Have Questions or Comments?
Leave us some feedback and we'll reply back!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone Number)

    In Reference to

    Your Message

    Speak Your Vues


    Dear Editor:
    Last week, Democrats voted to officially begin an Impeachment inquiry.
    Democrats claimed it was only a vote to begin the 2nd stage of the
    inquiry, but to most people it just looked like that up to that point,
    the whole thing was a sham. Even now with more “due process” to Trump
    and Republicans, the process is still not fair. In order for the
    Minority to get witnesses or for the White House to have their legal
    team by the hearing, they need the approval of the Chair of the
    Committee. One of those Chairs will be Adam Schiff. This is the guy
    that is supposed to approve the due process parts of the hearing. It
    really is a joke. This is the guy that denied that his staff contacted
    the whistleblower, even though his staff did. This is the guy that
    made up what was said in the Trump- Zelensky Transcript. Schiff even
    got 4 Pinocchio’s from the liberal Washington Post. Schiff was also
    the one that said he had concrete evidence that Trump colluded with
    Russia. The crazy thing about all of this is that Speaker Pelosi is
    letting this circus go on. This is the same Speaker that said about
    impeachment in March “[that it is] so divisive to the country that
    unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and
    bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it
    divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” Speaker Pelosi said
    she would do impeachment under 2 conditions; one, it has to be
    overwhelmingly bipartisan and two, the evidence has to be so
    compelling which is obviously relied on if their is bipartisan support
    for impeachment. Not only was their no bipartisan support for
    impeachment, their was bipartisan opposition to it from including,
    every single Republican from Moderates like, Rep. Fred Upton and Will
    Hurd to more Conservative representatives like Rep. Scalise and Lee
    Zeldin to Democrats like Rep. Van Drew and Rep. Colin Peterson. Rep.
    Colin Peterson is even the current Chairman of the House Agriculture
    Committee. The only bipartisan support was against Pelosi’s scheme. A
    recent poll came out showing that under 1/3 of Americans want
    impeachment to be a priority for Congress. Even looking at
    battleground states polling for support of impeachment shows that
    their isn’t any bipartisan support. It is time for our nation to come
    together instead of putting divisive issues like, impeachment, at the
    front door. It is time for Nancy Pelosi to stop being Speaker of the
    Democrat Party and to start being Speaker of the Unites States House
    Of Representatives.
    Donny Simcha Guttman

    Editor’s Note: You don’t seem to get it the Democrats will do anything
    to try to regain power.


    Dear Editor:

    I really have to admit that I am baffled by current events in
    Congress. How could such a simple process be turned into such a mess?

    Whether it’s a grand jury or a congressional inquiry the process is
    almost exactly the same except that our representatives seem to be
    much less disciplined and more childlike. Each process requires
    secrecy to protect both the witnesses and the subject until it can be
    determined if the evidence supports charges. If it does then the
    evidence is presented to the court, or in this case the House, where a
    vote is taken to determine if a jury, the Senate, needs to be

    This process happens many times each day in grand juries around our
    country. The accused doesn’t get to question witnesses. The accused
    doesn’t get to have an attorney present. The accused doesn’t get to
    present a defense.

    That’s the grand jury system. Are Republicans in the House of
    Representatives proposing that we do away with this system because
    it’s uncomfortable or inconvenient?

    Nochum R

    Editor’s Note: The problem is that the Congress is not the Grand Jury
    and the whistleblower may have illegally obtained testimony thereby
    tainting the evidence.


    Dear Editor:

    Forgive me for bothering you with this, but this is something that you
    might be interested in as a newspaper editor

    Last night, I received 5 emails from my email provider telling me that
    they blocked a total of 5 emails from reaching me which were all
    infected with a virus.

    It seems very likely that this was done by one person and that it was
    intentionally done.

    I asked the email provider if they would tell me who did it.

    They wrote back and said that the only thing that they could and would
    tell me is that all 5 came from a NEWSPAPER.

    Now, there is no way of knowing WHO at this newspaper did this.

    It could have been an editor or it could been anyone who could use
    their email address.

    But one thing that newspaper editors should NOT do (which some do) is
    to publish the e-mail address of the letter-writer.  I have seen many
    of my published letters where the newspaper has done this.

