Letter to the Editor - August 19, 2014

West Valley View's picture

Conservatives got it wrong


Four years ago, I fully supported SB1070. I believed that so called “illegals” were a harm to our state and to our country. Yet as I began to learn more about freedom and a free market I was shocked by how wrong I — and conservatives in general — were and are on the subject.

Facts I learned:

Americans are having their constitutional rights violated not only at the border, but up to one-hundred miles away from it.

Children of immigrants were less likely to use welfare than children of native born Americans.

Immigrants generally brought different skill sets than most Americans and, contrary to popular belief, actually help in lowering native unemployment than raising it.

Immigrants pay more in taxes (via payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc.) than they take out in welfare benefits.

Immigrants were responsible for a full 25 percent of new businesses in this country.

Immigrants are net benefit to our economy, not the major drag conservatives say they are.

Immigrants tend to boost native wages, not suppress them

Perhaps most shockingly is that almost all of the above list has been shown to be true of both legal, and illegal immigrants. So where did conservatives go wrong on this? I thought conservatism was the ideological friend of the free market? Economist Ludwig von Mises put it like this: “There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.”

With all the data staring conservatives in the face how can they continue defending that which is not true? I don’t believe this defiance to be resultant of bigotry, it sadly and more likely resultant of forgetfulness: maybe conservatives have forgotten what freedom is.

Desiderio ‘Dez’ Garcia


How to endorse


I would like to commend Angela Pearson on her recent letter to the Editor. In her letter she told us how her husband, Daniel, has been preparing himself to become the next Justice of the Peace for the White Tank District. In her letter she was able to show how her husband can stand on his own merit. She did not sling any negative toward any candidate, even though negative has been thrown towards Daniel.

Instead, she stated how Daniel has completed Arizona Supreme Court small claims and civil traffic hearing officer programs, along with the Arizona Justice of the Peace Associations Judges training. He has also volunteered hundreds of hours in the Justice courts. She also mentioned what a hard worker Daniel is and how he never stops learning and striving to be better. This type of work ethic is critical in any position and is very hard to come by.

Thank you again for showing how Daniel Pearson can stand on his own merit and doesn’t have to resort to negative mudslinging to show how qualified he is.

I wish the term “clean elections” meant that candidates were not allowed to spout negatives and distort facts to make themselves look good, but to only focus on their own qualifications and what they will be able to accomplish if elected. Angela Pearson as done just that. I am sure Daniel Pearson will make a great Justice of the Peace.

I don’t know Angela personally, but I would like to thank her for setting a great example of how to endorse a candidate.

Pam Schaeffer


Aesop’s Fables to the president


From Aesop’s Fables to the President, his Administration and both houses of Congress.

No. 112, The Wolf, The Mother, and Her Child: A hungry wolf was prowling about in search of food. By and by, attracted by the cries of a child, he came to a cottage. As he crouched beneath the window, he heard the mother say to the child, “Stop crying, do or I’ll throw you to the wolf!” Thinking she really meant what she said, he waited there a long time in the expectation of satisfying his hunger. In the evening he heard the mother with her child and saying, “If the naughty wolf comes, he shan’t get my little one. Daddy will kill him.” The wolf got up in much disgust and walked away: “As for the people in that house,” said he to himself, “you can’t believe a word they say.” Moral: Do not trust the words of your enemies.

No. 186, The Trees and the Ax: A woodman went into the forest and begged of the trees the favor of a handle for his ax. The principal trees at once agreed to so modest a request, and unhesitatingly gave him a young ash sapling, out of which he fashioned the handle he desired. No sooner had he done so than he set to work to fell the noblest trees in the wood. When they saw the use to which he was putting their gift, they cried, “Alas! Alas! We are undone, but we are ouselves to blame, The little we gave has cost us all. Had we not sacrificed the rights of the ash, we might ourselves have stood for ages.” Moral: They are foolish who give their enemies the means of destroying them.

Susan Hewitt


Civilized world should wake up


Since my last letter, I must give our Commander-in-Chief Obama a mini-Kudo for stepping up to the plate, albeit reluctantly and timidly, to help save and protect the Christians and Yazidi’s (ancient mixture of early Christians and Muslim doctrine) refugees in Northern Iraq from the forces of the current self proclaimed Islamic State (IS), the most extreme of Jihadist movements. Because he has, to date, refused to better arm the Kurds, our only true ally in Iraq, the Kurds are forced to defend themselves with antiquated weapons against a well equipped IS army of blood thirsty Islamic Jihads bent on world conquest. Hopefully, he will soon wake up and supply them with modern weaponry to not only defend themselves but destroy and rid Iraq of these crazies without major American troops on the ground.

