Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Letters to the Editor - April 12, 2017

Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Disgusting act by officials


This past Thursday I attended a Track & Field competition at Maryvale High School to cheer for my niece, as she competed with her fellow Verrado High teammates. I was especially looking forward to seeing my niece compete in the mile run, an event that I had competed in when I was her age. I hoped to be fondly reminded of my youth.

Instead, I witnessed one of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed in a student athletic event. After each lap, the girl in last stopped running and left the track. I initially thought that maybe they had suffered a cramp or injury. Instead, however, my niece informed me that each one was disqualified for being in last in order to “keep the race moving”.

That’s right. Each girl was kicked out for doing their best, just because their best wasn’t good enough for those in charge. I couldn’t believe it. Each of these girls should be commended for competing, not shamed for being in last. I am in no way in favor of the participation ribbon/“Everyone is a winner” mentality. There should be medals for 1st thru 3rd. Everyone else should just get a pat on the back and an atta-boy/girl. Only winners deserve trophies. One thing that NOONE deserves, however, is to be disqualified for being last. That is shameful!

Whoever made this decision should never be allowed to officiate another student athletic event again! How can you ever look another student in the eye and tell them to just do their best. The answer is you can’t. Not with any honesty or modicum of integrity at least. The official(s) responsible for this disgusting act owe each of these young ladies a personal apology for the way they were treated.

Philip L Jones


Mayors not above law


So now the mayors of America’s largest cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles as well as those of the other 118 sanctuary cities are developing strategies to defy Federal immigration law. They say they won’t cooperate with ICE by detaining Federal requests to hold illegal immigrants. These progressive mayors point out that our nation was built by immigrants, and all are welcome in their cities. These same mayors vow to fight the administration, if their Federal funds are cut off.

Yes, America was built by immigrants. However those immigrants were LEGAL and assimilated into society, unlike the present group of illegals. Ironic how progressives never distinguish between illegal and legal when referring to immigrants. If they did, it would destroy their phony moral authority high ground argument.

Further I would strongly suggest that those mayors who refuse to comply with Federal law, are law breakers themselves, and possibly seditionists and traitors to our nation. They certainly are making the residents of their cities less safe and putting hard working moms and dads, as well as children in jeopardy.

As far as Federal funds are concerned , Federal law stipulates that the administration can stop funds to those sanctuary cities who refuse to cooperate . But wait, “ no problem”

All these progressive mayors need do, is find some activist progressive judge who instead of interpreting the law will be creative enough to write new laws. Yes the constitution is a living breathing document, is it not? NO it is not ! As far as I’m concerned , any mayor who disregards and willfully breaks Federal immigration law should be indicted and charged with sedition! Yes I’m talking to you, Rahm Emanuel, you Bill De Blasio and you Eric Garcetti. You three pathetic jokers are not above the law .

Roy Azzarello


Ban is POTUS’ prerogative


The recent Editorial made light of POTUS 45’s attempt at imposing an immigration pause while the new administration reviews current vetting process from nations that can not assist with the process because of civil strife.

Travel bans are a Presidential prerogative exclusively under a 65 year old provision of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act and 8 U.S. Code (1182). Travel bans have been imposed by POTUS 40 (5 times), POTUS 41 (1 time), POTUS 42 (12 times), POTUS 43 (6 times), POTUS 44 (19 times) a total of 43 times.....and now in the politically charged climate, partisan Governor and their Attorney Generals have filed legal challenges too THIS TRAVEL PAUSE.......

This appears to be a common tool used by President(s) to place a pause on travel at critical times in our countries history. You can agree or disagree, but reviewing the visa vetting process from failed nation states IS a valid process while the NEW administration reviews and establishes its refugee POLICY....and only time will tell if the nations security has been jeopardized by these legal challenges.

Virgil Warden


Water rates 2nd highest in U.S.


I did a web search and found a site: They list the Top 10 and lowest 10 Municipal water providers in the Nation as of Jan 2015.

The top on their list is Flint, MI. They have real water problems and their annual typical bill is $910.05, 2nd is San Diego at $826.94.

I guess they haven’t heard of Buckeye AZ. Per the Buckeye web site, if you use 7,000 gallons a month (Typical usage?), you’ll pay $72.85 / month. Your annual water cost would then be $874.20, only $35.85 annually from topping Flint, MI, highest on the list.

