Mountain Views News          Saturday, October 31, 2015

16

OPINION

 Mountain Views News Saturday, October 31, 2015 


OUT TO PASTOR 

A Weekly Religion Column by Rev. James Snyder

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Mountain 
Views

News

PUBLISHER/ EDITOR

Susan Henderson

CITY EDITOR

Dean Lee 

EAST VALLEY EDITOR

Joan Schmidt

BUSINESS EDITOR

LaQuetta Shamblee

PRODUCTION

Richard Garcia

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 

Dr. Tina Paul

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

Pat Birdsall (retired)

Dear Editor:

I attended the Sierra Madre Sheriff Proposal Review Committee 
meeting on Monday, October 26, 2015, at the City Council 
Chambers. The purpose of the Committee was to review the 
Sheriff’s three proposals to contract with the City of Sierra 
Madre in order to replace the existing Sierra Madre Police 
Department. This is mainly due to the financial situation the 
City of Sierra Madre faces. The Sheriff’s Department personnel 
from the Contract Cities Division were in attendance along with 
their Chief and the Captain from Temple Station. The Sheriff’s 
Department personnel answered many questions as well as they 
could in a professional and courteous manner unlike some 
citizens of this City. I was embarrassed and disgusted with some 
citizens’ questions and non-questions that were posed. There 
were a few citizens of this fine City who should be ashamed how 
they treated the Sheriff’s Department personnel. One person 
who introduced herself as a doctor was absolutely rude and 
disrespectful. She appeared to be a person who couldn’t care 
less about how people feel and are treated. She was a disgrace to 
this City. There was another person who never asked a question 
but went on and on bringing up ancient history and about how 
disgusted he was regarding how the Sheriff’s Department was 
corrupt and about things that happened over 20 to 30 years ago.

 Some other people complained about response time and that 
the Sheriff could not respond as quickly as our current police 
department personnel can because they know the area. I wonder 
if these people thought about when a new police officer comes 
to Sierra Madre if THEY know the area also? Then there was a 
former Sheriff’s Volunteer who not only embarrassed himself 
by the way he disrespected the Lieutenant at the meeting, but he 
could not present any factual evidence on what he brought up.

 Thank goodness there were some rational citizens who 
asked rational questions such as two long time resident real 
estate agents. They presented their positions and questions in 
a very professional manner. There were other people who were 
courteous and asked questions or made statements in a very 
respectful manner.

 Whether you are in favor of keeping the Sierra Madre Police 
Department or contracting with the Sheriff, they should have 
been treated with respect, just as you would want to be treated 
with respect.

Pat Holland, Sierra Madre

“SAY IT AIN’T SO, DEAR”


Honesty is a relative thing and 
with my relatives, it sometimes is not even a thing.

 
Take Auntie, for instance. She wore such big hats, 
especially on Sunday, that if a breeze came by she 
would fly far away. Why she likes these hats, I don’t 
know. Maybe it’s because her relatives are not honest 
with her.

 “How do you like my hat,” she would inquire. 
Question: do I want to make her angry or sad? I 
think the rest of the family felt the same way. To tell 
the truth, it is a hard thing to do in this instance, her 
hats are terrible. Where she gets them, nobody really 
knows. Rumor has it she made those hats in her craft 
room in the back of her house.

 I don’t know, I stay out of that room as much as 
possible.

 “Isn’t my hat divine,” she would bustle.

 I do not have the heart to tell her how awful that 
hat is and how silly it makes her look. Therefore, I 
cave in to relative dishonesty, “That hat makes you 
look wonderful, Auntie,” I rejoin

. At times, I feel a little guilty about this. Is it really 
lying when you do not want to hurt someone’s 
feelings? Like when your wife says, “Does this dress 
make me look fat?” The husband who will answer 
that question truthfully will pay for it the rest of his 
married life.

 I try to be as honest as I possibly can. I do not like 
dishonesty or people who tell lies. Who do you think 
I am, a politician?

 As I think of it, maybe these politicians are looking 
at me as if I was Auntie and not wanting to hurt my 
feelings. All I can say is, I have no feelings for any of 
these politicians so just tell me the truth.

