Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Letters to the Editor - February 7, 2014

Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
West Valley View's picture

Time for sales tax compassion


Municipalities have engaged in addressing emergency funding concerns by imposing a sales tax on food. This directly impacts low income seniors, the poor and children in particular. It is time for all taxing agencies to make a common sense compromise on taxing food.

Eliminate the sales tax ENTIRELY from healthy staple foods (milk, bread, vegetable, meats, potato’s, rice, fruits) and leave the sales tax on junk foods, sweets, prepared fast food.

Realizing that no public agency can take a simple straight forward approach to any issue, we are optimistic that a list of health staple foods exist and can be adopted in short order to allow the removal of the sales tax to support the well being of seniors, the poor and our future.......our children.

I encourage this paper to start an online petition process in support of the repeal of the sales tax on STAPLE FOODS......Please Help,,,,,,,

Virgil Warden


Wind farms kill


The female bald eagle and her mate diligently search for that perfect tree to build their new home. It needs to be near a lake or river. When that’s accomplished the arduous work of building the nest follows. Twigs are brought and carefully placed to strengthen the home. You see, the female is pregnant and will soon be laying her eggs. Once hatched the young are hungry, they chirp constantly always demanding more food. The female takes off from the nest to find nourishment for them. In her search, she unknowingly flies into a wind farm and one of the blades strike her in the back breaking it instantly. She falls to her death lying among the other dead birds. Back at the nest the babies are still chirping not realizing that their mother will never return. They will die of starvation. This scenario goes on every day throughout the country. Last year 83,000 eagles, hawks and falcons were killed this way along with 573,000 birds of other species and over 3,000 bats.

Paul Daffinrud


Uninsured cost us all


I am writing in response to your editorial “Young? Healthy? You’re a pawn”.

Young people usually consider themselves “bullet-proof”. They mistakenly believe that nothing bad can possibly happen to them. This has been the case for many years. It’s not until you become a little older and a little wiser do you realize that’s not the case.

Young, healthy people do have car accidents, break bones hiking, perhaps get bitten by a rattle snake while hiking...

Do you have any idea how much it costs for a medical airlift? Do you know it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars when you are bitten by some of our desert creatures. Do you have any idea just how much it costs for just one day in the hospital? Just who do you think will pay these bills?

I have a young and healthy son and it worries me to death because he too is protesting the health insurance law. If something unexpected landed him in the hospital for an emergency operation as an example I would end up having to sell everything I own, declare bankruptcy just to pay the bills. That’s not something a parent should have to worry about.

If you think these things couldn’t happen to you, you are dead wrong.

Susan McMichael


Government is part of solution


Once again one of your frequent contributors distorts reality to make his point. In the Jan. 31 WVV letter “Government is the problem” the writer inaccurately depicts Progressives as favoring a “cradle to grave government”. And he supports a quote from Pres. Reagan, whom he calls “our greatest President”, that “government is the problem”. But if we analyze his arguments beyond the bumper-sticker level, they fall far short of the mark.

In the 1970s and 1990s the mortgage interest rate was about 8%. In the Reagan years it was about 16%. The federal deficit tripled under his watch and he raised the debt ceiling 18 times. He raised taxes many times, but he reduced taxes on the wealthiest 5%. His PATCO position permanently weakened unions.

In foreign affairs, Reagan has a mixed record. He increased tensions in the Middle East, which still threaten us. His tough-guy posture raised tensions with the USSR until Gorbachev cooled things down. He supported the Contras in Nicaragua and sold weapons to Iran, both secret activities against the will of Congress.

Government provides for national defense, builds roads and other infrastructure, hires teachers, police, firefighters, public health workers, etc. It also provides aid to the suffering such as needy families, hurricane victims, the elderly and disabled. Our courts punish criminals, enforce civil laws, and ensure our Constitutional rights. Government works to keep our water, air, medications and food safe.

Progressives and Conservatives differ on how much involvement government should have in our lives. The debate is a matter of degree — one side is not Socialist; the other side is not Anarchy. On the question of how to find the common ground that gives all of us our best chance to live a free, productive, happy life: government is part of the answer.

John Flynn


Time to be moved


Beginning with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers made a forthright declaration of dependence upon the Almighty God, which marked the birth of America. This was 04 July 1776 and since that time countless citizens and veterans have died to preserve us as a nation. The Almighty God was our main driving force.

Every year we celebrate another Independence Day to honor those who have given their life for our freedom but what do we really celebrate? Not only should we honor all military men and civilian patriots that gave their lives for us and the freedom left behind by those, but we owe it to them to continue the fight they fought for. The dying faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the removal of God’s word from the courthouses and schools have spiraled out of control.