Congratulations Buckeye!!! 2nd place in the Whole USofA by this list.

How many of you in Buckeye actually have an annual water bill around that mythical $874.20 per year? Most of us top that total in 6 months or less.

The lowest of the 500 Cities on their list is Phoenix AZ, with a typical annual water bill of $84.24.

That makes Buckeye water 10 times the cost of Phoenix, AZ. Kind of makes it hard for Buckeye to blame their high rates on being in the desert where water is scarce or expensive.

To add insult to injury, most of us buy bottle water to drink and cook with because of the water quality. What does that cost you extra annually?

Ken Busboom


Too close for comfort


To those who park in handicapped parking. Please be considerate of those in wheelchairs and/or using devises that require space in between vehicles.

More than once we have encountered a vehicle parked in the yellow lines making it impossible for the wheelchair ramp on our daughter’s handicapped van to fully extend and allow the wheelchair to exit safely.

There are parking areas that have limited handicap parking. If possible, and it will not affect your health, use the opened parking spots close to the entrance leaving the limited handicap spots for those who need the space for a wheelchair ramp.

If no spaces are available for the van, the only solution is to take up two parking spots, park the vehicle at an angle and pray no one parks beside the van that will make it impossible to put down the wheelchair ramp when returning. More times than once an unkind note with vulgar language is on the windshield.

Always be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle.” — Plato

Donna Daigle


Vote Brannon Hampton


As the West Valley View rightly pointed out recently, under votes count as votes! Unfortunately, this means that the City of Goodyear, because of a debatable policy, now has to spend money to conduct an election for the remaining city council seat. I’m not a fan of wasting money. For the record, this is the second time this has happened in recent history. I’m not a fan of continually wasting money…

Here we go again! On the brink of another election. The instructions and choice are simple. Open your ballot. Fill in the line for “Brannon Hampton.” Sign the envelope and put it back in the mail.

I have personally known Brannon and his family for nearly a decade. I have watched Brannon grow professionally and personally over the past 10 years. Brannon has a dedicated heart for his work, his faith and his young family. Brannon also has a heart for Goodyear.

I am voting for Brannon because I know that he will represent my family well in the city council. My wife and I have chosen to raise our family in this city because we believe in the potential. We bought our first house in Goodyear. When it came time to sell it, we bought our second house in Goodyear. We chose to stay in this city to invest in it. We are choosing to vote for Brannon because we know that he will help this city achieve far more than it has in the past.

Goodyear has immense potential and a giant canvas to paint on! Brannon is ready and willing to roll up his sleeves and serve.

Jim Kelly


Middle East explained


I must confess my amusement at the myopic worldview of one Trevor Keeley (“Progressive Values Explained”). It is fairly obvious this writer doesn’t know much about the realities of the Middle East, otherwise how could he write about land “stolen” by people who who originally, traditionally, and historically owned THEIR OWN LAND.

Keeley writes about “stealing Palestinian land” when the land NEVER belonged to Palestinian Arab Islamists in the first place. Jews originally settled there well-over 5,000 years ago, and despite all kinds of occupiers always remained tied to the land from Time Immemorial. NOT SO the so-called Palestinians who even if they had some rights squandered them away in the non-stop cycle of violence and hatred they’ve perpetrated for almost the last 100 years.

But if Keeley wants to talk about Illegal Occupations maybe he might want to tell us why he resides on land that originally belonged to the Apache, the Navajo, the Hopi and the Zuni. What about fairness to those whose land was really stolen and illegally occupied?

Finally Keeley quips that “Obama just gave them (Israel) 38 billion”. Perhaps he forgets that Obama gave Iran almost 5 times the amount of that sum, an Iran that seeks not only the destruction of Israel but of the USA itself. Furthermore Obama’s deal allowed Iran to keep all of their nuclear facilities intact, and we know they’re not using them to make toys for kiddies. Maybe Keeley thinks so, but as suggested, maybe Keeley might choose facts instead of spew and learn the realities and truth about the world around us. Just Sayin’.

