Israel isn't the problem

The United Nations' resolution puts Israel in danger. The complete destruction of Israel would not guarantee world peace for the American people.

If Israel agrees to the recent United Nations resolution, the pre-1967 borders cannot be defended.

During World War I, the army of Turkey was pushed back by military force with active warfare. However, world peace did not suddenly break out. The complete opposite happened. During FDR’s time, World War II set back most of the world. Israel did not exist. During the ungodly horrors of the Battle of Stalingrad, Israel did not exist. When Rommel was moving German forces in North Africa, Israel did not exist.

What would happen if Israel was removed from the geographic map? Europe or Australia would not be next on the menu. The United States would be next on the menu.

Many Americans agree, the Arabs got lucky on 9/11. Many Americans feel a second 9/11 is near impossible in the next 30 years. Without the existence of Israel, the Arab terrorists would have a better chance at a second 9/11 on American soil.

The complete removal of Israel will not somehow end all war on earth. With Israel gone, Moscow will not simply yield to the long-range goals of Washington, D.C. China will not scrap military plans just because Israel no longer exists. North Korea would not stop networking with Iran upon news Israel was finally wiped out.

Currently, none of the American presidents has solved the issue of war in the Arab world. History records President Reagan decided to stand with Israel. As a result, American Marines died in a terrorist attack. The American people/masses do not want a Cold War II. The American people might have more hope than the Israeli people.

Michael Cooke

Hinkley

Let's see proof

Re: letter on 01/08/2017 ... According to one writer, hourly pay has gone up 11.1 percent since 1973. Really? Just saying it doesn't make it so; we're not told who came up with that number, or how. But, for the sake of argument let's use that number. He goes on to pronounce that the productivity of American working people has gone up 73.4 percent during that same period. Once again, according to whom? How is "productivity of American working people" defined? What were the parameters set for the collection of data that resulted in that number? What does it mean?

Sorry, but I'm just not gullible enough to buy into that sort of thing just because I came across it somewhere. Need more input, as Number Five would say. That's being said, let us consider the figure of 73.4 percent for the sake of argument.

The writer proceeds with "Since 1973, based on productivity, our minimum wage today should be $22.41 per hour." Really? Since when did it become axiomatic that wages and productivity always follow each other in lock-step? It is apparent that, somehow, the writer has either concocted or bought into that concept. But, once again, I need more input. Homework assignment for the writer: Solve for "x", write your proof....show your work.

Gabriel Portillo

Hesperia

Trump won, get over it

The content of the writer's letter of Jan. 5 serves to reveal in detail the extent of the letter's title, "Bursting Clifton Supporters' Bubble." It seems that the writer has invented her own "facts" and proceeds to demonstrate an uninformed denial of real history.

For instance: the Electoral College has operated exactly as our Founding Fathers envisioned. Several large states cannot run roughshod over the wishes of smaller states; voters in large, very liberal cities cannot dictate the outcomes of elections where more realistic wishes of citizens in other states prevail. The Electoral College balances outcomes.

The writer also professes to know the people who President-elect Trump has chosen "to pack his cabinet with people as dishonest, corrupt, and out of touch with reality as he is." She, of course, must have inside information about these people who are almost universally praised. She also painted a snapshot of her champion, Hillary, who, in the words of many Secret Service employees, being close to her, can attest to her volcanic temper accompanied by abusive words. This is the woman the writer would have liked to be our president? A woman who, very early in her career, was labeled a liar? And we can all remember her smiling face when asked about her nonconforming e-mail server located in her New York residence and she blandly stated that it had never been hacked. As far as I know, hackers don't leave calling cards. And of course her many, many deleted emails only serve to reinforce the suspicions that her server was the source of leaked government information.

The election is over. dear writer. Donald Trump will be our next president. I suggest that you retreat to your crying room and just get over it.

Mele Bond

Oak Hills

Boycott? Not!

Normally, if I am unhappy or dissatisfied with a consumer product, I will make a mental note to switch to another product, or another producer of the shelf brand, but I have never started, or joined, an official boycott to defame or denounce the product that I no longer like. Maybe a project like that would be better handled by a “community organizer” of sorts, or at least someone with the time and interest to get the ball rolling.

I remember way back in the mid-60’s when “Hanoi Jane” Fonda ratted our POWs out, when visiting them at the Hanoi Hilton prison camp in North Vietnam.

I don’t recall how many prisoners were reportedly tortured, or maimed, or killed after her visit, but there were some. As a result, Jane Fonda became my first boycotted “person” and she still heads that list, over 50 years later.  I have not seen any of her films, or personal appearances, or book signings (or whatever else she might have been involved in), since her treasonous acts turned me off back then. I was a Vietnam-era veteran — but was never in country — and was discharged in 1966.

I have added a few to the list over the years. Cher, Barbra Streisand, Miley Cyrus and even Whoopi Goldberg would be very hard pressed to make the list with the same weight as Ms. Fonda.

My dissing a few individuals, or groups, has probably not affected their lives or careers, and that’s OK with me. I know who they are, and why they’re there — and apparently, at least for now, that’s good enough for me.

However, there is a new group still denying the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency and who have proposed a wall of offense be raised to counter anything President Trump proposes or enacts after Jan. 20, 2017.  

Depending on what mischief they decide to use there could be a few that are stupid enough to end up on my updated “boycott list” and perhaps even in jail.

Welcome aboard!

Philip Pederson

Apple Valley