Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: The enemy

November 6, 2017


To the editor:

Your editorial “We have met the enemy...” asks where we should direct our anger. I’ve reflected, and I’m going to direct my anger at the man in the White House who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and mocked a disabled reporter.

At John Kelly who has praised racist Robert E. Lee as “honorable.”

At the rising of the alt-right white supremacy/Nazi/KKK movement — even though apparently there are “good people” in all of those organizations.

At the GOP politicians who have turned a blind eye and completely abdicated the responsibility of their sworn oaths to protect this country.

Those are who I chose to vilify.


Glen Stovall 5 months, 2 weeks ago

And those that support this racist,hateful, and bigoted POTUS.

Bob Summers 5 months, 2 weeks ago

It is frightening the fantasies congenital Liberals create to foment their emotional hypersensitivities. Their hate.


Meanwhile they cherish rapists like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Vox’s unnamed employee and Lockhart Steel, along with NBC’s Mark Halperin, NPR’s Michael Oreskes, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, the New Republic’s Hamilton Fish and Leon Wieseltier, and Mother Jones’s David Corn, now add up to eight members of the elite media accused of everything from indifference to harassment to groping., etc etc etc

They enslave people good people like Donna Brazile.

They back ANTIFA that kill innocent people at church.

This family of people that look the other way while committing these atrocities have been a bane to mankind since time immortal.

P Allen Macfarlane 5 months, 2 weeks ago

None of the rapists listed have ever been convicted of a crime. Rape was never charged against Bill Clinton. As for the rest of this diatribe I'm sure there are just as many on the Republican side who could also be named. Funny how you seem to have omitted those names.

Bob Summers 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Why would the Liberal condemn their own?

Republican. Democrat. Pugilist. Are all "choices" one takes in life.

The Liberal condition is not a choice.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 2 weeks ago

But spouting your neo-eugenic philosophy is a choice, and I for one freely reject it and I can tell you that the vast majority of my moderate and conservative friends freely reject it as well, which pretty much lays open your ideas to the light of day as blatantly false.

Chris Golledge 5 months, 1 week ago

That's funny. I've been thinking that the number of people who are delusional enough to think Trump is a half-way decent human being is frightening. That is who we are talking about; why do you think that saying there are other AHs in the world means that Trump isn't. And, if you don't think that, why did you bring it up?

Gary Stussie 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Two Points ... regarding Robert E. Lee

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!

Point being, it seems inappropriate to judge people who have been dead for 200 years by today's standards. If you are good with calling General Lee a racist, what are the humans who live in 2200 going to say about a generation that allowed 60 million abortions?

... and second point , how have we gotten to a point that a fellow American who belongs to the oppose political party is considered the enemy?

Jonathan Becker 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Those are whom I choose to vilify.

It is ironic the congenital conservative, poor Johnny One Note, Bob Summers, would miss that grammar error. After all, he is an expert on everything and has one opinion that serves him alone so well.

Calvin Anders 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Gary, pointing out failures in the Union's policies and poor behavior of individuals does not absolve the South of responsibility for prosecuting a war based on the principle that an entire group of human beings could be treated as property. General Sherman was a reprehensible war criminal and Grant, though not as bloodthirsty, was not much better. None of these men were particularly abolitionists. But that is hardly the point. Regardless of the motives of those who participated, a Union victory determined that slavery would end in this country. Regardless of Lee's personal situation in terms of slave ownership, he still represented an insurgence whose stated aim was the preservation of the institution of slavery. In just about any war in history, if you dig a little, you can find horrible motives and actions on both sides. You have to look at what followed. In the case of the Civil War, we should not look at the issue simply in terms of good vs. evil. We should look at what happened after the war.

Gary Stussie 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I say again ... it seems inappropriate to judge people who have been dead for 200 years by today's standards.

Calvin Anders 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Gary, if that is true (that it's "inappropriate to judge people who have been dead for 200 years by today's standards"), and I don't think I agree with you, then it should cut both ways. Kelly's praise of Lee as "honorable" is a judgment. Kelly is the one judging Lee. Kelly, the sneaky, lying rat, who wrapped himself in the flag and scolded the press and the opposition party for politicizing the death of soldiers, only to use the same platform to slander a Congresswoman. And now he wants to rewrite history by lionizing Southern generals. And you are defending Kelly on this one? Are you sure you don't want to rethink your position here Gary? Are you sure?

Richard Heckler 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Who's controlling the GOP?

The United States of ALEC, a special report by Bill Moyers. aired on Moyers & Company.

"The United States of ALEC," a special report by legendary journalist Bill Moyers on how the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council has helped corporate America propose and even draft legislation for states across the country.

ALEC brings together major U.S. corporations and right-wing legislators to craft and vote on "model" bills behind closed doors. It has come under increasing scrutiny for its role in promoting "stand your ground" gun laws, voter suppression bills, union-busting policies and other controversial legislation.

Although billing itself as a "nonpartisan public-private partnership," ALEC is actually a national network of state politicians and powerful corporations principally concerned with increasing corporate profits without public scrutiny.