Alan Rockman


Save the wolves


Sen. Flake’s bill would result in extinction of the Mexican gray wolf — a species endemic to Arizona’s Southwest region.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service notes “Mexican gray wolves are the most endangered — there are only about 350 Mexican wolves in the world today [with] about 100 Mexican wolves in parts of Arizona and New Mexico”

S. 368 ignores scientific study and replaces it with criteria agreed to by the livestock industry and anti-wolf hunting groups. The provision to “take wolves off the protected list will be exempt from judicial review” undermines the checks and balances of our democratic system of government.

Rigorous science has been applied to wolf populations. In 1995-96, a peer-reviewed report of the impact of reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone concluded: “Evidence of improved ecosystem health following the return of wolves is becoming increasingly persuasive”

Among the observations in this report:

By 2006, some aspen and willow trees had grown tall enough they were no longer susceptible to browsing by elk. Allows for a greater diversity and abundance of songbirds.

The number of beaver colonies increased and positive impacts on fish habitat.

The coyote population decreased with the increase in wolf numbers, allowing more small mammals that provide food for other avian and mammalian predators, such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles.

A cap on the number of wolves would be instituted and all wolves over that cap would be mandated to be removed — most likely through aerial gunning, strangulation snaring and trapping.

As a lifelong Arizonan, I want to see our beautiful State keep its wild places and wildlife. Please ask Sen. Flake to withdraw S. 368 and keep the Mexican Grey wolves as part of Arizona’s great legacy.

Marjorie Gillis


Facts and quotes


I would like to ad to Mr. Keely 3/29 letter with some facts, and quotes.

The last laws that went through D.C. that were completely for the people. Was in the Nixon administration.Two laws were the freedom of information act, and whistleblower law (world gold standard except government employees are excempt).

The last republican President to have a balance budget with surplus was Eisenhower.(Look up the ’56 republican party platform. Both would be called socialist today) in my opinion the last great president

95%-75% top tax rate 1952 thru 1979 and a strong middle class

A Huge majority of the American people want money out of politics, fair trade that protects workers, environment and jobs. Debt free college at public universities. Jobs program building infrastructure, expanding social security. taxing the rich at Reagan rate 50%. by majority I mean 60%-65%.

There have been 6 mass extinctions in Earths history. One actually resembles now, difference is the amount of Co2 was spread over 2 or 3 thousands of years not hundreds

There was once a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corperations.” Theodore Roosevelt 1913

I have the south in front of me, the bankers behind me, for my nation I fear the banks more” Abraham Lincoln

They claim to be super patriots, but they destroy every liberty guaranteed by the constitution. They demand free enterprise’ but are spokesman for monopoly and vested interest. their final objective................ is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep common man in eternal subjection” Henry Wallace June 1944 nytimes oped

Damion Armstrong


Patriotism explained


Roy, Roy,

Once again, you’re missing the issue while at the same time trying to justify your narrow-minded view of the relations between you and your fellow man. Researching the effects of patriotism on world affairs verifies the negative effects patriotism can produce. Love and respect for our fellow human beings on the other hand will always reap rewards for those around you but also yourself. It is interesting how conservatives always justify their fears of the unknown using either patriotism or religion. Patriotism is not about the acreage of our country, it is about a group of like-minded people living together in harmony, people who want for all what we ourselves enjoy, even if it costs us financially.

Your beliefs must work for more than the issue being discussed. One of the hallmarks of a democracy is the free press, yet you have probably complained in this forum about the satanic “liberal press” every time they report something you don’t agree with. If you already have health insurance why should you worry about those who do not. If your water is not being contaminated by the oil or coal industry why worry about those who cannot even bath in the water contaminated by these powerful industries.

What you are lacking in your argument is called empathy. We want our children to learn how to read and continue reading throughout their adult life. Not reading text books or even the Bible but fiction. Fiction is also called literature. Fiction shows us the world through someone else’s eyes. If you in fact had that ability you would understand that true patriotism is a love and respect for your fellow Americans, not hurting their feelings would be a good enough reason to forego wearing our flags colors.

Art Boyle


Sara Gilligan for Goodyear


The city of Goodyear will soon be having a run-off election for the last open seat on City Council. I fully endorse, and cast my vote, for Sara Gilligan for City Council.

