‘I’m voting for a conservative woman on the Supreme Court’
Thank You to Phil Childers of Fruita for your letter supporting the many reasons we love America. We believe it is a privilege to be able to enjoy all our country offers for all citizens. We would like to add to your list. I’m voting for a conservative woman on the Supreme Court. For the past number of years we have had three liberal women, nodding in agreement, giving their interpretation of the Constitution. The Democrats are so vocal about raising up women in jobs, politics, industry but only women who have the same far left opinions. There are millions of women hoping for representation on the Supreme Court by a highly qualified Justice Amy Barrett. We are also voting for the future of our country.
GIL and MARY ZAVALA
Reader answers Childers’ question
Mr. Childer’s list about his vote was at first encouraging, then evolved into familiar dog whistles. If I may respond:
“I’m not voting for Trump.” GREAT! Glad to hear it. Oh, but wait, I guess you are.
I’m voting for the First Amendment and freedom of speech. We still have it, with clear evidence of Trump’s incessant and never-ending insults, lies, and stuff he just makes up.
I’m voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family. We still have it, with clear evidence of Trump’s support for Q and Proud Boys, not to mention public displays of heavy armament in restaurants and state capitol buildings. (And still no comments from this White House about the attempt to kidnap and kill state governors).
I’m voting for the next Supreme Court justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ditto, no argument there, just kind of wish they would (see: Jim Crow).
I’m voting for the continued growth of my retirement 401k and the stock market. Again, ditto, but sure wish Trump and Mnuchin would stop buying junk bonds (so far about $1 trillion worth, yes, that’s trillion with a “t”).
I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involvement in foreign conflicts. Hasn’t happened yet.
I’m voting for the Electoral College and the Republic we live in. That’s a separate ballot question here in Colorado.
I’m voting for the police to be respected once again and to ensure law and order. Ditto, no argument.
I’m voting for the continued appointment of federal judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Kinda redundant to the SCOTUS sentence, but whatever.
I’m voting for our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over again to China, Mexico and other foreign countries. Still hasn’t happened yet. Have you checked Trump, Inc.’s clothing tags?
I’m voting for secure borders and legal immigration. Still hasn’t happened yet, either.
I’m voting for the military and the veterans who fought for this country to give the American people their freedoms. BIG family of veterans going back to the Civil War. Many of them died. And they weren’t losers.
I’m voting for continued peace progress in the Middle East. Jury’s still out on that one, check back in 50 years.
I’m voting to fight against human/child trafficking. Voting doesn’t do that. Getting involved in your community organizations like Center for Children does – they are always looking for donations and help. Please consider contacting them.
I’m voting for freedom of religion. Still got that too.
I’m voting for the American flag that is disrespected by the Democratic Party. I’m a Democrat and I have never disrespected the flag. In fact, I fly it every day (maybe see above about my family of veterans).
I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. Again, redundant, see your second sentence.
I’m not just voting for one person, I’m voting for the future of my country. I’m voting for a team. I’m voting for decency. I’m voting for a stock market (DOW is owned by Rupert Murdoch – did you know?), that isn’t getting almost daily handouts from our government, our taxes. I’m voting for truth, and honesty.
What are you voting for? Just answered that.
‘Yes’ on 7A for West Slope Water
The Colorado River Water Conservation District (the “River District”) serves the people of the Yampa, White, Green, Colorado, Gunnison and Uncompahgre river basins by protecting our water. As the Colorado River basin closes out another brutally hot and dry summer under extreme drought conditions, the need to protect our water supplies is even more critical to the survival of our agriculture, our environment and our communities. The River District has been successfully doing this for over 80 years, but because of ever decreasing revenue from energy royalties and TABOR restrictions, the River District is facing severe cutbacks. A “Yes” vote on Special District Ballot Measure 7A will enable the River District to continue to do its good work and ensure a secure water future for our West Slope river basins.