Christian memberships are dwindling in churches around North America because of Atheist infiltration of our court and school systems and increased Atheist ways within our homes and work places. The Atheist have been plotting for years to destroy us and now with radical Muslim help, our war is not as much overseas but here within our borders. Christians stuck within their own cocoons could break free and win or they could remain hidden until the shooting begins and watch innocent people die from radical Muslim and Atheist ways. Within the country and courts, you could be once more on the right track to your freedom of rights. You have a choice. Wipe the dust from your Bibles and read.

Our Bible says in Psalms 16:8, “I have set the LORD always before me: because He is always at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” Are we now ready to pick up our Bibles and be moved ???

Roy F. Cranford


Work together and win


The worm has finally started to turn. Obama care is in a state of free fall. Democratic Senators from red states, running for reelection this year are fleeing Obama like rats flee a sinking ship; and, current national generic polling is starting to show a widening lead for Republicans.

There is no chance that Democrats can capture the House in 2014. However, the Republicans look like a better than average bet to take back control of the Senate. If these trends continue the Republicans should get stronger between now and November. Obama care is finally taking its toll. Did I mention, the President himself is at around 41% approval with the American people. This can be a great year for America. What could go wrong?

Don’t ask. The problem is the Tea party. Yes the party of the “I am not a witch” Christine O Donnell 2010 Delaware Senatorial candidate. What about Harry Reid who was dead meat, with a 40% approval rating in Nevada until the Tea party sent Sharron Angle to do battle with him. Let’s not forget Todd Akin in Missouri who was favored to be elected a Senator until he “misspoke” Actually I think the Tea party has done a lot of good giving us Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. But they have also hurt the Republican party unnecessarily.

The Tea party would be well advised to work with Republicans to nominate the most electable conservative candidates. The operative word is ELECTABLE! Being a Conservative ideologue, and not voting on election day because a Republican does not pass your litmus test will just elect more Democrats. That is not a good thing ! “capisci” ?

Roy Azzarello


Law’ is unconstitutional


Citizens should oppose unconstitutional “laws” and governmental actions, including Obamacare, for exceeding delegated powers and eroding citizens’ rights. “[A] law, ‘beyond the power of Congress,’ for any reason, is ‘no law at all.’ Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 341 (1928).” Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. ___ (2011, Ginsburg, Breyer concurring). The Supreme Court repeatedly held that when a court acts without jurisdiction (authority), its ruling is null and void.

The Supreme Court majority held Obamacare unconstitutional for requiring people to get insurance; and noted that: “Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally.” (citations omitted) NFIB v. Selebius, 567 U.S. ___, (2012, Roberts @ II, Decision). Congress chose and the President approved of the word “penalty” (not “tax”) for §5000A(b). To hold Obamacare “constitutional” under the Taxing Clause, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority exceeded its jurisdiction by “rewriting” §5000A(b) to change “penalty” to mean “tax”. That violated the Constitution, Article I, Sections 1 and 7, Article III, and rulings like Estate Of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 112 S.Ct. 2589, 2594 (1992); and that made the ruling void.

Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.” NFIB v. Selebius, 567 U.S. ___, (2012, Roberts @ III-C). It wasn’t determined that Obamacare complies will all requirements of the Constitution; Obamacare doesn’t.

Please petition Congress to amend Obamacare to be constitutional, or repeal and/or declare Obamacare as unconstitutional.

David W. Peabody


Ending political nonsense


there is a way to end all political nonsense in from the highest court to the lowest representive in congress.

how ?

limit there terms to 6 years pay them the lowest minium wage made in the U.S. reaping the benifits of new or changed law in a monitary value directly or indirectly is not allowed

Will they really want to represent the U.S.A. knowing that the amout of personal and political gain would be limited?

Scott Banks


Traffic disaster in the making


The West Valley has a traffic disaster in the making, and most residents probably are unaware of what could happen. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has been working hard to convince valley residents that the proposed Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway (SMF) would improve traffic congestion and air pollution in the valley. Unfortunately, ADOT is either showing its incompetence with these statements or else its representatives are knowingly lying to the public.

Protecting Arizona’s Resources and Children (PARC) is a non-profit organization that has hired experts to examine ADOT’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the SMF. PARC’s traffic engineering experts determined that the SMF would not improve traffic congestion anywhere in the valley — not on freeways or arterial streets. Further, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examined the DEIS and came to the same conclusion as PARC’s air quality experts: ADOT does not know how (or chooses not) to do proper air quality modeling. Correct modeling shows that air pollution would get worse rather than better, particularly in Ahwatukee and the West Valley.

How could anyone realistically expect anything different? The SMF is planned to intersect with the I-10 West at 59th Avenue. Anyone driving in this area already knows that the I-10 is a virtual parking lot during rush hour, and the SMF would interject a freeway interchange into the mix adding 135,000 more vehicles daily. Think what nine semis per minute merging onto the I-10 would do to the backup on the freeway, which during the afternoon rush hour is usually backed up through the tunnel to the Sky Harbor Airport exit!