It is clear Sara has the time and talents to dedicate to Council and all that is required, to work for all the citizens of Goodyear. She has been involved in her community and in Goodyear city government providing fresh ideas and enthusiasm.

The city of Goodyear faces many challenges. Attracting businesses which require a highly skilled labor pool, keeping taxes reasonable, and insuring the safety of neighborhoods are just some of the concerns of our citizens.

I’m sure I’m not alone in welcoming fresh ideas and new perspectives in dealing with solutions to make our city great. Sara Gilligan’s time, energy, knowledge, and ability to dig-in will make her an outstanding Council member. Please join me in voting for Sara Gilligan.

Judy Adams


Rate this article: 
No votes yet


Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Factless Wonder:

   What are you babbling about?

dude, I get it. To be clear, It's complicated. Having said that, If you keep kicking the can down the road, at the end of the day, it is what it is !

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Mr. Boyle:

   While, of course, I don't agree with the "Factless Wonder", that doesn't mean I agree with you either. Still, I'm not going to debate your peculiar definition of "patriotism" (which I believe is simply love of and support for the country one live in, though that can be expressed in many ways, not just blindly as Roy seems to prefer).  Instead I have one simple question:  How does "wearing our flags [sic] colors" hurt anyone's feelings?

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

   Unfortunately, all you've "added" is a jumble of unrelated (and somewhat debatable) "facts", together with a mish-mash of opinions (including those quotes, which you haven't shown to be accurate).  That simply amounts to incoherent nonsense.

   For example, Nixon had nothing to do with the Freedom of Information Act.  That law was passed in 1966, during the Johnson Administration!  It's true an amendment to that act was passed in 1974, but that was after Nixon left office in disgrace, and it was vetoed by Ford (Congress overrode the veto).  So if you're trying to give Republicans credit for what you incoherently call one of the "last laws that went through D.C. that were completely for the people", I'm afraid you're dead wrong!

   And the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 1989, long after Nixon left office.

  Give Bush the First credit for that one if you like, but remember it was a Democratic Congress which passed it.

   And I'm not sure I'd say either law "were completely for the people", let alone being the "last" such laws.  (But, of course, that's largely a matter of opinion.)

   Balanced budgets?  All I can say to that is Clinton produced Surpluses in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.  (Oh, and for the record, there was also a Surplus in 1969 under Nixon.)  So Eisenhower was hardly the "last" President to have a Surplus.  (One could also argue that other factors, such as Congress, deserve part of the credit.)

   Don't take my word on this.  The World Almanac provides this information in every edition.  Mine comes from page 63 of their 2010 edition.

   I'm not sure what you're trying to say (or "prove"), but until you get your facts straight (and provide some evidence to back up your claims) why should I bother trying to figure it out?

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Mr. Rockman:

   While, as a Jew, I support the State of Israel, and its right to exist, that doesn't mean I have to blindly support the Likud government of Israel (anymore than "conservatives" had to blindly support the Obama government, or "liberals have to blindly support the government of Lying Trump).  That means I also don't have to support the lies you tell, and the nonsense you spew.

   Is the Likud government engaged in taking property away from Palestinians?  YES!  You can play your games with history (or words) as much as you like, but the fact remains the people whose property have been expropriated by the Likud (and given to "settlers") legally owned that property, in many cases for several generations!

   Allow me to turn your own empty rhetoric against you.  If the government (Federal or State) decided to return all that "stolen land" to the Native Americans you mentioned, without paying you the "just compensation" our Constitution requires, would you defend the action by saying the Native Americans "remained tied to the land from Time Immemorial"?  I doubt it.

   And if you want to look at real History, then the Jewish claim to the land is no better than the Palestinians.  In case you've forgotten, Joshua led an invasion of, and "occupied", land that originally belonged to the Canannites!  Perhaps we should demand the land be returned to them.

   The legal claim for the existence of Israel rests on the same basis as the legal claim for the existence of Palestine: the U.N. Partition Plan which called for a "Two-State Solution".  Deny that and you deny the legitimacy of Israel itself.

   But none of that has anything to do with what the Likud government is doing.  The West Bank and Gaza are occupied territory.  Israel has never annexed them, nor claimed any legal right to them.  (Jerusalem is another matter entirely.)  But even if Israel had annexed them, that still wouldn't give the Likud the "right" to just take property away from people who lived there for generations.  Especially not to give the property to people whose ancestors never set foot there in almost two thousand years!

