LINKS
2017-02-15 / Letters

Observer becoming too liberal

May I suggest a name change of the Chesterfield Observer to the Chesterfield Liberal? On the front page there are two major articles, Dave Brat facing growing dissent, “Grill the Brat,” [Feb. 8] and major opposition rising in Bon Air against the travel ban (photo included). The only folks interviewed for comment include two immigrants from Afghanistan and Syria, and U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat who rarely agrees with Donald Trump on any topic. According to the Observer, it’s hard to tell if there is anyone who supports President Donald Trump.

Brat was duly elected. Considering party lines, the majority of his constituents likely want to see Trump succeed. Donald Trump won a sizable majority of states: 30 states to 20. Trump is fulfilling campaign promises. He pledged to protect us. I expected to see some kicking and screaming from liberals and from any groups whose central focus is to bring this country down, walls and all. Why does the Observer focus only on the negative?

Have you read USC Title 8? It’s crystal clear the powers given the president in matters of national security. I have to wonder why so many folks oppose immigration restrictions, and if it is only because Trump’s signature is on it. Where was the opposition when former presidents placed restrictions? Many protesters likely don’t know that past presidents have done so.

In the same issue, immigration attorney Debra Dowd points out in “Breaking down the Ban” that she doesn’t understand what “extreme vetting” would mean under President Trump’s travel ban. Here, the Observer has interviewed someone who claims she doesn’t understand what it means, and prints her comments. Was it too difficult to find someone who does understand what it means, and ask them instead?

Moving on to page 6, I see a disappointing article about how the travel ban has had a negative effect on someone. I am sure these cases exist, and it is a cost of doing business as far as immigration is concerned. Does the United States owe the world free, unlimited access, any time someone wants to enter? Are constitutional protections of the United States meant for citizens of our nation and aliens on foreign soil alike? Is our national security important anymore?

Why is the president’s side not covered? Perhaps it’s because we already know the president’s side, which is logical and reasonable. We need immigrants, but not those who intend to destroy us. Is it not worth some temporary delays and inconveniences to be sure? If we are only going to see negative news printed about Trump and his actions, I suggest the Observer could do our country, our president and our fellow citizens a big favor and save the ink.

Dan Anderson
MIDLOTHIAN

Return to top