The civilized world must wake up and quit dancing around the chaos and murder being perpetrated by the mad fanatic Muslims in the name of religion, not mainstream Islam but a distorted version of medieval thinking, except now they are using modern weaponry and technology instead of spears and swords. One has only to remember the Nazi’s under Hitler’s madness and the 6 million Jews plus millions of others murdered, including Christians, what weakness and delay to combat such evil can result in. Also, mainstream Muslims need to speak out more forcefully against this madness instead of being intimidated by the Jihadists who have stolen their religion and have actually killed and wounded more Muslims than any other people.

The free civilized world should also support Israel’s fight of survival against Hamas terrorism as it’s first bastion of defense against this Jihadist madness.

Roy Sharp


Violence in Iraq


The atrocities being committed by ISIS in Iraq are sickening, children being beheaded, crucifixions, women being raped while their husbands are killed, entire Christian towns being wiped out. All in the name of Allah! Please all you Muslims out there enlighten us non-Muslims if this is truly what your religion preaches. Is this what your holy Koran tells you to do? Kill all Christians, men, women, and children indiscriminately? If not, then all decent Muslims should be outraged at what is going on over there, and should be speaking out! Every holy man at every mosque around the world should be condemning this violence!

But, we don’t hear a peep from them do we?

When 1900 Palestinians are killed from Israeli airstrikes, because their terror group Hamas chooses to hide their civilians behind their missles, the Muslim world is outraged. But when 200,000 Christians in Syria and Iraq are wiped out, no outrage is heard from the Muslim world. In fact not much is heard from the media either. It seems the Muslim world doesn’t have much respect for their own civilian’s lives, and none for Christians, or non-believers. This is truly disturbing.

I say again where is the outrage from the media?? And from all decent Muslims, if there are any??

Tom Moore


Negative political ads


Are you tired of negative attack adds clogging your mailbox, e-mail in-box, phone messages and TV adds? I am! The Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party is calling for an end of attack adds in the primary race for governor. He said that voters are “voicing disappointment with the level of negative campaigning.” He should move down the ballot and call for an end of attack adds all the way down to local elections.

The attack adds in Legislative District 13, being sent out by the three incumbents, aimed at their challengers are appalling, offensive and not true. Those adds say more about the character and integrity of those sending the material than they do about their targets. Political consultants keep telling candidates that attack adds work to win elections. If we, the voters, agree not to vote for the perpetrators and they lose the election then the strategy will be sent, where it belongs, to the discard bin.

Join me in voting against any candidate who sends you a hit piece aimed at their opponent. That may leave a lot of empty spaces on your ballot but it is worth the effort. Our mothers told us that if you can’t say something nice about someone then just don’t say anything. Great advice!

Leonard Kirschner
Litchfield Park


A silly pitch


There is a strange campaign pitch from Diane Landis, who wants me to vote for her because she “owns a gun, carries a gun, can shoot a gun, and has a concealed carry permit”. Then, she hints her opponents Darin Mitchell and Steve Montenegro, may not share those same attributes. Well that’s a silly pitch. Steve Montenegro was one of the legislators who passed Arizona’s Constitutional Carry law, which gave Arizona the best gun laws in the country. Darin Mitchell wasn’t in the Legislature then, but in his first term he joined Montenegro in having 100 percent pro-2nd Amendment voting records.

Mitchell and Montenegro have “A” ratings and have been endorsed by the NRA and the Arizona Citizens Defense League. AZCDL is Arizona’s most active 2nd Amendment group at the State Capitol and they have more than 11,000 members statewide.

I’m glad Landis has a gun, but instead of running against Mitchell and Montenegro, she really ought to be thanking them and supporting them. Their votes are keeping all of our Constitutional rights protected.

Steve Migliore


Stores would thrive without tax


In response to Mr. Warden’s sales tax.

I grew up in New Jersey. They pay no sales tax on food or clothing. Still today 2014 no sales tax. And they make a hell of a lot more in salary then Arizona. In fact New Yorkers travel to New Jersey to purchase their clothing. Just think if we eliminate the tax, other states would travel here to buy their cloths and pile up on food and our stores would thrive and not go out of business like they are now.

Sheila Slomsk


Take heed


Now Folks, listen well!! The CIA and the President’s command will becomes Nazi SS officers and will report on Catholic and Christian church sermons. They will report if they speak out against the Government so the IRS can take away their tax status. It’s a tactic to strike fear like Nazi Germany did. I’m sure this will not include the Islamic Mosque’s. Why not there also?