    Here is how I look at this: I am one of those people who DO NOT like
    how politics has become so full of hate, anger, rage, fury, rudeness,
    nastiness, disrespectfulness, demeaning insults, name-calling,
    bullying, stealth tactics, and sneakiness and lying and making things

    I don’t believe that one’s “ends” and goals ever justify the use of
    “any” means at all.

    We should be able to disagree with each other strongly.

    We should be able to hit hard.

    But we should be FAIR.

    We should never try to HURT or HARM someone we disagree with.

    But it happens all of the time.

    I always receive hate-postal mail where people call me names like “you
    are a stupid **** ****.”

    They are always anonymous and unsigned because these people are
    cowards and bullies.

    This goes on by BOTH sides, but research shows that conservatives and
    Republicans do it more than liberals and progressives and Democrats.

    I do not like the nastiness in our country, but I know that it is there.

    To me, it goes with the territory.

    I don’t like it, but it does not bother me much anymore–just a little.

    But trying to infect someone’s computer is going way too far.

    I’ll try not to write again for a while.

    Have a good weekend,


    Editor’s Note: Where do you take this info that republicans are the
    ones that resort to name-calling? As a matter of fact most newspapers
    are ones that lean to the left. I hope your computer stays safe with
    no viruses.


    Dear Editor:

    According to President Trump and the national conservative news media,
    someone who simply supports a federal government social program that
    helps people such as Social Security and Medicare is a “crazy
    socialist.”  If we go by that definition, then that would make Dwight
    Eisenhower and Richard Nixon “crazy socialists” because they both
    signed new federal government social programs into law/existence
    during their Presidencies, and they both supported Social Security.

    In fact, Ike wrote a letter to his brother in which he stated that any
    Republican who wants to abolish Social Security is “stupid.”

    It appears that conservative-Republicans have become a lot more
    conservative and a lot more “stupid” since around 1980 because we sure
    do have a lot of them nowdays who stupidly want to abolish Social
    Security and move our country toward a “Survival-of-the-Fittest”
    Social Darwinism.

    For example, I recently saw President Trump’s “Acting Chief of Staff”
    and “Budget Director,” Mick Mulvaney, on television. When he was a
    Congressman, he was a favorite of “The Tea Party” and was well-known
    for arguing that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” that it is
    “unconstitutional,” and that it should be abolished.

    Very few Americans seem to know that today’s national Republican
    Party, more and more, uses “stealth” tactics as it advocates for and
    stands for a creeping, crazy, and cold-hearted
    “Survival-of-the-Fittest” Social Darwinism in which all federal
    government social programs which help the lower and middle classes are
    abolished and no longer exist.

    The book that does an excellent job of exposing this secret-right-wing
    conspiracy is—–Jane Mayer, “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the
    Billionaires Behind The Rise of the Radical Right.”

    The New York Times chose it as one of the 10 best books of 2018.

    To my knowledge, not a single thing that she says has ever been
    successfully refuted by anyone.

    Jane has also received or been a finalist for over 12 journalistic
    awards and prizes.

    I wish my right-wing friends a lot of luck in trying to attack her
    book in their usual BULLYING ways.


    Stewart B. Epstein

    Editor’s Note: I doubt anyone would spend a dime on such a book.


    Dear Editor:

    Just over 100 years ago, Oscar Strauss made history of sorts by
    becoming the first Jewish Cabinet officer (serving as Teddy
    Roosevelt’s Sec of Commerce. A few years later, Brandeis became the
    first Jewish Supreme court justice. There were also Jews serving as
    senior advisors to Presidents going back to George Washington.
    However, there is really limited evidence that having Jews in high
    places really has resulted in benefits to the Jewish Community in the
    U.S. or globally (e.g. considier Henry Morgenthau’s role during WWII).
    From a purely parochial perspective, what are the pros/cons these days
    of having Yidden serve in the cabinet or other senior roles. I come
    away sort of agnostic thinking they should serve if they believe in,
    and support, the President’s program but otherwise its really not a
    issue for the Jewish community as a whole. I don’t buy into the the
    frequently invoked argument that Yidden will be blamed for bad
    outcomes (and risk promoting anti-semitism) but never really get the
    credit for positive outcomes. Trump’s middle-east negotiating team of
    three “frum” yidden (Greenblatt, Friedman and Kushner) seem to have
    been unable to move the peace process forward with the growing
    criticism that having an all Jewish/pro-Israel negotiating team doomed
    the effort from the beginning.

