To the Editor,
The author not only contradicts his other opinion pieces but contradicts himself within the opinion piece. The author questions if Pelosi’s commission on Jan. 6 was worth it. I feel it is, but we’ll get back to that in just a minute.
The author questions why no commission to investigate property damage associated with Antifa, or our growing national debt. I wholeheartedly agree with the author about the seriousness of all these issues, although I wonder if a commission is needed to investigate each.
From what I have read, it’s an extremely complex task identifying everyone that participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The author just doesn’t get it. The Jan. 6 insurrection was not peaceful protest, “political discourse” (quoting the Republican National Committee), or even civil disobedience. It was an attempt by terrorists to prevent the orderly transition of government from one administration to the next. These terrorists invaded space where they weren’t permitted, and attempted to stop the certification of the presidential election through violence, intimidation and coercion.
The author has had opinion pieces posted about fare evasion (he disapproves). I will make no comment on this very complex issue. What I will say, however, is that while the author has an issue with a non-violent violation of the law, he apparently has no issue with the violent violation of the law.
So is the author advocating we pick and choose which violations of the law should not be tolerated and which violations of the law we should give a pass to? The author states those who violate basic civil liberties should be held accountable. I’m not quite following how illegal immigrants and national debt violate my basic civil liberties; Antifa-related protests arguably do. But what about the civil liberties of all the senators and House members to conduct their business without fear of injury or death? The author has no issue with this? Is it because his opinions appear to be solidly Republican?