President, but ...
Yes, President Barack Obama was elected twice, but following both elections, the American people put a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress in reaction to his policies. Even he admitted that his party had suffered a whipping. Twice.
Progressives want to re-interpret our Constitution, since it restricts their power to control and limit our freedoms. We cannot allow President Obama to appoint a progressive to the Supreme Court. The Republicans in the Senate must do their duty and reject his appointee, who will surely be a progressive bent on "re-writing" the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, by judicial decree. Discussion is definitely not ended.
— Richard L. Jones
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
While watching "Varney and Company" on Fox News today I heard him berating the government for building a $7 million solar array in Alaska because they have 24 hours of darkness in the wintertime. He even brought on an "expert" who claimed this was one of the biggest boondoggles of all time. In the interest of being "fair and balanced," I will just point out the fact that in the summertime there is 24 hours of daylight. So you may make your own decision as to Varney's problem in this matter. I would suggest he is just stupid.
— Bill Northenor
Man or woman of steel
After watching the presidential debates and all the frenzy, the Serenity Prayer must be remembered. Accept the things that cannot be changed and have the courage to change the things that can be changed and have the wisdom to know the difference.
When Barack Obama became president, he could not be Superman and save everyone from crime, poverty and other problems. People have to do everything to save themselves by working hard. Many people with disabilities work hard to be as independent as possible. American does not have and never will have a Superman or Superwoman.
— Renee Lee
Kick in your own door
Apple's refusal to give up technology incidental to unblock an iPhone used in the recent San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack creates an unprecedented challenge. My initial "knee jerk" reaction, perhaps as many others was — "they don't have a choice in the matter." Thank God for our Founding Fathers. We have constitutional means under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to get a court order to access such information. With that said, does Apple have a constitutional right to deny access to law enforcement agencies in their search and seizure quest?
The authority involved in obtaining and executing "search and seizure" warrants must deploy its own resources to retrieve evidence specified in warrants. Here are the issues from my perspective — cells phones can be locked and thus requires "kicking' the doors down," which typically follows the "knock" In this scenario. Should the government be required to create the software or means to give its agency access — or can it legally require Apple to unlock access by any means necessary? Should the public interest supersede the interest of private parties? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is in "stalemate," and I don't think Apple will concede to a lower court's ruling.
— John Haugabrook
The rest of the story
On Jan. 30, in the "Today In History" column in The Telegraph, it was stated that King Charles I of England was executed for treason. That is not strictly true. The "treason" charge was in fact trumped-up by the Puritans to get rid of King Charles.
Specifically, the Puritans wanted to take away the prayer book and offices of leadership in the Anglican Church. King Charles stood by the Anglican right to have those things and lost his life as a result. The Puritans had a new-found lead in Parliament (hence the "treason" charge), and began to behave as though they were the true regents of England.
Afterward, there was a huge public outcry over the death of King Charles and the reasons behind his death. The prayer book and offices of leadership in the Anglican Church were secured, thanks in part to King Charles' death.
King Charles I, a descendant of Robert Bruce, was himself a saint and martyr. He is recognized as a saint by the Anglican Church, and his feast day is Jan. 30. In fact, in all aspects of his life, he met the requirements for sainthood. His body was even found incorrupt (a sign of official sainthood) on Apr. 1, 1813, at Windsor, after being interred since Feb. 9, 1649.
— Susan Ganus
Here we go again. The pope telling everyone else what they should and should not do. He visits Mexico and proclaims the people living there are living in drug cartel hell. He then admonishes Donald Trump for wanting to build a wall along our southern border with Mexico to help to begin to get our illegal immigration from Mexico — and for that matter, the rest of the world that comes to the U.S. illegally — under control. The pope claims this action would not be "Christian." Then this pompous person jets back to a very high-walled enclave called the Vatican. He didn't even so much as carry one of the people living in that hellhole back with him.
I'm sure he could have found at least one person who would have jumped on that opportunity. Oh, that's right, it's easier and more "Christian" to admonish others for their behavior than to practice what you preach. The pope is just another glaring example of why religious attendance is trending downward. He needs to go to Israel and tell them to tear down their walls and see the reaction from around the world. Like the saying goes, good fences make good neighbors. Very high and thick walls make even better neighbors.
— Michael Snipes