Letters to the editor Jan. 23

Tester for president?

In a not-so-subtle rebuke to Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Jon Tester told MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell recently that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can end the government shutdown by scheduling a vote on bi-partisan House bills to fund the government.

He explained, in the Senator’s typical pragmatic style, that he believes there are enough Republicans in the Senate to join with Democrats to pass the bills, sending them to President Trump for his signature, adding that he believes the president might actually sign them. However, should he veto the bills, Sen. Tester said the will of the Senate and the House (and of a majority of Americans) would prevail, passing the bills with enough votes to override the president’s veto, putting hundreds of thousands of civil servants back to work providing essential services to Americans.

O’Donnell, noting that Trump came to Montana to rally votes against Sen. Tester’s re-election last year, pointed out that he nevertheless beat the President. In light of that O’Donnell wondered if Sen. Tester might consider a new challenge to Trump in 2020? While not saying no, Jon laughed off the suggestion.

Citing again the failure of the Senate to lead and legislate, Tester name-dropped another pragmatic, Montanan, Mike Mansfield, the longest-serving Senate Majority Leader in U.S. history. “He got people together, he didn’t divide them,” Tester told O’Donnell, “and if he were alive now he would say this government shutdown is a huge mistake: legislative branch do your job and open the government.”

It sounded as though Sen. Tester has aspirations higher than the office of president, that he’d like to see a Democratic majority leader of the Senate in 2020 — perhaps another Montanan.

—Roger Hopkins, Columbia Falls

Liberal Kool-Aid

In the past President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and many other Democrat leaders are on video stating the importance of stopping people from entering our country illegally. In the past they have voted for $46 billion to build a wall on our southern border.

It is a fact that convoys of people attempting to enter our country illegally have people from all over the world and many of the convoy members are criminals. Another fact is that thousands of American citizens have been murdered, raped, tortured, mugged and terrorized by people in the country illegally.

Since President Trump was elected, the Democrat leadership has switched 180 degrees. Why? Because he is draining the swamp and he is not a Socialist. They figured out that all the people here illegally will be dependent upon the federal government and the Democrat leaders will promise them everything free so the Democrats will get millions of new voters.

The Democrat leadership now are stating that the wall is immoral. Was it immoral when they voted for it in the past? Are the walls around their personal mansions and the wall around the Vatican, White House immoral? What’s immoral is that the Democrat leadership are putting their Socialist agenda and politics ahead of the safety of legal citizens.

The Democrat leadership agenda is not about protecting the American citizens, it’s only about gaining more voters so they can control our lives and push their big government Socialist ideas upon us all. It is that simple.

Anyone who thinks that the Democrat leadership cares about and is dedicated to protecting legal American citizens from the invasion of illegal immigration then I have some advice for them: Stop drinking the Kool-Aid to preserve what little common sense they have left.

—Dave French, Eureka

Trump and his wall

Unless you are Donald Trump, one of the first things you learn in business school is that it is always a huge and costly mistake “to begin to want that which you can measure, because you can’t measure what you really need to measure.”

Donald Trump repeatedly boasts about his attending an Ivy League business school. Yet, he obviously failed miserably to understand this fundamental principle.

Properly measuring the net benefits of immigration is mind-boggling difficult. Immigration from where; over what period of time; proper levels; educational criteria; treatment of those now here illegally; moral considerations; national security issues; labor shortages; path to citizenship; etc.

These are brutally difficult areas to measure, but this doesn’t mean we should not try. At least we should attempt to set the four corners of a defensible approximation.

But no, Donald Trump and his supporters don’t try to do this. Instead, they begin to want that which they can measure – miles of wall, number of slats, steel or concrete, height, schedule, cost, and on, and on. These are all very simplistic and meaningless measurements – but ones that can easily be made.

Again, it is always a huge and costly mistake to proceed in this way. Under Donald Trump, however, this is exactly where we are.

—Francis Allhoff, Whitefish

Sanctity of Human Life Sunday

January 20 was Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. This week is dedicated to remind everyone that all human life is to be protected and cherished. With that in mind I want to remind readers of the treacherous lies that led to the Roe vs Wade decision.

In a 2008 opinion piece I quoted Dr. Benard Nathenson extensively. He was the leading force pushing for legalized abortions and, after seeing the horrific legacy he had helped create, he switched sides to fight against abortions. He gave a short, but shocking, history of the manipulation of the media and government promoting permissive legalized abortions. Lies to the Supreme Court included the common talking point that the growing fetus was just a blob of tissue and not human until the third trimester. Some honest people now know that the fetus is a baby human from the moment of conception; others still cling to the lie.

Surprise! The fact of life’s beginning was known long before the infamous court decision. The opening line from April 30, 1965 Life magazine states: “The birth of human life really occurs at the moment the mother’s egg cell is fertilized by one of the father’s sperm cells.” That magazine has 16 pages of the “Unprecedented photographic feat of the drama of life before birth” in full color. The photography was amazing in 1965 and the images still have a strong impact now.

Those choosing to be ignorant of the truth had no excuse then and certainly no excuse now. I would urge everyone to support those needing help during an “unwanted” pregnancy and then give support to the mother and child after the birth. Killing the innocent baby is not the answer.

— Gary Goers, Kalispell