My response to Kelly Scoles’ letter.
Hi Kelly,
Question: If liberals had won this last “Bawlroom” decision, would it be fair to identify them as “obsequious”? Should the Kennedy Center have been named after that president? Why not a Republican?
I support Trump because of the correct military actions he has taken where former presidents failed to act. In many other foreign policy failures (refusal to support Ukraine) I condemn him. Fortunately, Ukraine is smarter, tougher, and more ingenious than its Mongolian enemies. Absent a nuclear act by Russia in a panic by Putin about to lose control, Ukraine will win this war.
I haven’t changed my absolute support for the independent democratic nation of Ukraine.
As to his alleged proposal to “sell-off pieces of Yosemite to developers”, this is so foolish I believe he must have been joking. About renaming Lake Ontario, another, this time stupid remark to continue his anger over Canada. Well, it’s his pulpit.
About the devil being at the gate remark, I continue to be concerned about those domestic policies which weaken or ignore national defense. For example, we have done little or nothing about restocking munitions though this life-and-death issue has been obvious for decades (Believe it or not, even Marian apparitions tell of running out of ammunition in the next world war).
It’s true that most military authorities warned against attacking Iran, though it is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world. It seems prudent, therefore, to destroy it. Today we understand, with Russia’s assistance, Iran possesses perhaps the most dangerous missile to date. “Iran’s newly deployed Kheibar Shekan “Castle Breaker” ballistic missile, with a 900 mile range and maneuverable warhead, has reportedly penetrated U.S. defenses and caused significant damage to American bases and allied infrastructure across the Persian Gulf during the six month war with the United States and Israel. The Kheibar Shekan missile can change its trajectory in the terminal phase and strike within about 10 meters of a target, evading conventional air defense interceptors.”
This missile is a danger which must be confronted at all costs, which should demand a continuance of the war with renewed intensity.
Finally, Kelly, I admit what you mockingly refer to as my “… folly to try to change the late-in-life mind of some with an overwhelming need for unbroken, immutable [Catholic] beliefs and assurances in matters of spiritual and political self-id entity.”
Your description of my Catholic faith is inspired, Kelly! But I am loathe to believe that this, in any conceivable way, “threatens the rest of us.” I know of no example of Christian love to be “threatening”. That would be a paradox. And, as you say (by way of free will) it is surely “To each his own”.
Your final comment: “Though it’s as obvious as Trump’s …tan” his canary-crested coiffure, sticky little fingers, and some sort of bulky mechanism or article lurking under his pants.” This last statement is unbecoming of you Kelly; I also think it’s a sentence fragment.