Two Justices
Dear Editor,
The left continues with what is essentially a child’s temper tantrum because they didn’t get their way in the 2016 election. Trump supporters are said to have low IQs and should not be allowed to determine the direction we want for this country. Their hatred for Trump has unhinged them. It has the power to destroy this country.
The hair on fire topic of the day is the left’s demanding Trump be impeached. Probably the foremost legal mind in the country is liberal, Clinton-voting Alan Dershowitz. He has said, “It’s not even a close question … I challenge any of those who says it’s a crime to find me anything in the criminal law that would make it a crime for a president personally or a candidate to pay in order to save his own election. … To talk about this as high crimes and misdemeanors, it’s absurd.”
Others have questioned why Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, who is a Clinton lawyer and crony, even had him pled guilty to the payments as a crime. I think we can all answer why that was done. In order to tie Trump to a perceived “crime.”
If Trump’s paying former girlfriends to keep quiet about consensual sex is beyond the pale, why is it OK for Congress to have a fund to pay off sexual harassment claims with taxpayer dollars?
The left would also like to imply Trump was somehow involved in Manafort’s crimes. They took place before he was even involved with Trump. At that time, Manafort was working for the Podesta Group owned by Tony and John Podesta. John Podesta was Hilliary’s campaign manager.
Problems with campaign finance laws are usually handled as matters settled by paying a fine. The Obama campaign in 2008 had almost $2 million in illegal contributions and paid the largest fine so far – $375,000. Bernie Sanders also paid a fine in 2016.
We now must face there are two levels of justice in the US depending or whether there is a R or D after your name.
In the 2016 election, Clinton was exonerated for serious violations. Trump had a concerted effort to deny him the presidency. Now we have further attempts to that end utilizing a piece of campaign propaganda produced by the Clinton campaign. As the special counsel goes out of his way to destroy anyone who has even been associated with Trump.
Phyllis Picklesimer
Ultimate Arbiters
Dear Editor,
The media misrepresents the significance of Jack Philips punishment for refusing to create for an individual who identifies by behavior.
This issue is greater than homosexuality versus religion, or protecting “minority groups” from painful opposition free speech. This is about the core concept of our constitutional democracy. The full resources of the Colorado government have been brought upon Mr. Philips despite his agreeing with the majority of voters in 31 states, including extremely liberal California.
Our country’s founder’s believed the plurality of voters knew how to govern more effectively than a small group of adventitiously placed individuals. We, as a collective group, are better able to judge the worth and effects of legislation than any subset. The founders divided power between branches and levels to prevent government power from being consolidated or monopolized by the few. Voters are the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
Future voters were given a process to determine which constructs to protect against government/voter abuse via an amendment process, the Bill of Rights. The amendment process uses two mechanisms to guard against tyranny. It allows voters to grant a construct protection from government/voters by establishing a formal legislative process. It imposes a procedural bar to prevent popular politicians inventing a right in order to sabotage opposition support.
The Supreme Court failed to understand the constitutional amendment process’s second purpose. Five judges forced voters to accept personal political ideology. The five judges reported being in in awe of the position to make decisions for the entire electorate that both contradicts previous historical precedent and has great impact on future generations. The five judges eventually decided their ultimate purpose was to intervene against the majority’s wisdom and to protect “minority rights.” That self-reflection should have clued that they were not entitled to that great a position.
This democracy has clear procedures, which were ignored, to determine what entities to grant protection from opposition. If the five judges wished to grant protected minority status to individuals who practice a behavior, they had the same ability to petition the government for a gay rights amendment as the average voters who actually read a biology book recently.
This is what happens when branches act outside constitutional authority.
Mr. Philips is being punished because five judges imposed personal political beliefs on voters. We are all being punished for a politician wishing to incentivize his base into voting.
Alan Burke
It’s Not Their Money
Dear Editor,
How does a city become the most expensive to live and work in within the state? Simple – spend as much as you can, whenever you can, even if you don’t need the things you’re spending on.
The City of High Point is a perfect example. It has long held the distinction of being the most expensive city in North Carolina (highest property tax rate, greatest number of “creative fees” and highest utility rates). High Point’s municipal government never misses a chance to spend as much as it can, any time it can, which has led to it having the highest spending per capita in the state.
