John Clauer, Park Rapids
Our own Sen. Al Franken became the voice of intolerance this week during the confirmation hearings for judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Ms. Barrett, a respected lawyer and teacher at Notre Dame University, has been nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During her hearing, some Senate Democrats subjected Barrett to intense rebuke for her open Catholic faith and her use of her Constitutional right to express her faith when speaking to groups.
I read with interest the letters from Rep. Steve Green, Mr. Gebhard and the President of the Women League of Voters. As they discussed the recent attempt by the Minnesota Education Department to inject governmental directed gender training (Toolkit) into our educational process, all of those who wrote danced around the real issue. Not one of the writers addressed what is really being apparently taught by this toolkit; what is an acceptable sexual moral lifestyle. This toolkit is not about bullying.
I had the privilege of attending the meeting on the environmental impact of the proposed Enbridge Line 3 oil pipeline. While most attendees opposed the pipeline, unfortunately, much of what was said against the project was simply opinion and lacked factual foundation. Two issues were at the heart of most of the objections to the pipeline: • The world does not need more oil (because of environmental impact or a belief that other sources of energy can replace oil). • It is OK to produce and ship oil but, NIMB (not in my backyard).
On Nov. 8, Americans will make a choice for the political leadership (at every level) that will shape the direction of the U.S. for years to come. Few recognize that electoral decisions made on that date will not just be about Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist....not just about personalities, leadership styles or gender.
The July 6 editorial on Independence by Forum News Service, while praising the principles of the American political experiment, left the readers with a huge misconception of the true nature of American freedom.
Jake Pfeifer discussed the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) world assessment in his Jan. 9 editorial. His article identifies locations around the globe where the United States faces Tier I (high) threats in the coming year. While awareness of worldwide threats is useful in being an informed citizen, neither the actual CFR assessment nor Pfeifer’s analysis go beyond simply identifying the nation state/location. Knowing where a threat exists and knowing why a threat exists are two distinctly different things.