Mountain Views News          Saturday, June 28, 2014

B6

OPINION

Mountain Views-News Saturday, June 28, 2014 

Mountain 
Views

News

PUBLISHER/ EDITOR

Susan Henderson

CITY EDITOR

Dean Lee 

EAST VALLEY EDITOR

Joan Schmidt

BUSINESS EDITOR

LaQuetta Shamblee

SENIOR COMMUNITY 
EDITOR

Pat Birdsall

SALES

Patricia Colonello

626-355-2737 

626-818-2698

WEBMASTER

John Aveny 

CONTRIBUTORS

Chris Leclerc

Bob Eklund

Howard Hays

Paul Carpenter

Kim Clymer-Kelley

Christopher Nyerges

Peter Dills 

Hail Hamilton 

Rich Johnson

Merri Jill Finstrom

Lori Koop

Rev. James Snyder

Tina Paul

Mary Carney

Katie Hopkins

Deanne Davis

Despina Arouzman

Greg Welborn

Renee Quenell

Ben Show

Sean Kayden

Marc Garlett

OUT TO PASTOR 

A Weekly Religion Column by Rev. James Snyder


IN HONOR OF THE TRUE PATRIOTS

Once again, we come to 
the time of year when 
we celebrate the Fourth 
of July in remembrance 
of all the wonderful 
things this country 
means to us. The 
celebration will include 
fireworks, parades and 
picnics when the hot dog will be king for a 
day. It is a wonderful time of the year.

Yet, in the midst of all of the celebrations, 
there are a few black clouds blocking the 
sunlight.

Just the other day the Gracious Mistress of 
the Parsonage and I were watching a news 
program where they featured somebody 
offended by the American flag displayed in a 
meeting they were attending. We both looked 
at each other and sadly shook our heads. 
What kind of nonsense is going on in this 
coun-try? People's lives are so shallow that 
they have to try to think of something to be 
offended?

I am not sure why the American flag offended 
them so, but I have the perfect solution. I am 
not sure why people do not think of solutions 
like this, but if the American flag offends you 
then go to a country that has a flag it does not 
offend you. Simple. Problem solved. No more 
offense.

It would not offend me in the least if people 
would do this.

The American flag reminds us of all the 
wonderful things we enjoy in this country. 
The Fourth of July is an opportunity to 
express our thanks for living in a country 
such as this. If this was such a terrible coun-
try, why are so many people trying to get in 
at all cost? We still have some freedoms here 
that the rest of the world is envious of. The 
flag represents the foundation of our country 
and the ongoing sacrifice that has kept it 
free for so long. How can that be offensive to 
anybody?

At the same time another story on the news 
caught our attention concerning the 9/11 
museum in New York City. From some of the 
things I am seeing on TV most of the people 
in America have forgotten what happened on 
9/11. Somebody walked in, saw the symbol 
of the cross and became physically ill by it. 
They claim the cross made them sick in the 
stomach.

This was a little confusing to me. These are 
people who say they do not believe in God, 
personally, I do not believe a word they say. 
Here is this person, who does not believe in 
God, who does not believe in religion, sees a 
religious symbol and becomes offended and 
physically ill by it. They surely need help and 
I recommend a group of industrial-strength 
psychiatrists and therapists along with a 
team of military medical doctors to pump 
out their stomach.

Now, what I want to know is, if they do not 
believe in religion, what does this religious 
symbol mean to them? If they really did not 
believe in religion, as they claim, the symbol 
would not mean anything to them, and 
furthermore, it would not affect them in any 
way or fashion. The fact that it offended them 
re-veals to those who have at least two brain 
cells wandering around upstairs that here is 
a religious person. Only a religious person 
would react to a religious symbol. If I am 
not a religious person, none of this reli-gious 
symbolism means anything to me and I look 
at it, then walk on.

While I am on the topic, another matter 
really annoys me.

Why is prayer so offensive to these people 
who say they do not believe in religion? The 
fact that it makes them angry and offends 
them tells me something about what they say 
they believe.

Why is it that prayer offends them and why 
are they so afraid of prayer and of God?

Their fear of God suggests that deep down 
somewhere, pass their stomach, they believed 
God just might exist.

