Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Subscriber Services | 928 Media Lab | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Obits | Yellow Pages | TV Listings | Contact Us
The Prescott Daily Courier | Prescott, Arizona

home : opinions : opinions April 24, 2015

5/20/2012 10:56:00 PM
Letter: Liberals seek to control all parts of life


Susan Brown was right on in her April 24 article, "Is Progressivism the New Communism? In the 30s, the Communist Party attracted members by championing noble causes like working conditions, safety and equal employment for blacks and women. They were powerful union activists, although most unions didn't allow minorities in. With the negative information regarding the Soviets and Stalin, communism became a negative label soon to be replaced by progressivism and noble sounding groups saving endangered species, Green Peace, etc. Marx and Lenin advocated using climate and ecological issues as a weapon to destroy capitalism. Is it just coincidence that Earth Day falls on Lenin's birthday or that liberal group organizers wear red T-shirts? I think not.

Global warming was conceived in the United Nations by Maurice Strong, a leader in the organization's environmental programs. Although not a new idea, the UN provided the vehicle for its creation as a world crisis demanding immediate action. Opportunists like Al Gore quickly jumped aboard and the carbon exchange was created. The environmentalists encouraged manipulated scientific evidence to support their agenda and liberal groups supported such misuse of science with grants and financial backing. The progressive media championed the cause and declared it proven science declaring anyone opposing it as stupid, ignorant or uninformed.

Save the polar bears, relocate the wolves, protect the snail darter have little to do with what they profess. They are excuses for controlling land use and preventing private development of such areas. Organized environmentalists again recruit well intentioned people to front their agendas. The EPA now has control of our air, water, agriculture, land and energy. This is getting pretty close to total control of all our activities. Control of our health should make it 100 percent.

Mel Rollins


Related Stories:
• Letter: Stop the Communist fear-mongering

    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Parker man arrested, accused of DUI in fatal Prescott Valley crash (7036 views)

•   Paulden man gets 30 years for drug, child sex charges (2539 views)

•   Director of PV Head Start loses job: Official says 'No one was fired' (1939 views)

•   Arrest made in fatal crash (1711 views)

•   Details emerge in incident involving security guard (1573 views)

Reader Comments

Posted: Thursday, May 24, 2012
Article comment by: Steven Ayres

One of many cases concluded or advancing on 14th-Amendment grounds: San Francisco v Schwarznegger et al.

Posted: Thursday, May 24, 2012
Article comment by: Steven Ayres

Bob, It'll be impressive to see your next comment done entirely with 18th-century spelling.

So should we take it that you don't think equal protection matters? Just for future reference, what other bedrock American principles do you think we should give up for the sake of your argument?

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: Bob Webster

@Steven Ayres - you guys are really devious. While you may be correct that the "preferred" spelling is "inalienable", John Galt was quoting the text of the Declaration of Independence, wherein it is spelled "unalienable". You are simply unable to remain focused on the issue or just trying to distract attention from the point.

And I must say that your invocation of the "equal protection clause in the bill of rights" is very interesting, but also wrong. If you were correct, then all the states that have defined marriage as between one man and one woman would be in court defending those state constitutional provisions and laws against claims of violation of the plaintiffs' right to equal protection, which they aren't.

What else you got?

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: Steven Ayres

Given the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights, the principle under our laws must be that if the state recognizes a marriage between two adults, it must recognize the relationship as such for any two adults, with equal benefit and responsibility no matter who they are.

And no, Bob, the preferred spelling is indeed "inalienable."

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: Bob Webster

@John Galt - indulge me what is the principle upon which you base your view that marriage should be what anyone wants it to be? That's clever to say you did state such a principle and that you won't repeat yourself, but how does that further the discussion if what you claim to have stated is so subtle or esoteric that it was lost on your audience? And, if you actually did state such a principle, why would you refuse to repeat it? I think maybe you still haven't figured out how you are going to describe the principle, which you failed to state in your original response to my request that you do so. Are you so busy that you can't just cut & paste the principle I/we missed?

B/t/w, it's "unalienable".

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: Give em... is out of line.

Your comment was mean, and uncalled for. I don't know Mel, but I am sure he is a wise man who is entitled to his own opinion. I am liberal and am offended by remarks like yours. Ageists are just as bad as racists and sexists.

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: open book

Mr. Galt. I'm sure we'll discuss that on these boards sometime soon :)

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: The Rev

John Galt = Brilliant.

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: John Galt

@ Open Book

Thx. Now, if I can bring Bob around on gay marriage and bring you around on abortion, my work here will be done.

