Roy Moore and the morality of Republicans
Regarding Suzanne Brooks’ letter to the editor in the Dec. 6, 2017, edition of the Inter Lake, as of that date eight women have accused Roy Moore of sexual harassment or dating teen-agers while he was in his 30s. The statistical probability of eight people corroborating on a lie is pretty low whereas the statistical probability of one person holding to a lie is pretty high.
What is probable is that since we have a special election of national interest, credible news organizations go to Alabama to report on the election. They are exposed to the long-standing rumors about Roy Moore and his interest in young ladies and subsequently expose, through investigative research and reporting, what has long been known in that state.
What I find to be astounding is that some Republicans, some with strong Christian beliefs, are willing to sacrifice morality in an effort to get someone elected who will support their political agenda. It happened with Trump and is happening again with Roy Moore. Basically they are saying that sexual harassment, even with a minor, is acceptable as long as one votes a certain way. What are we willing to accept next time?
Tolerance for this kind of behavior has existed for too long. Finally we are seeing accountability for inappropriate behavior in society and the workplace. It is unfortunate that the standards are different for politicians than for media personalities. It is especially unfortunate that we cannot apply equal standards across political parties. We are a nation of laws. Everyone should be treated equally. When we sell out our morals as a society, we are left with no morals at all. If that 14-year-old girl was your, daughter how would you feel? If one of those other seven women was you, how would you feel? I’m with Mitch McConnell. I believe the women. —Joe Grabowski, Coram
Reflecting on church and state
During this time of holiday celebrations, it might be appropriate to reflect on the Constitution of our United States, and what it says about the separation of church and state. Before we do that, maybe we should think back to the first Thanksgiving, which happened long before we were a nation.
The Pilgrims had survived many hardships and had their first successful crops. They decided to have a festival. So they invited all the neighbors to join them in Thanksgiving. Who do you suppose they gave thanks to? To each other, to the friendly Indians, sure, but first and foremost to God, for His protection, guidance, their health and happiness. Thanksgiving in this country has always been about God — for all the blessings He has bestowed upon our great nation.
In our Constitution there is no mention of God. Wait you say, what about the First Amendment? The First Amendment is about religion. What is religion? It is the various ways and practices in which we praise God. It is interesting to me that the very first sentence in the very First Amendment restricts the federal government from dictating how we worship God. We are FREE to worship or not.
The Founding Fathers didn’t need to mention God in our Constitution. He was on their minds and in their hearts at all times. This is proven by the countless quotations that have been handed down to us. They knew that Divine Providence had helped establish this great nation and would continue to bless and protect it.
There was never, until recently, an intent to keep God out of our government. This is proven time and again and can be seen in every facet of our government. God is intentionally entwined everywhere! There now is a small number of people who are determined to remove God, and the rule of law that is based on the Ten Commandments, from our country. They are using this fictitious separation of church and state as their basis. They are loud, prominent, and insidious. They are counting on an apathetic populace to allow them to manipulate and destroy our way of life.
There are only two books in our world that are of importance — the Holy Bible and the Constitution of the United States. One is quite long, the other very short. I challenge all of you to read the short one with all its amendments before the end of this year, and discuss it with your children. We all need to know what it says and doesn’t say. Please don’t take anyone’s word for it. A pocket edition is available on Amazon for $1.50. Thank you for reading this; I hope your season is filled with gratitude and blessings. —Jay Trepanier, Kalispell
Compromise has been danger for Republicans
The few letters defending Gas Tax Garner and the many letters opposing him highlight important issues and raise questions as they expose the truth about Mr. Garner and the Montana Chamber of Commerce.
Should a legislator be held to campaign promises or should we cover for, make excuses for that legislator because they are a member of our political party? Do the political machinations of Garner and the Montana Chamber illustrate the mechanism by which government and taxes grow no matter which political party dominates? Does it hurt or help the GOP when public outcry flushes out its corrupt betraying members? Is there a basis for discerning when compromise (like Frank Garner voting with the Democrats) is a bad thing?
Frank Miele’s “2 Cents” column on Sept. 24 cogently addresses compromise, and I urge you to read it carefully. e asked, “Does anyone believe that concessions are ever made short of a political bribe?” “…compromises and concessions that previous generations of politicians made on our behalf have led us into mortal peril.” Mr. Miele went on to describe recent examples of concession and compromise by politicians that have “dug us into deep pits…” He also stated that legislators getting along “pales beside the prospect of surrendering our lives, our liberty, or our ability to pursue our happiness. … When you compromise with people who don’t share your fundamental principles, you are either ‘making a deal with the devil, or you are the devil.’”
Mr. Miele made many other excellent points, including pointing out that the tendency for or against compromise is the basis for the divide within the Republican Party. Voters who want limited taxes and limited government MUST vote for men and women who live and vote based on sound principles and will not compromise those principles. —Mindy Breckenridge, Proctor
‘Great Gatsby’ and the Trumps
We’d all like to have a better understanding of our president. Back in the 1930s Scott Fitzgerald must have been psychic about the nature of the wealthy. Nick, the narrator of “The Great Gatsby,” says the following. (If we substitute the name of the president and the presidential family for those of Tom and Daisy, we find a strong resemblance.)
“I couldn’t forgive [Tom] or like him, but I saw that what he had done was, to him, entirely justified. It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made….”
PS: In a republic one of the first obligations of a citizen is to call attention to injustice when it is found. In a totalitarian state the first obligation is to loyalty and obedience. Choose sides. —Robert O’Neil, Kalispell