I never thought any elected official could make the Clintons look like honest people. Actually, ol' Bill never really struck me as a bad guy. Wayward compass in terms of personal restraint? Certainly. Hillary, though, I have always considered an overly ambitious person who would do or say pretty much anything to achieve her personal motives. And yet now we have a person in the White House who makes them look good.
I've read the recent letters from Lloyd Hoffman, Mary "Benghazi, Benghazi" Robinson, Jack "Bedside Manner" Sternberg, and Larry "Democrats are Party of Hate" Bauer debating on whether or not God chose Trump to be president, and whether He did or not, lavishing praise on Trump.
On Monday, Trump sent out another tweet, in this one attacking Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who he couldn't help insulting by calling him "Mini Mike." Trump tweeted that "I was the person who saved Preexisting Conditions in your Healthcare, you have it now."
Grammatical dysfunction aside, this is a complete and unabashed lie. Not misleading, not hazy, just a downright lie. In fact, Trump's administration has joined a number of states in a lawsuit that is still in the court system seeking to abolish this exact measure.
Now Lloyd, Mary, Donald, and Larry can agree or disagree with the preexisting provision itself, but knowing, boldfaced lying is another thing. And it's something, as other writers have pointed out, that Trump does repeatedly, every day.
So religion aside, how do Christians reconcile an individual who constantly, without remorse, contrition, or an attempt to stop himself, tells lies to the very people he has been elected to trust him? I'm interested in hearing the responses.
Gunnery Sgt. Ron Collins, USMC retired
Choosing your 'side'
Once again, with respectful reference to those sharing with me -- at least on the subject topic -- the hypergraphia of the notorious French marquis. ...
In Biblically enjoined obedience to Our Dooley 'Nointed, I must Take As Gospel his recent existential pronouncement before an audience of his spiritual affinials:
"God is on Our Side."
Re: "God" -- Whomever/Whatever He/She/It is/is not. (Those words "I AM" and Commandment No. 2 cover a lot of the earth's as-yet-un-scorched earth, dear children.)
Re: "our" -- Whomever the many possible "we's" of the "our" might mean; even the "we" then present for His Existentialship's pronouncement having its own deep divisions.
Re: "side" -- And however the various "we's" might describe their "sides." (Jonathan Swift had it exact: "Our side cracks eggs open at the small end. All on the side that cracks them at the big end must die!")
As to my own "side," I personally prefer an extra side of bacon when I order breakfast out. (How I love my adopted state! Arkansas is really great, too!)
OK, in plain language: To corral God in one's own camp says that we can corral him, which makes Him an object (at best an idol) and places us above him. It follows that any "side" claiming God's support is, ipso facto, not of God. The foregoing claim to Divine Endorsement is thus one of the great self-negating statements in religion, logic, history and human affairs.
Yet who am I to question Our Dooley 'Nointed's claim to Divine Endorsement, which, since before humanity started pressing styluses into clay, has repeatedly and relentlessly shown its deadly effectiveness as the most divisive and destructive claim a leader can make. Just ask the countless millions who've suffered the blessings of its business end.
So I guess Our Dooley 'Nointed's Divinely Endorsed Steamroller be bearing down on my skinny nethers, since my take on whom God "sides with" comes from Matthew 5.
Editorial on 01/15/2020
Print Headline: Wednesday's Letters to the editor