Letters to the Editor
I would like to take issue with the issue Gene Raymer took with the January Edition of the Ojo del Lago. When the founding Fathers (of the USA, north of the planned wall) wrote the documents on which their nation was founded, they certainly did not anticipate extremists carrying bombs into airports as Mr. Raymer so amusingly points out, (adding in parentheses: “At least I don’t think they did” much to the mirth of everyone reading his letter). In fact he is wrong. They were very aware of people carrying explosives into public places like, for instance Guy Fawkes who carried gunpowder in barrels which was stacked under the houses of Parliament to blow the useless bastards to Kingdom Come, but who was thwarted by guards whose salaries were paid by the British Taxpayer to protect and so allow the Parliamentarians to continue to make laws maintaining the status quo…. just like the US today.
He says that “free speech” should become “modified,” because it would be ludicrous to shout “Bomb” in an airport. The Founding Fathers of the US wrote the document for people to read (and adhere to whether they liked it or not). If you could read the document and understand it, you probably had the brains to know that if you were in an airplane full of people who expect to travel safely, you would know that if you yelled “Bomb” the crew would have to react to what you said to protect all the passengers. The fact is: you are free to shout “Bomb” if that pleases you but you have to expect people who hear you to react as if you are sincere in that warning, because their right to self protection supersedes your right to be n Berk.
Also when this modification happens, who will decide the extent to which it is modified? Is the writer on the side of those who say you cannot use “Masterpiece” anymore, because it has the connotation of being something a man achieves to the exclusion of women? Does he think we must now say “Personhole” instead of “Manhole,” “Chairperson” instead of “Chairman,” “Mentally Challenged” instead of “Mentally Disabled?” How about the word “Sight Impaired” instead of “blind?” Some of these modifications to free speech are already in place and I would venture to guess that his “Life Partner of equal standing in the eyes of the law who is of the female persuasion” hears about his discontent with these and other speech modifications on a continuing basis.
Regarding the Orange Peril, who used his free speech to describe how he attracts women, while speaking to his favorite sycophant, and his plan to drain the swamp, it is obvious now that he hasn’t done so, but, in fact has filled it with more alligators and cotton mouth vipers. His cabinet is a Fascist’s wet dream. The “Build the Wall” slogan is being taken seriously and although the writer lives on the other side of this wall, in this beautiful country, he supports a man who hates the country and its citizens and wants to wall them out of the US. In addition, his candidate spoke against the Electoral College system. He also said the elections were rigged, something I agree with, but having recognized that, he wasn’t honest enough to then say: “I cannot accept this position, because it was gained through a rigged system.” He took the position anyway, which shows he’s a dyed-in-the-wool hypocrite—a word that might easily be applied to anyone who lives here and supports Trump.