Precedence of American Hispanics - they are First Nations

Attacking America’s Hispanics makes no sense: They are First Nations peoples. In other words, they were here first. 

Opinion letter echo published in the Loveland Reporter-Herald in Colorado

Hispanic pride

Anti-Hispanic violence is stupid. America’s Hispanics have deeper roots here than most of us — and lower crime rates. This is their country as much as anybody’s.

The states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California all belonged to Mexico long before we acquired them. The first Spanish land grants In New Mexico are dated as early as 1598. Santa Fe was established by Spanish settlers in 1610 (Wikipedia). [The Pilgrims got as far as Plymouth Rock in 1620.] El Paso is 85% Spanish-speaking and peaceful. Or was.

The predominant colonizers of North America were Spain, France and Britain. Spanish and French settlers tended to settle in among — and learn from — the people they found here (even as Spain stole their gold).

Some Anglo settlers tried instead to kill the natives and their buffalo, and scoffed at native advice. They separated Indian children from their parents (to make them white). And they insisted on plowing the prairies and high plains, creating an enormous dust bowl. Now their remnants are attacking our resident Hispanics, because other Hispanics are seeking asylum here. How dumb!

I agree that having asylum-seekers descend upon us all at once is a bit much. But, our treatment of them is inhumane and irresponsible. We need to house them safely while increasing the rate at which their claims are processed. Then absorb those who meet our criteria and reject the rest.

Hispanic precedence in America

In addition, we should begin a “Marshall Plan” for their home countries, so they don’t need to flee in the first place. And, it would help if we stopped being the principal source of the drug dealers’ weapons and the principal market for their drugs. Come on, people; let’s be honest with ourselves.

Ann Harroun  Loveland, Colorado

Donald Trump obstruction of justice is a "slam dunk"- echo opinion from Colorado

Time to impeach, part II: Opinion published in the Loveland Colorado Reporter-Herald newspaper:

Echo:  Bruce Stark wrote to the Reporter Herald in Colorado about the over 100 meetings between members of Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russians. 

Those meetings led to Russians hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) files and that of John Podesta. 

Further, it led to false information spread throughout Facebook and Twitter and rallies for Trump. Specific states were targeted, and Trump ended up winning those states and the Electoral College vote while losing the popular vote, by nearly 3 million.

The second part of the Mueller Report was about obstruction of justice: “… While the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.”

Trump’s obstruction of justice revolves around his (stupid!) actions regarding Comey, Sessions, Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Mueller and others.



Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote: “Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including, those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source.”

Regarding Trump’s responses to Mueller’s questions, the Trump team provided written responses related to Russia.

Mueller wrote: “He did not similarly agree to provide written answers to questions on obstruction topics or questions in events during the transition.”

Also, Mueller wrote: “Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigation can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.”

Obstruction of justice is a slam dunk. We all witnessed it daily. Congress do your jobs! In 2021, Trump can also be charged with money laundering, bank fraud, insurance fraud and tax evasion.

Bruce Stark, Loveland Colorado

Echo from Colorado ~ Brave March For Our Lives facing challenges

Colorado's opinion published in the Reporter Herald ~ from Ann Harroun, in Loveland Colorado

Congratulations to student marchers. March For Our Lives

Their lives just changed. 

From now on, the students who are fighting against gun violence,  will be involved citizens and voters.

My life changed in 1951, when my classmates and I went on strike over a despotic mayor, a run-down school, and teachers' salaries. Our issues pale in comparison to today's, but we unseated the mayor. Yay! We're still politically attuned, and some of us went on to serve in political office.

Things to know:

The Second Amendment was adopted when the Revolutionary War was over and the army was disbanded. (Our founders were suspicious of standing armies.) That left only a few state militias to protect our people. Hence, "A well-regulated militia. ..."

Second Amendment zealots respond with frenzied responses to every fact that challenges their claims to unlimited access to guns and weapons of mass destruction that kill people.

Follow the money. [Business Insider, "How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens of Millions of Dollars To The NRA," Jan. 16, 2013, et al.] Yet, predictably, usually, after a mass shooting, the NRA shouts, "They're coming for your guns!" 

Supporters rush out to buy more guns and ammo, industry profits rise, they kick back money to the NRA, the NRA buys more legislators. They in turn gerrymander their districts to ensure their re-election, and in all of this the voice of the public is lost. This cycle will not be overturned easily, even though most Americans may agree with the students. 

Unfortunately, March For Our Lives must prepare for a long struggle.

When you estimate votes, know that you will run up against one-issue voters. They will agree with you regarding the best candidates for gun safety, but if your candidates don't also support their one-issue (usually abortion, pro or con) they will vote against.

It is said that facts do not win elections; emotions do. 

Probably true, but decisions based solely on emotion do not hold up over time. So, learn the facts first; then build an emotional case around them.

Don't turn your backs on classmates who disagree with you. They have valid points, too, that may improve your eventual positions.

Ann Harroun, Loveland Colorado

MaineWriter ~ Thank you March For Our Lives, leaders and supporters.  Please continue your bravery in the face of the evil money, and terrorist tactics funded by the National Rifle Association. The only purpose of the NRA campaign to discredit March For Our Lives is to undermine the humanitarian efforts to protect human beings from the morbidity and mortality caused by gun violence. All gun violence is preventable.

Colorado echo ~ safe schools are gun free

A letter to the editor published in the Colorado Reporter-Herald

Schools are not really prepared to have teachers shoot people.

At first blush, this idea of arming teachers in the classroom gets an emotional response.

Nevertheless, after considering lots of factors, allowing guns is schools is an absolutely a bad idea.

If the objective is to have the teacher kill the shooter and therefore protect his/her students, there is much to consider.

The taking of human life is an intensely traumatic experience. A significant percentage of our population does not even believe in the death penalty. I'm quite sure some teachers could be trained to kill, but some probably not.

Arming yourself is one thing. Knowing how to use your firearm and staying familiar with it is quite another. If we are to arm teachers, then advanced tactical training should be mandatory. Shooting paper targets at the range is one thing. Shooting a moving human being bent on destroying you with a semi-automatic pistol or rifle is quite another. 

That shooter will probably be wearing some type of bulletproof Kevlar body armor. Should teachers then be trained with armor piercing ammunition?

These are just some points, and I'm quite sure there are many others. This decision demands thoughtful, intelligent debate with heavy involvement by our local law enforcement community.

(MaineWriter ~ Meanwhile ~ safe schools are gun free zones !)

Bob Stone,  Loveland ~ Colorado