And it’s not just big tickets items that get you to the point of no return. Dozens upon dozens of seeming small projects and purchases, which could have been done for less or even not at all, eventually add up to a huge total. Just recently the city spent $260,000 to renovate a perfectly good City Council Chambers, not because it was lacking or worn in any way, but because a couple councilmembers decided it was not as bright and comfy as the Charlotte Council Chambers. Last month, the city bought their park rangers a 28-foot, offshore powerboat with a 200 horsepower engine for patrolling tiny Oak Hollow Lake when a boat of just over half the size in length and power would have easily served the same purpose. The list goes on.
So why does government on all levels continue the spending madness? Simple – there is no incentive to save money. Raises and promotions are given for spending all you have and then some. Cities have “unlimited power to tax” and they act as if they are pulling from a bottomless well. In the meantime, their citizens have less and less money each year for discretionary spending which serves to depress the local economy, all the while leaving city leaders to wonder why their city can’t support a mall, downtown retail, sporting events, etc.
It doesn’t matter if it is direct local taxes or fees, or a government grant (also tax money), it all comes out of the citizens’ pockets. When will the spending madness stop?
Oscar Williams
Not in the Pulpit
Dear Editor,
How is it that a church can allow a politician to stand in the pulpit and give a speech? Not a religious message, but a political speech.
Recently there have been too many instances of this happening. A church – a tax-exempt organization according to the Johnson Amendment – indirectly endorsing a political candidate by allowing him or her to stand before the congregation and spout partisan politics. Shouldn’t there be an equal time requirement like in public broadcasting? The First Amendment says government (of which politics is an extension of) has to stay out of religion, why isn’t the reverse true?
Churches as individual entities can be and are very powerful. I’m not talking about specific religious beliefs or doctrines, but the individual churches that dot the land. These places carry a lot of sway with their congregations and do have the potential to affect voting on a local level. If you look at history, you will find an abundance of examples where churches and religious organizations have altered the political landscape to suit their wants and desires. The fact that religion can wield such influence is the prime reason for the restrictions placed on government in our Constitution. What’s to say the opposite cannot apply as well? What’s to say religion cannot wield influence over government and therefore should be kept neutral in its interaction?
People get outraged about prayers in school or at school functions (a government institution) or prayers at the opening of a meeting of elected officials. Then why should candidates and elected officials be allowed to make political speeches from the pulpit? The term “double standard” comes to mind.
Does this mean a candidate cannot espouse their personal beliefs? No. They have as much right as the average American to do so. They can stand in a pulpit and preach about their beliefs, ask for God’s guidance and blessing on this great nation, but don’t start spouting politics. And a pastor can do the same – preach the word of God, but not your politics. Politics do not belong in the pulpit.
Any church that gets involved in politics in any way should have their non-exempt status terminated on the spot. President Trump is wrong on this one. Both entities have too much power to be allowed to combine into one voice.
Get out and vote.
Go Galt and save the republic.
Alan Marshall
A Southerner Speaks
Dear Editor,
Sadly, after the Civil War, Southerners did not relish writing about their reasons for the Civil War but the reality of it includes this: Slavery was the law of our nation and the North was in a depression but the South was not. If it had been the other way around I seriously doubt there would have been a war over slavery.
And if the Confederacy had won, how long would slavery have then lasted? It ended in France about the time of this war and I know of no one who endorses it today.
One thing is for certain, the claim this war was “all” about slavery was a lie. And it’s a fact this lie still divides our nation. Herein, a truly fake media has promoted this war as being only about slavery, apparently in the hopes of keeping this economic fact a secret.
But, thank God for the internet, where the South can finally speak their truth. In my experience, white Southerners have always shown more compassion towards blacks than their Northern counterparts have and for all those brave soldiers whose statues are being toppled by ignorant people who worship only certain pieces of their political story, it’s time to take another look.
I believe Austin Morris reported it correctly when he wrote in the opinion column of the August 24, 2018 News & Record, “Hatred of Confederacy often misses the point,” and “the Confederacy sought only to leave the Union peacefully, a right presumed to be implicit in the Constitution. But Yankees hubris could not allow a peaceful separation and so they waged war on their fellow Americans … so when you cannot sleep tonight, ask yourself this question; What kind of Union holds you in at gunpoint?”. And guess what? A Southerner finally speaks his truth.
Anonymous
Send to letters@rhinotimes.com or 216 W. Market St., GSO 27401