    Godol H

    Editor’s Note:  There are many reasons for Jews to be in high places.
    We don’t know how much worse it could have been if the above mentioned
    Jews were not in power.


    Dear Editor:

    I heard that Rabbi Yaacov Lipshitz was niftar. He was a throwback to
    the previous generation. He will be sorely missed

    Boruch G

    Editor’s Note: Yehei Zichro Boruch


    Dear Editor:

    I believe that the siyum Hashas should take place indoors. I am afraid
    that people sitting outside in the cold weather when they are not used
    to sitting in this kind of weather will make a lot of people sick.

    Moshe R

    Editor’s Note: Yorah Magna umatzla.


    Dear Editor:

    Japan Air Lines just announced that their seat maps for most
    international flights will show whether a seat had been reserved for
    babies (under 2yo) so that other passengers would know in advance and
    plan accordingly since some would prefer not to pay several thousand
    dollars for a 14 hour flight with the possibility of sitting next to a
    crying infant. Perhaps El Al might show the gender of those with
    advanced seat assignments so that all the big tzadikim who delay
    flights because they want their seats changed at the last minute to
    avoid sitting next to a woman might be able to avoid such challenges.
    Aside from possible legal questions for the El Al lawyers and likely
    objections from womens’ rights group, might this type of seatmap
    mitigate the problem? Given how many seats these days are held for
    airport assignment or last minute changes, the idea may be impractical
    and ineffective but the concept was my first thought after reading the
    about the new JAL seatmap format. You need to frame it in terms of
    “protecting women” from harassment. Thereby by identifying the gender
    of nearby seatholders you “allow women to choose to sit next to a
    woman to avoid the risk of harassment”.

    Framing it as such can get it implemented whereas framing it as to
    help protect morality will get it shot down by the leftists and

    Gavriel H

    Editor’s Note: I like this idea.


    Dear Editor:

    Mike Simpson was recently quoted in the Washington Post saying, “You
    have to go out and try to defend (President Trump).” No, you don’t.
    Simpson seems to be drawing a false equivalency between a criminal who
    happens to further his political agenda (I’m not even sure how he is
    doing that at this point, but I digress) and a good man like President
    Obama who did not further his personal politics. There is no
    comparison. And deep down, I know he knows it.

    We are way, way past the point where Simpson can continue to justify
    his votes supporting the monster in the White House. Way past. We have
    been begging him to put country above party since the day after the
    election. We are right, and I think it is time for him to admit that.
    It’s time to support impeachment. It’s time to stop playing coy. It’s
    time to lead.

    Bella H

    Editor’s Note: What happened to the idiom of innocent until proven guilty?


    Dear Editor:

    What I would like to see on the editorial page are letters from area
    residents regarding local, regional, national and international
    issues. Letters let us know what members of our community are thinking
    about a variety of subjects. Sharing thoughts through letters to the
    editor may help us all to better understand members of our community.
    An example is the annexation of Wood Colony by Modesto.

    There are problems such as water, homeless people, and pollution,
    which affect us locally and are also worldwide problems. We often hear
    the phrase “think globally, act locally.” May we all learn to do so.

    Jesse M

    Editor’s Note: Go ahead send in your letters we will print them.


    Dear Editor:

    I’m tired of all of the hand wringing about global warming. If this is
    a reality and will continue unless we cut way back on our lifestyle
    then we had better start thinking about what cutting back really

    Air travel? Nope. Multiple cars for a family? Nope. Grocery stores
    full of processed food? Nope. Large homes with few occupants? Nope.
    Yachts, travel, sports cars, water sports? All nope! Our entire
    society depends on energy-driven consumption. “I’ll start consuming
    less the day our leaders do” — fat chance.

    But wait, there’s more.

    Unemployment out of control? Yep. Brutal energy conservation
    regulations? Food and gasoline riots? Yep. Countries that depend on
    our high level of consumption for their own economies to thrive?

    And finally, if the U.S. becomes a second-rate power in order to save
    the planet I can hardly wait to see what Putin and Xi Jinping do.

    When the population of the world settles around 1 to 2 billion, then
    we might have a chance. Otherwise I’m going to keep eating ice cream.

    Yona H

    Editor’s Note: Can you share some ice cream with me?