 I can well remember back in the good old days 
&the old family picnics, when all the relatives would 
get together on a Saturday for a picnic. What a good 
time that was the end what good memories I have 
today.

 At these family picnics was good old Uncle Fred, 
who had more stories to tell than any man could 
actually live. If he started one of his fishing stories 
that was the end of the day.

 I am not sure if old Uncle Fred was consciously 
lying or if he was dreaming out loud. That is a distinct 
possibility. Maybe when he was talking about his 
fishing days they were really dreams he had about 
going fishing. I can certainly understand that.

 I have had so many wonderful dreams throughout 
my life, but the difference is, I do not tell anybody 
about my dreams. Some of them are just too spooky. 
If Uncle Fred is referring to his dreams, I am not 
sure I ever want to sleep over at his house.

 Between Auntie and Uncle Fred, honesty is a 
relatively scarce thing in our family.

 At the end of one of Uncle Fred’s stories I just want 
to look at him and say, “Tell me it ain’t so, Uncle 
Fred.”

 Then, it might hurt his feelings and he may never 
entertain us again with one of his dreamy stories. Is 
that really worth being honest with him?

 Both Auntie and Uncle Fred are long gone. The 
only thing I have are memories of the stories they 
told. You know it’s kind of tempting to me? Retelling 
their stories as though they were my stories.

 Now that I think about it, perhaps that is what 
Uncle Fred was doing. Perhaps when he was younger 
he heard one of his uncles tell some fishing stories 
and somehow through the mystery of life they 
became his stories.

 In reflecting on both of these relatives, I am so glad 
that I was not so pompous as to catch them in some 
wee bit of dishonesty. They meant well, I am sure. 
They felt part of the family because Auntie loved to 
show off her hat and Uncle Fred loved to show off his 
stories.

 We do not have big hats anymore for ladies, which 
Auntie would kinda feel out of place. And with all the 
emailing and texting and technology today, nobody 
has time to listen to Uncle Fred’s stories.

 Man I miss those days. Those days before social 
media took over and made us all strangers.

 I still have my memories, and I am wondering how 
I can pass them on to my children and grandchildren. 
If only they could have met those relatives of mine 
and heard those stories there would be a little bit of 
joy in their heart that nothing else can create.

 Occasionally I think of Auntie and Uncle Fred and 
for some reason a smile dances across my face. I want 
to bring joy to my family and when they think of me 
long after I am gone, a smile will dance across their 
face.

 The apostle Paul had the right attitude when he 
said, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, 
whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are 
just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things 
are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if 
there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think 
on these things” (Philippians 4:8).

 I discovered that what a person thinks about 
reveals a lot about who they really are.

 

 The Rev. James L. Snyder is pastor of the Family of 
God Fellowship, 1471 Pine Road, Ocala, FL 34472. He 
lives with his wife, Martha, in Silver Springs Shores. 
Call him at 352-687-4240 or e-mail jamessnyder2@att.
net. The church web site is www.whatafellowship.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 

HOWARD Hays As I See It

MICHAEL Reagan Making Sense


PRIMARY LOSERS

Donald Trump did not dominate the debate stage 
in his usual way.

 Ben Carson may have put a few people to sleep.

 Former GOP heavyweight hopeful Jeb Bush 
was badly bloodied by the counter punches of 
Kid Rubio.

 Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina were lost in 
the crowd and held scoreless all night.

 John Kasich yelled too much and Rand Paul 
continued his slow disappearing act.

 But the biggest losers at CNBC’s Republican debate Wednesday night — 
in an embarrassing landslide — were not running for president.

 They were CNBC and its three argumentative, biased and incompetent 
“first-string” moderators.

 On Thursday morning the Drudge Report nailed it in four words when it 
put the headline “Shame of the Nation” under a photo of Becky Quick, Carl 
Quintanilla and John Harwood.

 The trio of alleged journalists and the entire debate was so pathetic 
CNBC’s corporate parent Comcast should quietly pull the plug on its 
failing business cable channel at midnight tonight, change its call letters 
and start showing infomercials for Snuggies 24/7.