They’re intrusive in our schools, and our public services. Those picketers against the Israeli war against Hamas, I’d wager they were paid to picket. President O’Bama to our shame betrayed Israel by not helping and just giving them rhetoric encouraging their enemy. Why aren’t Hama’s wives stopping their men from sacrificing their children? An American woman would use a baseball bat to knock some sense into the husband, but I suppose that’s easy to say in our culture.

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she swore an oath. A promise to uphold and protect American interest, but behind closed doors Clinton was really signing radical treaties and pursuing initiatives to surrender our Sovereignty to the United Nations and now her corruption exposed, Secretary of State John Kerry is continuing right where Hillary left off. We must defend our sovereignty. Our soldiers do not want to wear U.N. patches to service or support them. They are of little use except to funnel our money and make them selves wealthy at our expense. Wake up America we’re under attack, big money is pushing these Nazi attacks. The United Nations is seizing control of America’s natural resources. A One-World Government and global U.N. policies will destroy our freedom is what they have in mind.

Take heed! President O’Bama’s words needs to be taken with a grain of salt. “The Fisher of Men Reigns be at peace.”

Analie Maccree

Rate this article: 
Average: 1 (1 vote)


On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon delivered a video and audio file of this speech to the media. Because of its length, I have removed all but the pertinent details.

“Ten days ago, a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, in broad daylight...while they call for justice for the family of Michael Brown...for the family of Michael Brown, for all the parents who have had their sons taken from them much too soon... we now have a responsibility to come together and do everything we can to achieve justice for this family...a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued...to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly, and correctly...once we have achieved peace in Ferguson and justice for the family of Michael Brown, we must remain committed to rebuilding the trust that has been lost, mending what has been broken...But what we can do is work together to ensure that Michael Brown’s death is not remembered as the tragedy that sparked a cycle of violence and distrust...So I ask that we continue to stand together as we work to achieve justice for Michael Brown... " (MO.gov) [emphasis added]

So I guess we're done here..Officer Darren Wilson is guilty of murder in broad daylight...even though the investigation has barely begun, let alone an indictment issued.

After receiving backlash from all over the country, the Governor's office added:
"Please note: The Governor’s comments are not intended to indicate pre-judgment in this matter. The term “prosecution” refers to all duties and responsibilities of the prosecuting attorney, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion; whether and what evidence to present to the grand jury; the filing of criminal charges if supported by the evidence; representing the state if charges are brought; and ultimately ensuring that justice is served." [emphasis added]

Yeah, right!

Gordon Posner's picture


   Has anyone else noticed a big improvement in the website?  It used to be you had to Login in order to simply read Letters and Comments.  Today, I was able to do that without logging in.  However, I did have to Login to post comments (which was the link that replaced the "reply" link until I had logged in).  A much better system, since not everyone wants to bother creating an account or logging in just to read the Letters.  Hopefully, though, this will "lure" (or encourage) people to open accounts after all.  The more the merrier!

eagle73's picture

If you are not using a public computer, don't log out and you never have to login.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Steve:

  I don't "log out", but from time to time I still have to log back in.  Why?  I have no idea.  It could be quirk of the website, or my browser, or something I'm doing wrong with the cookies.  (Besides eating some, that is.)


porr000's picture

Every day I clear cookies, temp files and history. Afterwards, I have to log in only once.


eagle73's picture

Dude, that's like 365 times a year.  Well most years.cool



Gordon Posner's picture


   I'd post a question at a website for answering computer questions, but look what I found at the last one I explored!


Gordon Posner's picture


   By the way, for those who think I (or anyone else here) spends too much time on (or is obsessed with) politics, get a load of what I found while researching a software problem: http://www.answerl.com/q/which-emulator-should-i-download-to-use-a-16-bi...

   Note the content of the "answers" after number one!  I trust none of us are that bad.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Moore:

   I'd find your Letter more compelling, if it didn't reek of blind prejudice.  It's apparently escaped your notice that Christians are hardly the only victims of ISIS.  (Indeed, I don't even think they make up the majority of the victims).  But I guess the fact that other Muslims are being slaughtered doesn't matter to you.

   Even Mr. Sharp has acknowledged the massacre of the Yazidi.  (Though even then, he feels it's important to mention the Christian elements of their faith, ignoring many other parts, including elements of pre-Islamic Mesopotamian/Assyrian religious traditions, and Mitharism, as well as influences from Judaism, Zoroastrianism.)


