Sounding off: We don't have freedom to harm others - TribLIVE

rintongs.blogspot.com

I weep with all the health care workers, families and caregivers who, on top of dealing with covid-19, must listen to the hate spewed forth in the name of “personal freedoms.” Yes, it is hate. It is total disregard for the lives of others. It is like you are driving on city streets at 100 mph.

You do not have the freedom to harm people. Knock it off! Wear your mask!

Peg Mulcahy, Derry Township

Skepticism is healthy when it comes to politicians

Joseph Sabino Mistick’s column “Public ‘referees’ there to protect us” characterizing the recent pronouncements of political leaders on the covid-19 crisis or 2020 election results as statements of “moral conscience,” made in the spirit of referees officiating a boxing match, requires a true leap of faith.

While acknowledging in passing that elected officials are by design the product of a partisan process, Mistick asserts without citing any evidence that those officials are somehow able, on two questions of significant societal impact of which the latter is inherently part of the partisan electoral process, to set aside their partisan leanings and become impartial advocates for universal moral precepts.

One can and should decry all acts of threats of violence, such as those noted in the column. Violence and intimidation are inherently evil, whether in regard to political leaders or others. But that inherent evil does not mean that the statements of political leaders should not be viewed with judicious skepticism — after all, it is a well known political saying that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so to believe that political leaders are magically rendered impartial and do not look to advance their own parties and individual careers with their actions in time of crisis is at a minimum somewhat naive.

A politician’s history of actions and statements is a fair factor when assessing the motives that underlie that politician’s current actions and statements; the more partisan that history, the less one might be inclined to believe that current actions are solely motivated by impartial moral considerations.

Dave Thomas, Bradford Woods

Masks and ‘good citizens’

Delmont Council Vice President Bill Marx’s feigned outrage is pure political grandstanding (“Everyone should follow the rules”). Elected officials define a “good citizen” as someone wearing a mask and a “dangerous citizen” as someone not wearing a mask. Marx’s obtuse argument endangers the health and welfare of himself and the general public, in that he promotes mask use to the negation of other important mitigating actions.

What are those actions? If you’re not feeling well or you may have been exposed to someone with covid-19, stay home and call your doctor. Practice social distancing of 6 feet or greater. Avoid close contact with an individual for 15 minutes in a 24-hour period. Wash hands frequently and, when unable, use hand sanitizer. Wear a mask. Of course, it is assumed all of these are done correctly.

Sanctimoniously touting mask use without emphasizing all other mitigating efforts leads to reckless behavior. Do I really want to be in a checkout line with someone sneezing or coughing, being within 6 feet of me for even eight minutes, as they adjust the body of their mask with their hand and touch the metal by the conveyor belt? According to Marx’s point of view, that person is a “good citizen” because he/she wears a mask. Me? I would get far away from that individual, mask or no mask.

One wonders if Marx’s feigned outrage has more to do with party affiliation and less with public health. Hmmm?

The Rev. James Holland, West Deer

AG Shapiro should investigate election fraud allegations

Josh Shapiro, as the attorney general of Pennsylvania, has the power, authority and responsibility to shut down this whole voter fraud allegation.

As per the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, No. 320, Section 1642, on enforcement: (a) The Attorney General shall have prosecutorial jurisdiction over all violations committed under this act. (c) The district attorney of any county in which a violation occurred has concurrent powers and responsibilities with the Attorney General over such violations. (1642 amended Dec. 9, 2002, P.L. 1246, No. 150)

Having served in law enforcement for over 35 years, 29 in the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General as a criminal law special agent, and having investigated election law violations in that capacity, I assure you there is enough “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a conclusive investigation. Why hasn’t Shapiro done that?

Investigate and prove nothing — or something — happened. You can’t just hearsay a response, particularly given the importance of the allegations, the implications and Shapiro’s position as the top lawman in the state.

