No headline

Establishment reaches new low

The political establishment has sunk to a new low, but never fear. It can, and will, go lower.

For the “egregious sin” of not calling Vladimir Putin a liar, President Trump is now labeled a disgrace. Never mind that Barack Obama made outright overtures to Medvedev in the 2012 election runup, and that Russia has been meddling in our elections for decades, former CIA John Brennan has called President Trump traitorous. (For the record, Brennan voted Communist in 1976, yet somehow got named as CIA director in 2013.)

It may be argued that President Trump should have said something a little bit different, but so what? For my money, President Trump has exposed more of the anti-liberty, anti-USA establishment, and that’s, of course, way wrong to the establishment. The establishment is already so traitorous that someone like Donald Trump is our only hope, and this is what we expected from the establishment. Rand Paul is still using a halfway level head about things, so we’re still on track, folks.

As for why the president was so conciliatory toward Putin, it’s suggested that he is too consumed with the perception that he didn’t win the election fair and square. HE DID, but the establishment will do anything to trash him.

I read somewhere that “Trump made clear he feels that any firm acknowledgement of Russia’s involvement would undermine the legitimacy of his election.”

If Russia was responsible for exposing Hillary’s rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders, then THANK YOU Russia. That means that Russia’s meddling consists of exposing the DNC corruption, and nothing else that we’ve seen. —Eric Knutson, Dayton

Concerned about Confucius Institute at UM

China has been funding Confucius Institutes language programs under the communist regime’s Ministry of Education since 2004, in which it forms partnerships with American universities. There are currently 103 branches on campuses across the U.S.

The question that needs to be addressed is does the communist regime just want to promote Chinese culture, or is there something more unethical about its intentions?

In an in-depth report issued by the National Association of Scholars (www.nas.org/projects/confucius_institutes) it reported concern that American universities are becoming financially dependent on China, as typically a university receives $150,000 in start-up funds and $100,000 in subsequent years. The National Association of Scholars found that Chinese teachers at Confucius Institutes felt pressured to avoid certain topics that are censored in China, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre, Falun Gong, Tibet, Taiwan, and criticism of Communist Party legitimacy.

In recent years, faculty at universities that host Confucius Institutes have often voiced concerns about their campus branch having been established in secrecy, being beyond local faculty control, and competing with their modern language program. Many universities are now choosing to cut their ties with the Confucius Institutes.

The University of Montana in Missoula has had a Confucius Institute since 2008. Confucius Institutes is also in 10 Montana high schools. What is really being taught to our children?

Confucius Institutes had a booth at the county fair in Kalispell last year that attracted mostly children by offering Chinese games. Are we being infiltrated unknowingly? They are very good at slowly integrating into the community, first making their presence known by the use of “soft power.” We need to wake up and not let easy money sway our decisions concerning curriculum about Chinese culture and language. —Katherine Combes, Kalispell

Is it OK to care?

Is it weird to care about climate change? Is it weird to care about stronger, more frequent hurricanes? Is it weird to care about increased flooding and loss of life and property?

Is it weird to care about changed rainfall and snowfall patterns? Is it weird to care about the effect on winter sports and the livelihoods, businesses, and local and state economies affected? Is it weird to care about local and total extinction of species that can’t adapt to these almost instant changes (in terms relative to their ability to adapt)?

Is it weird to care about zika and other tropical diseases spreading northward? Is it weird to care about the loss of glaciers and snowpack and the role mountains have played as our watertowers during dry months?

Is it weird to care that we have only begun to experience these effects in their mildest form? —Matthew Lamberts, Bigfork

Lessons from the pro-gun rally

The Helena March for Our Guns Rally emphasized the following: School gun-free zones make our children more vulnerable. Community safety is proportional to the number of law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Our right of self-protection comes from God. Montanans will defend that right codified in our Bill of Rights that says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Close to 100 percent of mass murders occur in gun-free zones. The Mandalay Bay concert, San Bernardino county building, Orlando nightclub, Charleston church, etc. were all gun-free zones. Criminals target gun-free zones knowing they won’t encounter armed resistance. Such zones are not only an infringement on our right to bear arms, but they don’t keep us safe.

