Letters to the Editor: January 4, 2017

Re: Medal for Trump


Respectfully suggest readers who contribute here check their facts first. Rosa Parks did NOT PRESENT a MEDAL to TRUMP. The Ellis Island MEDAL thing was a boondoggle. (Too much for here)

The comment about Clinton saying Sen Byrd was her mentor was part of a commemoration after his death. What should she have said? If you were to research it, you would find that while Sen Byrd was a KKK member in his youth , he spent the majority of his life publicly disavowing and repeatedly apologizing for his early KKK affiliation.

Karen Peters


Democrats’ turn for depression


For the past 8 years, with Washington led by the BO team, it’s now time for you liberals to live with the “DT”s. At long last your turn to be depressed.

Ken Semmler


Worst man for the job


I have searched for a name, a term for the incoming administration of the Donald. I think I have found it, matter of fact, I am sure I have found it and it is so appropriate. For now and evermore the administration of Donald Trump will be know as a KAKISTOCRACY. A more apropos name for his form of governing is not available.

T. Kroll


Hats off to protesters


My hat is off to those Rockettes who are protesting participation in the presidential inauguration celebrations. This represents a clash of professionalism vs. personal integrity, and for these protesters, personal integrity won out.

I’ve been a lifelong musician and Democrat. As a professional musician, I’ve played many a Republican function: Lincoln Club dinner dances, fundraisers, etc. I’ve even furnished a string quartet at a private reception for Vice President Quayle.

But you could offer me a thousand dollars and I would not help celebrate the presidency of this rabble-rousing, sexist, boorish excuse for a leader.

Steve Berliner

Rate this article: 
No votes yet


Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Patrick:

   I'd say witless myself!

porr000's picture


You completely NAILED it!


Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Roy:

   Leaving aside your erroneous claim that Abortion is murder* (we can debate that another time, and end up exactly where we always end up), you still haven't answered the question I put to you innumberable times:  Where does the Federal government get the consitutional authority to do anything about Abortion (or even Murder, for that matter).  Until you correctly answer that question, you simply demonstrate your complete ignorance of Constitutional Law, and of the limits that actually do exist on the Federal government.  And, again, until you do answer my question I will not answer your original question, nor debate Abortion with you here either.

   Since you like comparisons with Hitler, remember that he regarded any of his oppoents to be "enemies" and "subversives" - as have all other tyrants throughout history.  It's long past time you stop worrying about the state of other people's souls, and worry about your own.  (And don't try to evade the issue by arguing you're "justified by faith".  Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of Spain, thought the same thing.  I doubt he liked where he ended up!)

   Oh, and like such tyrants, including the potential one you just helped elect as President, you are incapable of telling the truth!  So, according to you, I "believe that government is better as it gets bigger"?  Gee, got any proof for that claim?  Start with the Comment you're pretending to reply to, where I specifically stated that many "liberal ideas do not involve big and bigger government"!  I then went on to mention five examples (though I could have mentioned more).  You claimed to agree with only three of them.  Gee, Roy, isn't having the Federal government interfere with a woman's body an example of "bigger government"?  You sound like a "Progressive" on that one!

   Which, of course, gets us back  to the question you keep evading and avoiding.  If, as you dishonestly claim, you believe in "limited" government - especially on the Federal level - then where does the United States of America (as distinct from individual States) get the constitutional authority to ban Abortion?  Screaming "it's murder" doesn't answer that question.  Know why?  Because unless it happens on Federal property (such as a National Park), or otherwise involves a Federal interest (the murder of an FBI agent, for example) the Federal government has no general criminal jurisdiction!  Except for those cases, murder is a matter of State Law.  It's just one of the many ways the power of the Federal government is limited.

   By the way, the Federal government can't even punish kidnapping unless the kidnappers cross State lines.  Look into that and you'll have a better understanding of the limits of the Federal government, and how they apply to the question you refuse to address.


   As for your denunciation of "progressive ideas", what I've seen is that you use the phrase as a general epithet to describe anything you don't like.  (Much the way "conservatives" describe anything they don't like as "Socialism!" or "Communism!", regardless of what those terms actually mean.)  So, sorry, Roy, but all I get from you is that anything you dislike is "progressive", including being expelled from a local Bocce Club!

   And that is one of the main reasons I've been criticizing your rantings, because you use words without regard to their meaning, and make accusations without regard to the facts! When challenged on that, you take refuge in the pathetic line that "it's just an opinion". Well, Roy, it's my opinion you don't know what you're talking about!  So how am I to answer a question you pose when it's based on such false premises?