This brings to me Pascal's wager. "If God exists 
(and Christianity is true) and you choose not 
to believe, then you lose everything. But, if 
God exists (and Christianity is true) and you 
choose to believe, then you gain everything." 
I do not believe it could be stated any clearer 
than that.

To date nobody has ever proven the Bible to 
be anything but true. For 2000 years, people 
have desper-ately attempted to destroy the 
Bible or at least discredit it and yet it is the 
number one seller in the world today. What 
if this Bible, that nobody can prove to be 
untrue, is absolutely and positively true?

Are these people who say they do not believe 
willing to wager everything?

Why is it I must accept what they do and say, 
but they do not have to accept what I do and 
say? Why do I have to respect them, but they 
do not have to respect me? Is that being a true 
red, white and blue American patriot?

Jesus put it in the right perspective when 
he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the 
things which are Caesar's; and unto God the 
things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).

Our problem today is that we have confused 
Caesar with God and no longer understand 
the difference. The problem is, Caesar does 
not have all the answers, but God does. The 
reign of Caesar has collapsed, but God is still 
on the throne, Almighty God is He.

If you do not respect the flag, at least respect 
those who do.

Rev. James L. Snyder is pastor of the Family 
of God Fellowship, PO Box 831313, Ocala, FL 
34483. He lives with his wife, Martha, in Silver 
Springs Shores. E-mail jamessnyder2@att.net 
or website www.jamessnyderministries.com.


Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated as 
a newspaper of General 
Circulation for the County 
of Los Angeles in Court 
Case number GS004724: 
for the City of Sierra 
Madre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in Court 
Case No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 80 W. Sierra Madre 
Blvd., No. 327, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not be 
reproduced without the 
express written consent of 
the publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper become 
the property of the Mountain 
Views News and may 
be published in part or 
whole. 

Opinions and views 
expressed by the writers 
printed in this paper do 
not necessarily express 
the views and opinions 
of the publisher or staff 
of the Mountain Views 
News. 

Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by Grace 
Lorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the right 
to refuse publication of 
advertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 

Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 

Mountain Views News

80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 
#327

Sierra Madre, Ca. 
91024

Phone: 626-355-2737

Fax: 626-609-3285

email: 

mtnviewsnews@aol.com

 

 LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

GREG Welborn


HOWARD Hays As I See It

SOCK IT TO THE RICH FOLKS!


“If something goes right, I 
had nothing to do with it. 
If something goes wrong, I 
must have stayed awake all 
night planning it.”

 - President Bill Clinton, 
reflecting on media 
coverage during his second 
term

 With all the news 
sources available via our 
TV providers and the internet, studies show 
we generally gravitate to those sources and 
stories which bolster our pre-conceived 
notions. The prevailing opinion across the 
political spectrum seems to be that things are 
pretty screwed-up all over. News of things 
going right doesn’t seem to register as much.

 Last week there was a lot of reflection 
on our disastrous invasion and occupation 
of Iraq, which could likely turn out to be a 
principle cause of the demise of that country - 
at a cost of nearly 4,500 American troops sent 
under the pretext of non-existent Weapons of 
Mass Destruction.

 Last August, President Obama was faced 
with a dilemma involving very real WMD. He 
announced a “red line” involving their use by 
the Assad regime in Syria, and that line was 
crossed. 

 Assets were positioned, prepared for attack. 
Republicans who, a decade earlier, eagerly 
gave President Bush their official blessings for 
going after Iraq’s imaginary WMD were now 
balking at approving Obama’s going after the 
real thing in Syria. The president, however, 
made his resolve clear – at least to Syria’s 
President Assad.

 This past Monday, the last of Syria’s declared 
chemical weapons stockpile was shipped off 
for destruction. Months earlier, facilities for 
their manufacture, assembly and delivery 
systems were destroyed.

 In this case, things went right. Despite early 
doubts, the coalition of some thirty nations 
- including Russia - formed in response to 
President Obama’s call, will be completing its 
job by the June 30 deadline. Ahmet Uzumcu, 
head of the Organization for the Prohibition 
of Chemical Weapons (winner of last year’s 
Nobel Peace Prize), which oversaw the 
project, commented, “Never before has an 
entire arsenal of weapons of mass destruction 
been removed from a country experiencing a 
state of internal armed conflict.”

