Letters to the Editor, July 25

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Some folks just can't get over that Gore loss

Sometimes I am astounded at how deeply ingrained false facts can get when it comes to politics. Letter writer Evan Eisentrager of Boulder ("Lopez Obrador a good example for Dems," July 20) can't seem to absorb the fact that in the case of the Gore-Bush 2000 and Kerry-Bush 2004 elections, the votes were counted. By every standard and every investigation, the votes were counted. There is no credible newspaper today that denies it. Even the Democrat's flagship news source, The New York Times, agrees that all the votes were counted . . . except those that were properly disqualified.

I assume, according to Eisentrager, those should have been counted, too. I'm sure he would like the ballots that had votes for both Gore and Bush counted (only for Gore, I assume), and those with no votes for president counted (for Gore in all probability, too). And don't forget, we also must count the votes from the grave. The dead all seemed to want Gore to be their president.

There, there, Mr. Eisentrager - Gore lost. Bummer. Al Gore didn't have the votes. He lost. He might win in the future (heaven help us), but he didn't win in 2000. Eisentrager might get over it, but, obviously, he's not going to believe it even when he does.

Oh, by the way, Kerry lost, too.

So here's Eisentrager's solution to the terrible losing streak that has befallen the Democratic Party. He states that he'd like to see or hear a call to all Dems to hit the streets like the followers of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador do in Mexico City, with some frequency. Demand that all the votes be counted and then declare victory!

Why then, Mr. Eisentrager, don't you head right down to the Pearl Street Mall, where demonstrations are a way of life, part of the "Boulder color," if you will. Nobody's stopping you. Don't just jaw about it, man, do it. I'll be there watching you while I have my cheesecake and coffee. I love to watch freedom in action. I like stupid pet tricks, too.

Richard L. Feist

Louisville

News plays bigot card over attack on church

You can always tell when liberals are losing an argument - they start falsely accusing opponents of bigotry.

Exhibit A: the blanket hatchet job on supporters of American sovereignty ("Critics say some Defend Colorado money tainted," July 15).

Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans across the political spectrum want immigration to be legal, controlled and reduced. However, the press is too arrogant to care about mere public opinion and continues to oppose citizens on a vital issue that will affect the nation's future more than any other.

One of the special-interest groups promoting open borders is the Catholic Church in America.

For analyzing this widely accepted fact in the article "America's Vaticrats" on the essential VDare. com webzine, I was associated with the term "anti-Catholic" by the News. On the contrary, I oppose the immoral policies of Catholic elites (largely against parishioner sentiment), who insist that immigration of the poor trumps national borders and the rule of law.

In Texas last year, priest Michael Seifert said, "Any family in economic need has a right to immigrate, that's our posture" - a page taken from Marx, not Scripture.

On the contrary, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," meaning obey the law!

Interestingly, in Europe where most immigrants are Muslim, Cardinal Biffi has recommended that immigration policy "protect [the] national identity" of Italy. Imagine the shrieks of horror from the liberal media here if someone suggested that American culture be safeguarded - even though hundreds of millions of citizens deeply desire the preservation of our unique nation.

Brenda Walker

Berkeley, Calif.

Walling out neighbors won't solve problem

I was deeply saddened to read "All in all, it's thrust another brick in the wall," the July 12 News article about Tom Narum, the self-described "average guy" who, apparently not satisfied with the pace of the government's efforts to isolate us from our international neighbors by focusing primarily on unilateral enforcement to solve a complex multilateral problem, is undertaking an effort to raise private funds to construct a massive wall across our border with Mexico.

It seems to me that the immigration issue provides the United States with a historic opportunity to exercise some real leadership in working with Mexico to address the economic challenges that underlie the immigration imbalance between the two countries.

By taking the visionary high road, the United States could cement our position as a country to be admired and celebrated throughout the Western Hemisphere.

People like Narum and U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo seem intent on throwing that opportunity away by shirking our global responsibility and instead criminalizing, deporting and walling out our neighbors in the hopes that their problems will simply go away.

I struggle to understand how so many people in the most powerful and successful nation on Earth can be so fearful of people from our friendly neighbor to the south that they feel compelled to build a wall to keep them out. If we are to resolve the immigration problem, we need to lead, not hide behind the walls of the citadel.

