Pay to play
EDITOR: It’s being reported that the U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in pay-to-play activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. Though not a Clinton fan, I chose to vote for her in the presidential election, as she was the most qualified candidate.
While I abhor pay-to-play (i.e. bribery) politics, I find it laughable that the Justice Department is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from restricting independent expenditures (i.e. big-donor campaign contributions) for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations, all levels of government are now run by corporations and special interest groups.
While this isn’t a new concept, the Supreme Court’s ruling (Citizens United vs. FEC) has simply made it legal. Surely, no one can believe large campaign contributions don’t influence the politicians in office. In fact, while Republicans in Congress worked on passing tax reform, Rep. Chris Collins, R-New York, stated, “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’ ”
If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
The climate religion
EDITOR: Passionate Christians can find the face of Jesus in a random stain on any wall, and passionate climate change advocates see Niagara Falls freezing under record low temperatures as a sign of global warming.
All religion is irrational by nature and not based in provable fact. California Gov. Jerry Brown claimed that the recent California fires were created by man-made climate change, but multiple scientific studies have shown that claim to be false. Even the very liberal Los Angeles Times disagreed with Brown’s wild remarks.
People believe what they want to believe. For example, most “green” politicians think it is better to burn the human food supply for energy in the form of biofuels than to burn Alaskan oil. Is that sane or logical in a world where more than one-third of the human population is malnourished?
Cold is the new hot, down is the new up, and wrong is the new right in the faith-based religion we call climate change.
EDITOR: The profiles of those who died in the October disaster offered a needed catharsis (“Remembering who we lost,” Dec. 31). I knew none of those who succumbed and appreciated the remembrances. Yet I was struck by the neglect to give equal attention to two heroines — caretakers Teresa Santos and Elizabeth Charlene Foster. These women remained and died with those they assisted, yet they didn’t earn separate special mention. That Santos family in the Philippines couldn’t be reached is a weak excuse to overlook a woman who, like Foster, purposely chose to die. They surely deserved more recognition than being identified as “caretakers.”
EDITOR: Two things our president loves: Seeing his name in the press and immature monikers. I propose that the news media stop using his name, meet him on his terms and start using something childish, such as Dishonest Don, the Orange-Haired Menace or Pocket Man. When the president stops seeing his name in print, he will start being more fair to the press, believe me.