating. David Borochoff of Charity Watch said, “If Hillary Clinton wasn’t running for president, the Clinton Foundation would be seen as one of the great humanitarian charities of our generation.” CNN ‘s web page says it provides HIV/AIDS “medication at 90 percent lower cost – more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today.” Paid staff listed on the foundation’s website do not include any of the Clintons.

Thus Krauthammer, a Fox News commentator, makes charges about the foundation channeling funds to “maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle,” and “employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve” that seriously resemble the right-wing hyperbole that has culminated in Truthless Trump and his vitriolic campaign.

While it is good to hear both sides of any story, arguments as un-based on truth as this one seriously discredit the source, and make one wonder what other liberties with the truth this column contains.

Grand Junction

Let’s eliminate nighttime burning in residential areas
Oh, the welcome cool nights of fall! Throw open the windows and breathe in the smoky air. I don’t live near any agricultural properties; I live in the heart of downtown Grand Junction where houses are a mere 100 feet apart.

I have lived in the same house for 26 years, and have noticed a steady increase in this pungent smoky odor that invades my home beginning in the spring, and continues to be sucked in through my swamp cooler during the hot summer nights. One night it was so bad our smoke alarms went off. Neighbors are burning anything they please outside at all hours of the night. When I call 911 at midnight or 1 a.m., the dispatcher wants to know if the burning is in a fire pit, how far away from the house the fire pit is, what is being burned, and which neighbor is burning. How should I know? It’s 1 a.m. and all I can tell you is that I have been awakened by the odor of smoke coming in through my swamp cooler vent or windows.

Why is the City Council dragging its feet in presenting some regulations that would address this issue? It seems to me that some black and white regulations would also help 911 dispatchers and the fire department address the issue more simply. Why not eliminate outdoor burning between the hours of dusk to dawn in the older, historic parts of downtown Grand Junction? In addition to odor concerns, this is a tragic accident waiting to happen when an entire block of houses goes up in flames.

Grand Junction

Environmentalists keen to lock up public land
What are environmentalists? I think of a long-haired hippie who doesn’t dye or cut their hair and lives completely off the land in a shack made completely of wood with nothing modern. Nothing modern. We all know this is not true. They drive cars and live in homes run with propane, natural gas, freon, plastics, rubber, coal and oil. Why do think they have a better understanding of the world than I do? I would consider myself an environmentalist in most circles. I don’t throw my trash out the window. I recycle when I can. I reuse when I can. I love the outdoors — fresh air, hiking, camping and sitting on my porch, as much as they do.

I am a realist though. I have a natural-gas furnace. Self-proclaimed environmentalists do too. I eat and drink from plastic cups and bottles. I use a lot of plastic. Self-proclaimed environmentalists do too. I would challenge anyone who wants to call themselves environmentally friendly and “green” to try to make a living and support our families futures without using any product made from the places they think need to be protected.

It seems to me over the past 30 years that the environmentalists want to lock up all land. We have huge amounts of land tied up in Utah already under the guise of “protection.” Our lands are already being protected by the EPA, Antiquities Act, natural historic areas and many others already. The land is being used responsibly. The mining processes and directions are constantly being improved to be safe and to beautify.

Why then do we need more protection? I feel like this is just someone’s project and a way to leave some kind of legacy. I would ask the president to please be his own man and not just another “yes” man. That would leave more of a legacy than another monument. We just want to live in San Juan County, Utah and make a living and be able to have a future for our kids here in. Environmentalists live, have, and want the same things we do, so why are they attacking our way of life? It seems a little hypocritical. No Bears Ears Monument! No more monuments.

Blanding, Utah


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Dan Bledsoe’s Tuesday letter (“America deserves better than Clinton”) proves the truth of P.T. Barnum’s famous adage: “there’s a sucker born every minute”.

True, this election should be a “no-brainer” for Bledsoe and his ilk – if they had any real interest in facts.  See, e.g., Wednesday’s letter from Loralee Kerr (“Column about Clinton foundation not factual”).

Indeed, given what President Obama (rescuing our economy from the depths of the Bush Recession) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (restoring our credibility abroad) have done FOR this Country, Bledsoe, Donald Trump, and Charles Krauthammer all betray a racist or sexist inclination to discount their real accomplishments in favor of hogwash.

Moreover, every Saturday’s Sentinel suggests that – had Obama not rescued the U.S. automobile industry (over Republican objections) – there might not even be a local newspaper in which Bledsoe and his fellow Hillary-haters could spout their tripe.

Neither Obama nor Clinton have ever espoused “open borders” or engaged in “anti-police rhetoric”.  In February 2016, President Obama rebuked so-called “sanctuary cities” and the DOJ stopped transferring prisoners to them. (

Clinton regards the proliferation of 300+  cities, counties, and states refusing to cooperate with ICE as another symptom of our “broken immigration system” that underscores the need for comprehensive reform (which Republicans have obstructed since 2013).

Both Obama and Clinton embrace the bipartisan consensus that forging economic ties to our “frenemies” through fairer trade is preferable to armed confrontation, and Clinton has posted detailed proposals to mitigate the localized effects of trade deals.

Neither Obama nor Clinton have ever proposed anything that would
“take your gun-owning rights away”, but both responsibly support common-sense reforms that would expand background checks and help protect police by restricting access to assault weapons.

end of part 1

Part 2:

For 25 years, Clinton has been subjected to partisan
“investigations” that – in contrast to Trump’s dishonorable and exploitive business record—revealed no “underhanded dealings”, while independent fact-checkers conclude that Trump is the most dishonest presidential candidate to ever. See, e.g.,:;;;

While Clinton has disclosed decades of tax returns, millions in charitable contributions, and a credible summary of her medical history, Trump offers only fake excuses and lies.

Now that Trump is receiving national security briefings, it is not altogether “sarcastic” to suggest that he shares classified information with an illegal immigrant—his third “trophy wife”, a college drop-out who apparently falsified her visa application, illegally worked as a model on a tourist visa, lied about her education on her resume and website, and is yet to hold the press conference that Trump emptily promised.  See also:

Contrary to Bledsoe’s ignorant assessment, Trump is anything but
“honest”, deliberately “tells it like it isn’t” to please his fawning audiences, and deludes that audience into believing that his pathological lying constitutes “truth”.

Thus, to paraphrase Bledsoe, with the Trump/Pence campaign shoveling horse manure on its bubbleheaded suckers, “If it looks like it, and it smells like it, that’s what it is.”

Wendy Black has not yet achieved the realization that the only real legacy one generation leaves following generations is left long before they themselves pass away.  And that is not in physical things but in how they think.  That has always been the case and always will be.

If Ms. Black looks around, what she will note is that the question of “Does anything but money matter?” was answered a very long time ago.  Listening to many opinions, that answer was (and still remains) an emphatic “NO”.

We all have our own personal and parochial interests, but also have other obligations as well and those are as human beings and (if a citizen as a citizen).  Those, no matter how old we get or whatever it is we have accomplished, will remain with us until we die.

This “spending and consuming” whatever it is we can get our hands on, is indicative of a society and nation that is consuming itself.  If the lady paid close attention she would by now have recognized that much of today’s thinking (and if far too many) is “I own whatever I have title to, and anything else I can get my hands on.”

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