sleepystork.com

Trump’s address to military — not the American way

Re: “Trump’s military speech: Cities as training grounds,” Oct. 1 news story

Donald Trump summoned our military leaders to tell them to prepare to do battle with the “enemy within” U.S. cities with Democratic mayors. We should not be talking about the government shutdown or the administration’s fear of what the Epstein files will reveal. We should be talking about impeaching an unlawful president intent on using American troops against American citizens, simply because Trump doesn’t like them. What more will it take for Congress to act?

Dan Danbom, Denver

In his speech to the military, President Trump asked the generals to applaud his comments if they wished. He then furthered with a “humorous” threat: “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room — of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.”

It appears to me that he is demanding loyalty from the military, another step in his autocracy. It scares me how many of these military leaders will support the president with the removal of our basic civil rights. Freedom of the press is going, freedom of speech is going. How far can this go before the president’s support group wakes up?

AJ Robbins, Denver

It was refreshing to see the reactions of our top military brass from around the world as they listened obediently to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump. I couldn’t imagine a tougher crowd: trained, experienced, accomplished and highly educated professionals. And they reacted exactly as I hoped they would: polite, attentive and void of emotion, no matter the content of the messages they were forced to hear.

I remain confident that our armed forces will be an additional, even if unofficial, check on sanity and stability within the executive branch.

Steve Eddy, Arvada

The president of the United States threatened me on Tuesday. He threatened the millions of other Americans who voted against him. As he called it, we are the enemy within, American citizens are considered enemies of the state.

Is this the beginning of his military dictatorship? Will our military be used against us even as it breaks the Posse Comitatus Act? How will the military respond? Is this his first step in taking over our elections by using the military? Will Republicans blindly follow him into his dangerous plan or will they finally wake up and put a stop to it?

Nancy Rife, Wheat Ridge

Shutdown: Cooperation should be the answer

Re: “Democrats vote down Republican funding bill,” Oct. 1 news story

So the Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House, and are blaming the minority for their inability to keep the government operating? I guess governing by threats and intimidation really doesn’t work. They should try cooperation. Like everything in life, it’s all about give and take. But that is not the maga (small caps) way.

J. Linden Hagan, Lakewood

Danger in a ‘radical climate change agenda’

Re: “Climate change: State lives in crisis, leads the response,” Sept. 27 commentary

Former Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. and climate change fanatics are living a lie if they think all renewables will meet Colorado’s energy needs in the years ahead.

The contrasting reality shows that nations in Europe, such as Germany, are backing off from previous green extreme policies due to prohibitive costs and instability of energy delivery.

President Trump realizes that most Americans are no longer buying into climate change alarmism. His administration’s practical approach is to make use of all sources of energy — oil and gas, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear — to meet the country’s increasing demand. This will especially be needed with new data centers for AI, projected to use up to 20% of the nation’s electricity by 2030.

If blue states such as Colorado and California continue to stubbornly commit to the radical climate change agenda, they will find themselves in far more economic distress than they have already brought upon themselves with green overkill.

 Dave Larison, Longmont

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Trump’s U.N. speech should be major cause of concern

Re: “Trump criticizes countries at U.N.,” Sept. 24 news story

Just over a year ago, we were bemoaning the fact that President Joe Biden’s advisors and the press had not called the question of his mental acuity far sooner than they did. Following President Trump’s United Nations speech, described on the front page of The Denver Post this morning, it is time to raise the question about his mental acuity. His speech was unhinged, often not founded in fact, and rambled badly.

As I volunteer for several groups focused on climate issues, I pay close attention to what the president says and does in relation to that topic. Leaving aside what he has already done to destroy the ability of the U.S. to take a leadership role in the manufacture and adoption of clean energy, his speech called on the world to refer to coal as “clean, beautiful coal,” told world leaders that their countries would fail if they didn’t stop falling for “the green scam,” repeated false information about the cost of renewable energy, and talked about how renewable energy would require subsidies (avoiding the fact that global oil subsidies are far higher). And then there was the rambling, which, I’m sorry to say, we are getting used to and seemingly accepting. Watching the world leaders with their stunned faces reminded me that we can’t get used to what we are seeing; those who have the power to do so need to call this into question.

So who is going to raise the issue of the president’s mental acuity? Let’s start with an editorial from The Denver Post.

Lynn K. Rhodes Fritz, Lakewood

Flavored tobacco: Hold the businesses accountable

Re: “Flavored tobacco: Group pushing to repeal ban outraises supporters,” Sept. 24 news story

It amazes me that no matter what level of government there is, it attacks a problem from the wrong direction. Examples are: Denver wants to ban flavored tobacco because kids get it. But they don’t go after to the businesses that sell it to kids. It is the same for alcohol. Go after the businesses that sell alcohol to minors. The U.S. government is no different. They go after illegal immigrants who are working, but they don’t go after the businesses that hire them.

Leroy M. Martinez, Denver

In his own words …

Re: “Charlie Kirk memorial was celebration of grace; then Donald Trump spoke,” Sept. 24 commentary

David Mastio quotes Vice President Vance, asserting, “Grace is the enduring legacy of Charlie Kirk.”

A sampling of the “grace” Kirk spread:

•  “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

• “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”

• On the Black women Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson: “They’re coming out, and they’re saying, ‘I’m only here because of affirmative action.’ Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

• The Democrat[ic] Party “supports everything that God hates.”

• “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up new age term that does a lot of damage.”

• “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor [Swift]. You’re not in charge.”

• “… Leviticus 18 [says, if ] ‘thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just saying.”

• “[George Floyd] was a scumbag.”

• “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

• “Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical, open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits.”

•“MLK was awful. He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe.”

It is unfathomable that Vance sees this as a legacy of grace.

Randy Livingston, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Water solutions should be based on ‘facts and compromise’

Re “Colorado’s water war with Nebraska comes to a head,” Sept. 21 news story

It is interesting that this article made no mention of the Ogallala aquifer, which helps to deliver irrigation water for crops in Nebraska.

Apparently, some parts of western Nebraska are experiencing significant depletion of the aquifer due to excessive pumping for agriculture. Climate change is also contributing to hotter weather, less rain and more drought in many western states.

As part of any future legislation for water sharing and agricultural irrigation, we must face the reality that water rights and water usage are going to be an increasingly pressing issue, and resolutions must be constructed based on facts and compromise, not threats and demands.

Stephanie Logan, Centennial

As we have a dispute between Colorado and Nebraska over water, and water districts impose water restrictions on homeowners, why are water districts and municipalities allowing developers to put more grass down along narrow strips next to roadways or by roads and sidewalks in communities that, over time, become weeds?

It may look nice, but as they water it daily and during a time when we receive rain, they still have their sprinklers going while homeowners have to conserve. Talk about wasting our valuable resource.

When are water districts and municipalities going to start facing reality, conserve our water and require developers to design something other than more grass, rather than placing burden on homeowners to conserve?

Dave Usechek, Parker

What to do about gun access?

Re: “No school is safe from gun violence,” Sept. 21 editorial

The editorial board was absolutely correct to suggest that Jeffco school officials were complacent about security at Evergreen High School. Several excuses given for not having a resource officer present strained credulity. However, I was taken aback by the board’s assertion that assigning security and hardening our schools is “the only response” to prevent school violence.

The obvious solution, if we care about life, is to limit access to guns, especially the types that can be used to kill many people in a short time, and the kinds that can be concealed in a backpack.

As a former gun enthusiast, I hate that the misbehavior of other people has made me hate a sport that I used to love, and made me realize that my rights should be curtailed because other people can’t be responsible. But that is the point of laws — we have speed limits because some people speed, we have fraud laws because some people cheat.

The only logical solution is to recognize that we no longer live in 1776, that we no longer live in a rural society, and that guns are no longer a safe or necessary part of our culture. And so our laws need to change. And our Constitution needs to change. It is not a holy document. Today, the Second Amendment hurts us more than it helps us, and we need to get over ourselves and recognize that if our kids aren’t safe in their schools, we have all failed.

Dennis P. Laughren, Golden

The editorial states the obvious, but it fails to point out the real gun violence threat to children in the USA. It’s not schools. They just get all the media coverage. Just look at the facts, which are typically overlooked when emotions run high.

Sure, school shootings are beyond horrific. But a child is three times more likely to die in a mass shooting (or be injured – a category too often ignored) from a gun at home — more than half by a relative.  Add in gun violence against children in the community, and schools end up being the safest place for kids to be.  Add all the armed guards in schools you want, but most of the deaths and injuries in school shootings happen in the first 2 to 5 minutes of the shooting – far too quickly for armed personnel to respond.

If you’re a gun-lover, the best option would be to put armed guards in the homes of every child — and on the streets – because that’s where the vast majority of children are killed or maimed. Otherwise, it’s simply understanding that this is the only county on the planet with more guns than people. When we understand that, the solution is simple.

Joe McGloin, Sheridan

Hateful speech is not protected from criticism, employers

Re: “Don’t use Kirk’s death to silence speech, even gross speech,” Sept. 21 commentary

Elizabeth Spiers, the author of the article “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning” that Emily Tracy posted to her Facebook page, claimed Kirk was a “racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist.” Jasmin Murguia’s post characterized Kirk as “a white man who spews horrid [expletive] against every marginalized community.”

This is typical name-calling of conservatives by leftist progressives who mischaracterize their statements and are unable to offer effective counterarguments.

Others besides Krista Kafer are defending those who made hateful comments about Charlie Kirk after his assassination, arguing that it is against the First Amendment to suppress hateful speech. I agree, but those who issue hateful speech should not be surprised to receive criticism from others exercising their free speech. If they do so when they are in the government, teaching in schools, or working for corporations or non-profits, they must bear in mind that their comments — whether issued publicly through social media or in their official positions — may not align with the standards or policies of the organizations with which they are affiliated.

Organizations that discharge individuals who cheered Kirk’s death or made hateful comments often are within their rights to do so if they believe those actions sully the organization’s image or undermine the organization’s or that individual’s ability to interact with the public, clientele, or coworkers. The individuals are not silenced, as Charlie Kirk was permanently, but can continue their diatribe, just maybe not while with organizations that find their comments out of place.

Steve Lloyd, Cheyenne, Wyo

Respectful discourse is the priority now

Re: “Because of Charlie Kirk: We must speak louder,” Sept. 21 commentary

Amy Stephens, in her guest commentary, points out that she and others must now articulate the values expressed by Charlie Kirk and many others. Yes, we must all encourage each other to articulate the values we find to be important, but most of us just continue, with growing peril, to “speak louder.”

Where are our best role models for good listening and for respectful discourse? Can we yet recover enough willingness to recognize that we ourselves just might gain new wisdom from people with whom we disagree?

Can we “listen better”?

Peter Hulac, Denver

In Amy Stephen’s guest commentary, she blames “progressive ideologue professors” for Charlie Kirk’s murder, claiming that such persons are “justifying violence when their ideas are challenged” and that now, instead of tantrums, they are throwing bullets. This is absolute rubbish, calculated to pour gasoline on the growing divide between conservatives and progressives.

The truth is that both conservatives and progressives are saddened by the senseless loss of this young father, regardless of any disagreement with his political and religious beliefs. Since Stephens is a Coloradan, she must be aware that on the day of Kirk’s murder, there was yet another school shooting in our state, perpetrated by a young man who was radicalized by an obsessive following of internet sites, which also inspired Charlie Kirk’s murderer.

Neither of these killers was urged to kill in a college classroom, as Stephens is well aware. Her vicious falsehoods are especially harmful now, at the moment when all Americans need to find common ground and affirm that political violence is never, ever acceptable.

Patricia Bedinger, Fort Collins

Many Colorado districts aren’t competitive

Re: “State to stay on sidelines in redistricting,” Sept. 21 news story

I appreciate the work of Jorge Rodriguez and his backers calling for the state of Colorado to fight back against states that are gerrymandering congressional district boundaries to benefit one political party. He’s right. It isn’t fair and something must be done. But I believe that something should be done regardless of whether other states are cheating.

While it may be true that Amendments Y and Z succeeded, to a certain extent, in taking politics out of the redistricting process, it did not take the next step: making congressional districts more competitive.  Colorado’s congressional districts generally still favor candidates from one party over another.  Just look at the data from the 2024 election.

While Gabe Evans, a Republican, won District 8 by just 2,449 votes and Jeff Hurd, also a Republican, won District 3 by just 19,804 votes, the rest of our districts clearly favored one party over another.  Jeff Crank, a Republican, won District 5 by nearly 50,000 votes.  Lauren Boebert, a Republican, won District 4 by almost 52,000 votes. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat, won District 7 by over 60,000 votes. Jason Crow, a Democrat, won District 6 by more than 70,000 votes.  Joe Neguse, a Democrat, won District 2 by over 164,000 votes.  And the venerable Diana DeGette, a Democrat, won District 1 by 190,000-plus votes!

Based on the data, the State of Colorado cannot claim that it has done a good job of making our congressional elections competitive, as it has not.  There is a lot more work to do.

Mike Dubrovich, Parker

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Bag fee is a hidden tax on Coloradans

Founding Father John Dickinson, a Pennsylvanian who participated in writing the Declaration of Independence, joined his colleagues in condemning England’s Stamp Act. He termed it “… an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies — a dangerous innovation.”

Gov. Jared Polis’s signature on the legislation that outlawed plastic grocery bags, allegedly to save the environment, rings with similarity. California, Washington and Oregon have similarly banned plastic soda straws (Really? Soda straws?), considered a major step in the greening of the West Coast.

The main accomplishment in Colorado has been to burden citizens with significant inconvenience and a new tax (bypassing input by voters) that enriches Colorado cities and counties by millions annually. The tax provides no new constituent services, and the only greening I have seen is in the county and municipal coffers. Meanwhile, plastic packaging in all forms dominates supermarkets and every other marketplace. Banning plastic bags compares to a spit in the ocean..

Colorado’s bag-taxing efforts will have a negligible effect on the environment. It’s all about the money.

Alan E. Deegan, Highlands Ranch

Tylenol vs. the really toxic chemicals in our world

Re: “Trump promotes unproven claims about Tylenol and autism,” Sept. 23 news story

I have little doubt that the rise of autism in our modern world is a result of chemical disturbances to physical and neurological processes. But instead of attacking vaccines, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and his anti-autism cohort should widen their view a bit. In medicine, devices and medications are extensively tested and studied, and their approval is based on benefit with reduced risk of harm.

In agriculture and industry, the opposite is true: chemical compounds are developed to perform certain tasks, with far less attention to interactions with other chemicals or unintended consequences. A pesticide is designed to kill “pests” – it’s only through realization of “off-label” harms that its use is challenged. While pollinators die in large numbers due to exposure to neonicotinoids, those trying to save bees are forced to prove the harmfulness of the substances used in pesticides, while industry pushes back.

Instead of attacking one of the few tested and studied types of compounds, I suggest Kennedy and his cohort turn their attention to the lightly-regulated toxic chemical stew in which we breathe, drink, and live. I’d be amazed if they weren’t able to uncover some autism triggers.

Nancy B. Weil, Denver

The FCC Chairman’s end goal is now apparent

Re: “Disney made its move with pressure on multiple fronts,” Sept. 21 news story

Ah, it’s becoming clearer now that we-who-haven’t-been-paying-attention learn that the FCC Chairman Brendan Carr helped write Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative policy handbook. Carr has encouraged local TV stations to push back against national networks that he believes create left-leaning programming.

Recently, The Denver Post informed us that the FCC caps national broadcast ownership at 39% of households, and yet the Nexstar-Tegna merger would more than double that, reaching over 80% of American households. This conglomerate will consist of 265 TV stations in 44 states, and the merger will require Carr’s approval, which it is sure to get by being the first media company to pull the Jimmy Kimmel show.

Nexstar will own four Denver stations when the merger is approved, adding 9News and KTVD. The writers of Project 2025 certainly had a plan for what we should be allowed to watch on TV.

Carol Kalmes, Wheat Ridge

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.