 On last Sunday’s talk shows, they again 
rehashed what went wrong at Benghazi two 
years ago, as the House embarks on its eighth 
investigation into the matter in hopes of 
turning up something juicier than what they 
managed to come up with in the previous 
seven.

 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) found time on “Meet 
the Press” to speculate on the negative impact 
it could have on a Hillary Clinton campaign 
a couple years from now, but nobody found 
time to acknowledge the positive development 
of the capture of one of the attack’s ringleaders 
just days earlier.

 One reason it didn’t make much news 
is that things went right, without a hitch; 
flawlessly planned and executed by the FBI 
and US Army Delta Force without a shot fired 
and nobody hurt. 

 Also, some details could prove embarrassing 
for certain news outlets and media talking 
heads. If you were following the story, you 
recall the charge that the White House, in 
order to deflect its own culpability, refused 
to refer to the Benghazi attack as terrorism 
(which the president in fact did, the next 
day), and instead shifted blame to a YouTube 
posting of an anti-Muslim video from the U.S.

 There were charges of outright lying when 
then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in media 
appearances following the attack, described 
best available intelligence as drawing a 
connection to the video, with Benghazi 
coming on the heels of video-inspired 
demonstrations in Cairo.

 This was all that leading Republicans 
and Fox News needed to accuse and convict 
Ambassador Rice as accomplice to some 
scandalous cover-up emanating from the 
White House. The uproar led Rice to 
withdraw her name from consideration for 
replacing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

 The NY Times’ piece on last Monday’s 
capture of Benghazi ringleader Abu Khattala 
states that “according to people who heard 
him”, on the night of the attack he “told 
fellow Islamist fighters . . . that the assault 
was retaliation for the same insulting video” 
that inspired the Cairo demonstrations. This 
detail didn’t get much coverage, as it might 
suggest there’s an apology due Susan Rice, the 
president’s current National Security Advisor. 
(Yeah, fat chance.)

 There’s been other news of things going 
right this past year that you may have missed. 
Last month, the Congressional Budget Office 
reported a $114 billion budget surplus for 
April, the largest since 2008. We’re on track to 
have annual deficits reduced by $900 billion 
since Obama became president, the fastest 
decrease since the end of WW II. (Last year, 
Republicans predicted the effect of Obama’s 
raising the marginal rate on those making 
over $400k would be the exact opposite.)

 The Consumer Confidence index released 
last week was at its highest level since January 
2008, months before the Great Recession hit. 

 Things are going right with the Affordable 
Care Act, so it’s not in the news much anymore. 
Last August, Bill Kristol wrote of the “coming 
Obamacare train wreck.” Last November, 
an article in Forbes predicted the entire act 
would be repealed “well in advance” of the 
2014 mid-term elections, largely at the behest 
Democrats hoping to protect their seats. That 
same month, House Speaker John Boehner 
(R-OH) offered his frank assessment; “I don’t 
think it’s ever going to work.” Last March, the 
A.P. reported that “the White House needs 
something close to a miracle to meet its goal 
of enrolling 6 million people by the end of this 
month.” 

 As we now know, enrollments went over 
7 million. A Gallup Poll released last month 
shows the percentage of uninsured adults 
falling to 13.4%, the lowest since it started 
keeping track over six years ago. States 
that originally opted out of the Medicaid-
expansion program are now getting on board.

 There are things going right, even though 
we may not hear much about it in the news. 
Maybe some feel it best serves their interests 
if we don’t.

 Hilary Clinton is on her campaign tour, 
which is disguised as a book tour. One 
of the themes she’s committed to drilling 
deep into the American conscience is 
that she, like other Liberals, is looking 
out for the average American, protecting 
them against the greedy rich folks. 
Sometimes, she blames Conservatives, 
but to her they’re all the same: rich folks, 
Consevatives, they’re one and the same. 
Trouble is, that’s a lie. The Democratic 
Party is the party of the rich, the party of 
the 1%ers, and their policies accomplish 
very little that actually helps the average 
American. 

 By almost every measure imaginable, 
Democrats are the party of the rich. In 
the Congress itself, there are roughly 270 
millionaires among 535 representatives. 
Most of them are Democrats. The 
wealthiest Americans are most likely 
to be represented by a Democrat. 
Of the top 10 richest congressional 
districts, 6 of them are represented by a 
Democrat, and it was the rich folks who 
overwhelmingly contributed the money 
to those Democrats’ campaigns.