PARC is working to avoid another ADOT traffic disaster and stop the SMF. For more information, see

Pat Lawlis
President, Protecting Arizona’s Resources and Children


Build it and they will come


Maybe the Mayor and his city council should do everything they can do by bringing new jobs to the local area. Consider tax incentive’s, like Tempe just did, to generate new jobs.

The Mayor said he doesn’t want anymore super bowls and big events here. Who is he kidding, every mayor in the US would love to have these events.

Quit fighting the new casino, support it. It will bring more jobs and money into the area . Put it on the Nov ballot, let the people decide.

No wonder the NFL, is upset  with Glendale. Would you go to a town that hasn’t done what the NFL has requested. I.E. reserving rooms and other matters. That’s why all activities will be in downtown Phoenix, and not at the Westgate.

BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME” to the 101 west corridor.

Harvey New


Young, healthy pay lion’s share


All of Stephanie Carter’s and Dan Druen’s (2/4/14 Edition) questions can be answered by one simple provision of Obamacare: PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS MUST BE COVERED.

Therefore, anybody can pay the low penalty, forgo the high premium, then buy a policy if something (like a disease or injury) occurs.

From “Being sick won’t keep you from getting health coverage. An insurance company can’t turn you down or charge you more because of your condition.

Once you have insurance, the plan can’t refuse to cover treatment for pre-existing conditions. Coverage for your pre-existing conditions begins immediately...

...The only exception is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans — the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They do not have to cover pre-existing conditions.

If you have one of these plans you can switch to a Marketplace plan during open enrollment and immediately get coverage for your pre-existing conditions.”

The gap (between when you get sick or injured and open enrollment) is already covered by the federal law that states Emergency Rooms can not turn away anyone who needs treatment. If you need ongoing treatment, you just have to visit the ER frequently until open enrollment comes around again.

And, by the way, Ms. Carter, under Obamacare, the young and healthy are the ones who will pay the lion’s share of the cost and (historically) use it the least.

Judy Weaver


Are you kidding me?


Your January 31st editorial by Cary Hines (“Young? Healthy? You’re a Pawn”) was irresponsible. Will you next suggest that the young and healthy don’t need automobile insurance either?

Bob Golden


Editorial was trite


Cary Hine’s editorial on 1/31/14 made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end, Cary’s age, “old and sick”, questionable.

Cary’s editorial is trite and condescending. We send our young men and women to war, are they our pawns? One might say yes, or could debate they are part of a larger group, all ages pooling their resources, youth or experience, “for the common defense” of our country as enshrined in the Constitution.

One could argue the ACA is a gift to the insurance companies rather than the single payer system we need, or realize in spite of its flaws all ages are pooled together to reduce the cost of health insurance for most. This too is enshrined in the Constitution, “promote the general welfare”.

While my brother lay in ICC on a respirator at sixty nine and the nineteen year old lay three doors down on a respirator after a drowning accident, both families should have the ability to concentrate on the recovery or end of life issues and not whether the mountain of medical debt will destroy these families.

This last year of life I would classify myself as, “old and sick”, due to excellent medical care I have received I hope to be old and healthy as I look forward to the New Year.

Do I consider myself a pawn for all the years my husband and I paid FICA (93 years combined), paid and still pay school taxes long after my children have grown. No, I breathe a sigh of relief my grandsons do well in school or when the Paramedics arrive at my door in the middle of the night.

We share the cost and the benefits of a humane and compassionate society, at least we should.

Diane Burnett


Women should be outraged


Bishop Jeff Metcalf, President of National Action Network Maricopa County Chapter under the leadership of NAN President, Rev. Al Sharpton is outraged, after several calls to his office about multiple police agencies in Arizona inappropriately abusing women at traffic stops. Many of these women were pulled over for civil traffic infractions which should lead to simple traffic citations. Two of the complaints are by women who stated that when they inquired to the officer that they did not feel comfortable signing the citation the officer became belligerent, grabbed these females, man handled them, put hand cuffs on them, threw them in the squad car and told them they were going to jail. On separate occasions the women complained that they were in pain from the abuse of the officers and the officers never called for medical help which is required by law. The interesting part is after this abuse the women were taken out of the squad cars, handcuffs taken off, and never taken to jail. Both women in separate cases filed complaints to the police department the very next day. The way the police department followed up with the complaints is to call the women into the office the next day and try to coach them to change their story while being recorded that nothing took place the way they thought it did and try to force them to sign the recorded document at the office before they left. It should be noted that these are professional women with level one fingerprint clearance cards, nurses, Arizona state workers etc. The police camera proves that the women were respectful, professional and emotional during these stops.

Jeff Metcalf


Don’t get egg plant concerns


Thank you Emilio Passarelli for sharing your feelings and opinion with us all! Emilio shared a few facts I didn’t know. Though suggesting having a chicken farm move into my area would have me object is an old way of arguing.

When large dairies were to be built somewhere near our vicinity, people got concerned. I didn’t. It turned out they were built 15 miles away. When you get with 3 miles of them you smell it. The workers there are use to it. I spoke with some.