   And I guess you haven't been looking very hard for "decent Muslims" protesting violence by ISIS.  Here's what I found with one quick Yahoo search for "muslims protest isis terrorist".  (Took maybe five whole seconds!)


   Oh, and I hate to quibble, but I couldn't find any news reports about "200,000 Christians" being "wiped out" in Syria and Iraq.  Though I did find a report that they've fled Northern Iraq.


  While "forced relocation" is hardly admirable (do a search for the "Trail of Tears"), it's not the same thing as a Holocaust!  Now, that's an example of people being "wiped out".

porr000's picture


How many people must die, be raped, sold into slavery, relocated, be mutilated, have all their possessions taken from them, be crucified, beheaded, etc. for you to consider a genocide to be a holocaust? What percentage of Christians must be slaughtered compared to the non-Christian victims must there be for you to consider this a holocaust? Does the percentage need to match the 55% Jew to 45% non-Jew percent as was with THE Holocaust? Does it need to match the numbers of 6 Million Christians and 5 Million non-Christians for it to be considered a holocaust?

This is indeed a holocaust, an ethnic cleansing, a pogrom. I find it distasteful and poor form for you to compare this holocaust to THE holocaust, especially since THIS holocaust hasn't ended yet.

It can very well grow and exceed the 11 million figure if it is not squelched. If ISIS has it's way, and comes to NewYork, home to 19 million people, of which 8.3 million live in a very concentrated area, and is 74% Christian, a few dirty bombs could certainly kill a lot of Christians all at once.

But if you MUST make comparisons to the relocation of 200K Christians to THE holocaust, then you would have to compare it to the year 1935 when Hitler began the relocation of the Jews. As you well know, the death toll at that time wasn't nearly what it would become in the years that followed.

But comparisons at this stage are rediculous and in poor taste because they reduce lives to statistics, the situations are quite different, and the outcome of this holocaust can be affected if people rise up against it and stop it/ support governments to intervene, rather than simply making light of it by comparing it to THE holocaust.

Another thing to note is in this case, ISIS wants to wipe out anyone of western heritage...that includes the Jews as well. They want the Levant, which includes all the land area of Israel. It started with Muslims that weren't of their religious persuasion, now it is Christians, next is Jews, and anybody else.

Everyone should be screaming about this, not chastising someone for merely standing up for Christians and being unaware that there ARE people of other faiths out there screaming as he is.


eagle73's picture


Excellent point.  Gordon often has tunnel vision.  Now it is certainly understandable that a Jew would have trouble with any comparison to THE holocaust.  My wife's grandma escaped into Italy from that tragedy.  But he also needs to see as you point out, that it is very real that the steps have started to do the same to Christians and pretty much any religion that does not follow the ISIS (ISIL) belief.  We could have a world wide Holocaust if ISIS and other like minded people are not put in check.

As I mentioned on the 8th of August, if we have permanent terrorist who are permanently going to kill so many then we cannot have part time response.  My response was to Gordon's question of do we want permanent war.  We just may not have a choice.


porr000's picture


Yes, I remember that and was looking forward to the answer. You made a very compelling argument.


porr000's picture


And No, not everyone is screaming!

Somebody, with a WHOLE lot of money, is actually buying crude oil from ISIS. The UN resolved to put sanctions on any country found to be buying oil from ISIS controlled oil wells. I doubt that will do any good.

ISIS has an income stream in addition to looting banks nd plenty of the weapons we've supplied Iraq.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Ms. Maccree:

   In keeping with the Aesop's Fable theme today, here's one for you (though it could apply to other Letters today as well):


The Shepherd's Boy and the Wolf

A shepherd's boy was tending his flock near a village, and thought it would be great fun to hoax the villagers by pretending that a wolf was attacking the sheep; so he shouted out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when the people came running up he laughed at them for their pains. He did this more than once, and every time the villagers found they had been hoaxed, for there was no wolf at all. At last a wolf really did come, and the boy cried, "Wolf! Wolf!" as loud as he could. But the people were so used to hearing him call that they took no notice of his cries for help. And so the wolf had it all his own way, and killed off sheep after sheep at his leisure.

Moral: You cannot believe a liar even when he tells the truth.

   Of course, in your case I've yet to hear much (if any) "truth" in what you say.

You and Patrick are right, Steve. I don't know what I was thinking...

Where is Gordon when you need expect him to chime in? Guess I'll have to do his dirty work...

Would you care to provide some sources for your claims, Mr. Garcia? From what I've read, you're wrong about a lot of what you wrote.

