People will judge Trump

Supporting or not supporting President Donald Trump is no longer a right or left issue. It is now a right or wrong issue. Whether conservative or progressive, people are beginning to look at the right and wrong of Trump’s actions on possibly withholding military aid to the Ukraine for personal political benefit and on his abandonment of Kurdish U.S. allies.

No one is above the law. No one has the right to abuse their power. There are some lefties and righties who will never be swayed on their view of Trump. However, people in the moral center are making decisions based on their respect for the Constitution and on their personal moral code. Would it be right to deny needed military support to an important ally to obtain dirt on a political foe?

Such questions are getting easier to answer.

This is not about supporting or not supporting impeachment, it is about deciding right and wrong. Politicians will argue about impeachment; it is up to the people to decide if Trump is right or wrong.

Whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, I believe people will fairly judge Trump’s actions because that is what loyal, patriotic Americans have always done.

Michael J. Makara

Mays Landing

Barr’s morality speech evoked Orwell themes

Attorney General William Barr recently spoke at Notre Dame University on anti-religious actions by government and other organizations while expounding on liberty and freedom by referring to the words of John Adams, James Madison, Edmund Burke and Blaise Pascal. He also discussed the increases in birth illegitimacy, drug addiction and other aspects of the family breakdown.

He asserted that we, as a nation, are not sufficiently working to solve these societal dilemmas, but are in fact underwriting them. He did not invoke George Orwell in his speech, but abortions to deal with illegitimacy, safe injection sites in response to drug addiction and other things he mentioned are indications of having the state become the alternative to parental and personal responsibility — not so subtle applications of the “Big Brother” playbook of Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece “1984.”

As William McGurn pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the far left media predictably accused Barr of “religious bigotry” for blaming secularism for our social pathologies, and for his mentioning of the waning of religion and the expanding despotism of a more controlling government.

While MSNBC, Paul Krugman of the New York Times and others of the far left will not recognize the efficacy of Barr’s comments, I’m certain that Orwell’s pre-brainwashed Winston Smith would have applauded his insightful words. Just search online for “Willam Barr” and up pop anti-religious rants by Joan Walsh in the Nation and Catherine Rampell in the Washington Post, which lend more credence to the pervasiveness of the pseudo-religious fervor of the unbridled secular mindset. Barr’s Notre Dame presentation largely reflected on Judeo-Christian values but more importantly stressed the need for greater emphasis on personal morality in all our actions and lives. People should read it for themselves.

Ron Smith


Van Drew fails on inquiry

I think that Rep. Jeff Van Drew is not upholding the oath he swore to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Van Drew called the Mueller report the bad gift that keeps on giving and that we should just move on. He simply dismisses it.

Democracy is at risk with, in my opinion, an unlawful and illegitimate President Trump, who seems to feel that he is above the law. Some say he is a national security risk, and this must be taken seriously. It is Van Drew’s duty to support an impeachment inquiry, as part of the checks and balances of power stated in the Constitution. Therefore to not do so would be shirking his duty of office.

Helen Duda


Hearsay whistleblowing

The Democrat-controlled Congress has changed the requirements for a whistleblower. The whistleblower no longer needs to have first-hand information on the person accused of wrong doing. Without first-hand knowledge, whistleblowing becomes gossip, relaying on opinion not fact.

Lowering the bar for whistleblowing opens the door to people with a pre-established agenda. This is hearsay testimony and not admissible in any court. You could read an opinion written on a restroom wall and decide to tell a congressional committee that you’re positive the statement is true and that they should act upon it.

The standards for whistleblowing need to be raised back up to first-hand facts, not second-hand opinion. Congress is going nuts trying to damage President Trump with the opinions of an unknown whistleblower. These hearings on TV are an embarrassment. They don’t seem to see that they look foolish and akin to schoolyard bullies.

Stephen Kruger


Load comments