  If you seriously disagree, then I trust you'll turn your home over to the nearest Apache, Navajo, Hopi, or Zuni.

P.S. - Oh, and just because they're Muslims (some of them, anyway) doesn't mean the people whose property is being taken are "Arab Islamists", anymore than just because you're a Christian (as I suppose) does that make you a member of the Spanish Inquisition!

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Factless Wonder:

   Hate to break it to you, but it's "conservative" judges and Justices who do that, not "liberals" (or even your dreaded "Progressives").

   It wasn't "Progressives" who decided Plessy v. Ferguson and rewrote the Fourteeth Amendment so that instead of providing "equal protection of the laws", it provided for "separate but equal protection of the laws".  Of course, the first two words don't appear anywhere in the Amendment!

   Then there's D.C. v. Heller, a decision Scalia obviously intended to be a "model" of his Originalism in action - and it certainly is.  He starts by "rubbing out" the first 13 words of the Second Amendment (the bit about what's necessary for the security of a free State), and then decides the "hidden meaning" of the Amendment consists of words that aren't there: namely a "right" of self-defense, combined with a "right" to violently overthrow the government!

   (By the way, doesn't the latter "right" negate your calls for the mayors to be charged with Treason or Sedition?)

   If you study the history of "originalist" judges, you'll see the same pattern over and over again: Ignore what the Constitution actually says, and "interpret" it to "mean" what the judges wish it says.  Talk about "creativity"!

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Mr. Warden:

   No one is questioning that the President has the authority to impose a travel ban.  It's how he uses that authority which is subject to legal challenge.  (For example, if as the "Factless Wonder" suggested, he had one of the "Sanctuary City" mayors tried for Treason, he'd fall flat on his face for the reasons I've already given below.)

   The President is still bound by the principles of Due Process, and those principles were violated in both his travel bans.  The President even appeared to concede this, by issuing altered bans which removed some of the unconstitutional provisions of the ones issued before.  Eventually he may even get it correct!

   If anyone deserves blame for this, it's the President and his Administration.  The Executive Orders he issued imposing the bans were sloppy and hastily drawn.  They're the kind of thing a First Year Law Student would be ashamed of!  But in his eagerness to appeal to his "base", the President couldn't be bothered doing the job the right way, and the decisions striking down his ban are the result.

   As for whether his bans were good policy, that's a question the courts can't decide.  But I seriously doubt our nation's security has been "jeopardized" much by insisting the President obey the Constitution.  If you disagree, you can always call for that document to be revoked!

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Factless Wonder:

   Once again you demonstrate your ignorance or contempt for the Constitution, that document you pretend to revere and follow.  Unfortunately for your little tirade, it defines what constitutes Treason.

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against the, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 (emphasis added).

   Sorry, Roy, but much as you may dislike what those nasty "progressives" are doing, they aren't "levying war", nor are they giving "aid and comfort" to our "enemies".  (Yes, the "illegals" are here illegally, but that doesn't make them our enemies - particularly not the ones who are children!)  So Treason is out.

   That's not a "suggestion", it's the Law!

   As for Sedition, well the case for it is marginally stronger, but not by much.  Here's what the United States Code (which punishes Sedition) has to say about that (with emphasis added).

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

   Sorry, again, but however much you disapprove of what the mayors are doing, it hardly constitutes a "rebellion or insurrection" (unless we define those words so loosely as to deprive them of all meaning), and obviously no force is involved in the so-called "Sanctuary City" movement, so Sedition is out too.

   It's funny how "conservatives" like you didn't call for the Bundy's to be punished for Treason or Sedition.  (They were actually charged with conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction.*)  And during their trial the "conservatives" were all defending them, and then cheering the "not guilty" verdict.  Surely the mayors deserve the same support and fate.  (They aren't, after all, using force or violence.)


   Still, I know of one person who regularly makes Seditious and even Treasonous statements here (in the metaphorical if not legal sense), constantly trampling on the principles and Laws of this great nation.  His initials are R.A. - the Factless Wonder!

Comment Here