JUMPING THE RAILS TO ANARCHY
Well, here we go again, Courier readers. Two more instances where the left has jumped the rails to anarchy.
The first is the protest in Columbus against ICE enforcing the law. It seems that about 100 to 150 “demonstrators” occupied the Columbus ICE office on Monday and constructed some kind of tripod thing in the street where a woman suspended herself in the air 30 feet above the ground. Some other dude duct-taped himself to its base. Are these people normal?
It seems they have no respect for the law enacted by duly-elected congressmen, Republicans and Democrats.
The protesters apparently want ICE abolished and America to admit all for the asking. Illegal immigrants, of course, would be dependent on government and in return would vote Democratic. Cozy, eh? Would you call these normal people?
They are not Ohioans, certainly not organic, but paid protestors as they hail from Florida, California, Oregon and other states.
Writ large is the ill-gotten money of George Soros: serial anarchist and the man who at one time wrecked the British economy and in the process immorally stole a cool $4 billion from the Exchequer. Is this your Democratic Party? Is it anywhere near “the loyal opposition” of yore?
I think not.
It is raw, sadistic, cynical leftist power for its own sake and to further entrench the swamp’s power against the people, the legitimate power-holders of our nation, Don Iliff and Judson Dunham, useful fools that they are, notwithstanding.
The second is the transparent and laughable charges against Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan, for supposedly knowing that the OSU wrestling team doctor in the distant 80s/90s sometimes was a molester … all in the wake, after 30 years, of Jordan dressing down Justice Dept. second-in-command swamper Rod Rosenstein last week for Rosenstein’s pivotal role against Trump in the Russia collusion inquisition.
A SIGN OF A GREATER PLAN?
Last Friday, The Courier published how the Army is all of a sudden discharging immigrants who had enlisted to serve in the military. The reasons — when given — went from “they are security risks” to “their backgrounds checks have not been completed.”
These recruits are not citizens, but enlisted anyway for many reasons, one of them to become legal residents of this country.
I’m proud of people who are willing to risk their life to defend the liberty and laws of this great country, even when they were not born Americans, so it baffles me why the Army is behaving this way.
Is it part of a greater plan that we don’t know about? If so, what is next? To expel anybody with a foreign last name or anybody whose parents were not born in this country?
Those recruits were putting their life and well-being on the line if they were sent to one of the many troubled spots in the world, and they were doing so willingly. So what is the real problem here?
Or, is someone in the military following the racist example of the fake POTUS, who many moons ago took a knee in front of a doctor, pleading for the doctor to find something to keep him from serving?
Yes, at the time Mr. Donald was a college student and a picture of good health and an athletic body. He was playing football, tennis and squash and was taking up golf, but all of a sudden he developed bad feet. Funny, wasn’t it?
Are my thoughts too farfetched to be true? Well, that may be, but after what I’ve seen him doing and saying, nothing will surprise me.
PEACE IS BETWEEN GOD AND MAN
Karen Minto (letter, July 10) seeks to explain the evangelical support for President Trump based on an article in a left-wing, pro-communist magazine (The Nation) with past columnists such as the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens.
It’s not surprising the publication has lost money the last three out of four years, unable to support itself appealing to a small, radical subscriber base.
The short explanation for evangelical support for Trump is that the alternative was Hillary Clinton and the platform of the Democratic Party. There’s nothing in that combo that appeals to conservative evangelical Christians.
The direction of the Supreme Court was an important factor for evangelicals. Liberal philosophy embraces the premise that the Constitution is a living document that should be subject to whatever direction secular society is currently trending. That would result in ever-changing standards based on the latest whim, essentially no standards at all.
If Karen really wants to understand evangelical Christians, she should be reading a more authoritative source, the Bible.
She infers there is a conflict between the “Sermon on the Mount” Jesus (Matthew 5) and a militant Jesus who spoke of coming not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). The reference to a sword is a metaphor for God’s word which is scripturally described as “sharper than a two edged sword.”
When Peter drew a sword to defend Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him, saying “all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
Scripture makes it clear that Jesus came to bring peace but that peace is between man and God. Those who reject God and the only way to salvation through Jesus find themselves perpetually at war with God.
Inevitably, there will be conflict between believers and those who reject Christ. Sadly, this sometimes extends into the family unit where there is division because of beliefs.
The Bible teaches that a Christian’s loyalty to Christ takes priority even over family. That’s a hard truth, but truth it is.
Salvation is a matter of eternal consequence, certainly worthy of thoughtful consideration.