I’ve given up thinking that Leonard Pitts is capable of writing an objective column. The Nov. 29 column dealt with the recent episode of the use of tear gas to deter illegal border crossing. One reading this could infer from the column that this was a first and was an atrocity toward human rights.
In fact, as reported by numerous news sources, tear gas has been used on a regular basis at the border to repel illegal invasions. Statistics reveal that it was used more than once every month the last two years of Obama’s presidency and has been used since the Carter administration by both parties.
Much was made of children being exposed to tear gas. One should instead question why a parent would expose their child to a known and commonly used deterrent. Anyone believing this is the first time children have been exposed to the gas is extremely naive.
Trump’s actions contradict American values
I urge Sens. Graham and Scott to fulfill their constitutional duties by opposing Mr. Trump’s dangerous actions that contradict American values.
Regularly, Mr. Trump acts autocratically, ignoring American values and destroying our standing in the world. He denies climate change even when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the consequences of climate change.
Mr. Trump values business deals more than human life and health. He does not accept the CIA’s conclusion that Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, acting in violation of American values and deciding that selling arms is more important than supporting our values. He condemns judges, even the Supreme Court Chief Justice, when courts’ rulings contradict his beliefs. He doesn’t understand the constitution, the rule of law, or the separation of powers. He orders the use of tear gas against women and children at our border, ignoring American values and making America look weak on the world stage. He regularly calls news that questions his beliefs or actions “fake news” and demands decorum at news conferences while he acts like a bully. He ignores our constitutional right to a free press.
Please, please keep Mr. Trump from destroying our country!
To what end could politicians change things
Recently-elected members of the House of Representatives will be seated in the next Congress in January 2019. Imagine for a moment that the new House majority, led by Pelosi, Waters, Swalwell, Cummings, Clyburn and newbie Octavio-Cortez, et al., pass legislation which reflects the policy positions on which they campaigned and send the bills to the Senate … not addressing impeachment, investigations and recommended “political prosecutions.”
Continue to imagine that the conservative majority in the Senate “stood down” and voted with the minority members like Schumer, Gillibrand, Booker, Blumenthal, Sanders, Sinema, et al., and passed companion bills to those from the House. Finally, imagine that President Trump momentarily exhibits his complete incompetence, as alleged by many on the left … AND the media … and signs all the bills put in front of him. The question is, “To what end?”
The long answer is: Medicare for all; reversal of the tax cuts; tax increases on corporations and high income earners; a quick path to citizenship for an estimated 22 million illegal aliens; a porous border; no ICE; banning/confiscating semi-automatic weapons; free college for all; a $15 minimum wage; a guaranteed income; reversing Trump’s tariff changes; back into the Paris climate accord; back into the Iran nuclear deal; and renewed attacks on Christianity and the family structure … among other things.
The result: Doubling the cost of government entitlements through oppressive taxation; skyrocketing debt; economic contraction; higher unemployment; depressed wages; inflation … accelerating economic and social collapse, i.e. Venezuela. Voila! Mission accomplished!
The State publishes a cross section of the letters we receive from South Carolinians in order to provide a forum for our community and also to allow our community to get a good look at itself, for good or bad. The letters represent the views of the letter writers, not necessarily of The State.