 According to Opensecrets.org, as 
reported in Investor’s Business Daily, 
rich donors gave Liberals 56% more than 
they gave Conservatives: $1.15 billion vs 
$736 million. Among the top 10 donors 
for each party, rich Liberals outspent rich 
Conservatives 7-to-1. The biggest groups 
of Democratic contributors include the 
founders, executives and elites of Wall 
Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood. 
When was the last time you heard about 
a Democrat holding a fund raiser in a 
union hall?

 But, say the Liberals, what makes them 
the party of the little guy are their policies. 
It doesn’t matter who’s giving how much 
(interestingly, they say that who gives 
what is important for Republicans). 
What matters are the policies. Liberals 
are big on income inequality. According 
to the President, it is the “defining issue 
of our time”. Accordingly, Liberals want 
to raise taxes on “the rich” – the 1%ers. 
They want to sock it to the rich in the 
interest of helping the little guy – the 
average American struggling to make 
ends meet.

 But what exactly would raising taxes 
accomplish? Would it really tax the 
rich? The answer is, no. Income taxes 
tax income, not wealth. Most rich people 
have the ability to invest their money in 
assets that appreciate, but don’t generate 
lots of income. Some, like Warren 
Buffet, who is a big champion of Obama 
and of raising income taxes, spend 
lots of money studying how not to pay 
income taxes. According to a March 19, 
2014 Bloomberg article, Mr. Buffet has 
derived a way to limit taxes on $1 billion 
of gains in one of his holdings. In fact, he 
reserves the right to terminate the deal if 
it doesn’t qualify as non-taxable.

 If advocating an increase in taxes 
on others while striving to minimize 
it yourself isn’t 
hypocrisy, I don’t 
know the definition 
of the word. Raising 
income taxes is not 
the same as raising 
taxes on the rich. If 
they really wanted 
to sock it to the rich, then Liberals 
might suggest a “wealth tax”. This has 
been proposed by the current President 
of France, and was proposed by our 
own Huey Long back in 1936. It went 
nowhere then, and it’s not even on the 
drawing board in the U.S. now because 
Liberal 1%ers would actually have to pay 
that tax.

 Who really bears the burden of 
increased income taxes? If it’s not the 
rich, who is it? The answer: it’s the 
middle class family that wants to get 
ahead. Striving to accumulate wealth 
means earning more income, saving a 
substantial portion of it, and investing 
those savings. But if income taxes are 
raised, there is that much less to save and 
invest. Raising income taxes will prevent 
average Americans from getting ahead. 
So much for Liberals being the party 
of the little guy. Conservatives want 
the poor to have the ability to become 
middle class, and the middle class to 
have the ability to become rich. In fact, 
we don’t even mind if the poor skip a step 
and go straight to “wealthy”. It usually 
means they’ve come up with some great 
invention, tech innovation or wondrous 
software that will make our lives better. 
More power to them.

 Last interesting question: why do 
rich Liberals support bigger government 
and higher taxes? I believe the answer is 
three-fold. First, they believe their own 
hype about wealth being “unearned”. 
They feel guilty. Second, they can feel 
good about assuaging that guilt with 
campaign contributions, but they know 
in their hearts they’ll avoid the higher 
taxes. Third, many of them are connected 
enough to push government policies in 
their favor, benefiting from government 
contracts or getting regulations imposed 
that stifle competition to the companies 
they own.

 Rich Liberals, take a good hard 
look in the mirror. You might just see 
a hypocrite looking back at you. If not 
– if you really believe the stuff you’re 
supporting – then let’s impose a solid, no 
exemptions, wealth tax. Let’s sock it to 
yourselves. 

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn 
is a freelance writer and has spoken to 
several civic and religious organizations 
on cultural and moral issues. He lives in 
the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. 
He can be reached gregwelborn2@gmail.
com

Mountain Views News

Mission Statement

The traditions of

community news-
papers and the 
concerns of our readers 
are this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperous 
community of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in high 
regard the values 
of the exceptional 
quality of life in our 
community, including 
the magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 
guide. 

Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com