As of now our area exists for farmers, people that travel U.S. 60 and snowbirds. I live among the snowbirds though I am not one. True most of the snowbirds do not smell! So perhaps I really don’t understand your real concern about Hickman’s Family Farms.

You (Emilio) may have missed my letter (at least the part) where I mentioned that my family had horses, goats and chickens when I was a teenager. For those that care, they were free range chickens, but we still had to keep the coop clean where they stayed at night.

Bernard Oviatt

Rate this article: 
No votes yet
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.


Get Your Free Credit Score On This Website and get your free credit report back to 700 or Higher on Your Credit Score Thanks For Visiting Free Credit Score

Gordon Posner's picture


   As Patrick observed, I've been on "vacation" from the View, resisting the temptation to reply to the nonsense written in my absence.  Now, alas, I may have to end it.  Not just because of the things Mr. Peabody has written (among others).  (Though I must point out that Congress can't "declare" the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.  That power only belongs to the Courts.) But because of the vile letter by Mr. Cranford which (like far too many "conservatives") prattles about the Constitution and the principles this nation was founded on while stomping all over them!

   Far too many ignorant (and therefore worthless) opinions are expressed in these pages.  But his is among the most dangerous!  I'm afraid I must respond to it.

   However, since I'll want to also prepare on-line Comments for all that I've "missed" before submitting my Letter in reply to him, it may take awhile.  "Watch this space for further developments!"


Ciao, for now.

Your numbers are wrong, Mr. Flynn.

The Prime Interest Rate was 21.5% when Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter. He got it down to 10%.

He cut taxes in 1981 and again in 1986. You're right about the biggest cuts going to "the rich", but he stifled it by cutting out many of the loopholes they used and limiting some of their deductions.

Some economists say his policies were responsible for a boom that lasted 25 years--well into Bush43's first term. What is odd, or pathetic, is that Romney and Ryan planned to employ many of those same proven principles had they been given the chance.

I don't know what is so difficult about the concept of making things fair for the job creators (a.k.a. "the rich"). If they aren't doing well...NOBODY is doing well.

By the way, do you happen to know when the 52 Americans that were held hostage in Iran for 444 days (on Jimmy Carter's watch) were released? It was January 20, 1981--just moments after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office!

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

  Hope you're sitting down for this one, because I partly agree.  I don't have the mortgage data in front of me (which is not the same thing as the Prime Interest Rate), but I got my ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) in 2004.  It was based on the 1-year T-Bill rate, and was around 9%.  So your statement about that is probably closer to the truth than Mr. Flynn's.  (It would have been nice had one of you provided a source for your statistics we could check, but I seem to be the only one who really cares about such things.)

   Reagan both cut and raised taxes, so that's a bit of a wash.  However, while he mostly cut taxes on higher incomes, he raised one tax in particular: the Social Security Tax.  This is the most regressive tax we have!  Not only does it have a flat rate (an idea beloved by "conservatives") but (since there's a cap on the amount of income taxed) the richer you are the less you pay!  (As a percent of income.)

   I don't really care what "some economists" say.  Frankly, I think the whole "profession" ("left" or "right") is overblown.  Sometimes I think they make their "predictions" by reading tea leaves, or goat entrails!

   On the other hand, Flynn is more accurate on the deficit.  From $73,830,000,000 in 1981, it nearly tripled to $221,227,000,000 by 1986, and was more than twice where he started in 1988.

Source: World Almanac for 2010, page 63.

   (By the way, that happened during the years when the Republicans controlled the House.  The deficits only began to decline after the Democrats regained control of both parts of Congress.  They also only declined because of the increase in taxes, not because of the "miracle" of Voodoo Economics.  Of course, for a real decline in the deficit, we have to look to the Clinton years.  But gee, thanks for demonstrating your double-standard once again.  Obama, not Bush, is responsible for the Greate Recession, but Reagan is responsible for the Clinton "boom"?)

   Speaking of the "Reagan boom", I have to note that running up the charge on the national credit card (the deficit) is one way to get the economy moving.  (I believe it's called Keynsian Economics.) Which is exactly what Reagan did.  But, alas, it kind of sputtered during Bush the First's Administration.  With unemployment rising from November of 1990 through June of 1993 (when what's-his-name was President).  As so often in the past, I give Bush partial credit for the recovery because he raised taxes!

   I don't know what's "fair" about lowering taxes on the rich (not all of whom are "job creators" by the way).  I'd say that those who benefit the most from living here should pay the most.  Adam Smith (the "father" of Capitalism) certainly felt so, as did the (probably) most pro-business of the Founders (Alexander Hamilton), he advised making it:

“a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!”

- The Federalist Papers, #36.

   Hmm, tax the rich instead of the poor.  What a commie!

