To the Editor:
We all share the shock that a “former president’s home” was subject to search and seizure. That an ex-president is reasonably believed by federal law enforcement to have engaged in criminal conduct that could have compromised the country is repugnant. But even an ex-president who believes that he IS the republic is not above the Law. You assume that the warrant was a political act, but any president who did what the warrant describes could and should be subject to the legal process.
Republicans, the self-styled Party of Law and Order, so passionately critical of “defunding the police” (a foolish idea) by some liberals, had no problem immediately attacking the FBI, demanding the agents on the surveillance tape be identified, threatening bodily harm to them, and demanding the agency be defunded.
Trump was in negotiations until last June for the return of WH documents, which are not owned by the president personally but belong, post-term, to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act. He falsely assured DOJ that the retained documents were merely “mementos, letters from other world leaders and other pictures and documents,” (some of which were marked Top Secret and which his WH staff desperately tried to retrieve before they were “disappeared” to FL).
Having been lied to and having information leading to a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed and the evidence was still at Mar-A-Lago (MAL), the FBI executed a search warrant signed by a US Magistrate in FL. The Affidavit supporting the warrant was likely provided by someone close to Mar-A-Lago and, understandably, Trump desperately wants DOJ to reveal that name.
You complain again that Representative Brownley didn’t provide you with data that the White Nationalist home-grown terrorists are the “biggest threat” to America. Brownley undoubtedly assumes that her constituents are (1) not playing games, and (2) able to navigate the internet.
I appreciated the splash of humor at the end. The misty-eyed disappointment at not being able to trust…not sure who, exactly. Good one.
Kelly Scoles,
Fillmore

***

To the Editor:
On August 12th, the House Democrats passed the $740,000,000 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which Biden signed into law on the 16th. Actually it’s misnamed as most of the billions of taxpayer dollars are going to climate change. Why the change? Well, more Americans are concerned about the rising costs in their everyday life, not climate change. Those who voted in favor believe it will help reduce the $30.7 trillion debt. Truths be told it’s believed it will decrease the deficit by $100 billion, and that’s over ten years.
How did the IRA address your kitchen table issues? Here are few take-a-ways:
You on Medicare? Well, in 2025 the most you’ll have to pay on prescription drugs for the year will be $2,000. That’s good news.
Medicare insulin user? Remember in 2020 Trump put in place a $35 insulin copay cap starting in 2021. Biden put a pause to it when he took office so he could “review any new or pending rules.” That’s a very long pause wouldn’t you say?
Are you enrolled in the Affordable Care Act? The subsidy given to about three million Americans has been extended through 2025.
Well, for the $740 billion cost I hoped I’d see a larger cut into the inflation attacking the American household. In the end they decided to tout its “deflationary, because it increases our energy supply and makes it easier for consumers to afford their energy bills.”
And how does it do that you may ask? First you need to keep in mind most of the tax credits or rebates are based on whether you are in a moderate to low-income household. This is based on the average income of your community. In Ventura County for a family of four the annual low-income is $62,700 and moderate-income is $100,350. The moderate average income in America is $44,200.
Knowing the above will help you decide if you want to take advantage of the $7,500 tax credit to buy a new electric vehicle. Keep in mind both Ford and GM raised the costs of their EV’s by a like amount. Or maybe you’d like to apply for a rebate on a new heat pump, induction cooktop, heat pump dryer, or maybe you want to rewire your home.
Not in the market for any of these things? That’s okay. The bill will spend $1.5 billion to plant trees, $60 billion for environmental justice, and $300 billion to give to corporations to build solar and wind projects, as well as green batteries using materials mined in and built by China using coal.
All of the above adds to the debt. So how does the IRA reduce debt? Well, it included a minimum 15% corporate tax on those earning over $1 billion which is expected to generate $200 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. They’re spending $87 billion to hire 85,000 gun carrying tax agents. And in keeping his promise, Biden wants you to know no one earning under $400,000 will see a raise in their taxes. Yet, when Republicans tried to put that language into the bill the Democrats said no. Actually, the government determined over 10 years they will see an additional $16.7 billion in tax income from those who earn less than $200,000 and $14 billion from those making over $200,000.
So I believe like 71% of Americans, Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act will not make any difference in inflation. Sadly, it could make things worse.
Patti Walker
Fillmore

***

To the Editor:
In last week's Gazette, Kelly Scoles wrote:
"Your biblical references" (on abortion) "are from a thousands-of-years-old oral tradition of monotheism arising from paganism in the Judean world."
Wrong. The references are from God's word - the standard Kelly and we will be judged by when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10).
Kelly also wrote: "The written Old Testament from which you quote says a lot of things that are unacceptable today (offering your daughters to visitors for the night), or just plain psycho (God testing Abraham's loyalty and love by demanding he kill his son, Isaac."
The record of Lot's offering his daughters to the visitors is simply a record of what happened; it doesn't say that God approved of it. Secondly, to say that God's testing of Abraham "is just plain psycho" is blasphemous. God isn't a psycho, and nothing that He does or says is psycho. God is holy.
Kelly wrote that the Good News of the New Testament is "Love over Law."
That's half true. While we are free from the dietary/ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (Colossians 2:16), we are not free from the moral law. Jesus says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18) In keeping with this, the moral law found in the Ten Commandments was applied repeatedly by the apostles, such as by Paul when he writes, "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) Love doesn't negate the law, love keeps the law, as John writes in 1 John 5:3, "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments."
The good news of the gospel is that those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus, the Son of God, escape condemnation under the law because their sins are forgiven. "He who believes in Him is not condemned ..." John 3:18 (Ephesians 1:7; John 5:24)
Kelly wrote: "There are two kind of belief systems: one based on choice (e.g., religious beliefs, which do not require proof) and one based on facts (science, which does)."
The idea that a fetus (unborn child) is simply part of a woman's body that she can discard at will is neither factual nor scientific. It is patently unscientific to say that the child, having a blood type different than her mother's is simply a part of her mother's body. It is equally unscientific to say that a woman's body can have two heads, two beating hearts, two legs, two arms, etc. and all of that simultaneously. Abortion rights are not based on science at all. They are based primarily on couples' irresponsibility in sexual relations and the desire to have sex (usually by committing fornication) without consequences. The consequences are there, even if the woman aborts her child. For unless they repent, fornicators as well as blasphemers will go to hell, not heaven. That's not what I think. It's what God says.
Mary Bennett
Fillmore