Letter: One Robert refutes ‘truthiness’ of two recent letters


I was enjoying a nice Saturday with the power just coming back on. As I sipped my coffee and perused last week’s newspaper, I noticed the first snowflakes of the year —- coincidentally, both named Ed.

While it’s fair to say we have political differences, I wanted to refute the ‘truthiness’ of their letters.

Ed No. 1 mentioned that Biden will allow “unfettered migration” from the Mexican border. Ed No.1, you will be pleased to know — to the chagrin of most Dems — that Biden’s transition team includes Cecilia Muñoz, the one who supported separating families and who helped Obama earn the nickname “Deporter in Chief.”

Many of your fellow Americans feel that separating families and restricting travel from certain Middle Eastern countries is racist and below the United States, but you should be happy, not sad!

Next, you called the Paris Accord “disastrous.”

The real disasters you should consider are the increased hurricanes, wildfires, droughts and famine we are already seeing with our warming planet.

Any economist will tell you that collective action problems like climate change cannot be solved alone.

We need international agreements if we want any hope at slowing warming.

Instead of saying “voters ignored [Biden’s] cognitive decline,” I suggest you pause and entertain that maybe voters did consider it, but decided that the current administration posed larger risks.

Ed No. 2, you seem like a solid guy I would have a socially distanced beer with, but not as many as you had before writing your letter last week.

You spoke in half-baked, talking points like “Why are there so many … who want to throw away that which the Constitution guarantees to each of us?”

You implied that Obama “denigrated the American way of life for eight years” and that we are “electing the head of a crime family.”

You give no sources to your claims.

Nothing is being taken away from you, Ed No. 2. Go cry into your hoarded toilet paper.

Finally, you incorrectly said that the “very definition of socialism” is “when politicians become unfettered from the law and … rule according to their own personal whim.”

No! Take a high school history class. Socialism is when the community owns the means of production, distribution and exchange.

In reality, regardless of party, let’s remember that all most folks want is affordable healthcare, security and to live on a healthy planet.

Robert Boenish


More in Letters to the Editor

Letter: What value is our freedom, citizenship, if unprotected?

Editor, Back in the 1970s, in a border state where party registration… Continue reading

Letter: Programs not socialism, won’t lead to serfdom

Editor, I read many letters warning about the dangers of socialism. It… Continue reading

Letter: Paris Accord is a dismal failure that gives false hope

Editor, I enjoyed reading Robert Boenish’s letter to the editor where Bob… Continue reading

Letter: Libaries are using funding wisely during difficult time

Editor, I will leave it to others to respond to Kurt Vieke… Continue reading

Letter: Greenbank Farm needs your support for maintenance, open spaces

Editor, Our island is extremely fortunate to have the Greenbank Farm open… Continue reading

Letter: Electromagnetic radiation has hidden health hazards

Editor, Having tuned into the Langley City Council meeting on Nov. 16… Continue reading

Letter: Updates to the state Growth Management Act needed

Editor, It’s the time of the year when we consider what we’re… Continue reading

Letter: Biden should rehire fired director of Cybersecurity, Infrastructure

Editor, Add the name of Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and… Continue reading

Letter: Hold the criticism of Biden till he has had time to do job

Editor, All politicians have something in common — they like the spotlight… Continue reading

Most Read