bil canfield editorial cartoon

Your editorial this week

Hi Don. I enjoyed your editorial in this week's Sonoran News.  As is characteristic of your editorials, it was for the most part spot on (especially your commentary on the usurpation of power by SCOTUS' liberal contingent).

I did want to correct you on one thing. I am a Catholic and I think you may misunderstand the concept of papal infallibility. Catholics do not and are not required to believe that everything the Pope says is infallible. Only pronouncements which relate to faith and church doctrine (e.g., Humanae Vitae's teaching on contraception) are considered infallible. Neither Pope Francis nor the Vatican would consider that his encyclical on the environment is infallible within the meaning of the doctrine of infallibility. In fact, I think he acknowledged that Catholics could find legitimate disagreement over the causes of and specific facts surrounding climate change.

Thanks again for keeping the Sonoran News a bastion of conservative thought.

Greg Hanchett


Wakeup time in Carefree

At the risk of presenting myself as a bit of a cheeky ponce, I have come to believe that Lyn Hitchon’s persistent inclination to defend the Carefree Town Council on every decision it makes, no matter what, is very much corrupting any impartial judgment her Carefree Truth newsletter might have ever embraced regarding the council’s actions. 

Mrs. Hitchon’s reporting, and personal approbation, of council approvals of a splash-pad for the purpose of village economic development exhibits a clear example of faith without supporting facts.  Precisely how this project will economically develop the village of Carefree is a challenging enigma, even to most council members, and is a consideration never deserving of comment in Mrs. Hitchon’s newsletters.

I now believe that Mrs. Hitchon’s overall reporting of council actions is fundamentally flawed in that it appears to be typically based solely on unscientific opinion and that situation makes for the imparting of “information” that is unreliable and certainly highly questionable.

But then, from what I read and hear in discussions with other residents of Carefree, my impression is that this town council makes decisions while employing a thought process that often borders on illusion, that is, the pointless and unsupported opinion of a very few townspeople, and based on, perhaps, even a bit of exaggerated folklore (as in, measurable economic benefits will derive from a splash-pad with a scorpion feature and a couple of fireplace additions).

Or maybe, like so many politicians, the council members think their success in securing elected office means that they have to do something, and the something, whether a sensible or frivolous action, means spending other people’s money toward a likely quite foolish endeavor.

It is clear to me that this splash-pad, and sundry related accoutrements, is a concept developed by Councilwoman Price and supported quite vehemently by Councilman Miller.  Since other council members appear to be devoid of original thought and likely are imagination-challenged, they go along with this idea that passes for an economic development action for the simple reason that it provides them a means by which they appear to be doing something.  The whole situation is rather pathetic.

But with the Carefree Truth surrogate and consistently cheering journal for council activities (no matter how impulsive or fundamentally flawed), and with the miserable typical attendance at town council meetings, who is to ever be capable of seeing through the facades of council alleged honorable decisions that support legitimate economic outcomes for Carefree residents?  The Carefree Truth journal is certainly no help in that matter.



A Public Letter to the President

Millions of God Loving American citizens were stunned and disappointed to see their cherished White House used to promote what God calls “wicked” and “evil.”  And guess what,” Ignorance of God’s Law is no excuse.”  One can say the same to those judges in the Supreme Court who apparently don’t know those laws either.

And I hate to correct you, but I did hear you say, “it’s my House,” referring to the White House. That crown jewel belongs to “we the people.” We do not appreciate it (the White House) being used to promote abomination.

Of course, that is exactly what your staff did when they celebrated the High Court’s decision on gay marriage, by lighting up “our house.” They disgraced us before the world, but most important, before our “Creator, God Almighty, the Supreme Judge.”

That Supreme Judge left plenty of examples in the Holy Bible to keep future generations from making the same mistake and ending up being destroyed, like Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. Those cities/nations incurred God’s wrath because of same-sex.  In 2 Peter 2:6 you will find that these cities were made “an example, unto those that after should live ungodly.”  Now the USA has taken it even further, by saying to same-sex partners, “you have the right to get married.”  Instead of listening to the Word of God you elected to come out in favor of moral perversion.