Craig Maginness

Denver

President's stem cell stance unreasonable

President Bush has turned his back on millions of Americans who are in desperate need of cures for their debilitating diseases. And he did so because he apparently cannot see any difference between what is actual and what is only potential. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? Is a robin's egg the same as a robin? Of course not, and yet the president insists that a microscopic clump of cells is morally equivalent to a living, breathing human being.

Medical practitioners tell us that a significant fraction of fertilized embryos never attach to the uterine wall, and are eliminated naturally from the woman's body. Now think what this must mean if we adopt the president's point of view. God implants an immortal soul into the embryo at the moment of conception and thereby gives it the full moral status of a human being. And then, in a significant fraction of cases, that embryo is promptly flushed down the toilet.

Does this sound reasonable to you? It apparently does to President Bush, and he is entitled to that opinion. But he does not have the right to arrogantly force his own religious views on the majority of Americans who disagree with him, and thereby deprive millions of grievously afflicted people of their best hope for a cure. We did not elect George Bush to be our ayatollah.

James J. Amato

Woodland Park

Shame, shame, shame

By an overwhelming positive vote in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, a bill authored by Rep. Diana DeGette approving federal funds for stem cell research passed. As promised, President Bush used his very first veto to block the legislation.

This bill, if passed, would have saved thousands, if not millions of lives. Tragically, the required number of votes in the House and Senate fell a few short of overriding his veto.

I would like to point out that Sen. Ken Salazar voted in favor, while Sen. Wayne Allard sided with the president and voted no. In the House, all Democrats voted in favor, while Republicans - including most notably Bob Beauprez, Republican candidate for governor - voted with the president.

Shame on you, Sen.. Allard, Rep. Beauprez and, most of all, President Bush. Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you.

Norm Brown

Denver

Stem cell veto lauded

I applaud President Bush for his veto of legislation that would have expanded federally-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.

We must not destroy innocent human life in the hopes of helping others. There are many opportunities for stem cell research that do not involve killing a human embryo; for example, reprogramming adult stem cells to behave as embryonic stem cells and using umbilical stem cells. The president is supporting these research methods.

Daniel C. Crawford

Wheat Ridge

Adult 70, embryonic 0

The score is 70-0 ("The wrong choice for Bush's first veto," July 20). Adult stem cell research is now helping more than 70 diseases. Embryonic stem cell research is helping none. With such a lopsided score, why would we want to use taxpayers' dollars to kill unborn babies when adult stem cell is already obtaining the results we desire?

Are there any strict, sensible guidelines for destroying the innocent? Is the choice of life ever outdated?

Jay and Dianne Moyers

Centennial

Don't forget farmers

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper wants to plant trees, and modernize Denver to make it more productive ("Mayor's green plan sweeping," July 14).

This is all fine and dandy. But what about the farmers who have no water for their fields? Does Hickenlooper or Gov. Bill Owens know where our food comes from? Instead of helping our farmers, I guess planting trees is more important. I guess buying our fruit and veggies from, say, Chile, and making them rich instead of our farmers is more important.

The politicians in Colorado need to get their priorities straight. It's OK to make Denver more productive, but the farmers who have been here for generations, growing and selling their crops to local stores, need to be taken care of also. After all, being productive is what farmers do!

Gerrie Ortado

Littleton

Saunders' illogic

I really enjoyed Dusty Saunders' column on Ann Coulter ("Coulter queen of media buzz," TV & Radio, June 15). It was a brilliant exposé of liberal illogic. Instead of rebutting Coulter's points, he attacks her intelligence. That is really laughable. She passed Saunders' I.Q. level when she was off the baby bottle.

She didn't defame "widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center during the Sept. 11 attacks." She defamed those widows who are "reveling in their states as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzi." But that was too complex for Saunders to grasp.

Daryl E. Carroll

Arvada

O'Donnell's courage

I admire Rick O'Donnell's courage in flying into Denver with President Bush aboard Air Force One. I also look forward to his Democratic opponent starting each campaign commercial with footage of O'Donnell emerging from that beautiful aircraft with history's most inept president.

Matt Bergles

Denver

Warmonger nations?

It would be difficult to argue that in the last half-century the United States and Israel have not waged the most wars, have threatened the most wars, and have killed the most people. Maybe both of these countries need to examine their foreign policies.

David Ferlic

Wheat Ridge