   (By the way, that "makers" vs. "takers" theme is a little passe'.  At least according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.  See:

   As for the release date of the hostages, some have always felt that the "coincidence" was actually the result of a "secret deal" between Reagan and the Iranians.  You know, the same people he later sold arms to!

   Of course, your beating up on poor old Jimmy Carter raises another example of your hypocrisy.  Remember the damage to his Presidency when his rescue attempt failed so miserably?  (Some argue it helped cost him the election.)  Yet when Obama took a similar risk ("getting" Bin Laden) you fell over backwards to deny him any credit!  Can't have it both ways, my dear.  If a president is responsible for military failures, he also deserves praise for military successes - especially risky ones like that.

  (Gee, but what about Reagan and Beirut.  Now there was something to be proud of, right?)

   Of course, your ideological and partisan nitpicking evades and avoids Mr. Flynn's main point.  So let me reinforce it with a practical observation.  You know what members of the Police or Fire Departments should say when they respond to a 911 call?

We're from the government, and we're here to help!


You try that same trick every time. Everybody knows there has to be SOME government, just not so much that it intrudes into every facet of our lives.

So when you want to have a serious discussion, let me know.

By the way, Reagan didn't have a Republican-controlled House in any year that he was President and had 2 years when all of Congress was Democrat controlled.

porr000's picture

Dear Judy,

I don't want to get into the middle of your dispute with Mr. Posner, but it is just so typical of him like all liberals to use any excuse to justify increasing taxes.  If it moves, tax it.  If it ceases to move, supplement it and then tax it some more!

In this case he went all the way back to Hamilton to come up with justification on taxing the rich.  

Hamilton was writing the State of New York to tell them that (in the section Mr. Posner quoted) if the federal government was to collect the taxes (instead of the State) on IMPORTED GOODS, then it COULD (not should) have the advantage being able to charge higher taxes on the luxury items that come in for sale, such as china or silverplated items, which are mainly purchased by the rich, and that way the federal government could then offset or not charge as much tax on imported items commonly used by the poor or working classes, such as tea.  

Hamilton was NOT talking here about the income tax, because the income tax at that time did not exist.

Interesting to note however, the very first tax rebellion while Washington was president was because the government did the exact opposite on liquor sales taxes.  The big, rich, influential liquor manufacturers were charged less sale tax per bottle for their goods as the smaller and poorer individual or small business manufacturers.  So this idea of taxing the big producers, job creaters, rich entrepeneurs less per unit was not something new that started recently with Regan or BUSH, it began with our very first Congress!

porr000's picture

Mr. Posner:

Welcome back!  I knew you'd turn up again before long.  

I am at a loss over what the GOP is thinking with this announcement because I firmly felt that if they had any chance of picking up any seats in the Senate, the GOP in the House would need to cooperate this year to get an immigration reform legislation passed.  

Public pressure is what is needed here, but writing to our progressive representative Raul Grijalva about it would be like preaching to the choir, since he has already stated he feels immigration reform is the number one domestic issue that this government has to deal with.

Progressive Rep. Raúl Grijalva on Gov’t Shutdown & Why the Impasse Won’t Slow the Fight for Immigration Reform

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Patrick:

   Thanks (I think).

    Actually, it's very easy to determine "what the GOP is thinking".  Your beloved Tea Party Movement is dead set against Immigration Reform (this year or any year I suspect), unless it consists of enforcement only.  Something that has no chance of passage, this year or any time during the next three years. But since they avoid reality like the plague, they won't let that stop them.

   Boehner, meanwhile, is (as I've noted before) terrified of being challenged for his Speakership, and the rest of his party is terrified of a primary challenge.  (There are a few brave exceptions, but not enough.)  So what they're thinking is simple: they need the votes of anti-immigrant "extreme conservatives" (at least in the primaries) more than the votes of anybody else.  Personally, I think that's a losing strategy, but since G.O.P. losses don't upset me, who am I to advise them against it?

   Again, putting pressure on Grijalva (or Pastor in my case) is a waste of time.  If the Democrats controlled the House (if Pelosi was Speaker), then Immigration Reform could pass there.  As of now, it won't even come up for a vote!  (You see, the House runs purely on the principle of Majority Rule - or more precisely, the majority party in the House rules.  Democrats are simply "along for the ride".)  You want to see Immigration Reform this year?  Write to Boehner, write to Arizona's Republican members of Congress, write to Arizona's Republican State Committee (and the RNC), telling them you won't vote for any Republican (or, possibly worse, that you won't send them any money - giving it to Democrats instead), and then you might see some action.

   After all, I have no doubt that there are enough less "extreme conservatives" in the  House G.O.P. who (together with the Democrats) could comprise a majority.  But that won't do any good so long as Boehner is afraid to "buck" the Tea Party Caucus, and to abandon the "Boehner rule" that a bill must have the support of the majority of Republicans before it can even come to a vote.  (In essence, this is a kind of House "filibuster".)

   (Still, you never know.  He has done that on a few occasions.)