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: John Galt


"Your response did not provide a principle on which to base your position that marriage should be whatever anyone wants it to be."

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I did. So I won't repeat myself. And you don't offer a rebuttal on my statements regarding the defintion of marriage being based on religious beliefs nor on the principle that liberty belongs to all. But now you shift the focus to being not based on principle but what the majority believes?

Ok. I'll tackle that one too then. Believe it or not, our constitution was not based on what the majority believes. Let that sink in for a moment. The basis of our consitution is to protect those "certain inalienable rights" of the minority from the majority. Its why there is a separation of powers. Its why there is a Supreme Court. Its why every state, large or small, has two senators to represent them. So that the minority have a voice. Our founding fathers rightfully foresaw that the rights a small unpopular minority could be easily trampled upon by the majority.

I believe so strongly in these principles, I took an oath many years ago to protect and defend the Consitution Of the United States of America even though our nation does not always live up to our lofty ideals. In some ways we're getting closer and in some ways even farther away. But I believe, to the bottom of my soul that freedom belongs to every human being. And if someone else is wrongfully deprived of a right that I have, then my own rights are demeaned.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Because if I haven't convinced you by now to evaluate your principles for consistency across the board, I ain't never gonna. But its been fun chatting with ya.

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: open book

Does anyone else see the irony that this discussion has become about controlling who one marries?

Mr. Webster: Unless you are a "liberal," I believe you have successfully negated Mr. Rollns' claims.

Mr. Galt: I don't suscribe to many of your ideologies, but I do appreciate your comments about marriage.

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Article comment by: Bob Webster

@John Galt - glad to see you restrict your considerations re marriage to our species, but what makes you think others will show similar reasonableness? I think it was Albert Camus who said "contrast is the essence of vision", hence my use of hyperbole to illustrate my point.

I was surprised when BHO issued his statement on gay marriage, surprised that he stated that it was decision for the states to make. I agree. And have you noticed that there are 30+ states that have put this question to a vote and gay marriage has not been approved?

Your response did not provide a principle on which to base your position that marriage should be whatever anyone wants it to be. The institution of marriage as the majority define it has provided a stabilizing force for civilization for many years (thousands?) and protects children by affording them the influence in maturing of both a father and a mother. I think you would be hard pressed to reasonably and honestly dispute that the cause of a lot of humanity's problems today can be traced to the break down of the traditional family structure. And you do not have to look any farther than the USA to see textbook examples.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: John Galt

@ Bob Webster

Sometimes one can make a point by carrying it to its extremes. But not to ridiculousness. So forgive me if I don't defend marriage to inanimate objects. Or to animals for that matter for two reasons: mainly that my original point was marriage between consenting (infer sentient) people, and secondly because while I believe in eating animals I don't believe in abusing them. Ok so thats out of the way.

Now. The defintion of marriage is what we say it is. If you base your one man-one woman defintion on your religion, I can't argue with you. Thats between you and your God. But its not your right to impose religous beliefs on others. You're not qualified. Leave it up to God to punish them in his own way. Sunday school was a long time ago but I'm pretty sure I remember something about 'judge not, lest ye be judged'. So don't let gays be married in your church. Outside of your faith, you have no say over others.

If you base the defintion on civil law, I really don't see how you can justify granting a priviledge to one group but not another. I mean, if we really, really believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, thats got to apply to everyone. No exceptions.

Homosexuals don't threaten me. Neither do polygamists for that matter. If thats what floats your boat, knock yourself out. Years ago no one had the right to decide who they married. Their families would arrange the marriages, trade some livestock, and the young couple had no say in who their partner was. But we evolved, right? We said, no, people should have the right to choose their mate and to marry who they love. Well, it's no stretch at all to carry that one step further and say yes, people do have a right to marry who they love, even if it is a person of the same sex.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: dean martin

@ Bob Webster, I can't speak for "John Galt" (If that is his real name...) but how does two consenting adults choosing to get married get twisted into the scenarios you've proposed? Polygamy, if the parties involved are all legal, consenting, humans, shouldn't be an issue to anyone but those involved. Why does it bother you? Is your life so fragile that if the definition of marriage you think is correct isn't the same for everyone else it will somehow come to an end?

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: John Turnbull

So: Earth Day is a Commie plot! I knew it! And liberals wear red T-shirts! I suppose the Commies chose St. Valentine's day because it's Stalin's birthday, and that's why the hearts on greeting cards are red. And Sheriff Joe makes his inmates wear pink underwear because he's a secret Pinko...