We know, from God’s Word, that those who practice same-sex, God will give “them over to a reprobate mind.” That, after death, means eternal damnation, first in “Hell” and later “the lake of fire” forever and ever.  So ask yourself, “Why would a well-meaning and loving person want anyone to pursue such a life-style?  And you are promoting this life-style from our White House!!!!

We need to correct a misconception:  God Loves Us, and we who have been saved by God’s grace, love Him and all mankind in the world.  There is only one race, the human race.  However, rejecting The Word of God, which was made flesh in the person Jesus Christ our Savior, will lead to Hell, because by doing so, one rejects God’s last chance to Mankind for forgiveness for our sins.  The Holy Bible states, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” (John 14:6) as he said.
Manuel Ybarra, Jr
Coalgate, Oklahoma


Is Polygamy next?

What happens to the rule of law when the Supreme Court, under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, brazenly rewrites it? Well, that's what happened this week when the Court handed down its marriage decision. According to the dictate, no state has the right to define marriage as a solely heterosexual institution.

Justice Scalia's stinging dissent is worth reading in full, but here are a few choice excerpts. Chief Justice Roberts also offered a powerful dissent, in which he says that by the Court's reasoning, there are now no grounds to prohibit polygamy. If states can't define marriage as between a man and a woman, how can they define marriage as between just two people?
As a consequence of the gay marriage ruling, the danger to religious freedom is now clear: though it's not immediate, it is very real. If 3 percent of the population can cause this much havoc, think of what we conservatives, properly mobilized, can do!

For a little comic relief, here are some helpful tips to navigate the new etiquette of gay marriage:

My discussion with Tim Tebow later this month will be far-reaching, and we may touch on marriage and the family as a part of our discussion on God's purpose for America. Hope you'd like to attend in person and hear Tim and me speak!

I'll also be speaking earlier that week at FreedomFest in Las Vegas, and I'll have time there to greet many of you personally at a small luncheon. Reservations are required.


Dinesh D'Souza
La Jolla, California


Stop the federal government from religious discrimination

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that all states must license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. This decision could have devastating implications for institutions and individuals that hold the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. We have seen state discrimination, and we need you to urge Congress to prevent federal discrimination against those who support natural marriage!

Businesses and organizations continue to be threatened because of their owners' faith. An Oregon bakery owned by Aaron and Melissa Klein was fined $135,000 simply for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. Barronelle Stutzman, a grandmother in Washington state, had to close her floral business because of the crippling fees imposed on her for not providing flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

Child welfare organizations, such as Lutheran Community Services and Catholic Charities, are being threatened by this decision to recognize same-sex marriage or face losing their ability to participate in federal programs or apply for federal grants.

Our Founders envisioned a nation where the moral and religious beliefs of individuals, faith-based organizations, and business owners would be protected, not a nation where one's convictions about marriage could be used as a disqualifying factor for interaction with the federal government.

To stop the federal government from discriminating against people because of their beliefs in marriage, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, S.1598, in the Senate, and Representative Raúl Labrador (R-UT) has introduced the companion bill, H.R. 2802, in the House. Simply put, FADA would prohibit the federal government from penalizing persons for their personal moral or religious beliefs in natural marriage in areas such as federal employment, grants, contracts, tax treatment, and other programs.

In the wake of the Supreme Court redefinition of marriage, the government should not push individuals and organizations out of the public square simply because they, like billions of people of various faiths around the globe and throughout history, believe in marriage between a man and a woman. Call your Congressman and Senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to call for a vote on this critical legislation today.


Tony Perkins
President, FRC


An idea from Mark Levin – Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Think clearly about this, if they view themselves as ELITE (from us) as they have proven with their separate medical and retirement programs, then why not other programs?

This is what Mark Levine has been talking about – a Constitutional convention by the States to get back to the laws of the Constitution.

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Their latest stunt is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that they passed ... in all of its forms.

Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite ruling class that is above the law.
I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators, Representatives of Congress; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States"

John Wiant
Tea Party Nation Forum


Gun control and the Confederate Flag

This letter is in response to the coverage of the fatal shooting at Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina and the subsequent surge of momentum to take down the Confederate Flag from all public and private places.

The second amendment of the United States Constitution states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.

The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders.  In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.

Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key.   Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances.  Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings and now churches.

