Readers’ comments: February 6, 2026

Disappointed by Claremont High students’ anti-ICE protest
Dear editor:
I am disappointed by the Wednesday, February 4 student protest and by the unanswered questions it raises regarding the school district’s possible role. While students unquestionably have the right to express their views, the circumstances surrounding this event warrant clarification.
If district employees were involved in organizing, promoting, or encouraging student participation, that would be deeply concerning. Public schools exist to educate, not to facilitate political activity. Any use of taxpayer-funded time or authority for such purposes would merit serious scrutiny. The district should be transparent about whether staff involvement occurred and, if so, under what policies. I did personally observe school officials present to provide safety and security, which I appreciate and support.
I was also struck by the apparent lack of dedication demonstrated by the protest itself. Participants were present for only a few hours before dispersing. Genuine movements for change require sustained effort, personal sacrifice, and perseverance. Brief demonstrations risk appearing performative rather than substantive, particularly when messaging relies on quotations from public figures whose actions often contradict their words.
History offers clear examples of principled protest. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led movements defined by discipline, dignity, and peaceful resolve. His approach emphasized respect, moral clarity, and endurance — not profanity, shouting through bullhorns, or adults, potentially, placing children at the center of political messaging. One of my own children witnessed the protest and described it as chaotic, distracting, and ineffective.
Our students should be taught the full meaning of civic engagement, including responsibility, restraint, and respect for differing viewpoints. Schools should foster critical thinking — not blur the line between education and activism.
Aaron Peterson
Claremont

Self-deception is nothing new in the U.S.
Dear editor:
Peter Weinberger’s thoughtful January 30 Courier column, “The cost of lies is paid in public trust,” aptly pointed out the disparity between observed facts and the ongoing propaganda of the Republican administration. However, his assumption that public realization of official statements not matching observable reality leads to public mistrust is debatable. Many members of the “public” knew quite well that Trump was a pathological liar, but if his “story” fit with their biases or needs, they were more than willing to ignore, dismiss or rationalize the offense.
U.S. culture is rampant with the promotion of denial and self-deception. Religion provides lies that offer hope and meaning, but you must believe the lies. Commercial marketing provides lies that you will be more attractive, more admired, richer, healthier, etc., but you must believe the lies. And it’s obvious we do. We continue the deception of having a representative government with every person’s vote being of equal value when the reality is far different. If the “story” being presented fits the wants or needs of the person or group, they don’t necessarily lose trust but are just as likely to search for justification to support the lie. The “public” is not a rational creature.
John Roseman
Claremont

Leave Greenland alone already
Dear editor:
I was astounded at the abysmal foreign policy ignorance in the readers’ comments section of last week’s Courier. There, Kris M. Meyer [“In support of taking Greenland”] parroted Trump’s idiotic fantasy on Greenland, “Thoughtful negotiation, not conflict, should define this pursuit, but not limit it.” In other words, we’ll grab it up either the easy way or the hard way — military and economic force.
Trump’s concocted argument that Russian and Chinese warships and submarines are lurking offshore ready to attack at the opportune moment is specious and ludicrous. First, this inveterate liar has no credibility here. NATO sources insist that no such armada prowls Greenland’s waters.
I would be much more prone to accept their word than this man-boy president who in Helsinki said he would rather take the word of our adversary Putin over that of his own intelligence agencies.
Further, if any outside force had designs on Greenland, NATO is more than capable of repulsing any such military folly — even if the U.S. took all its marbles and went home, abandoning our allies.
In terms of strategic mineral resources, they’re presently buried under thousands of feet of ice which is not expected to melt for hundreds of years, unless in our folly we really do burn up the planet with global warming.
If Trump should launch the 101st Airborne, or maybe ICE, against Denmark and Greenland, the only patriotic duty would be to root for NATO over this addlepated president, consumed by a Greenland brainworm from the slime-pit of some putrefying cesspool.
If we can maintain political sanity for the next 2 1/2 years, we can rid ourselves of this court jester posing as a president, and of his fever dreams.
John C. Forney
Claremont

Time to step off the Trump train
Dear editor:
If Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance wish to ever be president of the U.S.A, they would be wise to disembark from the Trump/MAGA train now.
Opanyi Nasiali 
Claremont

‘I’ am safer under Trump
Dear editor:
In response to January 30 article, in my Readers’ comments on January 23 [“Trump makes ‘wanted man’ feel safer”], I spoke in the singular. I believe I am safer under a Trump presidency. I do not speak for anybody else other than myself. Some people may disagree with me; that’s their right. But they cannot speak for everybody by saying “we.” It would be more grammatically correct to say “I,” “most,” “many,” or “some,” but not “we.” The United States is a country comprised of many different nationalities, religions, cultures, and more, so “we” should not be used simply as one’s opinion.
Personally, I shake my head in disbelief at some of the things I hear Trump said, did or does. I acknowledge that he is not perfect. But I cannot recall anyone acknowledging the faults of Biden (or didn’t he have any?). In my opinion, Fox News was never “fair and balanced.” I have yet to find a station that is; and newspapers aren’t any better (both national and yes even local).
The writer in the Readers’ comments of January 30 [“We are not safer under Trump”], concludes by writing, “With 38 percent of our eight-grade students performing below the lowest of standards in math and science, we, most certainly, are not safer.” On that, we (the two of us and I suspect more) agree. According to my resources, both chambers of the California legislature have been controlled by the Democratic Party since 1959 except from 1969 to 1971, when the Republican Party held both chambers, and from 1994 to 1996, when Republicans briefly held a majority in the Assembly. The last Republican governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger from 2003 2011. Come on, it is time to get wake up. No matter what party is in power, our kids get shortchanged.
David Stedman
Claremont