The vast majority of people with mental health issues don’t kill people. Background checks cannot accurately predict who might kill; by design, they give power to bureaucrats to destroy citizen’s expression of rights without due process. Red flag laws in other states are already depriving people of their right to due process.

Elite-level gun grabbers and low-level minions like Gov. Bullock, they know precisely what they are doing. As much government overreach as Bullock has brought to Montana during his terms, his ultimate spine-tingling level tyranny cannot occur until citizens’ guns are taken.

Gun grabbers manipulate misinformed people into marching for gun restrictions based on short-sighted emotions rather than historical/cross cultural examination of the consequences of restrictions. We cannot afford to lose any part of the Bill of Rights that has protected citizens from governmental tyranny for more than 200 years. Montanans have been patient to this point, and I recommend the powers that be leave us alone. I stand in agreement with my pastor when he says, If government makes my AR-15 illegal, then I will be an outlaw. —Annie Bukacek, Bigfork

Arming teachers won’t make students safer

This is regarding Robert Tebeau’s response to Valeri McGarvey’s letter to the editor, titled “Shouldn’t you protect those that you love?”

Mrs. McGarvey was one of my high school teachers, and I can tell you, you would not even be able to fathom how much she cared about her students, how many lives she has touched and inspired. Everyone who knows her knows this. This is why I am horribly offended by the way this article was written. It was short-sighted, insulting, and it appears that the author twisted the words of a person I know and love very well in order to push their own agenda. I understand Valeri’s perspective, and the way it was painted in Tebeau’s letter is not it.

What I don’t understand is how one can justify giving teachers guns and assume that this alone will make students safer. How one can justify that this is a logical thing to do. It’s not. There is so much wrong with this point of view — taxpayer dollars will fund the supply of guns and ammunition and training, but the government can’t even give teachers enough funding to buy basic school supplies so teachers pay out of pocket. Teachers are severely underpaid as it is. Now let’s give them weapons and teach them to kill. Will we also be paying them higher salaries?

More weapons equals more gun violence. I have studied this time and time again, each time I hear someone defend the point that “if someone else had a gun, this wouldn’t have happened!” in the event of a shooting. There are actual statistics and research that shows that adding more guns to the equation *does not* stop more crimes. Giving teachers guns will not solve our problems. But changing the narrative around guns is a start. —Kristi Persinger, Los Angeles

Gun reforms that don’t work aren’t helpful

Brian Peck’s article on reasonable gun reform superficially seems logical. However, the telling lines are in the last paragraph: “Would such restrictions have prevented the recent Florida school shootings, or stop the ones that may occur in the near future? Absolutely not.”

My question for Brian is: If the restrictions will not prevent the shootings, why impose them?

Gun reform is a red herring that prevents us from looking for actual solutions that will prevent the shootings. —Gerry Hurst, Marion

President’s narcissism must be addressed

The facts surrounding our president’s disease bears repeating and further up-to-date consideration. The disease is “narcissism,” that mental condition of self-love, self-absorption, and self-preservation which can be so personally persistent that all ones thoughts, words and actions are beholden to the disease.

What makes it so dangerous and demanding-for-discernment with our president, or anyone in power, is the damage that can be done before corrective action is taken. This, in my view and the view of others much more qualified than I am, is exactly where we are today with our political confusion.

We have daily news programs in which the host and assembled panels talk endlessly digesting the president’s latest tweet, rant, or lie. The man is sick! What do they expect? Why regurgitate over and over the comments of a person suffering from narcissism? Why try to put his comments and behavior into the context of a normal-behaving POTUS? There is no fit.

Why not spend the time outlining Donald Trump’s disease and talk about possible help, treatment and cure? I firmly believe that if a bunch of the media would openly talk about this disease, its genesis and its character, that our nation’s congressional leadership would get-on-board and corrective political action would be taken before it is too late.—Bob McClellan, Polson