Posted 6 months, 27 days ago in 
Loading ...
I think it’s a sad day that the pro-abortion feminists are celebrating the ruling of a like-minded justice, which said the morning-after pill should now be available to 17-year-olds.
Has the FDA done adequate testing of this powerful drug as it would other drugs, some taking 20 years to assure their efficacy and safety? Does anyone know the effect on a healthy young woman’s reproductive system? What effect will it have on her future ability to conceive a child? Are parents required to give their consent to their daughter’s use of this new pill? They must sign a consent for their children to have an aspirin at school.
These same feminists decry the rise of teen pregnancy. Still, they push the pill and condoms and yet teen pregnancy rates still rise. There are more STDs and HIV/AIDS cases because of non-usage or misuse of condoms or defective condoms. With this pill, the risk to a young woman’s reproductive health is frightfully unsure.
Yet, these same feminists refuse to acknowledge the truth of the only way to stop teen pregnancy: abstinence. Teens, especially young women, need to know their inherent dignity and realize they are being used by males, both emotionally and physically.
Until teens learn that sex is a wonderful gift from our creator for a man and woman in marriage to give of themselves totally to each other in the loving act of creation, can we ever hope for change?
PATTI BROWN
Grand Junction
Why send local tax money
to a Front Range firm?
Are we the only ones who resent sending our property-tax money over to some clearinghouse on the Front Range?
Why in the world can’t our county employees handle the receipt and processing of the property-tax money like they did in the past? And if they can’t because of understaffing, then hire some more folks to do it. Give someone here a job instead of paying some company over in the Denver area to do it. Keep our money here in Mesa County.
AYLENE GERHARDT
RICHARD GERHARDT
Grand Junction
Homeland Security memo
endangers free speech
Before Election Day of November 2008, freedom of speech was being able to burn and desecrate the flag of the United States. Freedom of speech was saying, writing, making films about ways to kill the president of the United States. Freedom of speech was being able to march in the streets in protest to support of illegal immigrants, support of gay marriages, support of abortion.
After Election Day of November 2008, freedom of speech changed. Citizens who want the government to enforce the United States laws about illegal immigrants are now called terrorists. Citizens who do not want amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants are now called terrorists. Citizens who protested against the new taxes and borrowing of money from China are now called terrorists. And citizens who protest against abortion being supported by tax dollars are now called terrorists.
Ironically, terrorist attacks in which people’s heads are cut off, attacks that kill Americans and suicide bombings that kill the innocents are now to be called “man-made disasters” per the Department of Homeland Security.
I sure feel much safer that Janet Neopolitano is in charge of Homeland Security. This is during the first 100 days of the new administration.
SHERLENE YOUNG
Delta
Those against tea parties
should show tax records
Because most of the people who elected President Barack Obama don’t pay taxes, I think The Daily Sentinel should require citizens who submit anti-tea-party comments to submit tax returns before they print their comments.
My business paid over $8,000 last month in taxes and frankly, I’m tired of it. No business or American needs higher taxes right now. America’s handouts have gotten out of hand.
MIKE BAMBINO
Grand Junction
3 Responses to “April 30 printed letters”
Posted April 29th, 2009 at 10:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Bambino should be glad he is paying taxes. It means he is one of the few people in town still making money. (From the sounds of it, pretty big money, too).
Overall, these printed letters are kind of sad. They reflect the low educational level prevalent here, the continued mistaken belief that the first amendment protects only speech the majority wants to hear, and a fundamental lack of understanding of human sexual nature.
Posted April 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Letter write: “Citizens who want the government to enforce the United States laws about illegal immigrants are now called terrorists. Citizens who do not want amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants are now called terrorists. Citizens who protested against the new taxes and borrowing of money from China are now called terrorists. And citizens who protest against abortion being supported by tax dollars are now called terrorists.”
Cute but not at all accurate. Nobody has been restricted from speaking their mind about any issue, or in protesting. Like many, Ms. Young exagerrates because she most probably for no other reason than she is driven by emotion, not facts, and certainly not reason or logic. She is undoubtedly upset because people do not agree with, or actually disagree with her position on issues. The lady might consider expanding her intellectual diet such she can can place issues, their importance and significance in context.
Their are extremists in almost every group of individual. That is because they see nothing but what they want to see and place far too much significance on events or words, and most often establishing themselves as the final “authority” on any and all issues, even those in which they have absolutely no business. Perhaps they have way too much time on their hands if they have the time to stick their noses into others’ personal business.
Posted April 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
After reading, “Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.”, I understand how citizens who want our “government to enforce the United States laws about illegal immigrants”, “do not want amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants”, “protested against the new taxes and borrowing of money from China” and “protest against abortion being supported by tax dollars” may believe their right to free speech has changed.
I believe that SHERLENE YOUNG is accurate in her interpretation of what the Department of Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment printed relative to her concerns. She believes her “freedom of speech changed”. She is entitled to so believe.
Only a sociopath would contest her right to so believe and to express her belief by writing about her exaggerations; being driven by emotions, not facts; being without reason or logic; her being upset that people do not agree with her; her being upset that people actually disagree with her position; only seeing what she wants to see; placing far too much significance on events or words; establishing herself as the final “authority” on any and all issues; having no business expressing her belief; having too much time on her hands and sticking her nose into others’ personal business.
This attack on a woman, writing about her beliefs, expresses so much irritability; annoyance; impatience; aggression; verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger; an elevated self-appraisal: a sense of extreme entitlement; tendency to violate the boundaries and “rights” of others; apparent lack of remorse or empathy; inability to care about hurting others and recklessness. She may never read these words. So, for whom are they intended? Not her, not me and not for anyone who values free speech. But, I am guessing that the attacker is entitled to make such a repugnant attack. Does our free speech entitle such an attack?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.