Home →Editorials / Opinions ( July 25, 2018 )
It seems to me that mixing politics in an article concerning our health and well being "How To Take Pills" by Dr. Ron Gasbarro is "Bad Medicine." To post that "President Trump is intending to pull the US from the Paris Agreement before it goes into effect in 2020, which will allow global warming to progress and will amplify its devastation of the planet" should be an article placed in "Letters to the Editor."
Furthermore Dr. Gasbarro, why don't you blame President Trump for the sinking of the Lusitania, after all, President Trump is part German and it is a German U boat that sank it.
Did you read my article on Global warming in a letter to the Editor? Allow me to add to it: According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory the number one cause to most global warming is due to nature's oceans, followed by forest fires and volcanic ashes. Adding to the release of carbon dioxide is cellular respiration where many plants, humans and animals expel this gas. In addition, the cutting down of forest does not help, for trees need carbon dioxide for survival.
Long before automobiles, coal burning and wood burning the Earth was under water: This means the Earth must have been rather warm for it to be entirely covered by water for the polar caps to have melted: The Earth was once entirely covered by ice, which means it was freezing cold. Simply put; the Earth went through natural cycles long before humans were here.
If one tries to Google information, it seems rather difficult to obtain this information, for most sites seem bias favoring "Human Intervention" of climate cause. I can see how bias comes about.
Remember also, on a 24 hour clock we humans have been here for less than 1/2 minute. President Trump has not reached 100 years old. On a 24 hour clock he would be practically non-existence. I suppose if one urinates in an ocean it will cause the temperature to rise.
Sincerely,
Larry Gary, Gibson, PA
It's time to accept the results of the 2016 Presidential Election that Donald Trump won, for bad or good.
Based on what he has accomplished in his Presidency for the U.S. and all of its Legal citizens, so far it has been good, so let's get behind him and support him instead of continuing to be against him and everything he tries hard to achieve for all legal citizens. It's time for the legal citizens to know and realize that the Democrats want to continue their vicious rhetoric of dividing legal citizens with the type of government they want to impose on our country in the future.
Vote for whatever party you decide is the better one to govern our country in November, 2018, but be sure that is the way you want to be governed when you vote. The future will definitely be at stake. I know now the party I'll vote for --- do you? If not, then give it a lot of serious thought between now and November!
Sincerely,
John Hollenback, Greenfield Township, PA
To all of you that bought those foreign cars and trucks. Do you realize that all of the profits go back to Japan, Korea and Germany?
Buy Jeep, Chrysler, Ram, Ford, GM and more. The auto workers and assemblers that are employed in the USA should not be working for foreign companies. Our country has a long list of great autos and trucks. To name a few - Crosley, Nash Rambler, Hudson Jet, Kaiser Frazer, Studebaker Lark, Chevrolet II, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Dart, and the great International Harvester Scout! These American small cars were very fuel efficient.
Your new foreign auto purchase has cost you big money, higher insurance rates and a lack of getting parts when a breakdown happens.
Last year, in 2017, Korea sold 650,000 cars, Japan sold 5 million cars and trucks and Germany 1 million cars in our USA.
In Japan, less then 15,000 American vehicles were bought. In Korea, around 43,000 American vehicles were bought. Shame on Korea and Japan!
Our new Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, Jeep, GM and Ford are just as good or better then the foreign vehicles.
Let's put Americans back to work for our auto companies.
Sincerely,
Bruce Moorhead, Susquehanna, PA
Could it be that Gov. Tom Wolf's visit to the Northern Tier in September of last year has already slipped his mind? Last fall, his office issued a press release, quoting him as saying: "It is important that smaller and rural communities know state government is listening to them and affirming their important role in our Commonwealth."
It seems he's quickly forgotten us.
Late last month, while visiting Philadelphia, the governor announced that he wants every dollar of state education funding – money you pay through income, sales, inheritance and corporate taxes – to be funneled through the Fair Funding Formula that was put in place in 2015-16 as a way to help balance out education funding statewide.
Currently, only new education increases since 2014 are calculated this way – solely because of rural areas like ours. To implement this funding formula using 100 percent of state aid would literally bankrupt most of our rural schools. In fact, 357 of the state's 500 public school districts would LOSE out on state funding.
Based on state Basic Education subsidies from the most recent 2017-18 academic year, take a look at how much state funding our local schools would lose:
That money – which makes up a large chunk of school districts' budgets – would either have to be made up through local property taxes or schools would have to go without. Neither is a viable option.
Where would that funding be directed instead? Using funds dispersed from the most recent 2018-19 state budget, the increase to the School District of Philadelphia alone would total more than $330 million. Several school districts in growing districts would receive increases sometimes doubling their current appropriation.
I appreciate the fact that growing school districts need more support from the state. But I also fight for my home communities, and I fight to ensure that your voice is as loud and convincing as those from other parts of the state.
When the Fair Funding Formula was adopted, those of us in rural areas stressed the fact that many of our districts are declining in population and that we have higher than average rates of poverty. We successfully made our point. To push more of the burden on local property taxpayers would cripple our communities, drive more people from our communities and result in subpar education quality. We can't afford that.
I implore Gov. Wolf to change his mind and to keep the funding formula as it is. He needs to keep his promise to the people of rural Pennsylvania that they matter. Because they do.