Dez Garcia's picture

See above. Many sources for you to read over including conservative friendly Cato institute, generally respected CBO reports, and everyone's favorite source when calling out Obama's lie of the year: politifact.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Dez:

   And once again let me thank you for them.

   However, since I wasn't contesting the substance of your Letter on that issue, I hope you'll forgive me if I postpone reading them, and refrain from Commenting.  I'm sure everyone else will be relieved at my self-restraint!


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   There's nothing "dirty" about asking for proof (or sources).  Too bad more people don't do it (or that you don't do it more often).

   As for my "chiming in", hey - there's only 24 hours in a day!  You don't want me to spend all my time here, do you?


porr000's picture


A sure fire way to get Gordon to chime in would be if you explained to Dez how all these laws he is complaining about besides selected parts of SB1070, that restrict our freedoms, are created by Dems.

Then after insulting you and throwing some facts around that debunk your claim that ALL these laws were created by Dems, he'll be geared up to chime in on the other stuff.


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Patrick:

   Last I checked all of SB1070 was a Republican production, not just "selected parts".

   Since, aside from Immigration, Dez didn't specify any other laws he disagrees with, I can hardly "debunk" your claim that "Dems" created them.

   However, let's look at least one body of law that "conservatives" object to (along with most everyone else): the "Infernal" Revenue Code.

   The current Code is an amalgam of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.


   Eisenhower (a Republican) signed the former, Reagan (guess which party he belonged to) signed the latter.

   Republicans controlled the Congress in 1954.


   They controlled the Senate in 1986, but the Democrats controlled the House.


   But I'm pretty sure "conservatives" prefer to give Democrats no credit for creating the second Reagan Tax Cuts!


  Does that "ring your chimes"?


porr000's picture


You completely misread the comment.


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Patrick:

   Which part, and in what way?  You did after all write that I'd respond to the claim blaming Democrats for creating <i>all</i> laws "that restrict our freedoms", so (since I didn't know which ones Dez or Judy were or would refer to), I just picked a <i>prime</i> example of a law "conservatives" and Republicans love to bash (along with everyone else).  I could always have chosen the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  That one had Republican fingerprints all over it!

   Besides, it turns out you were mistaken.  I "chimed" in entirely without "prompting" by anyone.  (I just didn't get "here" until after the rest of you had "chimed in".)

porr000's picture


Try reading it again with the proper context.

Steve and Judy got what I was saying.


eagle73's picture

He may be diligently working on all comments.  It takes a long time to get his verbosements out you know.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Steve:

   Once again, you are the master of understatement!


Dez Garcia's picture

I probably should've posted my response on this page instead, oh well. I'm an addict to the "reply" button.

Here is my resposne to your questions:


Gordon Posner's picture


Note - this is a response to a Comment in the April 12th issue: http://www.westvalleyview.com/comment/2719#comment-2719


Dear Dez:

   Frankly, I think that in practical terms Anocracy vs. Anarchy is a distinction without a difference.

   Anocracy is "is a regime-type where power is not vested in public institutions but spread amongst elite groups who are constantly competing with each other for power." (Source: Wikipedia).  While Anarchy can mean several things, including "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority".  (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy )

   Frankly, for people suffering under either system, there's not much to choose between them.

   As for the problems with government, well, it all depends on the government in question, doesn't it?  Henry the Eighth was a ruthless despot,  his daughter (Elizabeth) was an enlightened ruler, whose reign many regard as England's "Golden Age".  Remember that nothing works perfectly (especially not things humans create or operate), but (on balance) I think we're generally better off with government than without.

   That's the whole point of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.  Without government we exist in a State of Nature where everyone has to fight against everyone else (in a war of "all against all") simply to preserve whatever they have.  That's the start of what's known as the Social Contract theory of government, whose most famous expression can be found in a little document known as the Declaration of Independence!  (Here we go again.)

That to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

   Absolute governments (such as monarchies or dictatorships) can of course "secure" our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (after a fashion), by protecting us from crime and natural disasters.  But they can also destroy those things because they act without the consent of the governed.  Democracies (and Republics) can do the job too, more safely for our rights, because they have both power and the consent of the governed.  Best of all are constitutional democracies (or republics) where certain powers are denied to the government, and the rest must be exercised with the consent of the governed (expressed through elections).  That, of course, is our system.

   Without government, who would protect you from criminals, enforce your contractual rights, preserve the property you own, make sure your garbage is safely disposed of, and make sure the water your drink, plus the air you breathe, isn't toxic!  I doubt an Anarchy or Anocracy can do it.