 No one would notice CNBC was gone for weeks.

 Except for second-stringers Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, the moderators’ 
questions were often dumb and snarky, starting with the first doozy of the 
night by John Harwood.

 He snidely listed some of Donald Trump’s notorious campaign promises 
before asking, “Let’s be honest. Is this a comic-book version of a presidential 
campaign?”

 In addition to their bad and apparently often factually challenged 
questions, the moderators couldn’t manage the flow of the debate or control 
the debaters.

 They often seemed more interested in enforcing time limits than asking 
follow-up questions. And they quickly jumped from one issue to another 
after hearing from only one or two candidates.

 Making it even worse, they couldn’t tell when the debate was actually 
producing real information about the candidates’ plans for reforming 
Social Security or taxes.

 The liberal bias of CNBC’s moderators was no surprise.

 It was a micro-example of the political bias practiced by the mainstream 
national news media for the last 50 years.

 Harwood’s dislike of Republicans and conservatism was so obvious 
everyone on stage, in the audience and in living rooms across America 
could smell it.

 Ted Cruz, Trump, Huckabee, Fiorina and Carson took advantage of the 
moderators’ blatant leftward tilt. They racked up easy points by slamming 
and shaming them, CNBC and the mainstream liberal media in general.

 The big co-winners of the night for the GOP were clearly Cruz and Chris 
Christie. They both never swung and missed and hit several home runs.

 Rubio was close behind, thanks to how easily he wiped the floor with 
Jeb Bush after Jeb went after Marco for his poor attendance record in the 
Senate. 

 After Rubio came Trump and then the rest. The Donald did himself no 
harm by being a kinder, gentler candidate and being nice to all of his fellow 
Republicans except ex-Ohio Governor Kasich.

 Like his co-winner Christie, Cruz had his best debate yet. If before you 
had trouble liking Cruz, after last night you had to love him.

 He earned his biggest cheers with a spontaneous rant criticizing the 
moderators for their gotcha questions and for trying to get the candidates 
to fight with each other while ignoring serious issues.

 CNBC set a new low for televised political debates incompetence and 
biased moderators. But at least it did one thing right Wednesday night.

 It did for Republicans what they have not been able to do for themselves 
so far this primary season. It actually unified the Republican Party, on and 
off the stage.

 

 Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political 
consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s 
Press). Visit his websites at www.reagan.com and www.michaelereagan.com. 
Send comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. Follow @reaganworld on 
Twitter.


“Clinton e-mails the 
(Egyptian) prime minister 
. . . that is the day after the 
attack, 9/12/11”

“. . . now remember, these 
attacks were exactly ten 
years to the day of the 
initial World Trade Center 
bombings.”

- Eric Bolling of “The Five” 
on Fox News, commenting 
on the House Select Committee hearing on 
Benghazi

To those paying attention, the above quotes might 
seem a bit off. The first one, taken alone, could 
be dismissed as an on-camera flub. But with the 
second, it’s clear Eric Bolling, prominent voice 
in his network’s Benghazi coverage, didn’t know 
when the key event took place. Our Benghazi 
compound was attacked on September 11, 
2012 – eleven years after the Twin Towers came 
down. Actually, the “initial World Trade Center 
bombings” occurred in 1993; on 9/11/2001 the 
towers were brought down by planes flying into 
them.

 Bolling has had problems with chronology 
before. In May 2014, again on “The Five”, he 
interjected; “Don’t forget that (Benghazi) was 
prior to Osama bin Laden being taken down, and 
the thought was, the discussion was, ‘Is President 
Obama going into the reelection soft on terror 
or not?’” Co-host Dana Perino then reminded 
that bin Laden was, in fact, killed some time 
before (May 2, 2011), adding, “A great point, if 
it were true”. (Stephen Colbert later suggested 
“a fantastic new motto: ‘Fox News: Fair and 
Balanced. A Great Point If It Were True.”)