P.S. - But you already know all this.  After all, doesn't Grijalva make the same points in that article you linked to, who's title you altered?  Which is why the opinion you just expressed isn't "worth" a plugged nickel!

porr000's picture

What opinion are you talking about?

As far as my "knowing all that", if you mean I have heard all that baseless rhetoric being spewed by liberals before, then yes, you are correct.

However, I have yet to see the GOP say they are anti-immigration. Such a notion in this country is ridiculous. If any of them actually feel that way, they would benefit from reading chapter 2 in Mitt Romney's book, "No Apologies".

I really don't know what you mean when you say Tea Party members are dead set against immigration reform unless it consists of enforcement only. I have heard them discussing a desire for border security first, but nothing about enforcement only. They were discussing a plan that included security benchmarks for when all the other
reforms would kick in. So, I don't know where you get the idea they are extremists that don't want immigration. That doesn't make any sense.

Actually, it seems to me that the GOP in the House is completely willing to tackle the reform, providing border security is made a priority (and border security should be a priority since it is part of national defence).

You are correct, Patrick!

porr000's picture

If you check the website for the White House, the Immigration issue is at the top of all other domestic issues on the page.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Patrick:

   I fail to see how that's relevant.  Congress has to do the legislating for Immigration Reform to take place.  Sure, the President may want this, but "you can't always get what you want".

porr000's picture

It was just meant as an FYI afterthought. Writing the President about it would have the same effect as writing Grijalva. You'd be preaching to the choir.

Gordon Posner's picture


   Hey!  Anybody remember back in the November 19th issue last year when Mr. Orr insisted that Speaker Boehner (and the House Republicans) were going to deal with Immigration Reform, just not by considering what he called the "rushed" Senate bill (which was drafted and passed after a year of negotiations and work).  No, he swallowed "hook, line, and sinker" Boehner's claim that the G.O.P. preferred a "step-by-step" (also known as piecemeal) approach, rather than a comprehensive bill.  (I, on the other hand, was skeptical about the Republican's intentions, and future actions.)

(You can find the whole debate in our Comments here:

   Well, golly, look what's happened!  Barely a week after the G.O.P. announced their "principles" for Immigration Reform (a.k.a. "same old, same old"), they've now torpedoed the whole idea! (Just as they did last year.)  It seems they'd much rather wait until their "wet dream" of winning the Senate comes true, when they (supposedly) can force through only what they want, without any negotiation or compromise.  (They'll probably have to "go nuclear" on the legislative filibuster to do it.)

   Hmm, sounds to me like Boehner made a promise he couldn't and didn't keep.  Or, to use the "conservative" lexicon, he lied!


P.S. - Miss me, boys?

HA HA HA! You're way too funny for this venue, Gordon. You should get a column in a BIG newspaper.

"...they'd much rather wait until...they can force through only what they want, without any negotiation or compromise...sounds to me like Boehner made a promise he couldn't and didn't keep...he lied!"

Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, Fast and Furious, the President autocratically amending laws he doesn't like, the President looking into the eyes of all Americans and telling what he KNEW were bald-faced lies (if you like your plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep him)--AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON...yet you zero in on Boehner's pitiful attempt at a bait and switch.

Now that's what I'd call rich!

HA HA HA! Please stop--you're killing me...

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   What's "rich" is how you swallow whole, with blind faith, every accusation made by the Republi-Cons, despite little in the way of proof.  (Oh, and how you engage in hypocrisy while doing so.)



   You are probably relying on those highly selected video clips of the President saying "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance."  Funny thing.  Most of them come from the 2008 campaign, when he was describing what he intended and hoped to accomplish.  Last time I checked it's no lie if what finally happens is something different.  Especially if you aren't the sole person who gets to pass laws.  (Remember Congress?  It, not Obama by himself, wrote the Affordable Care Act - after more than a year of negotiation and consideration of various proposals.)

   Hence my comparison with Boehner.  I have no doubt that last year he intended to take up Immigration Reform (and might still), but it's clear the "extreme conservatives" in his Party don't want to.  If we apply your standard that an expression of intention must be fulfilled, or else the speaker is a liar, then Boehner lied!  (If we don't, then Obama didn't either - at least not during the 2008 campaign.)

   Other selected videos date from the period before "Obamacare" was adopted, when the various legislative proposals were being considered.  Again, those are expressions of what the President intended, not what the final result achieved.

   A few of the videos date from the period after the law was signed.  Now that could qualify as a lie (a deliberate and knowing falsehood, told to deceive the listener), except that it depends on what the President actually said (in context), and what his motive for saying it was.  Again, merely being mistaken or "inaccurate" isn't the same as lying.  (If it were, I know one regular "contributor" here who "lies" almost every time she writes!)

   Taken in context, what the President said was true.  Overly simplistic, and not comprehensive, but true nonetheless.  (It's like those drug ads on T.V. which, in their last seconds, rush through a warning of possible side effects.  Perhaps we should hold all politicians to such a standard - but we don't.)