Sincerely,
State Rep. Tina Pickett (R-Bradford/Sullivan/Susquehanna)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is gone, but his legacy remains. Kennedy, that tireless originator of courtroom law, streamlined the cumbersome constitutional procedure to amend the Constitution.
Article V stipulates that two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the states must approve an amendment. It's a wonder that any modifications were passed. But somehow, 27 were.
For years Americans were divided between dry and wet: some wanted prohibition while others were staunchly against standing between a man and his drink.
In 1919 the constitutional requirements for an amendment were met. The 18th Amendment settled the issue: the nation went dry. A few years later, the voters realized that the problems caused by prohibition were worse than those made by allowing liquor. The 21st Amendment was passed, in 1933 that repealed the 18th Amendment.
At the same time, the issue of women's suffrage was settled. This, too, was debated for years. Again, constitutional requirements were satisfied. The 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. All citizens 21 years of age or older could now vote in all elections and all states.
We have not wanted for contentious issues in our time. Race headed the list. Legal separation of the white and black races came to a head in Brown v. Board of Education. In a "landmark" decision, the Court ruled unanimously against racial segregation.
It was indeed a landmark decision, but not for a reason commonly supposed.
Nowhere in the Constitution is race mentioned. Or for that matter, neither are the Left's rallying causes of sex or religion cited in the Constitution. The Court should have referred the issue of racial segregation to the states.
But that would have taken years to settle. The justices all agreed that segregation was unjust. What to do?
Then they had a light-bulb moment: Why not avoid a lengthy battle for a Constitution amendment with an uncertain outcome and rule on the Brown case?
Accordingly, in 1954 the Court unanimously found that separate facilities for whites and blacks are inherently unequal, effectively mandating integration. The 14th Amendment, which has nothing to do with race, was the constitutional pretext for an unconstitutional procedure.
It was a landmark decision because the Court sidestepped the amendment procedure specified in the Constitution. It was the first of many such landmarks.
Abortion, a word not even mentioned in mixed company, became a national controversy in the '60s. A supermajority of justices was in favor of abortion on demand. Ergo, they decided to take another judicial shortcut and merely rule on an issue not mentioned in the Constitution. And so, they did.
In 1973, by a vote of 7-2 Roe v. Wade granted women the constitutional right to terminate their pregnancies. This "constitutional right" for abortion was foreign to the Constitution. Then it was discovered in the 14th Amendment---Where else?
It was all too easy.
Same-sex marriage became the next cause célèbre. The Leftist Court sympathized with their ideological brethren. In 2015, by a vote of 5-4 same-sex marriage was established in all 50 states. And where did the Supremes find the rationale for this ruling? Justice Kennedy, who cast the deciding vote, found it in---you guessed it---the 14th of course.
The High Court might as well have scrapped the Constitution, saving only the 14th Amendment. But it got worse.
January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order banning citizens from seven nations from entering the U.S. for 90 days. His authority to do so was iron-clad. The Supreme Court declared, in 1950 that "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty inherent in the executive power."
Congress elaborated on the Court's ruling in 1952, saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
On January 28, 2018 a federal judge blocked it. Trump amended the EO. Another federal judge blocked it. And so it went back and forth like a game of tennis for four tedious months until the Supreme Court upheld the president's Executive Order.
The judges who blocked the president's EO thought it nothing to ignore the Supreme Court's 1950 decision, as well as Congress' elaboration of a president's total authority over immigration in 1952.
I suppose this is the long way around the barn to say that we need federal judges who are constitutional originalists, not liberal imagineers or like those on the 9th circus who are a law unto themselves.
Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins, New Milford, PA
A lot of fans of the current Leader have been saying that "he's the best President since Reagan". Like they're a couple of Oval Office Bobbsey Twins. They may have a point. Let's look at it.
Trump stirs up primitive hate against all foreigners. And fear. I remember Reagan doing that.
Trump alienates and offends our allies, while fawning over and flattering tyrants. That's Reagan.
Trump is insulting and dismissive toward women, just like Reagan was. (Plus he's entitled to assault them any time he pleases.)
Trump encouraged violence at campaign rallies. Reagan did that.
Trump mocks and sneers at cripples, war heroes, and Gold Star families. How Reaganesque.
Trump calls the media "the enemy of the people". Reagan said that first. (I think it was Reagan.)
Trump spoke of the "fine people" who marched with Swastika flags. History repeats itself, so did Reagan.
One says, "Build the Wall!" The other says, "Tear down that wall!" Same thing.
Remember how Reagan used to sing his own praises constantly? I sure do.
And of course, Reagan was also a corrupt and multiply-bankrupt businessman.
Oh wait. That's not Reagan at all. So the comparison is strained. Perhaps they should instead be saying that he's the best Leader since Hitler. And I wouldn't be surprised if they cotton to Dolfie as well. Remember those Swastika at "Unite the Right".
Folks, it should be blatantly obvious that the current occupier of the White House is of extremely low character. But that's precisely what he's adored for. So no one who does so should be surprised, or should whine, when they're considered "deplorable". Frankly, I'm seeking a stronger word for it.
Sincerely,
Stephen Van Eck, Rushville, PA