 Chronologies weren’t the only thing 
Republicans and their supporters had a hard 
time with over the past several days. One was 
grappling with anything more complicated than 
“either/or”. That planned terrorist action and rage 
over an anti-Islam video might both be factors in 
the same incident is, as the L.A. Times’ Michael 
McGough put it, “a seemingly simple concept 
Republicans still can’t wrap their heads around.”

Nor could they wrap their heads around the 
fact that conclusions are based on available 
information. According to the NY Times, 
witnesses said the alleged ringleader of the 
Benghazi attack told them it was in “retaliation” 
for the video and “attackers did tell bystanders 
they were attacking the compound because they 
were angry about the video”. The AP reported 
that “A Libyan Interior Ministry official says 
armed men have stormed the US consulate in 
east Libya’s Benghazi and set it ablaze after a 
protest against a video deemed insulting to 
Islam’s prophet”. 

 A year ago, the House Intelligence Committee 
found that “intelligence analysts and 
policymakers received a stream of piecemeal 
intelligence . . . Much of the early intelligence was 
conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps 
remain.”

 As Hillary Clinton wrote in her book “Hard 
Choices”, “Later investigation and reporting 
confirmed that the video was indeed a factor. All 
we knew at that time with complete certainty was 
that Americans had been killed and others were 
still in danger.”

 Jeb Lund in Rolling Stone analogized that 
“under the Republican committee members’ 
theory of knowledge, everyone who believed the 
sun revolved around the Earth before Copernicus 
wasn’t unaware of astronomy -- they were just 
lying.”

 A few hours before the Benghazi attack, our 
embassy in Cairo was breeched by demonstrators 
protesting the anti-Islam video. The next day, 
September 13, protestors stormed our embassy 
in Yemen. On the 14th it was our embassies in 
Chennai, southern India; Khartoum, Islamabad, 
and Tunis. Throughout the week, protests in 
Pakistan spread to Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar. 
All were in direct response to the video, as were 
dozens of other protests throughout Asia, Africa 
and Europe.

 The Afghan Taliban claimed its September 
14 attack on our base in Helmand province, in 
which two Marines were killed, was in response 
to the video. On September 21, an Egyptian 
militia group cited the video as its motive for 
a border attack in which an Israeli soldier was 
killed.

 During this time, we’re to believe Secretary 
Clinton was focused on conspiring with 
the White House, the CIA, and major news 
organizations to concoct a story on Benghazi to 
boost the president’s reelection prospects.

 These issues had been resolved in previous 
hearings and investigations. But no matter – 
though such hearings usually last half as long 
with multiple witnesses, Republicans assumed 
keeping Clinton up there by herself for eleven 
hours would produce some sound bite they could 
use in future campaign ads.

 Instead, the first major polling after 
her testimony showed Clinton’s numbers 
skyrocketing in Iowa. The headline in Politico 
read, “Benghazi hearing floods Clinton campaign 
coffers with cash”.

 Republicans can’t wrap their heads around the 
concept that if something doesn’t work, it’s time to 
try something else. So now they’re planning still 
more hearings. There will be more on Planned 
Parenthood, after the one last month that even the 
National Review called “inept” and “a disgrace”, 
with multiple investigations already having come 
up empty. Gearing up in another area, the House 
Science Committee (the “Koch Committee”) 
issued subpoenas demanding seven years’ worth 
of documents (emails, reports, comments, notes, 
etc.) from scientists at the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration – with a two-
week deadline to produce them. The outrage 
this time is over the fact one of the scientists, 
speaking for himself, signed a letter calling for 
the fossil fuel industry to be held accountable for 
having intentionally misled the public on climate 
change. (The subpoenaed documents are already 
available on the internet, anyway.)

 But these hearings and investigations don’t 
mean they’ve given up on actually legislating. 
Two weeks ago, House Republicans introduced a 
bill called the “Hearing Protection Act of 2015”. 
The bill’s purpose – wait for it – is to remove 
restrictions on gun silencers.

 With the bill unlikely to get very far, its titling, 
presumably by some NRA lobbyist, would strike 
most Americans as a sick joke. But that’s another 
reality Republicans simply wouldn’t be able to 
wrap their heads around.

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