Trout Unlimited (TU) endorses the River District’s ballot measure. Question 7A directs the River District to spend the new revenues on four specific purposes: fighting to keep water on the West Slope; protecting adequate water supplies for West Slope farmers and ranchers; protecting sustainable drinking water supplies for West Slope communities; and protecting fish, wildlife, and recreation by maintaining river levels and water quality. These projects largely originate from the grass roots of our communities and address our most immediate water needs.
The River District is our organization, and it needs our help. By voting “Yes” on 7A, we are helping to protect our lifeblood, our water. As Mesa County Commissioner John Justman recently surmised “After all, when it comes to protecting our water in western Colorado, if we can’t help ourselves, then who else is going to?”
RICHARD VAN GYTENBEEK
Colorado River Basin Outreach Coordinator
Ads in support of Amendment B are misleading
While I am in sympathy with the motive behind Amendment B, the advertising on television has been misleading. This effect of the change on residential property taxes is complex and involves a certain number of “ifs.” Ads state that residential taxes will not change. That is patently untrue. For example, if Amendment B does not pass, there is a likely reduction in taxes to homeowners. This would occur because residential property values are likely to increase and Gallagher requires that residential taxes be no more than 45% of all property taxes. The tax rate, currently at 7.15% of assessed value, will decrease, If the amendment passes and residential property values increase, then taxes paid will increase. Tax rate stays the same; taxes paid increase. Gallagher, without amendment, will reduce the tax rate and taxes paid if residential values go up. A vote for Amendment B requires a generous willingness on the part of homeowners to possibly pay more in their real estate taxes and give up a large potential reduction in taxes paid to support the various groups who benefit from the amendment. Honesty and fairness are needed in advertising the amendment.
Two of three Mesa County commissioners are wrong on 7A
I read with astonishment the article today regarding Scott McInnis and John Justman’s support for the massive tax hike for the Colorado River District. Setting aside the fact that Justman has been duped in to believing that environmentalists in control of the organization care at all about agriculture, the most galling part of the article was McInnis poking his head up to talk about water at all. While most voters in Mesa County have, apparently, forgotten about McInnis being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to write a few “musings on water” immediately after leaving his seat in Congress, some of us still remember. We also remember that those “musings” were actually work done by another man in Glenwood Springs who McInnis paid peanuts to do the actual work he was paid for. It’s beyond shocking that two self-described fiscal conservatives on the Mesa County Commission would support doubling the river district’s mill levy without any specific project list of where the funds will go. Since when did “let’s send them our money and hope for the best” become a good standard for the GOP? Thanks to Commissioner Pugliese for actually sticking to principle. And thanks for letting me “muse.”
We must find a way to let virus safely run its course
In the early days of COVID-19 we were told the restrictions, lockdowns and precautions were needed to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed and allow them to stock up and prepare.
Seven months later we continue to have all of the above extended, expanded, and justified everytime there is a spike in the numbers.
Has everyone lost sight of the fact that the experts rightly stated early on that this virus will eventually run its course despite our efforts? The hubris is on full display as we have never developed a fully successful vaccine for ANY virus.
Instead of more restrictions, we should each take the preventative measures we feel appropriate, and let this virus run its course so that tens of millions more do not have to die from the continued economic collapse of nations around the world.
A letter worth sharing
On Oct. 14, Mr. Childers of Fruita wrote a letter listing all the reasons he was voting for a Republican for president. I thought it was written so well, I made copies and sent them to friends in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Childers for expressing WHY we vote for policies that are best for all Americans.
Leave wildlife management to the professionals
Once again, this election-cycle we have on the ballot a question regarding wildlife management, namely wolf reintroduction into Colorado, that was placed there by petition. I believe that this initiative was created by well-meaning but poorly informed groups, primarily on the Front Range where the consequences of this action will be felt less than here on the western slope. Let me just say that taking wildlife management decisions out of the hands of the professionals and deciding these questions by ballot initiative is almost always bad policy but I’ll confine my argument to this particular issue.
