Letters: In defense of supporting Trump's policies; laws should enhance life through its entire span

In defense of supporting Trump’s policies

I am writing in response to Tom Zirpoli’s opinion piece that appeared in the Feb. 6 Carroll County Times. As an evangelical Christian, I am offended by Mr. Zirpoli’s opinion that I may have sold my soul because I support our president on the wall. Please know that I do not support him based on his personal lifestyle or his often-offensive tweets (which I would prefer he would cease entirely). Mr. Trump, in fact, was not my preferred Republican nominee for president. But he did secure my vote because of the political policies he supported. Most importantly were the issues regarding freedom of religion, the sanctity of human life and the rule of law. (The sanctity of human life for me recognizes that a fetus is in fact a growing human with separate DNA and to destroy it in the womb is no different than destroying it out of the womb).

And no, we have not lowered the “wall” to get into heaven by supporting our president. Our faith (and Catholic doctrine as well, I believe) says that Mr. Trump’s entry into heaven is the same for all and it is based on salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. With respect to the wall issue, I do not know to what extent it may help to keep our borders secure from illegal entry, but it certainly would help. My disgust is with Congress that has failed to do its job on this issue for decades because of the refusal to compromise. If we could secure the border it would make it a lot easier to find the pathway to citizenship for the “Dreamers” and others who were brought here as children (which I support). While I would not have used the analogy of a wall in heaven that the Rev. Robert Jeffress used to support having a wall, I would refer Mr. Zirpoli to Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” If there is a gate, there must be a wall.


Ken Dallwig


Animal cruelty bill has flaws

It’s OK to make the abusers pay, but what about the innocent?

Maryland Senate Bill 152 would require an animal owner merely accused of a crime to pay for the cost of care of the animals — before being convicted of anything. Mere accusations could bankrupt someone who, if they are shown to be innocent, might never get their animals back.

The bill is being pushed by a group called the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and proponents claim it is unfair for animal groups or municipalities to cover pre-trial costs. But consider that HSUS raises over $100 million a year and has over $40 million sitting in offshore funds in the Caribbean, according to its tax return. It could easily care for animals in criminal cases and then ask the court for reimbursement if a defendant is found guilty.

Not only would that be a better use of charitable donations than having them sit in the Cayman Islands, it’s a much better solution than chipping away at the American principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Will Coggin

Washington, D.C.

The writer is the managing director for the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Laws should enhance life during its entire span

As a supporter of Roe v. Wade, I am not in support of the recent suggestion that the life of a baby could be terminated after birth.

However, I am outraged that Trump espoused his undying love for these newborns when his own policies that removed children from their parents at the border did not reflect his undying love.

That after-birth health care is not a right for every newborn in this nation.

That children born with disabilities are removed from their insurance coverage because their care is deemed to be “custodial” in nature; which happened to my second child who was born with multiple birth disabilities.

When parents are worried daily that their children might be killed or wounded during yet another school shooting because Congress has not passed any legislation that would demand more stringent background checks when purchasing a gun.


That our sons and daughters are sent into wars to be killed or maimed for life when later said wars were engaged in for nefarious reasons.

The policies and legislation passed in Congress must be those that enhance lives throughout a person’s life span; not just for a year or two after birth.

Patricia Roop Hollinger