Steve Hicks 5 months, 2 weeks ago

"I say again ... it seems inappropriate to judge people who have been dead for 200 years by today's standards."

I'd agree, Gary. That's why it only makes sense to operate, and judge, by time-tested ("traditional") standards.

For those who don't believe in any kind of God-given "law" or morality, fine. They are welcomed to consider that mankind, by a few millennia of real-life experience, worked out a trustworthy standard of values for human behavior.

But under neither standard should any honest person honor or idolize Confederate individuals, or their "cause."

In their personal morality, many Confederate officials and generals were probably upright and honest men, "good" men. But that's not the basis on which they've been honored.

They've been honored for their actions as public figures, as national civic "heroes" and models. They are neither.

Virtually all high-level Confederate officials and generals took an oath, as Congressmen or U.S. military officers, to defend the United States, and uphold its Constitution. The definitive fact of their public careers was that they broke that oath, and waged war on their own nation and people.

And it is specifically on that fact...on their "Confederate" identity and deeds...that they are idolized.

They should not be. No "traditional" standard of values, divine or human, tells us it is good, and wise, to honor oath-breakers and traitors.

Gary Stussie 5 months, 1 week ago

Thought provoking response Steven. Thanks.

I am still very concerned by the lefts desire to interpret all of history through the eyes of 21st century progressive dogma. In their eyes, everything about the American past is bad and shameful and must be driven into the dirt.

I have studied the Civil War at length and visited memorials and battlefields all over the country. Viewing statues of rebel icons in the south did not influence me to wish the south had prevailed!

Jen Kuznicki (Mother,Seamstress and Patriot) said it well ..."Erasing the history of the confederacy doesn’t help anyone understand our past. We have to see it, know it, understand what happened, or we are going to repeat it – perhaps not in the same way, but certainly in another form. Today while people decry slavery, some would use force to achieve their ends. There are differences, but the principle is the same."

Steve Hicks 5 months, 1 week ago

I'd disagree with your view that "the left" interprets America's past by their partisan dogma, and thereby judges that "everything about the American past is bad and shameful."

Honest moral judgement applied to history isn't "left" or "right." MORAL judgement (of anything) predicated on political considerations perverts truth. So it's a tactic very common today, when political operatives want to pervert our understanding of history: and even more, destroy our trust in every societal institution traditionally charged with revealing truth (criminal law, Christianity, journalism, and science foremost among them).

But even in the context of today's full-on assault against truth, I really don't find that honest historians tailor their view of the past to any political agenda. No honest historian, "left" or "right," considers the internment of Japanese-American citizens something America should be proud of, or that America did wrong in feeding starving people (whatever their politics) during the Russian civil war of the 1920s.

Human nations, the same as human individuals, sometimes do what's right, and sometimes do otherwise. The only question is judging honestly the "right" and "wrong" of their actions: a criteria always greater that any political faction's purposes.

Gary Stussie 5 months, 1 week ago

Right and wrong is increasingly subjective! Clinton and her cronies did what they thought was right! History, both noble and ignoble, grounds us all. The current propensity to erase history casts us adrift.Breaking the bounds of God, family and country is the goal.

Steve Hicks 5 months, 1 week ago

Is right and wrong increasingly subjective: or is (some) people's perception of right and wrong increasingly subjective ?

I'd say it's the latter.

I couldn't be more sure of anything, than I am that right and wrong is nothing different today than it was 150 years ago, 500 years ago, 2000 years ago, etc.

The current-day short-hand for that false, subjective, morality is that "conservative" means "good," and "liberal" means "evil."

Your posts seem to show you subscribe to that "moral" criteria, Gary. That "liberals" want to vilify all of America's past actions: and by implication, that only "conservatives" find (or even seek to find) anything good about America's past. That's not true of honest historians, Gary. whether "left" or "right."

Please rethink (or as our Norman French-derived word is, "repent") that assumption.. It's a false moral equation, and it's hugely destructive to America.

The point of this writer's letter is how we should identify "the enemy." The enemy is lies.

Steve Hicks 5 months, 1 week ago

I'm kind of surprised no one on this thread has quoted the profound wisdom of Pogo, many years ago, that "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

The enemy is untruth. And anybody who honestly practices self-examination can verify that the untruth any of us holds most dear is our self-deception, especially ABOUT ourselves.

We all find it comfortable to believe "other" people are the problem (read "evil"). It's a gratifying belief as well, because it makes us proud to be morally superior to "them." We all have a natural tendency to believe that comforting, flattering, lie.

And we do: so that lie is the basis of virtually all public discourse in America today. We're all certain that "other people" are the cause of every problem. The only point of debate is who "other" people are. And of course when we (brave and incorruptible "we") call them to public account, they are so perverse, stupid, and evil as to say WE are the "other" people.

Bitter and vicious lies about others is the highest expression of self-delusional dishonesty. In today's America, it's a much-admired skill, qualifying a person to lead the nation.

Those who love America can only grieve for America, self-deluded and self-destructive. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.