Yes, wolves were native to Colorado but that was before it was settled by Europeans who were raising livestock and trying to eke out a living. In very short order it became clear that ranching and wolves were incompatible and they still are. Where wolves have been reintroduced they take a substantial toll on sheep, cattle and other domestic animals – including the dogs which have been employed to protect sheep from coyotes. The wolf proponents tell us that ranchers will be reimbursed for their losses but the process of proving that their animals were wolf kills on open range is extremely difficult and bureaucratic and Parks and Wildlife can ill-afford to make these reimbursements.
Secondly, there is no question that our big-game herds, and the hunting-related jobs and spending they support, will be significantly reduced over time by predation from wolves. Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife’s budget is almost entirely derived from the license and tag fees from hunters and fishermen. Hunting, and the travelers it brings into our state (and especially to the western slope) is an important economic driver in an area already hurting from the loss of energy related jobs. More lost jobs and less money in our economy from the reduction of hunting and its related travel plus the cost of wolf management, including reimbursements for stock losses from Parks and Wildlife funds, make this reintroduction a disaster for the Western Slope.
Vote no on Prop 114 and leave wildlife management to the professionals.
Vote yes on Ballot Issue 7A
This November, we have the chance to vote for healthy, thriving rivers with Question 7A. Rivers provide millions to the area economy, and 7A supports these western waters. Question 7A raises the Colorado River District’s mill levy from $0.25 to $0.50 – a small increase, costing homeowners $1.90 per $100,000 of market value. This results in an increase of just $7.00 annually on a median priced home – an amount that can probably be found under the sofa cushions of said home. This small household investment in the future of our waterways results in nearly $5 million for the Colorado River District to fund agriculture, infrastructure, and healthy river projects. Seven dollars to protect watershed health and water quality right here on the West Slope? That’s a bargain.
A study from Business for Water Stewardship shows nearly $19 billion is generated in Colorado by river-related recreation. Locally, we know our rivers are key to this region’s economic prosperity, as well as our farmers and ranchers. As an angler and representative of the board of Grand Valley Anglers (Trout Unlimited #319), the health and safety of our water supply and the animals living above and below the surface of it is vital to my way of life. Voting to ensure the safety and health of our river systems means I can be sure future anglers have the same opportunities I have been so blessed to enjoy on the water – holding a gleaming Gunnison River rainbow trout at first light, seeing nesting bald eagles and playful otters, the savage slash of a furious brown trout during spawn . . . these are gifts we should be all too happy to give to ourselves, our children, and their grandchildren.
The wellbeing of our rivers is also vital to a number of local businesses, from fly shops to rafting, boating, and SUP companies, to river outfitters and guide services. A vote for 7A is a vote not just for the environment and the future, but a vote for the employees, river and fishing guides, and small businesses we profess to care so very deeply for.
Our rivers are critical to our way of life on the West Slope, and we must protect them. Please join me and a diverse group of supporters from conservation groups to agricultural producers in VOTING YES on 7A. This is our water. Let’s take care of it.
Stop the myth that people are disrespecting the flag
Dear flag lovers. I love my country. I love my flag. When I ran it up the flag pole I used to have when I lived out in the county, I followed the rules and protocols. So, let me address your perception that people are destroying our flag, and defecating on it. Seriously? This is not 1968 during the Vietnam war, when protesters were in fact doing that. I even googled it, and guess what? I could not find one video of someone defecating on our flag, even in Portland. But, there during protests there were flags burned. Is it unAmerican to burn a flag during a protest? No. Go back to when we decided to protest British rule in the colonies in the 1770s, and there were many recorded instances of destroying the British flag as part of those protests. In our current political atmosphere there are many people who believe police killing our fellow citizens is a bad sign of things to come, including me. First, the bad cops try to get away with killing African Americans, then it could be you or I. Police whether we like it or not need to be monitored by all Americans. Remember what they stand for; to protect and serve. Who are they serving? Us, the American people. The police are paid indirectly out of our taxes, whether we like it or not, but we can control their actions if they get out of line.
During many protests recently where there were “counter protesters”; which is a nice way to describe racist fascist protesters such as Proud Boys and KKK. Which begs the question; why are we not upset by them carrying the Nazi flag to their protests, with Trump and Pence written on them? Sad but true.
