Letters to the Editor 12-06-16

I don’t know where the minds of my colleagues were in teacher college. Perhaps they were too busy sucking up to their professors who adhered to progressivism, rather than paying attention to basics of our governmental system.
The students of these teachers — journalists, politicians, and much of the public — don’t know jack about Enlightenment thinkers, our Declaration of Independence or Constitution, which emanated from that wisdom.
The past presidential election was a howling sandstorm that blasted away the cover of much couched ignorance.
Three concepts come to mind from recent events.
Politicians, particularly Obama, have constantly called our system a democracy — a progressive lie, laid at the feet of Thomas Dewey. Our system is not a democracy but rather a constitutional republic. It is a government based on the will of constitutional law, not on the “democratic” will of men and women.
It is specifically this concept that prompted the founders to create the Electoral College, a second concept recently wholly misunderstood. The founders were rightfully afraid that some sweet talkin’ dude (current case: shrill dudette) would sway an election that was not in the best interests of the republic, although popular. Thus, the Electoral College could Trump the popular vote by involving the states. To eliminate the Electoral College would make the system more democratic (socialist progressive) but less republican.
One only has to look at the name of the 16th and 17th Amendments to see a third notion: democratic socialism full-blown. The 16th is the income tax, but also grating is the 17th Amendment, which calls for the direct election of senators. These are the “progressive amendments.”
The election of senators instead of their appointment by state legislatures is more democratic (fickle electorate hooked on a progressive media), but less constitutional.
It also wrongfully eliminated each state’s voice in Congress, just like terminating the Electoral College would denude state influence in presidential elections within Federalism.
These kinds of changes are dangerous because law is replaced by democracy, which historically has never lasted and always devolves to powerful elite rule, be it religious, financial, communist, socialist or Nazi.
Michael Janton

To the person or persons who stole our Christmas tree from our front porch during the night of Dec. 1:
Please return the tree. We will not ask any questions.
Place it back on our porch at 901 Selby St. and we will help you find your own tree.
You see, we had many memories tucked inside that tree. By doing this, each of us will know we have done the right thing.
Sharon Creighton

After weeks of speculation, a volunteer has stepped up to fill the unnamed secretary of state position for President-Elect Trump: the communist leader of China. China issuing a diplomatic “you can’t do that” about who our future president is allowed to talk to is absurd.
The news is filled with stories of how Trump will act before talking, and why the world should be afraid of him. In this case, all he did was take a phone call from the democratically elected leader of Taiwan. Yes, Taiwan was playing geopolitics, but so what, that is what diplomacy is about, talking before acting.
Communist China wants to dictate and the press wants to make China the aggrieved party. Does the press even care about the history of human rights in China, or China’s attempt to dominate world trade through the China Sea, or China’s manipulation of its currency, or China’s free elections (that one is just a sad joke).
The point is, communist China will always look out for communist China. It’s past time for the United States of America to stand up and do the same.
Or maybe we should just do what China wants us to do?
Jim Stahl

It seems that my letter of Dec. 1 struck a nerve with Doug Berger (letter, Dec. 3). Berger states that the Bible is either the word of God or it isn’t, and context has no bearing.
My assertion that mistaken conclusions are often based upon what people don’t know is clearly exposed in Berger’s letter. You can either refute a point from an informed position or an uninformed one.
Berger attempts to refute the credibility of the Bible from an uninformed position by citing Old Testament laws which were later abolished and superseded. To ignore the context and placement of information in a written document is to defy common sense, unless your intent is to purposely distort the text, which I maintain is actually Berger’s mission.
If you want to know the whole story, you have to read the rest of the book.
Regarding the theory of evolution, my dictionary defines a theory as “a supposition of ideas intended to explain something.” The key word being supposition. There is a considerable volume of information which counters and debunks evolution, but deniers ignore it because it violates their preconceived position. Evolution is not a proven scientific fact, even if the pope believes it.
I’ll close with scripture from the Old Testament which remains as applicable today as ever. Proverbs 1:7 (NLT) “Fear of the lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
Larry Richards

↑ Back to Top ↑