Career politician or public servant?

To the Editor:

Tom McClintock, our Congressional representative, is a career politician. He represented his southern California district in the state legislature and when he termed out he ran for Congress in our district, without moving here. McClintock does not vote or pay taxes in our district.

In 10 years McClintock has only sponsored five bills that have become law, two of which renamed post offices. What has he done for our district? Perhaps he would accomplish more if he stayed in Washington rather than flying home each weekend. Where does he go? Have you seen him?

Jessica Morse believes an elected representative should be a public servant, not a career politician. She is a proven problem solver who worked in the field finding solutions to real problems, not just talking about them. Jessica served our country in the State Department, the Defense Department and the USAID in Iraq. She earned praise from her bosses for her effective leadership and problem solving abilities. Jessica wants to use these talents to address the problems facing our community as our Congressional representative.

Jessica will fight to lower taxes for middle-class Americans who will see their taxes increase if they earn less $100,000/year because of the tax bill McClintock supported. McClintock voted to increase our federal deficit by $1.8 trillion and supports cutting $537 billion from Medicare, $59 billion from veterans benefits and $4 billion from social security.

The healthcare bill McClintock supports would deny coverage to 300,000 district residents with pre-existing conditions. Jessica will fight for affordable, quality healthcare and for lower prescription drug prices for all Americans. Jessica will fight for funding for sustainable forestry and fire prevention and clean water and air.

Elect a representative who will work for us. Vote Jessica Morse. Next visit here Aug. 16.

Ellen Beck


Stay in the present

To the Editor:

This is in response to Denise Bergamaschi’s letter in Thursday’s paper. I could not find any reference to Hitler saying “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will believed.”

Hitler did say something similar to that in Mein Kampf claiming the Jews blamed a German general for losing WWI. Goebbels said something like that when talking about the English. What I find most interesting is that the following quote was attributed to the predecessor to the CIA in a psychological profile of Hitler:

“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

I got my information from a quick check in Wikipedia. If someone investigates the source materials referenced there and find anything I have written in error, I apologize.

The point is that Hitler did not say the above quote. The irony is that many people believe the lie about what Hitler said about lying.

Whenever I get into a discussion about Trump with a hardcore Trump supporter, they often want to bring up Obama or Hillary. Can we please stay in the present? We need to talk about what is happening today not years ago. Mistakes made long ago do not help us understand today.

Terry Burgess


One-man show not wanted

To the Editor:

In response to Donna Wilhelm’s Letter to The Editor, published, July 25. Ms. Wilhelm started by complimenting the county on a job well done on the Tree Mortality Task Force. Her first two paragraphs state how this program has had remarkable results, which I agree. It wasn’t until she went off track stating that Administrative Analyst Ryan Campbell was a “one-man office” that I disagreed.

I’m sure Mr. Campbell does a fine job, but to give just one person so much credit was definitely overboard. I’ve read enough articles to know there are many people involved to make this program succeed. These individuals, to name just a few, include representatives of various agencies (Fish & Wildlife, TUD, Cal Fire, Fire Safe Councils and the Sheriff’s Department), that meet as a group on a weekly basis. To say Mr. Campbell worked independently and the “BOS didn’t have to do a thing beyond declaring a state of emergency and giving Campbell the go ahead,” is simply exaggerated.

Mr. Campbell works for the Assistant County Administrator. She is the lead person and the one who reports to the BOS. All five members of the board are very engaged in this program. This county elected five individuals who work closely with the county administrators.

Personally, I think if Mr. Campbell is doing such a great job, keep him right where he’s at.

However, Mr. Campbell is currently running for District 2 Supervisor. I don’t think the county wants a supervisor who considers himself a one-man show. We want a supervisor that will work as a team member. The current board works well with each other and is unified on most issues. They are a competent, transparent, and hard-working group of individuals. We definitely do not need a one-man office sitting on a board of five.

Stacey Dodge


What’s in a name, democracy or dictatorship?

To the Editor:

In our name, The United States of America, we make no claim about our system of government. However, we do consider our national government to be a democracy. The founders of this nation intended to keep it a democracy by creating a republican form of government, whereby the individuals responsible for running the business of government were put in place by the people as a whole.

The three branches of our government, legislative, executive and judicial, were intended to represent the needs of people and states as well as the nation. The founders saw that in order to avoid autocratic rule, such as that of King George that we had just overthrown, these branches of government had to be relatively independent of each other.

But what happens if the three branches are not independent from each other? What happens if one political party gains control of all three branches, and what happens if a single individual gains control of that party?

The answer is that you get a government like The Democratic Republic of North Korea, a dictatorship. The name of that country is a laughable disguise for the real truth. Can we be very far from that same truth in this country that we love for its democracy? Just ask yourself these questions:

Who really controls your vote? Is it a political party, a talk show host, some big lie promoted by the candidate, or is it you, yourself, drawing a logical conclusion from all you can learn about the candidate or issue?

Who really controls your political parties? Is it the collective members of that party that share a common political philosophy, the NRA, or is it one highly placed political leader?

Think before you vote.

Robert Rogers


Long live Jefferson

To the Editor:

I have just demanded our 5th district Assembly Member. Frank Bigelow, immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the six judges who ruled unanimously to remove Proposition 9 commonly referred to “Cal 3” from this November’s state ballot.

I do not make this demand lightly as it is imperative for a well-functioning government to have its judiciary seated and properly interpreting the California Constitution.

Article I, Sec. 1 states “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, ...” In pursuit of many of these elements, the people of California have given themselves the right to alter their government through the initiative process.

As Jefferson, I am opposed to what the Cal 3 Initiative was proposing. As an American, I am mortified that the judicial branch, charged with protecting the California Constitution, could be so reckless in tossing the people’s rights into the trash bin.

The billionaire force behind Proposition 9 did everything the law expected in getting its initiative ballot-ready only to have the courts remove it. The court should only begin to consider the legality of such an initiative if it passes. The judges cited “hardships” that would arise from allowing the proposition to remain and how that could disrupt government. Well boo hoo. Article II, Sec. 8 does not mention “hardships.”

Unless the people rise up nothing will happen. We will embolden the oligarchy to strip away even more freedoms from us. If we had honorable representation we would not need to tell him to impeach these judges. He would have recognized this abhorrent behavior for what it is and done it himself. The Republican form of government in California is dead. Long live Jefferson.

David Titchenal