Letters To The Editor 10/05/2018

October 5, 2018
1 of 2

Letters To The Editor 10/05/2018

Barletta fails test

Editor: Sen. Pat Toomey and U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta both took a simple oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. There is no list to choose which parts of the Constitution to honor.

For more than a year, President Trump has attacked the First Amendment at every opportunity. He repeatedly has called the press the enemy of the American people. In Helsinki, Trump stood next to Russian President Vladimir Putin — a dictator known for suppressing the press, having journalists killed — and used that international platform to malign the American press again. Then he came to Pennsylvania bringing his vitriolic message. He doubled down, not only vilifying the press as an institution, but also singling out journalists, calling them “horrible people,” and encouraging the crowd to boo journalists in the arena.

Barletta stood on that arena stage in Wilkes-Barre with Trump and said nothing. He failed in his sworn duty to defend the Constitution. He put his personal ambitions ahead of his country. Now he wants to represent all Pennsylvanians in the U.S. Senate. He failed his most important test as a congressman. Why should we allow him to fail us again?

Toomey has, so far, failed in his duty as well. Toomey’s official statements for the past six months have not one mention of the president’s assault on the First Amendment. The list of topics Toomey wants to hear about from constituents is long; including the Second Amendment, but not the First Amendment.

Toomey must defend the Constitution and deny Trump his Supreme Court nomination until it is clear that Trump understands the Constitution.

Press freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the bedrock of American democracy and has stood as an example of American greatness around the world.





Wrong temperament

Editor: Last week’s Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearing made for some riveting TV.

For me, one indisputable observation emerged from the seven-plus hours of testimony of both witnesses: Brett Kavanaugh is not impartial. He displayed a volatile, unprofessional temperament unbefitting any judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice.  His opening statement was an angry partisan tirade. The tone with which he mostly evaded reasonable questions from a patient, reserved group of Democratic senators was highly disrespectful and belligerent.

Allegations of sexual aggression or perjury, if proven, would be sufficient to disqualify anyone from further consideration for the Supreme Court. Yet, Kavanaugh seemed to be insulted by the Democrats’ questions. On several occasions he asked them what they liked to drink and whether they ever have passed out.

They had every reason to remind him that it was he, not they, who was being interviewed for a lifetime appointment. 

This rude, condescending behavior was despicable. It’s hard to imagine anyone with such a wide-swinging emotional disposition being impartial in a court of law. It’s frightening to think this person might be the deciding vote on potential life-altering decisions from the highest court in the land.



Dems over top

Editor:  After the dog and pony show that was the hearing I have never been so disgusted at the Democratic Party. The real question is not if Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s alleged event really occurred or if Judge Brett Kavanaugh was involved.  The truth will never be known. No FBI investigation will exonerate Kavanaugh in the eyes of the hard left — ask Justice Clarence Thomas.

The real question is whether an uncorroborated accusation by a person of opposing political views, contrary testimony, eyewitnesses who refute the account, no known location or date, or any contemporaneous evidence can derail the career of someone, especially someone with evidence to back his story. This was guilty until proven innocent and Sen. Chuck Schumer said as much.

Frighteningly, Ford and the Democrats wanted Kavanaugh to present his defense first, al la “1984.”

Kavanaugh and his family’s lives and reputations are ruined regardless of whether he gets the seat.

Imagine Kavanaugh as a liberal African-American judge who is accused of sexual assault by a white Republican woman, with no evidence but her word, backed by Republicans and presented at the 11th hour. Whom would you believe?

Vote for Republican candidates or vote independent. If the left does this to Kavanaugh what will they do to you, your sons, brothers, and fathers? I was going to vote for Sen. Bob Casey because I respected him. After this circus I am afraid, as much as I do not agree with Mr. Barletta, that he will not be getting my vote.  



Arrogant applicant

Editor: Assume the discrepancies between Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony and Dr. Ford’s account of her attack never can be resolved, and the “incident” is disregarded as criteria for his appointment to the Supreme Court. Let’s analyze just the observable truth presented in his testimony.

We saw Kavanaugh openly express his partisan persuasion when he attacked Democrats, reaching back to the Clintons to spin another conspiracy theory involving “millions of dollars” — completely unsubstantiated. He demonized some of the senators who were asking questions consistent with a job interview, by castigating them with phrases like “you were lying in wait” and  stating that the accusations revealed by investigative reporters, not by members of Congress, were “planned.”

He shed tears as a victim when he blamed Democrats for everything from his family being threatened to his life being ruined, even blaming blurbs in his high school yearbook on the yearbook staff, denying his own reputation.

Outrightly refusing to answer questions by remaining silent, deflecting questions by aggressively turning the question back onto the questioner, and providing irrelevant, glorious reflections on his church-going childhood rather than providing actual answers comprised his performance. He laughably feigned ignorance by becoming a virtual deer in the headlights when confronted with lingo that was commonly known within his social circle.

The strategy was egregious. When reasonably questioned about things that were unflattering and uncomfortable, attack, blame, invent an enemy, avoid, lie. Would anyone consider this a successful job interview for any job?

This blatant demonstration of arrogance, entitlement, and assumption of our complacency has invaded and corroded the executive branch and Congress. Are we to surrender the judicial branch as well?



Update hourly