Honors for enemy an affront to winners

In regard to monuments honoring Confederate soldiers, I would like to add this perspective.

The Civil War was just as much a war as any the United States of America has fought, and the opposing combatants, soldiers of the Confederate States of America, were enemies of the USA equally intent on killing as many soldiers of the USA as possible to achieve their goals.

What is an added distinction is that as former citizens of the USA, their actions consisted of those of a traitor to the USA equal to those such as Benedict Arnold.

As a disabled combat veteran myself, who fought to protect our Constitution and defend our homeland, I do not think the Union soldiers who fought and died to protect and defend the USA would approve of statues and monuments dedicated to their enemies.

There is an appropriate place to remember these combatants, and that is in academic venues and history books. keep getting in trouble.

Taking into account the religious liberty argument for discriminating against legally wedded people — or as in the new case in Texas, the one discriminating against an LGBT family’s rights to welfare — wouldn’t it make sense for religious supermarket clerks to be allowed to refuse to sell bacon, cigarettes, beer, wine or anything else based on her religious beliefs? Or some other religious person at the Department of Motor Vehicles being allowed to deny driver licenses to women based on his religious beliefs? previous president out of mind and out of sight. Then we could have bipartisan review and repair, as opposed to repeal and replace. The latter method will throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The GOP is suffering from Obamaphobia.

Grow up, work smart! Instead of being the

“party faithful,” put America first. Serve the people, that is why we sent you to Washington.