Vail Daily guest column: Opposition is one thing; obstruction is another |

Vail Daily guest column: Opposition is one thing; obstruction is another

The denizens of the swamp certainly made their appearance after my “Bolshevik” letter to the editor of June 1, 2017, and Mr. Wissot’s response even made the “column” section of the paper; first off I note that Wissot attaches the appellation/adjective “comrade” to me as a personal aspersion that is typical from his genre of the political arena, or if not, then he might have a diminished sense of history, since that word usually connoted a Bolshevik greeting or salutation in that age (circa 1917).

Incredulously, Wissot pens, “As members of the loyal opposition (progressives, liberals or what have you), they have every right to thwart, block, impede, sidetrack every attempt he (the president) makes to govern through any legal means at their disposal …The Dems will do their best to obstruct, as best they can with Republican majorities in Congress, any major piece of legislation the president attempts to introduce.”

These profound statements raise three questions: One, as the opposition, to whom are they “loyal”?, two, how will they obstruct? and three, how do they construe and apply the term “legal”?

Wissot makes it clear that his party has no loyalty to those Americans that elected Trump through the auspices of the Electoral College — this institution by the way offers a bit of parity to the less populous states when confronted with the urbanized and teeming city/states on both shores. I will “rattle one more sabre” against this “popular majority” you speak of, and that is you are only loyal to your social agenda and the power and control that it seeks at all costs to the American taxpayer, soldier or downtrodden in general. This 3 million-plus margin that the loser managed to garner, either legitimately or illicitly, does not a “president” make; so what is your point? Ergo, are there simply more illegals, dead people or multi-voters that compose this dubious popular “vote”?

As the first 150 days of President Trump’s tenure draws to a close, we have witnessed the “obstruction” to which Wissot refers. To name but a few: we have seen campus riots with blatant criminal conduct and an assault on First Amendment rights of invitees to their academic premises; we have suffered relentless investigations into issues (Russia) where there is not a scintilla of evidence to define a crime, let alone identify who did it — yet we have the unfounded accusations against President Trump before any evidence is found to substantiate even a half-truth thereof — not very scientific I must say; we have the fringe lunacy of Democratic representatives calling for impeachment, if the President exercises his authority to manage, control (hire and fire) his executive personnel of whom he is accountable; we have the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disregarding or ignoring the authoritative empowerment of the president to protect the American public regarding immigration, because “it doesn’t feel right” or “it’s not nice to Muslims”; and not to end it all, we have the vitriolic, inane, hateful and violent assaults on Congressmen (playing baseball no less) merely because of their affiliation with a particular political party. Yes, Wissot this is the “obstruction” that I have witnessed from your quarter of the playing field.

You tout that your party will obstruct in a “legal” manner “in any way it can.” Query: is a sanctuary city’s harboring of fugitives from justice “legal” in your parlance? Is an “open border” policy on immigration in keeping with the strictures of federal immigration statutes on the books or with legitimate executive fiats? Is a blatant misrepresentation to the American public to enact social legislation from your ilk “legal”, e.g., “You can keep your doctor … You can keep your plan, etc.”? Is the nefarious distribution of firearms in a “Fast and Furious” way within the legal constraints of the D.O.J., D.E.A. and A.T.F.? Is the abject disregard of the Espionage Act of 1917 regarding classified information by the Secretary of State justifiable and “legal” as you construe it?

Finally, Wissot and Jones, I am on the extreme right as Dennis Jones (Vail Daily article of June 6) puts it when I believe you have a “right” to be constructive, re-constructive and instructive, rather than obstructive and destructive to the detriment of the interests of even a portion of the American people; and in this, I recall that you once came up with your own “affordable” health care plan that has been shown to be a dismal failure, but you offer nothing on the table to amend or replace it. You do not have a “right” to obstruct or “thwart,” if that results to the detriment of any person, even an American one.

Fredric Butler is an Eagle resident.

Support Local Journalism