Printed letters, July 3, 2012
The June 26 “Commentary” section was an absolute delight. Jim Spehar’s follow-up on the response to his earlier column regarding the Western Slope Conservative Alliance and the local county sheriffs was priceless.
I must admit I was flummoxed that not one of the sheriffs offered to introduce the people from far-right field at that meeting to kind professionals who can help them get over their paranoia. Spehar’s original column pretty much captured my incredulity upon reading the original story in The Daily Sentinel.
The letter the editor from Susie Adamson was helpful in explaining where the craziness was coming from. Almost nothing she said was true.
Readers can follow up on this themselves by going to Whitehouse.gov, where they can find a searchable data base of all executive orders by President Obama (not one relates to domestic gun control) and UN.org where they can read the actual text of Agenda 21, which has been around since ‘92. The UN hasn’t marched through Fruita and taken anyone’s guns yet.
Then George Will, whom I used to respect, comes out half-cocked over the Law of the Sea Treaty and continues with more paranoid lies. For the record, the United States has veto power over the work of the International Seabed Authority; the seabed authority is run by state parties to the treaty, not by the United Nations and all former living Republican secretaries of state now support the treaty’s ratification by the Senate.
Having a legitimate policy concern based on actual facts is one thing. But this fear-mongering causes me to wonder who gains when ordinary citizens are subjected to lies and distortion of truth that leads them to worry and badger sheriffs over imaginary plots by the UN or the president instead of the very real issues of drugs, violence and crime on the Western Slope.
It certainly isn’t the democratic process or our country or its citizens.
Spehar’s recent columns destroy his credibility
“Jim, it tells me that my community is very tolerant of intolerant people like you,” was my response to Jim Spehar as quoted at the end of his column last week in The Daily Sentinel. True to form, Spehar still doesn’t get it.
He cited some quotes from emails he had received in response to his irresponsible depiction of an event he didn’t attend. He also quoted from a conversation I had with him that ended with me saying, “Jim, the saddest part of all this is my disappointment in you.”
Let me tell you why I’m disappointed in Spehar. The Western Slope Conservative Alliance’s Sheriffs Forum was attended by a spectrum of people that included the leader of Occupy Grand Junction and some of his friends, conservatives, pro-Second Amendment activists and one Democratic spy.
The attendees, except for perhaps the spy, were ordinary citizens who have a genuine concern about the future of their country. My request for a retraction of Spehar’s inaccurate remarks was actually an opportunity for Spehar to redeem himself from the embarrassing journalistic blunder of writing an opinion piece about an event of which he had no personal knowledge.
Spehar opined about this event, from which he was absent, and based his comments on hearsay. My request for an apology was an opportunity for him to retract his insults aimed at everyone who attended the sheriffs forum.
Spehar seems to be proud of the fact that, regarding my requests for a retraction and an apology, “She got neither.” This is where he really doesn’t get it.
His days of sitting on a happy cloud writing reckless commentaries with impunity are over. The fact that he thinks his columns reflect the majority opinion in western Colorado will doom him. His continued portrayals of conservatives, citizens, patriots and concerned Americans as kooks have already destroyed his credibility.
County candidates need to address significant issues
We have heard from various candidates in the Republican primary about who is the stronger conservative and who is more concerned about the constitutional rights of the voters (which are unlikely to be affected by anything a county commissioner does except for some property issues such as changing boundaries of the buffer zones).
I am sure there are some voters out there who still wonder whether the candidates are “with us or against us,” as was so succinctly posed to Sheriff Hilkey. But when will we hear about positions on such issues as the sheriff’s budget and his handling of the Clifton area; jail overcrowding; the road department and if it intends to ignore the Clifton area; panhandlers; the creation of more special taxing districts similar to the one that was recently dissolved in the Fruitvale/Clifton area because that process was botched so badly; and, finally, how to notify the public when a member of the commission plans to attend any meetings at which resolutions may be adopted that will be presented to the full commission for adoption?
Those are the issues that are going to affect this community. To date, the candidates have said so very little about them that I sometimes wonder if I have gone deaf or can’t read anymore.