   "Liberals" don't believe "bigger government is better", and I presume "Progressives" (whoever they are) don't either.  We do believe government has a legitimate role to play in some areas, such as insuring the air we breath, the water we drink, and the land we live on and grow our crops in doesn't poison us!  If that makes me a "Progressive" in your view, then I would wear the label proudly.

   But if you think that means I must, in knee-jerk fashion, support every environmental law or regulation, then you don't know me, you don't know "liberals", and I suspect you don't know "Progressives" either.  Yet, out of that vast ocean of ignorance you presume to lecture us on what's good for the nation.  No wonder you voted for a creature like Lying Trump!

   So, how about abandonning your evasion and avoidance, and answer the question I posed.  Where does the Federal government get the constitutional authority to ban Abortion?  I know where, do you?  (And do you understand the consequences of the answer?)


* P.S. - Of course, your views about Abortion disprove your claim that you agree with Point 3 E, since passing laws based primarily (if not exclusively) on a religious belief (such as banning all Abortions on the ground it's murder) violates that point.  You've made it very clear that your political views are greatly influenced by your religious views, and an honest person would admit that's also true of the so-called "Pro-Life Movment".  But as I said, there will be no further discussion about this until you address the issue of Federalism!

Gordon, Surprise surprise I absolutely agree with you on C, D, and E.

On A and B I would agree with you in theory if it were not for the fact that aborting an unborn fetus is murder. When you abort an unborn fetus you stop a human heart from beating which if left alone almost always would result in a human baby being born. If willfully stoping a human heart from beating is not murder tell me what is ? Please do not tell me that a fetus is not a human being because that is just plain bull. Yea a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. She can tattoo it , put rings through her nose , prostitute it and whatever the hell else she wants to do but killing an unborn human being is murder regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

You may not know it but you are as much a progressive as Hitler was a nazi. You are as much of a progressive as the pope is a Catholic You believe that government is better as it gets bigger. You ask me what are progressive ideas. Gordon, really ? I have been describing progressive ideas for years in my letters. The same letters you have been criticizing for years and years. So are you telling me that you have been criticizing my letters because of who I am since I wonder if you have ever read any ?

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Roy:

   Then, I guess, just not when writing to the View.

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Vickie:

  Thanks for the response.

  I wasn't questioning the substance of your Comment, only asking for information so I could understand it.  You've now provided that, and I sympathize.

   I might add that I'm frequently annoyed at how the Arizona Republic seems to assume that the only places worth eating in are on the East Side.  There are plenty of good places in the West Valley, and I hope some of them come to Buckeye so you don't have to drive far to enjoy them.

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Roy:

   Since your question is based on several false premises, I can't possibly answer it.  Instead, let me state (for the umpteeenth time) what those false premises are, so you can revise your question into something approaching reality.

1) I'm not a "Progressive", so I can hardly speak for them.

2) Though I can't claim to know what constitutes "progressive ideas", I'm confident that (like "liberal ideas") many of them do not involve "big and bigger government".

3) Indeed, among the "liberal ideas" I know you find fault with are:  A) that women should decide for themselves what to do with their bodies;  B) that the Federal government shouldn't pass laws interfering with that;  C) similarly, that we all should be able to decide whether or not to use contraceptives without the government (State or Federal) interfering;  D) that we should be able to decide when and how to end our lives without (etc.);  E) that people should be able to decide what to believe on matters of Faith, and whether to believe at all, without (etc.) - which includes being forced to pay taxes to support such beliefs.

   Please, note that the items listed in Point 3 (which are just examples, there's plenty more) involve limiting government power to nothing in those areas!

   Meanwhile, here's a question for you to answer, one I've asked you many times before, and which you always evaded and avoided (as have just about every other "conservative" I've put it to):

So-called "small government conservatives" objected to "Obamacare" on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention healthcare or Medicine as being within the Federal government's power.  Yet they have no problem with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  Pray tell me why the inconsistency, and where does the Constitution explicitly give Congress the power to ban a surgical procedure?

   I'll answer your revised question only after you answer this one.



Gordon, if you have time please explain to me and the rest of the readers why you think progressive ideas will help us become a better and stronger nation. What is it about big and bigger government You find so appealing?

Gordon. You are wrong. On occasion I do use my brain.

first Buckeye is a very good place to live.

Over the years the constant complaints  from

residents about the total lack of any kind of

good restaurants  is our Economical Demographics

will not allow us to have all the different restaurants

we would love to see located here in Buckeye, so

the residents just get in their cars and travel to

where the good eating places are.

90% of what we have here are fast food joints that

more often then not make me ill.

Breezed through the McDonalds recently and got

a fish sandwich and a medium shake that looked like

a small. $ 8 ,19 , try that on a family of four if you can

talk the kids out of fries.

Thous the Brown Bagging it comment,  and I am more

then sticking to it.








Comment Here