Our American flag is a symbol, and I do not see it as a piece of material dangling from a pole. It is a symbol of our hard fought freedoms, it is a symbol of the bravery of our soldiers overseas who are willing to die for that concept. They are not willing to die for a rectangle shaped piece of material, they are willing to die for the concept of our freedom and the love of our country. I find it offensive that you quote false a narrative about people disrespecting our flag that just did not happen. It is not 1968.
Vote no on National Popular Vote
To Quote Marilyn vos Savant (with her permission) (Parade Magazine 10.11.2020)
Q. Some people don’t like electoral votes (versus popular votes) deciding our Presidential elections. Can you make an argument in favor of electoral votes?
We are the United States of American, and our states-starting with the original 13 colonies-are separate entities. It is understandably unacceptable to states with smaller populations to have their affairs decided by other states simply because more people live there. Suppose there were a United Countries of the Earth. Would you like the idea of China (population 1,439 billion) and India (1,380 billion) running the show? The U.S. has 331 million people.) Or would you want a leveling factor?
Great observation from Marilyn vos Savant.
Vote NO on Proposition 113, the National Popular Vote.
More Trump derangement from Mesa’s biggest Trump booster
Mesa’s Dave Kearsley is at it again, abusing the Sentinel’s fact-check-free email forum to peddle false facts and pollyannic propaganda (“With Trump in office, the good times will roll again”, Oct 12).
220,000 COVID-19 deaths ago, Kearsley ignorantly compared the coronavirus to the seasonal flu and impliedly predicted that it would disappear with warmer weather, and still falsely credits “Liar-in-Chief” Trump for the growing pre-pandemic economy he’d inherited from the Obama/Biden recovery,.
Dave has also resorted to baseless fear-mongering (“Anarchists are a bigger threat than police brutality”; Jun. 9) and “Radicals use unrest to promote leftist agenda” (June 21), while preposterously claiming that antifa radicals had threatened to burn down Mesa. Apparently, neither the Sentinel nor the FBI took him seriously, so neither should we.
Now, Kearsley adds a hint of racism and sexism to his quiver of limp talking points by calling Democratic V.P. Candidate Kamala Harris “far left” – perhaps only because she’s “a woman of color” — when no white candidate with her record as San Francisco’s DA and California’s AG would likely be so labeled..
Kearsley then attributes a fabricated quote to Harris that she didn’t say (USAToday, “Fact check: Kamala Harris didn’t say she’d send police to take firearms via executive order”, Aug. 15; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/15/fact-check-harris-didnt-say-shed-send-police-confiscate-guns/5585922002/).
Nevertheless, if Democrats win the Senate, legislation may well be introduced to unpack the McConnell/Trump Supreme Court. How far it goes will likely depend on the actual “independence” of that Court.
Kearsley also parrots Trump’s lies about Joe Biden’s position on fracking (AP, “FACT CHECK: Trump falsifies Biden stance on fracking”, Oct 14; https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-fa798602a357d0f4a765739e36f4f82b). Meanwhile, Biden’s plan for “net zero” carbon emissions from electricity generation by 2035 would create 10 million jobs (CNBC, “How Biden’s $1.7 trillion climate plan would change America after Trump’s Big Oil presidency”, Oct. 1; https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/bidens-1point7-trillion-climate-plan-would-be-blow-to-big-oil-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/bidens-1point7-trillion-climate-plan-would-be-blow-to-big-oil-.html).
And, like “Quack-in-Chief” Trump, Kearsley misapprehends the science of vaccines. As explained yesterday by Dr. Peter Hoetz at Baylor’s College of Medicine and Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, none the several promising vaccines currently undergoing Phase 3 trials will be “Silver Bullets”, but are primarily intended to temporarily reduce the severity/mortality of COVID-19 – but not necessarily its spread — and thus will supplement (not substitute for) masks, hand-washing, social distancing, and emerging therapies.
So, like his fellow Trumpublicans, Kearsley still seems to be afflicted by TDS (Politico, “Trump Is Suffering From Trump Derangement Syndrome”, Oct. 15; https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/15/trump-derangement-syndrome-429527).