As for the Confederate Flag I agree that it should be removed from all government buildings because it is neither a national nor state flag.  But the outpouring of yanking it (no pun intended) from everywhere else seems a bit extreme.   Neither the flag used by the Army of Northern Virginia nor the official flag of the Confederacy had anything to do with being a symbol of pro slavery but rather was the colors adopted by men who chose to fight for the preservation of state’s rights against what was perceived as the growing encroachment of the Federal Government.  Slavery may have been the straw that finally broke the Union’s back but it was the wealthy plantation owners who stood to lose most from the loss of their “peculiar institution.”  Instead of following the North’s industrial push they left themselves behind only to be crushed by a more powerful enemy.  Billy Yank and Johnny Reb did not enlist (or get drafted) into their respective armies to aid or oppose slavery; they did it because from each side’s point of view it was the right thing to do.  The ending of slavery was just a positive result stemming from the outcome of America’s second revolutionary war.   Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion of the Civil War but fortunately they are not entitled to their own facts.

Joe Bialek
Cleveland, Ohio


Does Greek default mark end of Politeuro?

Greece has now defaulted on a €1.5 billion payment due to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), becoming the first developed country to ever default to that institution.

But whether Greece will remain in the Eurozone is an open question that may be decided July 5 when the people there vote via referendum on whether to continue the European Union's (EU) austerity program.

A yes vote would affirm the status quo — continued adherence to the EU-IMF program that has failed to turn things around after 5 years.

Consider the default to the IMF comes after a partial €100 billion default on some €355 billion of government debt in 2012. But it barely helped. Greek government debt once again stands at €323 billion, over 175 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product.

10-year treasuries are at 15.4 percent there. Short-term paper rates are even higher with 3-year treasuries over 22 percent. Unemployment is still over 25 percent, and the economy has been in recession for years now.

Now, faced with payments it cannot make, the government in Athens has shut down Greek banks to avert a bank run.

What exactly has the EU-IMF program accomplished — besides prolonging Greece's pain?

Rejecting the Politeuro is precisely why the Syriza party led by Alexis Tsipras won election there in 2014. It represented a wholesale collapse of the two-party system that had endorsed the EU-IMF program. Syriza promised to fight it.

And now, finally, it will be put to a vote in Greece.

Should taxpayers make payments to its own state-run pension system, or to make interest payments to faraway creditors in Brussels and Berlin with no end to the misery in sight?

How would you vote?

If it came to the U.S. government making interest payments to, say, China, or making Social Security payments that you depended on, what would you choose? Overwhelming public pressure would demand that the government take care of its own people before caving in to foreign creditors.

That is the choice now facing every Greek.

To vote to stay in the Eurozone — even if it means facing a debt the country cannot possibly repay — or to leave it, reinstate the drachma, and establish an independent central bank. Then, the debt could be repaid with drachmas, albeit at a significantly discounted exchange rate.  
Considering how bad things are in Greece — how could they get much worse? — it is hard to imagine anything but an overwhelming rejection of the EU-IMF dictates by the Greek people on Sunday.

Meaning, just one day after the United States celebrates its Independence Day on July 4, the Greek people might be celebrating theirs.

Robert Romano
Senior editor of Americans for Limited Government


Kurds and Druze threatened

The conflicts in Syria have increased the complexity of the Middle East and exacerbated the instability in the region. Terrorists have taken advantage of the instability, and have made dramatic territorial gains in Syria and Iraq. They now threaten two minorities - Kurds and Druze.

The Kurds are starting to receive military aid from the U.S., and this should be increased since they are trustworthy and reliable fighters willing to take on ISIS and other terrorist groups. We should send equipment and supplies directly to the Kurds and not through the Iraqi Army.
The Druze minority, a Muslim off-shoot sect, is threatened by ISIS and al-Nusra. There are 800,000 Druze in Syria with most of them living in the southern province of Sweida, which is near the Israeli border.

Israel, which is home to 125,000 Druze who are deeply assimilated into the Israeli military and Israeli society, cannot allow the Druze of southern Syria to be decimated and possibly suffer genocide. Israel should provide a safe Syrian territory for the Druze and equip them so they can defend themselves. If necessary, Israel should provide direct military intervention to protect the Druze of Southern Syria.

Donald A. Moskowitz
Londonderry, New Hampshire