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: Bob Webster

@John Galt - you say conservatives value liberty but object to homosexuals deciding who they want to marry. That was very subtle and I must tip my hat to you for your deviousness, but what conservatives object to is (re)defining marriage to be anything other than the union of one man and one woman. If you can redefine marriage to permit homosexuals to marry, where does it stop? I suppose you would support polygamy? How about humans marrying animals? And then, of course, there are inanimate objects. Maybe some guy wants to marry his '57 Chevy or some gal wants to marry her Kitchen-Aid mixer. Where exactly do you draw the line and, more importantly, based on what principle? I look forward to your reply.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: pablo noname

Mel, very good letter and spot on. The only thing I disagree with you on is the term "Liberal" being used to describe the Communists, Leftists, Socialists and Progressives. The LEFT has hijacked the term liberal in an effort to tell people that they are for LIBERTY. One cannot be for LIBERTY when they want total control peoples lives. The term LIBERAL should actually apply to Libetarians who believe in smaller Government and liberty for the individual. Obviously, those on the Left cannot allow LIBERTY to continue if they want to push their Global Governance agenda. We are Americans, the last bastion for FREEDOM. The World sucks, America sucks less!

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: George Seaman

Well Brother John Birch couldn't have said it any better! Come on folks...get over the red threat, this isn't the 50's. Air, water, public lands, healthy food without poisoning children...these are ALL public interest issues and the public has a right to influence the regulation of them. This is supposed to be a democratic republic, the citizens have a right and a responsibility to have this kind of "control" over our public interests. Go cry somewhere else...you are embarrassing yourself.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: John Galt

@ My Opinion

I do agree with that.

The 'philosophy' of conservatism is so much better at defining and preserving the rights, liberties and dignity of the individual- if there just weren't so many so-called conservatives who embrace only the parts they like.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: My Opinion

While I think there are bad actors on both sides of the political spectrum, I also think American liberalism, as practiced, REQUIRES a level of dishonesty and hypocrisy that conservatism does not. Don't get me wrong, there are conservatives that are dishonest and/or hypocritical, but their political philosophy does not require it.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: al hummerich

Let's not forget, Mel is of an age where his generation spilled blood for the freedoms we take for granted. He has every right to fear Washington today.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: John Galt

Jasmine Tea is right on the money, and so is Pot Calling Kettle Black.

The biggest problem is that so many people dont evaluate their belief systems for consistency.

Bleeding hearts shed crocodile tears over convicted murderers who receive a death sentence and champion the value and dignity of human life, but they don't even blink at murdering an innocent unborn baby.

Conservatives champion individual rights and the blessings of liberty but they would deny the right of two consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex to choose who they want to marry.

We need a third party- a real one this time. Objectivism. You dance to whatever tune you like as long as you don't step on someone else toes. I'll keep what I earn, you keep what you earn and you if you have more than me because you're more successful I won't get envious and try to take it away from you.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: white warlock

Tom, Murdoch and Alies have both recently admitted that they were going to start moderating Fox Noise toward the middle since their basic viewer demographic is over 65 years old, living on Government assistance, with no buying power. They are talking about hiring Keith Olberman and Rev. Sharpton to try and balance the right wing hate. Hannity recently signed a single year contract for way less money than in the past. Fox got rid of Glen Beck, soon they will shed Hannity and O'reilly in favor of Rachel Madow. Just like America, Fox Noise is EVOLVING to the left.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: M D

Steele. Fox offers very little in the way of news, mostly they are commentators paid to promote a corporate agenda. When they are caught up in a lie, their own defense is that they are only entertainers. But the comment you make speaks volumes about your bias and gullibility.

Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Article comment by: Tom Steele

Progressivism is the new Communism with a new coat. If you look at the issues they support they all attack capitalism and grow control by government. Unless you watch FOX you will miss most of these facts. The large increases in FOX viewership is not accidental. Most people are thinking on there own in spite of the liberal view that only the liberal view is correct.

  - Page 1 -  Page 2

Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you

Quick Links
 •  Submit site feedback or questions

 •  Submit your milestone notice

 •  Submit your letter to the editor

 •  Submit a news tip or story idea

 •  Place a classified ad online now

 •  Browse the Yellow Pages

Find It Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Links
Classifieds | Subscriber Services | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Find Prescott Jobs | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
© Copyright 2015 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Daily Courier is the information source for Prescott area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott Newspapers Online is a service of Prescott Newspapers Inc. By using the Site, dcourier.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Prescott Newspapers Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2015 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved