Destruction of the First Amendment in action?
To the editor:
This week, Brenden Eich, the CEO of the computer web browser Mozilla, was harassed into resigning from his position because of a donation in 2008 of $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, the California Amendment measure to protect traditional marriage.
Proposition 8 passed and was overturned by an activist court. This was challenged (the donation was in support of this), and eventually the Supreme Court punted and declined to overturn the ruling that overruled the will of the majority of California voters. An ominous sign that many believed was approval of the liberal 9th circuit court opinion.
I believe in individual rights, I am an individual with opinions, morals, faults and preferences that are all my own. I don’t have any illusions that I can somehow control who someone loves. I was in favor of our marriage amendment and preferred a civil union solution. It was voted down, and contrary to the narrative of the DFL in the last election, did encourage DFL legislators to push their agenda through without voter input.
“Gay” marriage is now law of the land. Unfortunately this being used to promote this lifestyle of approximately 2 to 3 percent of the population into anything touched by government, our courts, our schools, and don’t you dare question it or ask if it is healthy for society as a whole.
Big Brother is coming to life through leftist ideology and the gay agenda.
No longer are we to debate and disagree on societal and moral issues, the thought and speech police will attack you for diversity of thought. Nazi fascism was a leftist moment and the parallels to these tactics should be startling. Unfortunately, it takes courage to speak up, and like Mozilla, most are afraid of being vilified and targeted by those who worship at the altar of political correctness and multiculturalism.
If we don’t fight this type of anti-American trend, we will watch the destruction of the First Amendment, what our founders believed was the most important of our rights. This destruction is being perpetuated, oddly enough, by the media, seemingly the most intimidated of all, afraid to confront or expose this vocal minority. It’s a shame they didn’t have the courage to vigorously defend Mr. Eich’s right to his opinion!
This is censorship pressed by a minority who rail against anyone imposing morals on them, but insist we accept theirs, or we will be attacked and destroyed. Irony after irony after irony. So much for tolerance. Disagreement is not hate, trying to ruin those who disagree is.
Safe trapping habits lead to increased pet safety
To the editor:
We are trying to reach out to as many people as possible that may have had one of their pets killed or injured in what is called a “conibear trap.” Please, if you have or have good reason to believe you have lost a pet in a trap, please contact www.doglovers4safetrappingmn.org. Please use the link for more info on this danger to your dog.
Dog Lovers 4 Safe Trapping MN is trying to make the woods safer for your dog by requiring trappers to put conibear type traps five feet off the ground and out of the reach of dogs. Trappers are saying that it is not their fault that pets are being killed in their traps and that pet owners and hunters are responsible for not restraining their dog! Please keep in mind that these hidden traps are sometimes baited with any red meat, or even dog food. Neighboring states have passed this law with little or no effect on trappers’ success rate.
Many trappers use “quick kill” conibear type traps because trappers only have to check their traps every three days instead of every day. Using these traps only makes it more convenient for them and more dangerous for our dogs.
Please keep in mind that if you have reported a dog death to the DNR or your local sheriff’s department, that’s great, but these dog deaths are not always recorded so legislators are getting false reports with very low to nonexistent results of pets being killed in these traps and see no need to change the law for using these traps to protect dogs.
Global warming topic nears the tipping point
To the editor:
If you think you are seeing more stories on global warming, it’s not your imagination. All hands are on deck to hype this religious experience to a new level.
What is at stake is the acceptance and outcome of the 2015 U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) in Paris. After burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel, attendees will make recommendations that curtail economic growth and freedom. Think of it as the Met Council on steroids.
The UNIPCC’s recent report has outlined drastic consequences to convince world governments that climate change has arrived and will have life threatening consequences. Remarkably, a robust number of scientists have backed away from these claims as being too alarmist and not supported by scientific data. Finally, a few with a conscience.
Here in the U.S., Democrats have plans for additional EPA regulations, taxes and green energy grants.
We are at the “tipping point” they said — never mind this claim is traceable back to 1972. Notable environmental groups are adding their doomsday proclamations as well. NBC did an expose (April 6, 2014) on the changing planet that might be near its end. They insisted that each significant weather event is blamed on man’s activity, which, if not halted, will bring irreversible change.
This latest full court press is an attempt to gin up interest in a cause that has fallen on skeptical ears. The UNIPCC along with their devoted scientists have oversold their claims. Promising dramatic climatic and social upheaval, leaves us wondering if tomorrow is the last day? Yet continued claims of “having so little time left” for decades leaves the public cynical and unconvinced. Some climate change alarmists have suggested that “climate change deniers” should be jailed!
Not to be left out, the Star Tribune has trotted out the infamous cow/methane greenhouse gas debate (March 30, 2014). We are told to “eat for the planet” and that eating beef is “climatically costly.” What happened to eating for your own health? Will the farm animal tax be revisited? We are told that one cow annually produces the methane gas equivalent of burning 235 gallons of gasoline. All manner of social engineering such as light rail, smart growth and sustainable life styles are being promoted.
Again we see government forcing its hand to expand regulatory control, increase business costs and degrade our freedoms. When future generations look back, how will they judge a society in which computer models were allowed to control public policy? When power hungry governments masqueraded as scientists in order to gain credibility? When will sanity prevail and common sense return? Soon I hope, because there is another “tipping point” on the horizon.