   And sorry, but there's even a proper role for the government in "defending us from ourselves".  Building codes insure our homes are safe to live in.  (Otherwise, they'd still be burning down from aluminum wiring - for example.)  Requiring seatbelts and airbags have certainly saved lives.  (A very legitimate role for government.)

   Of course, governments can do stupid things too.  The proposed ban on "super-sized" soda cups at fast-food restaurants is one prime example.  Others would argue the "war on drugs" is another.  (I'm taking no position on the issue because I don't want to be drawn into that debate.)

   But to take a position opposed to all government, or even just regulations meant to "protect us from ourselves", is a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater!"

P.S. - You do realize that the "government interest" in restricting abortions is the same one as the interest for such regulations: it has an interest in protecting human life, even potential human life.  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1971) at page 163:

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, . . . , and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.


   Sometimes government does this in a sensible fashion (seatbelts), sometimes not (limiting the size of our soda cups).

Dez Garcia's picture

As I stated before I am not an Anarchist, nor even what one might call a Voluntaryist, but I am amicable and do concede to certain points that they make in regards to an overly-eager state.

I will admit I am no fan of Hobbes. The idea that if there were no government, then all mankind would be in a constant state of chaos is not entirely true. If we woke up tomorrow morning and realized that our government had collapsed would that mean I would instantly go next door and rob or harm my neighbor? Is the only thing stopping me from doing the right thing the fact that I'd be punished by the state for it? Of course not! I think the majority of society would behave in this manner. It is not respect for the state that creates stability, but respect of the individual. We may have many ways of applying this (religion, faith, spirituality, moral code, etc.) none of which comes from the existence of the state.

Which brings me to the lunacy of the idea of a social contract. I signed no such contract. You cannot be held to a contract merely by your birth or by your residence. The Declaration of Independence is not stating that men need such "social contracts" but rather that governments can only remain legitimate so long as their constituency continues to consent. It is not a limitation on individuals, but on governments.

Also what entails consenting to be governed? I can't afford to move anywhere, is it thus by my poverty that I consent to be governed since I can't move to [insert country of choice here]? Is it because I voted in the last election? I didn't vote for Mitt Romney and I didn't vote for Obama. Is it because I participated that I consent to be governed? Even if I had voted for Obama did I consent to the NSA director or to their domestic spying program? The vast majority of Americans don't vote, yet are they still consenting? Or is it that I don't start a revolution and begin an armed revolt against the government? I would obviously be put down quite quickly, so is the only way to refuse to be governed dying with guns-a-blazing? Suddenly the idea becomes a little more muddled, doesn't it?

Anyway that's my problem with the idea of a "social contract."

As far as what governments are good for: sure protection from criminals may be a part of it. Although perhaps your legal insight into some of the relatively recent court cases of police being under no consitutional duty to protect us (even in the case of restraining orders) has me troubled somewhat.

Enforcing contracts: sure. I would have no problem with this if the powers that be (both left and right) didn't constantly pass laws giving their donors more and more authority and favor in regards to contractual law.

Building codes being safer isn't necessarily protecting us from ourselves but rather making sure the person we hired fulfilled their contractual obligation to build a safe home, so I'm not quite sure how this applies to "protecting us from ourselves." Unless you mean the guy who wants to add the man-cave annex and has to go through ungodly amounts of paperwork and submission fees.

If I choose not to buckle my seatbelt, isn't it my own fault? Sure the case can be made for a parent who won't do it for their child being held liable, but I as an individual being an idiot? My choice, my fault. So long as I'm not harming someone else. This is how I take smoking or the drug war. If I am not causing harm to another individual, leave it be.

You and I agree on certain legitimate roles for governments, but most people think or assume there are only a few dozen federal agencies, yet when you look at all the independent agencies that answer to those agencies (or sub-agencies if you will) and government owned corporations then that number grows exponentially into the clearly-only-created-because-it-got-you-money-for-an-election.

porr000's picture


I responded to part of this comment in the next edition:



eagle73's picture


I thought you would respond to some of the "newer" comments on the 8th.  Oh well.



Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Steve:

   I already have responded to some (go back and look in prior issues), and I'll get to more another time.  I do have a life, you know!

eagle73's picture


I'm glad you have a life.  You have spent hours and hours answering other days comments.  Seems a bit fishy counselor.angel


porr000's picture


Are you referring to your REUP comment?


eagle73's picture


Yes and several others, by others too.


Excellent, Susan Hewitt!

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   Big surprise!  We disagree.  Ms. Hewitt misusing those stories.