   The President was talking about the grandfathering provisions of the Affordable Care Act - which preserves policies issued before the Act went into effect!  The Act never provided that all policies would be preserved (again, context my dear).  Policies issued after the law was signed aren't grandfathered, nor are policies that were changed after that date.  He might not have delivered a legal lecture on the subject, but that's hardly lying.

   Oh, and anyone who was interested in actually learning about the law (instead of listening to the campaign of disinformation from the "usual suspects") would have known about this.  For example, here's what a book on the Affordable Care Act had to say on the subject:


   When he was campaigning to overhaul health care, President Obama often said that if you like your coverage, you can keep it.  He was trying to neutralize fears about change, especially for those content with their employer-sponsored coverage.

   As a general rule, health plans in existence when Obama signed the law are grandfathered, meaning they are not required to comply with new requirements .  The general rule, however, is riddled with exceptions: Some new requirements will apply to grandfathered plans.

   For example, over time the legislation prohibits all employer plans from using some of the simplest cost-saving devices: lifetime and annual limits on the dollar value of coverage.

   In addition, the law leaves basic questions unanswered: What would cause a heaalth plan, including an employer-sponsored plan, to lose its grandfathered status?  Would it take something as big as, say, switching from Aetna to Cigna?  Or switching from one Aetna plan to another?  Or could it happen if an employer changed something as small as the co-payment for a specific brand-name drug?

   Those questions are among many that will be left to the rule makers.

   When health plans of small employers lose grandfathered status, they will have to meet the requirements of the essential health benefits package, the floor for coverage offered through the exchanges.

   Because employers are likely to change their plans sooner or later (benefits seldom stay frozen for long) it is probably just a matter of time before many employer-based plans must conform to something approaching the full set of new rules.

Source: Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health-Care Law and What It Means for Us All (The Washington Post, 2010) pages 160 - 161 (emphasis added).

   Now, I'll agree it would have been better if the President, every time he spoke after the law was passed, had included a disclaimer discussing this more fully.  But failing to do so is hardly lying (as I said).

   And here's where hypocrisy enters the picture.  I recall your "beloved" (Bush the Second) and his Administration making all kinds of extravagant, simplistic, and even more "definitive" assertions about Iraq, and how we just had to invade that country as the response to 9/11.  ("Mushroom clouds" ring any bells?)  Yet I don't recall you or the Republi-Cons crying "foul" when those assertions turned out to be (let's be kind) a tad "exaggerated".  No one has died because of Obama's oversimplified statements about the Affordable Care Act, can you say the same about Bush and Iraq?  (No.)  I'd say Bush's "lies" were far more grievous than Obama's.

   Finally, of course, all this depends on accepting at face value all the "horror stories" about people losing their insurance.  I've already provided (many times) links to many articles demonstrating that a little skepticism is called for, and I'll spare you a repetition here.  (This Comment is going to be long enough.)  Let's just go with one of the most egregious examples of why those stories aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Inside the Fox News lie machine I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare:

   But I must note, in passing, the recent round of Republi-Con lies concerning the recent CBO report  (which doesn't say "2.5 million jobs will be lost"), or the other nonsense "conservatives" are spewing about it.

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs:

   Yup, there's a bunch "worthy" of your implicit trust!



   You'll have to remind me: just how many different theories of the "Great Conspiracy" have you and the Republi-Cons  concocted?  I've lost count.

   First, it was supposed to be so Obama could win the 2012 elections.  (Never mind that becoming an issue in that campaign kind of defeated the whole purpose.)

   Then it was supposed to help Hillary with her 2016 presidential campaign.  (Never mind that we still don't know for sure if she'll run, much less whether she'll be nominated.  If you really think politicians think four years in advance, and plan their reactions to a crisis accordingly, you're giving them far too much credit!)

   And then it was supposed to be a "coverup" of a "secret" meeting between the Ambassador and the Turkish Counsel, to discuss what to do about Syria.  (Never mind the fact that such "back channel" meetings are standard practice in diplomacy, and hardly worth lying about to keep secret.)

   Most of all, there's no evidence such a "conspiracy" ever existed.  For all Daryl Issa's attempt to blow smoke, there's nothing in the way of a fire!  All we have is what we started out with: an understandable confusion about what happened, and why it happened.  (Ever heard of the "fog of war"?)  Given the previous riots that took place in other Arab cities that day over the stupid on-line video, it was understandable that people might assume this was more of the same.  (Moral: never assume.)  But an error is not the same thing as a lie.

   (Interestingly, some people are now saying there is a connection between the Benghazi attack and the video.  That day was chosen to make the assault precisely to take advantage of the confusion the uprisings elsewhere caused.  I must caution that this strikes me as speculation.)

