Your letters |

Your letters

I found Dr. Mike Wadyko’s comments on June 7, and similar letters from the Left, provocative, putting it mildly.

After labeling Stan Rachesky’s letter “A bigoted, racist diatribe,” he implied Obama and McCain are similar on issues like the war on terror, taxes, abortion, etc. The doctor could hardly be more mistaken.

Though admittedly I’m not a huge fan of McCain (his liberal positions on illegal immigration, man-caused global warming, etc.), I nonetheless see the two senators miles apart on the issues above … not to mention Obama’s long-term associations with some very unsavory characters (But oh, none were those he once knew ” they experienced “change”).

Obama, the most far-left senator in decades, portraying himself as a moderate to seduce independents and become president, is a charismatic individual and a gifted orator, but his radical stance on crucial issues is lately becoming clear.

He unwittingly identified himself as an appeaser and abettor of tyrants, offering to speak without conditions to a racist, terrorist madman like Ahmadinejad of Iran, who desires to destroy Israel; even many Democrats find this reckless.

McCain would not play such games with our sworn enemies who care not for peace, but world domination for radical Islam.

Obama would be disastrous for our stand against terrorism.

Senator Obama, to fund his necessarily costly, mandatory, national health plan, would raise everyone’s taxes drastically (not only the “rich), in keeping with Democratic history of government-funded entitlement programs at taxpayers’ expense.

McCain stated he doesn’t plan to raise taxes.

The Illinois senator has also proven merciless toward helpless unborn children, with a 0 percent pro-life voting record. He even supports the execution of innocents in the process of birth, the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. (Should we dub him, “The Butcher?”)

McCain is strongly pro-life.

Imagine the Supreme Court Justices Obama would zealously nominate ” like Ms. Ginsburg on steroids.

At the risk of being labeled bigoted or racist (one mustn’t criticize the new Messiah), I’ve given specific reasons why Barack Obama’s presidency would do irrevocable harm to America. Please take heed.

John Herbst

Battlement Mesa

Sunday morning will never be the same without “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert.

So sad!

Back to politics. Why does McCain say Obama will raise your taxes? McCain says he will not raise your taxes. How can you keep spending borrowed money, money that you don’t have, something has to give. Bush says he hates war ” then why are we five years into a war, and no way to get out?

There are very few people in Europe that have respect for Bush or the U.S.A. There are protesters every time Bush goes. How can he show his face? How do you like him going in Air Force One on your tax dollars? Gas is free to him, so why not take all the trips he can?

I’ll be glad when he takes the last one to Texas.

If Obama picks a good cabinet of men, he will be OK. Many have good experiences and will be happy to give him good advice.

The Republicans cannot wait to say, “I told you so.”

McCain would be “four more years of the same.”

Are you better off than you were? Most people will say no. Seniors on a fixed income will say, “Hell, no.”

Mildred Baumli


Internationally, the approach Senator Obama proposes, including the media magic of direct meetings between heads of state in the name of peace, was tried during the 1930s, and resulted in the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Today, our country is at war with fanatical Muslims. They believe that if you are not a Muslim you are an infidel, which means you either submit to Islam or be killed. (“Because They Hate,” by Brigette Gabrielle). It is estimated that approximately 300 million Muslims are sympathetic to terrorists. Hitler or Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So we are either going to win this conflict or lose it, and you’re not going to like losing. America is not at war, our military is at war … America is at the Mall.

Now just a few words to my letter-writing critics. You’ve all used derogatory words to vent your hate because you can’t express your feelings. May I suggest you all consider taking a critical thinking class to learn how to separate your emotions/feelings from fact. You can’t change a fact.

I want to thank Robert W. Boyle of New Castle for his hateful letter calling me an “ignorant racist” and “cretin.” You really need counseling. Anita Sherman of Glenwood Springs using the term “bigot;” Rick Wolcott of Glenwood Springs for “fear-peddling racist;” Marianna Maynard of Glenwood Springs for “naïve” and “idiot;” and last but not least, and my favorite, from “Dr.”(?) Mike Wadyko of Glenwood Springs, for calling me a “bigot,” “racist” and “despicable.” I would expect more from a man who is allegedly educated with the title of Dr. before his name.

Stan Rachesky

Glenwood Springs

The idea of sticking to one’s guns has been heard lately as praise for various expressions of opinion. I believe that we must make a distinction between opinion and intellectual integrity when we use this concept.

To stick to one’s guns in the face of immutable facts is ” how can I say this nicely? ” not worthy of respect. Our president certainly has displayed this kind of disconnect, sticking to his guns both figuratively and literally when the facts don’t support his stand, and look where it has gotten us.

In matters of morality ” being honest, for instance, and upholding the provisions of our constitution, I wish more people would stick to their guns (though I would prefer calling it sticking to their principles).

The stubborn disregard for truth can make an opinion look, well, foolish at best.

Pat Girardot

Glenwood Springs

Mr. Rachesky seems to think it is critically important to mention Senator Obama’s middle name every time he speaks of the senator. Does he think the name is detrimental in some way? Not to enlightened thinkers, it isn’t.

Hussein is an ancient and noble name, meaning, “good,” or, “handsome.” The name has been in use for centuries, and was most notably the name of the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. It is also the name of several members of the royal family of Jordan. Throughout history it has been worn by as many good men as bad.

There are other names that have come down to us through the centuries; Abraham, Rebecca, Sarah, David, Saul, Joshua, and Isaac, to name just a few. All of those names are mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible, as are the names of prominent figures in Jewish religious history. Why is it that Mr. Rachesky (seemingly) has no problem with those ancient names?

Mr. Rachesky might do well to consider the words of another old name-holder; William Shakespeare, who said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Becky Penn

Glenwood Springs

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User