Letters to the Editor, Week 7

Publisher propaganda?

I’mstarting to wonder if the publisher of the Gazette-Tribune is a deliberateliar, or just another poorly informed ideologue on a mission. While hispolitical leanings are obvious, less obvious is whether or not he actuallybelieves the propaganda he spews forth on a weekly basis.

In hislatest column, Bill Forhan repeats the right-wing-nut-job lie that’s been goingaround for many months on health care reform, calling it a”government-controlled monopoly.” The fact is that the Obama plan isessentially no different from state auto insurance rules that mandate carinsurance as a way to spread the risks and to avoid the public from having topay for the un-insured. The Obama plan uses private insurance companies, has nogovernment “universal” component and merely pushed forward rules that wouldcause private health insurance to spread to more of the 40 million Americansnow walking around with no insurance.

Asunbelievable as it might sound, the Obama health care plan is actually quite abit more conservative than health care plans proposed by past Republicanpresidents such as Richard Nixon. Yes, the current state of health care inAmerica is worth debating, but when one side of the debate continues to use alie to start the discussion, it would seem doubtful anything real is ever goingbe settled. I wonder if Forhan would expect to engage in a serious discussionwith an astronomer if he first started out saying (and maybe believing) thatthe moon was made of green cheese?

Greg James

Seattle

Publisher’s response: Ah Greg, it never ceases toamaze me how quick progressives resort to name calling when their preciousprograms are threatened by the light of truth. Let’s see, first auto insurancerules are based on individual state law not Federal so that argument isirrelevant. Second, as far as it pushing private health insurance goes, itmandates exactly what the policies must cover. There may be multiple”companies” selling the King’s policy but the buyer is still getting theofficially approved state policy. No choice means no competition. In my mindthat is a monopoly. And yes, there are stupid Republicans who have suggestedother equally offensive plans. That is a really sophomoric argument foraccepting this worthless piece of legislation.

Sharia courts clarified

Ms. Vinje (Letters to the Editor, Feb. 9) and I agree thatblasphemy should not be a crime, and that sentences of any kind for it, muchless imprisonment or death, are atrocious. Laws that allow punishment forreligious belief or political expression are and have been widespread(anti-communist during red scares, anti-witch in Salem, anti-anarchist in the1920s). Evil humans use those laws to advance agendas of greed, ambition orrevenge. All religions and political beliefs should be able to express themselvespeacefully and securely.

Regarding Ms. Vinje’s discussion of sharia law in GreatBritain, the following is from the Sept. 14, 2008 issue of The Sunday Times,available online:

[In Great Britain] . . . sharia judges [are] to rule oncases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domesticviolence [as allowed by a] . . .clause in the Arbitration Act of 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified asarbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law,provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule ontheir case.

Siddiqi said: “. . .The act allows disputes to be resolvedusing alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative disputeresolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision inthe Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to businessdisputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, . . .

As might be anticipated, this news roused a round ofcontroversy in Great Britain, only somewhat mollified by the discovery of theexistence of alternate Jewish courts for over 100 years whose existence did notseem to undermine the overall notion of British justice. And the discussioncontinues to this day. Ms. Vinje should notice that, should she ever beinvolved in a civil dispute in Great Britain, she would have to agree toarbitration by a sharia court or a Beth Din court. Otherwise, the wheels ofjustice would grind on under British statutes and common law as they have inEngland since Magna Carta.

This concept of arbitration is not alien. (Note it is usedonly in civil, not criminal, disputes.) Many divorces and other civil disputeshere in Washington State today are resolved by use of a mediator or arbitratoragreed to by both parties, rather than by going to court. Usually it is seen asa less contentious, and surely less expensive, way to proceed. I, personally,would not agree to an arbitration conducted under any but our own code. But Iwouldn’t have to. I understand that some people might feel otherwise, or feelthat another code was theirs, and I leave that choice to them. (And they don’tneed any special legislation to make that choice now.)

And as I close, may I take this opportunity to congratulatethe peaceful millions of Egypt, who have toppled a dictatorship with a minimumof bloodshed. As I watched events unfold in Tahrir Square, I was especiallygratified to see the images of the Coptic Christians guarding the Muslims atprayer, and Muslims returning the protection as the Copts conducted their Mass.May many follow their example. And good luck to the brave and worthy people ofEgypt in the hard work of constituting and carrying out their new government.

