Compromise needs to be part of gun discussion
The Second Amendment resolutions that are currently being passed in many Virginia counties come across mainly as a defiant, pre-emptive strategy, only inflaming a polarized discussion.
Many vocal Second Amendment supporters seem to be putting the rest of the citizenry on notice that they are the only true patriots in our modern public square discussion of citizens’ rights. This is a somewhat skewed and condescending position.
The First Amendment ensures that citizens can discuss with one another, with the government and with God the means to improve our republic. And so we must.
The hard work of getting beyond cliches is made even harder in a rancorous atmosphere that threatens to quash debate. But we must do that work.
The discussion surrounding gun safety, use and abuse must continue and must allow for the real exchange of meaningful thoughts, and, yes, even compromise.
Pattie P. Bland
The question: Partisan politics is taking us where?
The Congressional soap opera the nation has been witnessing, which began the moment political outsider Donald Trump overcame Hillary Clinton, reached historic proportions when the Democratic Party bloc in the House of Representatives voted to impeach the Republican president, giving the never-Trump clique a stocking full of Christmas goodies and the always-Trump group a lump of coal.
This verdict placed Trump next to Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as the only presidents impeached by the House. Richard Nixon, who was in the middle of the criminal Watergate incident, resigned from office before he had to face prosecution.
The Democrat alliance’s all-out assault aimed at Trump was met with heavy resistance from the House Republican coalition, which levelled their political guns and fired salvos of their own, claiming the process was strictly politically motivated to unite the disjointed Democratic Party and unlock the White House’s front door for its 2020 election candidate.
The multi-year Russian-collusion attack failed, and the impeachment strategy could be on that same course as well.
To convict Trump in the Senate will require a two-third majority vote; 52 of its 100 members are Republicans who appear dissatisfied with the lack of eyewitness accounts to substantiate Trump having committed any High Crime or Misdemeanor.
If these witnesses are not presented in the trial, the Democratic Party’s gambit to remove Trump from office will likely fail and his prospect for re-election could actually be bolstered.
Meanwhile, seemingly undeterred, the arrogant and judgmental Trump goes about his business, continuing to aid and abet his enemies with an offensive outspoken style, which he directs at those opposing him.
The impeachment process has derailed Congress, which was already bogged down in the quagmire of partisanship politics.
The notable exception was Nancy Pelosi proudly announcing a new trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States to replace the blatantly unfair NAFTA deal. Ironically, the new deal would not have been on the table without Trump, who made it a campaign promise and one of his top priorities.
While the Senate trial is underway, our elected members of Congress will undoubtedly continue to lock horns in what has become an arena of dissention.
Even after the trial ends, whatever fate awaits Trump, the nation will have suffered another self-inflicted wound.
The chasm that divides the two major political parties and their ideologies will have widened further, possibly too wide to bridge.
Perhaps the nation is destined to eventually collapse under the weight of its freedom that allows us to hold and voice one-sided perspectives with no room for compromise.
The only true supreme human being to have ever lived once declared, “And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand …”
Will this be the fate of the greatest nation in the history of the world? The answer lies in the hands of its citizens.
Concerns about full birth abortion issues
With Christmas here, my mind goes back to the time when Virginia almost passed a law allowing full birth babies to be killed because the mother and the physician decided that the birth was untimely and not wanted.
I’m so glad that God and Mary and Joseph did not decide to kill the Baby Jesus even though they did not have a comfortable place for him to lie.
We have been pre-warned that the law will almost certainly pass the next time around.
Where are all the people with Judeo-Christian values?
As the politicians say, “We are better than that!”
There are many childless couples out there that have to go out of the country to adopt.
When I worked in the nursery as a student nurse, a premature baby weighed in at 2 pounds, 1 ounce, and lost weight to 1 pound, 5 ounces. He was placed in an incubator.
We reached him through two holes in the incubator and fed him with a dropper every hour for several months.
He thrived on his care and eventually went home and grew to be a healthy well-adjusted adult.
He is now 60.
Another baby was born “anencephalic” (part of skull missing). With the same loving care, God chose to take him back after about three days.
My sister and brother-in-law adopted a newborn baby boy, and, 18 months later, a newborn baby girl.
There were already 11 grandchildren, but we needed two more.
They grew to be wonderful responsible adults and contributing members of society.
When we start pretending that these precious babies do not have a father who should have a voice in this decision, my prayer is that people will step up and quit pretending that “Thou shalt not kill” is not in the Bible.
Helen McFadden Gales