Calling Democrats radical: Letters to the editor, March 8, 2019

Democratic party: Collectivism, utopian radicalism

The Green New Deal exemplifies the silly utopian radicalism of the modern American Democratic Party. Outlaw air travel? Outlaw the use of fossil fuels in 10 years? Rebuild every building in America?

About 70 congressional and/or nationally famous Democrats have apparently signed onto this. Does the Democratic party really think this is going to ensure their success in future elections? Air travel without fossil fuels is largely impossible. Do Democrats really think that Americans want to be prohibited from flying on airliners and from driving gasoline powered cars?

The overwhelming majority of Hispanic Americans vote Democrat, but the large majority of Cuban Americans vote Republican. The large majority of first generation Vietnamese immigrants vote Republican. The famous politically conservative writer Ayn Rand (author of “Atlas Shrugged”) was from Russia. Has anyone wondered why people who come to this country from communist or formerly communist countries tend to identify with the Republican party? It is because the Republican party stands for personal liberty, property rights and individualism, and the immigrants in question have had, in their homelands or in the memory of their families, more than their fill of the collectivism constantly being pushed by the modern Democratic party.

Is it right to defy federal government?

With Los Angeles announcing they are now a “City of Sanctuary” it got me wondering about immigration and how these cities can be a beacon of hope for immigrants no matter race, religion, or cultural preferences.

I believe that our country can greatly improve our immigration policies. On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how immigration and these cities that are opening their arms wide are going to affect us in the future. If they declare that by being a sanctuary city, they are protecting the human rights of all our residents, are they also considering that they may be violating the rights of residents that are here legally?

While the Tenth Amendment declares a separation of state and federal powers that make these sanctuary cities legal, we must look at the big picture and ask the question: is it right for these cities to still receive federal funding if they don’t want to comply with federal laws? I understand the need and want of helping immigrants; some of them make our country great. But we should consider every ramification it can cause instead of just wanting to defy our current administration.

On access to the San Joaquin River

Steve Brandau’s response to criticism of his votes on vehicular access to the proposed River West trail addition, as reported in the Feb. 13 Bee, was puzzling. Brandau maintains that the Palm/Nees access point is more convenient for people arriving at the nearest bus stop because it would take 21 minutes to walk from the bus stop to the Riverview/Del Mar access point, versus only five minutes to Palm/Nees.

Does Brandau not realize that there will be pedestrian access to the trail at both Palm/Nees and Riverview/Del Mar, no matter where the trailhead parking lot is located? Why would anyone arriving by bus walk to Riverview/Del Mar on surface streets when the Palm/Nees trailhead is only five minutes away?

One has to wonder if Mr. Brandau bothered to look at a map of the proposed trail before he voted in favor of the Palm/Nees location.