Nancy Miller

Leavenworth

A preemptive ‘shot’

In the Wenatchee World on Feb. 10, was a letter from a”newcomer to the valley,” one Sandi Thompson-Royer concerning a Wenatchee storemarquee ad about “beer, bullets and boots.” She’s “concerned” about the messagethis might send to our youth, and found it especially disturbing in light ofthe shooting of a politician in Arizona. She tells us of the many domesticviolence incidents involving beer and bullets. While domestic violence isdeplorable, the weapon of choice much more frequently than firearms is a fist,and I’m completely unaware that beer or boots fueled the lunatic who shotthe congresswoman in Arizona. It would seem, based on her letter to the World,that she’s upset these things can be found here, in any proximity to eachother.

 She’ll be in for ashock this fall when hunting seasons are in full swing! She’ll have to listento the frequent reports of both rifles and shotguns while we hunters-in ourboots-attempt to take our chosen game in the forest. She’ll be subject to thesight of people in Dan’s or Safeway in camoflage or blaze orange, gettinglast-minute provisions, including beer, or ducking into Der Sportsmann for afew extra bullets, a hunting knife, or something else they might have forgottento bring. Worst of all, she’ll know that we’re out in the forest, often withour children, teaching them first-hand where their food comes from, and thensettling down by the campfire with a beer with their hunting companions, whiletheir kids listen to stories of the hunt, a scene that has taken place forliterally thousands of millenia. 

 So it would appearthat she didn’t fully investigate all the aspects of life in the mountainsbefore she decided to relocate. That’s unfortunate, but it may not be too latefor her to rectify the situation. Failing that, and in a spirit of welcome,I’ll extend to her an invitation to accompany some of us on our hunts. We’ll behappy to teach her to hunt. Shucks, I’ll even share my recipe for venisonsteaks with mountain huckleberry sauce, but she’ll need her own boots.

Jerry Griffin

Leavenworth

PS: to Greg James of Seattle; have you checked theweather in Oklahoma or Arkansas lately, Greg? One thing that completely escapesthe “warmists” is that with warmer weather, it’s easy to remove your sweater.When you freeze to death, it’s usually permanent.

What if?

What if any other of our presidents had doubled the nationaldebt in one year, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate. Wouldyou Obama supporters approve?

If any other president had then proposed to double the debtagain in four years, would you approve?

If any other president had criticized a state law that headmitted he never read, like Obama did, would you think that he is just anuninformed arrogant political partisan?

If any president other than Obama joined the country ofMexico and sued a state of the United States of America to force that state toallow illegal immigration from Mexico, would you question his patriotism andwonder whose side he is on?

If any other president had pronounced the Marine Corps, like”Marine corpse,” would you think him an idiot?

If any other president had put 87,000 workers out of work byarbitrarily placing a moratorium on all offshore oil drilling on companies thathave one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign companyhad a big accident, would you agree?

If any other president had used a forged document as thebasis of the moratorium on oil drilling that would render 87,000 Americanworkers unemployed, would you support him?

If any other president had been the first president to needa teleprompter to be able to get through a press conference, would you havelaughed and concluded that this is more proof of how inept he is on his own andis really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If any other president had spent hundreds thousands ofdollars to take his wife to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If any other president had failed to send relief aid toflood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homelessthan in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing politicalissue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If any other president had created the position of 32 Czarswho report directly to him, bypassing the entire Congress on what is happeningin America, would you approve?

If any other president had ordered the firing of a CEO of amajor private corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to doso, would you have approved?

Would you support Obama in pursuing the Mideast wars in Iraqand Afghanistan after he criticized president Bush for doing the same thing?

Would you support Obama bankrupting this country by horrificoverspending so as to instill a communist government?

Do you support Obamas’ policies of appeasement of our swornenemies as a path to peace?

Do you think Obama is proud of the good that America hasdone in the world and that America is a force for good in the world?

Do you agree with the “Obamacare” health insurance law thatwill verifiably make things worse and help bankrupt this country?

I suggest you read Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father” andthe book by Dinesh D’souza “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and Saul Alinsky’s book”Rules For Radicals.” Also Google “the Cloward-Piven strategy.” It will thenbecome clear to you what motivates Obama and why he wants to “fundamentallychange America” from a free market capitalist country to a socialist/communistcountry. Obama’s change for America will entail a tremendous loss of liberty, aserious threat to national security and economic destruction.

So, tell me what is it about Obama that makes him a goodpresident other than he is the first half black and half white Africannon-American president who is a Muslim sympathizer? He has created more racialdivision than any other president – ever!

Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry; Obama has done allthis in 21 months, so you have that much time to come up with an answer. “Allit takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Wake up Americabefore it is too late. God have mercy on America.

Bill Cowles

Peshastin

Commenting Rules

We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

So keep your comments civil, smart, on-topic and free of profanity.

We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and "drive-by" commenters. We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please refer to our Terms of Use for full detail on participating on our site.
No comments yet.

Leave a Reply