Sounding off: Stop hating on the wealthy, cheers to Trump and other top letters of the week

Progressives believe it is unjust for some people to amass huge fortunes because concentrated wealth causes more poverty in others.

But such an idea is absolutely false, and here’s why.

The potential to become wealthy motivates people to work harder, take risks, invent things and innovate — and that benefits everyone.

Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were two industrial giants who became fabulously rich from their innovations of the light bulb and automobile, which tremendously improved the lives of all people. It was the possibility of becoming super rich that inspired them to greater achievement.

The ultra-rich don’t hide their money in mattresses; they spend it on mansions, yachts, entertainment, fancy clothes, travel. Most importantly, they invest in businesses. All of this creates good jobs for many other people.

Moreover, most wealthy people give away large portions of their money to help the unfortunate and to fund worthy causes such as scientific research, universities and hospitals.

Wealthy achievers do a better job of choosing worthy causes to fund than politicians and bureaucrats, who often spend other people’s money foolishly. So wealthy people actually help eliminate poverty, not cause it.

If this draconian income policy of progressives was actually implemented, there would be exceedingly more poverty than now and the standard of living would drop for all.

Dave Majernik

Plum

The writer is vice chairman of the Republican Committee of Allegheny County.

We must pledge allegiance to world

As a Boy Scout leader, I publicly pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. It is a pledge I take very seriously, solemnly and reverently. I am proud to wear the flag on my uniform and genuinely, albeit imperfectly, try to live up to the national ideals symbolized by that flag. However, my allegiance to my nation is not absolute; not unconditional.

I am a Christian; therefore my allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ supersedes my allegiance to my nation.

I am a human being; therefore my allegiance to my fellow human beings, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, creed, age, gender, sexual orientation or taste in music, supersedes my allegiance to my nation.

I am a child of the Earth; therefore, my allegiance to the global community supersedes my allegiance to my nation.

In order to receive the prestigious rank of Eagle Scout, a Boy Scout must earn the Citizenship in the World merit badge. According to the Boy Scouts of America, “Scouts who earn the Citizenship in the World merit badge will discover that they are already citizens of the world. How good a world citizen each person is depends on his willingness to understand and appreciate the values, traditions, and concerns of people in other countries.”

There can be no peace, no world community, no real brother and sisterhood as long as we define ourselves first as citizens of our own nation. We become good citizens of our own nation by first being good citizens of the world.

Keith Kondrich

Swisshelm Park

Three cheers to Trump

Three cheers to President Trump, our responsive commander-in-chief, and our military for the successful planning and execution of the drone strike in Iraq that took out Iran’s top general, terrorist Qassem Soleimani.

Naturally, the subversive liberals in Congress could only find fault to add to their anti-Trump rhetoric. They seem oblivious to the 600 American military deaths and all those wearing prosthetic legs and arms, caused by the villainous Soleimani.

With the cadre of radical hate-Trump congressional representatives we’re saddled with, I’ll venture the guess that Soleimani would still be alive had Congress been briefed beforehand. Three more cheers for our commander-in-chief for prudently not consulting Congress.

It seems evident that the radical liberal leftists can’t or don’t want to see the forest for the trees. Was Benghazi not a lesson learned? I staunchly believe liberals would do themselves well in the months ahead in this election year to see the fake news they’ve been buying and sagely invest in the objective news of Fox News brokers Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters and others who could bring liberal Democrats to the threshold of becoming born-again conservative Democrats to restore rather than hinder congressional unity.

Think smart, vote smart.

Clay Stover

West Newton

America’s great without Hillary

I hate to bring Hillary Clinton into the conversation again, but I have this thing about her. The Republicans had two years when they controlled the House and Senate and could have indicted her, but didn’t. Why not? Was she too big to challenge? No, the Republicans simply have no junkyard dogs to fight for us, other than President Trump.

If you had a government security clearance, you would be in prison had you been as nonchalant as she in handling classified information.

The Clinton Foundation finally had its 2017 990-form (latest available) published by Charity Navigator. Contributions to the foundation for 2015-17 declined from $109 million to $63 million to $27 million. Have all of the charitable donors decided to be less charitable? Perhaps it goes deeper than that, and the donors were donating for political access, not from the goodness of their hearts. No more political access, no more donations?

Yes, for the last three years, every day in America has been a great day — Hillary is still not the president of our wonderful country. Have the Democrats been protesting this injustice? Only every day.

Don Carrera

Penn Township, Westmoreland County

Impeachment rumors can’t be true

Well, impeachment is upon us. I was worried about what Sen. Mitch McConnell and some of the Republicans would come up with. I heard an awful rumor that they were going to have 12-hour days so a lot of the testimony would be heard after most people were asleep. That would be like they have something to hide. That would be like not wanting the American people to know what was going on — you know, facts and stuff like that. I knew this couldn’t be true.

I also heard they might not allow the evidence that was presented in the House, which makes no sense. That would be like if you rob a bank and when you went to trial, none of what happened would be admissible. Well, I knew that couldn’t be true, either. I’m sure McConnell wants to do his job correctly, the way he was elected to do it — fair, factual and upholding the Constitution. Surely that would mean something to him and the others.

I guess I’m worrying for nothing. These rumors certainly can’t be true, not in the United States of America. We’re not a banana republic. We are the greatest country on Earth, and those who serve her I’m sure do it with integrity and honesty.

If the president is innocent, then he will have no problem with as many witnesses and documents and hours of testimony it takes. The only reason he wouldn’t want that would be if he was trying to hide the facts. But that almost seems like it’s kind of, what’s the word — corrupt?

Joni Nowicki Campbell

Harrison

Pelosi will benefit most from impeachment

Question: Who will benefit most from President Trump’s impeachment?

Answer: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The chain of command in the federal government is that the vice president moves into the presidency and the speaker of the House moves into the vice presidency. A new speaker is elected in the House of Representatives.

William K. Fox Jr.

Hunker

Editor’s note: The new president would nominate a replacement to become vice president according to the 25th Amendment.

Supreme Court in peril

Some people who voted for President Trump didn’t admire his character. However, they knew the next president would appoint judges to the Supreme Court, and it was important that they were conservatives and followed the Constitution.

In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was having trouble getting key parts of his New Deal enacted. The Supreme Court kept declaring them unconstitutional. He proposed adding additional judges to the court, packing it with liberal judges. The American citizens, and even members of his own party, objected. He abandoned the idea.

Today’s Supreme Court is conservative. The liberals may decide to try FDR’s court-packing scheme again. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, in addition to their platforms of socialism and the Green New Deal, have said they wouldn’t be opposed to expanding the court. It is part of the Democrats’ plan to undo the rebirth of a conservative Supreme Court. The scary thing is that it might work.

If the Republicans lose control of the Senate, if the Democrats keep control of the House and the Democratic candidate for president wins, then they may implement their destructive plans.

There is only one way to ensure this doesn’t happen. Even if you don’t agree with Trump, hold your nose and vote for him. The future of the Supreme Court depends on us.

Kathleen Bollinger

Fawn