   First, one can argue with the "moral" she draws.  (Although, to be fair, people tend to draw different morals from all of Aesop's Fables.)

   Second, one can certainly question her application of those stories to the President.  I don't see any sign of him "trusting the words" of his enemies.  (Unless we include the Republicans he's foolishly trusted on many occasions.)  I mean, it's not like he "looked on Putin's soul" and decided we could trust and work with the guy.  Nor do I recall him ever giving "our enemies the means of" destroying us.  (Unless you count all the armaments we lost in Iraq because of the invasion and occupation by you-know-who.)

   But, in keeping with Aesop, allow me to offer a fable in return, No. 133: The Dog and its Reflection:

It happened that a Dog had gotten a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook.

As he crossed the brook, he looked down and saw his reflection in the water beneath. Thinking it was another dog with another piece of meat, he made up his mind to have that also.

He made a snap at the reflection in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of meat fell out, dropped into the water and was never seen again.

   My version of the moral?  Those who grasp at illusions (like you and Ms. Hewitt) end up with nothing.

Patrick got it right and you got it wrong, Gordon. Obama is the family and the woodman. It is us (the American people) who are the wolf and the trees.

"Do not trust the words of your enemies" refers to the false promises Obama made to get elected and re-elected--which would have proven to be contradictory to his personal history and life philosophies had he been properly vetted by Democrats and the media--and his actions as President during his first term. (examples: criticism of GW's use of executive power--which turned out to be far less than his own, GW's "unpatriotic" contribution to the national debt--which, again, pales in comparison to his own, an affordable national healthcare system, a transparent administration, reduce the VA's backlog and make it "a leader of national healthcare reform", et al)

"They are foolish who give their enemies the means of destroying them" refers to those who voted for Obama a second time after he'd already proven to be an enemy of the state. (examples: unabashed corruption within his administration--Fast and Furious, NSA, Benghazi, VA, Census Bureau, HHS, EPA, et al).

Further, while Obama promised to heal the wounds of racism and bring the country together, he has actually stoked the fires of racial tension on occasion by inserting himself into circumstances that should have remained locally-handled and nationally-observed. (examples: the misunderstanding between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, MA police Sgt. James Crowley, the Trayvon Martin incident and most recently, the dispatching of Eric Holder to Ferguson, MO)

His failure on this issue is particularly difficult to understand since he has DNA from both races.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   Here's a fable for you.

A little girl, with no concept of what she was doing or saying, decided to go outside and throw mud at her neighbor's house.  She never hit the mark, but she kept doing it all day.

When she went back inside, her mother was furious.  "You're covered in mud!"  She yelled.  "Go take a shower immediately!"

   Moral: people who spend all their time throwing mud, only get themselves dirty.

P.S. - For the rest of your nonsense, please see my reply to Patrick.  The same arguments apply, especially about how we've done this dance before!  You're wrong about Benghazi (etc.), and you continue to be wrong.  (But since I still owe you that response to the Texas Right to Life pack of lies about Bush's Death Panel Law you put so much stock in, forgive me if I don't address this at greater length again.)

Stick to law, Gordon, your fable was boring.

You're entitled to your opinion, but remember what Confucius says..."He who laughs last, laughs best." And yes, I realize it could take years before I get that last laugh, but I'm patient.

porr000's picture

Resurrecting Aesop: Fables Lawyers Should Remember by Mike Papantino (April 1, 2000)...lol on April Fool's Day

Available in hardcover online for $18.80

It says lawyers are the type that can benefit from Aesop's fable wisdom.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   So are yours.  (They are also tiresome, irrelevant, "inaccurate", and devoid of merit.)  But that doesn't stop you, so why should I stop?

Gordon Posner's picture


   If by "laughing", you mean "rejoicing when Obama leaves office", then it will be approximately two years and five months!

   Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at what's happening with your "beloved's" legacy.




   And remember, these are conservatives speaking!

   If I were the kind to crow or laugh at the political failures of others, I'm be rolling on the floor right now.  But it's too serious a matter for such childish conduct, and History has yet to have the last word.



Is it not interesting that the Ferguson situation is all about politics, the tactics of Eric Holder and Barack Obama. They are bent on wiping out the Republican Party as their goal is not limited to promoting racism but, establishing a one party ruling system. Eric Holder reminds us that the United States of America remains an unfair and unjust country and therefore, needs a fundamentally transformational change. Using the tactics of Joseph Goebbels they have convinced many Americans that the GOP is a racist organization.