   From the start of this I've complained that the Republi-Cons were more interested in a partisan witchhunt than in the real issue: finding out what happened, why it happened, and what should be done to prevent it from happending again.  (As far as is possible.)  I'm heartened by the fact that the G.O.P. is starting to focus on that issue (if only for partisan reasons), but I also appreciate the irony.  After all, that's what Hillary focused on from the start!  Remember this "infamous" statement?

With all due respect, the fact is that we had four dead Americans.  Was it because of a protest? . . . What difference at this point does it make?  It is our job to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator!

   Of course, the Senator, the Republi-Cons, and you, were all fixated on the "what difference" part, insisting that the difference was all important!  Sorry, madam, but people who really care about America (and those "four dead Americans) think that last sentence is the important part - and Hillary was right!

   But where was your outrage, madam, over Abu Grahb, the bombings at our Beirut compound (under Reagan), or a host of similar disasters and attacks on our embassies over the past decades?  Did you scream conspiracy simply because the initial reports of what happened there were inaccurate?  Or does "perfect truth" only matter when a Democrat is in charge?



  Forgetting the fact that there's still no evidence of direct involvement by the President, or that this was an attempt to "get" right-wing groups and "silence" them.  (Especially since it turns out that "left-wing" groups were "silenced" too.)  And forgetting the real scandal (how the Tax code is being abused to allow political organizations to claim they are "social welfare" tax-exempt groups), the hypocrisy factor raises it's ugly head once again.

   You see, the exact same thing happened during the reign of your "beloved" (Bush the Second), except at that time the Republi-Cons had no interest investigating it.  (Probably because "liberals" were the target.)   Gee, where was their (and your) "moral outrage" then?

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration.”

- When the IRS targeted liberals:

  If not, can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-a-c-y?



   Must I really remind you that a similar scandal arose under Bush, but with a few key differences:

   1) Bush didn't even try to follow the law (particularly the FISA Act).  Instead, and acting in secret, without bothering to inform the FISA court, he went about exercising his alleged "power" as the "Unitary Executive" to do whatever he deemed to be in the nation's interest - the Constitution be damned.  So far, it appears that Obama at least tried to follow the law, and some courts have said he did.  (The Supreme Court, of course, will have the last word.

   2) Bush's response to the scandal was to get Congress to pass new laws broadening his powers.  Obama is proposing to have the NSA's powers restricted.  (Of course, whether or not this actually happens depends on him, and Congress!)

   3) Far from criticizing him, most Republi-Cons were in Bush's cheering section, and (once again) I recall no Letters from you (or Roy, or any of the other "usual suspects") offering any condemnation.  (If you locate one, please let me know.)

   (Busy looking up how to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-a-c-y yet?)


Fast and Furious

   Lather, rinse, repeat.  (Sorry, but I'm getting tired.)


"Automatically amending laws"

   Since the President actually can't do that, I can only assume you are referring to his Executive Orders.  (Try to be more specific next time.)

   Bad news:  Obama's Administration has a record low in the number of such orders issued.  In fact, so far he's issued only 168, compared with 291 under your "beloved", and 381 under Reagan.  (Of course, he still has three years to go.)


   More interesting (again) is the reaction of Republi-Cons when "their guy" was doing the "ordering".  I don't recall any such complaints then!  For example, were they (or you) upset by Reagan's "global gag rule" (preventing the United States from funding family-planning services overseas at clinics that offered abortion-related services)?  I seem to recall you weren't.

See: Power Up: Obama’s Executive-Order Agenda

   Moreover, Executive Orders are perfectly constitutional, and are usually authorized by Acts of Congress itself.  (They are, after all, merely orders to the agencies which comprise the Executive Branch telling them how to impliment those Acts.)


    I'd say you were the "funnyman" here, except there's nothing humorous about what you keep doing.  (Is this a 1 billion dollar premium moment?)

P.S. - And next time you want to quote me, do it properly: use all my words, and keep them in context.  Funny how you neglected the following underlined parts of what I wrote. (Not to mention ignoring the fact that you were running two paragraphs together.) I wonder why?

Well, golly, look what's happened!  Barely a week after the G.O.P. announced their "principles" for Immigration Reform (a.k.a. "same old, same old"), they've now torpedoed the whole idea! (Just as they did last year.)  It seems they'd much rather wait until their "wet dream" of winning the Senate comes true, when they (supposedly) can force through only what they want, without any negotiation or compromise.  (They'll probably have to "go nuclear" on the legislative filibuster to do it.)

   Hmm, sounds to me like Boehner made a promise he couldn't and didn't keep.  Or, to use the "conservative" lexicon, he lied!

   Of course, it's that last omission which is the most serious one, since I was plainly applying your standard for what constitutes a "lie".  But, of course, that "definition" doesn't apply when we're talking about a Republi-Con.   There's nothing funny about hypocrisy, madam!


Yea, about as much as I would miss a bad case of itchy hemmoroids

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Roy:

   Well, I'm sure you know all about being that!

Comment Here