Not to address this as the attorney general is not doing the job Shapiro was elected to perform. For the sake of the truth, we desperately need Shapiro, as the people’s attorney, to put an end to these allegations. Convene a grand jury. Please.

Why hasn’t Shapiro thought of this? Why hasn’t he done anything to end the suspicions?

Harold C. Johnson Sr., Hempfield

We don’t get to pick and choose laws we obey

In her letter “Business owners standing up to Gov. Tom Wolf are patriots,” Shelia Hanson claims restaurant owners who defied Gov. Tom Wolf’s order suspending indoor dining are “patriots.” She bases this on the assertion that the orders are unconstitutional.

First, some real patriots, our Founding Fathers, put a court system in place to litigate the constitutionality of laws. Back in September, a federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania did rule against the constitutionality of several of Wolf’s measures, but that order was stayed (suspended) by a higher court pending an appeal. So to date, none of the governor’s orders has been declared unconstitutional.

Second, if we want to call ourselves a nation of laws, we as citizens don’t get to choose which laws we obey and which ones we do not. If I decide that traffic laws are a violation of my rights and I stop obeying them, does that make me a patriot? Of course not.

I feel for small restaurants losing income during these uncertain times. I definitely think our government leaders need to do more to help mom-and-pop businesses, especially restaurants. But members of our elected state government, on the recommendation of top medical scientists, and supported by the majority of Pennsylvanians, believe these measures are the right thing to do.

Lastly, let’s all save as much of our stimulus money as we can and, when it’s safe, support the brave restaurant owners who sacrificed and, to their own detriment, obeyed the law.

Bob Charlton, Springdale

Reschenthaler and Joyce are patriots

I felt compelled to respond to letters from Scott Huber claiming the presidential election was the “most secure election in modern history” (“Will Joyce and Reschenthaler need pardons?”) and Edward Svitek that Biden won “fairly and squarely” (“Does Trump love America?”) when the facts and statistics say otherwise.

Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major city except four, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee — which coincidently happen to be in swing states that decided the election. He also overwhelmingly lost to President Trump in virtually every bellwether county in the country, yet somehow managed to win.

Biden got more votes nationally than any candidate in history by winning a record low 17% of the counties nationwide, just 524 compared to 873 won by President Obama in 2012, yet Biden miraculously got 15 million more votes than Obama.

There were historically low rejections of absentee ballots despite massive expansion of mail voting. If rejection rates were similar to prior elections, Trump wins comfortably; incredibly, millions of voters used mail-in ballots for the first time and managed to follow the rules.

Apparently, hundreds of poll observers in numerous states who signed affidavits under oath attesting to witnessing voting irregularities were all lying, but it’s OK for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and rewrite election laws that can only be changed by the Legislature.

I applaud congressmen like Guy Reschenthaler and John Joyce who are demanding a full investigation into the fraud that occurred in this election. They are true patriots.

Jeff Hoener, Swissvale

Lying to Congress is a crime

Sen. Ted Cruz proposed a congressional inquiry to determine the legitimacy of the 2020 election (and it failed, on Jan. 6). The idea was fine with me — but note that the line between freedom of speech and slander, defamation and sedition is not a fine one.

If you’re lying and you know it — intending to destroy reputations or livelihoods, or seize or sustain political power — there are criminal consequences. Lying to Congress under oath gets you five years in prison. U.S Code 18, Chapter 115 — Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities — prescribes up to 20 years for conspiring to “oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States” or organizing or helping to organize “any society, group, or assembly of persons who … advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence.”

No intention to suppress the genuine exercise of First Amendment rights, but if presented with a future of 5-20 years for bearing false witness, or fomenting gun-toting Proud Boys violence in D.C., I am guessing that certain Congress members, the leader of the free world and their star witnesses might have found find their time better spent on other things. NFL playoff games, for example.

Joseph Jamison, Greensburg

Categories: Letters to the Editor | Opinion