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Thomas:

   It's funny how ideologues falsely accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves.  (That's true, by the way, whether they are of the "left" or the "right".)  I mean, it's not like you, Judy, or the Republicans haven't played the "race card" almost every chance you get!  Heck, some based almost their entire careers on it!  (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc.)

   And of course, everything was just "fine and dandy" in Ferguson before the President got involved.  There were no protests (or riots) over the Brown shooting.  There was no long building resentment over a Police Department with only four Black officers in it (6% of the force), when the town was majority Black (68%).


   (One wonders how "conservatives" would react if the situation was ever reversed, and they had to live with a majority Black Police force?  Of course, there are plenty of "conservatives" who find even one Black President too many.)

   Then, of course, there's the "minor" matter of the Timeline.


   The Brown shooting took place on Saturday, August 9th.  Riots started the next day.  The following Monday the Police start getting death threats.  By 8pm the Police are using tear gas on protestors.  On Tuesday the FAA restricts flights over Ferguson (to give the space to law enforcement helicopters).

   And then, at 4pm, the President releases the following statement:

The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. . . .

I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, . . . but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.

Along with our prayers, that's what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve.


   Golly, how dare the man issue such obviously "political" remarks?  He should have simply supported the Police, proclaimed there was nothing about the shooting to be concerned about, and then gone on to lecture us about "outside agitators", "nattering nabobs of nihilism", or how it's all the fault of those "Un-American Progressives"!

   Yup, until he made that "political" statement, everything was just peachy-keen in Ferguson!

   Keep telling your Big Lie over and over, just don't expect me (or any rational person interested in truth) to swallow it.

P.S. - And I almost forgot to mention they hypocrisy factor!  It wasn't that long ago "your side" was jumping up and down with faux outrage over the President's failure to go look at the Texas Border.  (Not that there was much he could have done from there anyway.)  But how dare he speak a few words urging calm and prayers as Ferguson burned?  Maybe he should have played a fiddle instead!


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Thomas:

   So, you say the President's involvement in the town of Ferguson (limited as it is), was because he's "bent on wiping out the Republican Party", in this case by "promoting racism".

   Aside from the fact that the timeline I just referenced shows there was plenty of racial tension there before the President got involved, there are a few other facts you might want to consider.

   First, the Governor of Missouri (who's been far more involved) is a Democrat.


   Second, the Prosecuting Attorney for the County that Ferguson is in (and who the local population wants to recuse himself from investigating the shooting, for fear he's biased in favor of the police) is also a Democrat.


   Third, while it's true the Mayor of Ferguson is a Republican, it also appears that partisan labels don't appear on the ballot.  (I can't find out what party the City Council is composed of.)



   And it's not as if race wasn't an issue (or problem) there before the President's involvement.



   So, there seems to be a paucity of facts to support your accusations.  But then, the Big Lie technique wouldn't have that name if it bothered with facts.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Thomas:

   It looks like you can't even open the Arizona Republic without seeing further evidence of politicians using race against Republicans.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told The Arizona Republic . . . . unrest in Ferguson stems from a lack of economic opportunity, racial disparity in the police force "and the incitement by some elements that are obviously criminal."


   Oh, wait, that's an example of race being used by a Republican!

   My mistake.

porr000's picture

I for one am glad for the government intervention in the Ferguson situation.

Things there have gotten out of control. It is the government's job to protect the people and businesses, and if local or state governments can't do it, the federal one can.

Nobody knows what really went down. There are two sides of this story and the truth lies somewhere in between.

I wish everyone would cool down and wait for the official investigation to conclude before jumping to conclusions and or race-baiting.

There are real people who have been seriously impacted by this tragedy, both families, and they are suffering more each day with people jumping to conclusions, spouting hurtful things, resorting to violence, etc.


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Patrick:



Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Thomas:

   It's even worse than you thought.  Those dastardly members of the Obama Administration are trying to "wipe out" Republicans by getting the Executive Director of Missouri's G.O.P. to make abysmally insane remarks condemning a voter registration drive!

   Because, of course, it would be so much better if the Black majority just used their "Second Amendment Rights" to solve the problem of having an almost "lily-white" police force, and a White town government.  Let's have a second "Battle of Athens"!  After all, at least one "gun rights supporter" on these pages thought that was a good way to deal with abusive local government.  (Remember? June 14, 2013) And isn't that what the G.O.P. and the N.R.A. love to say the Amendment's for?


   Funny how you don't hear that rhetoric on the "right" when it's Blacks who are complaining about the government.

   But this is all part of Obama's "sinister plot" to destroy the G.O.P., after all.


Comment Here