Readers Write: Michael Cohen's testimony, 'Born-Alive' abortion bill, gun laws, fentanyl use

By the end of the day Thursday, Michael Cohen will have spent three days testifying in front of Congress. He seems to be looking to redeem himself for his past behavior; Democrats seem to be looking for the truth; and Republicans seem to be looking at discrediting Mr. Cohen. Seems to me that President Donald Trump should be willing to testify to clear up this mess.

Not holding my breath.

Just when I thought the Democrat/Progressive/Socialist party had sunk to its lowest, they have really done it now. They recently completely embarrassed themselves during the inquisition (lynching) of Judge Brett Kavanaugh — led by none other than U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar — then many of their Democrat leaders have supported what amounts to infanticide while protecting the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood. More recently, many Democrat leaders, including some running for president, rushed to judgment when a small-time actor pretended to be attacked in a "hate crime" that turned out to be a planned episode because he wanted more money and hated President Trump.

With all this, and other instances too many to mention, Democrat/Progressive/Socialists in Congress have called a hearing. And who is their star witness? None other than Michael Cohen, who has been convicted and is going to jail in May for lying to Congress at least three times. And all this is being shown on television — something the Democrats insisted on happening. It is no coincidence this hearing is taking place while our president is in Vietnam working to come to some satisfactory nuclear agreement with North Korea. This is something all previous administrations had failed to address.

I am thankful that during President Trump's short tenure, our unemployment numbers are the lowest in decades. This means that significantly fewer people will be watching this fiasco.

Definition of infanticide: the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth. U.S. Sens. Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota voted against a bill that would have made infanticide a criminal act. They would not support a bill that provides medical care to a living, breathing, helpless child. Does this represent the view of the majority of their constituents? I don't know one Minnesotan who feels this way.

Smith responded to my complaints by stating that she will always support "women's reproductive health care." Does leaving a newly born infant to die on a medical table constitute health care for the mother?

This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of our Congress. What does this say about our country? How barbaric have we become! Here is what it gets down to: Take God out of the equation and anything becomes possible. We have lost our way. We have lost our moral compass. Think about it, folks — we are a nation that will kill our own babies!

We are all created in the image and likeness of God. We have God-given dignity; we have value and worth, even if we don't have a dime. A baby is a baby, helpless and innocent. What have we become in this nation that our duly elected Senate, including our own Klobuchar and Smith, voted for such measures? This is just so unbelievable, so sad. This is not the representation that I feel most Minnesotans would desire. Is it time to wake up and get more involved in saving our culture the way we've known it? We are killing off so many of our next generations of teachers, doctors, musicians, painters, artists, dentists, pilots, lawyers, waitresses, nurses … moms, dads, uncles, aunts … all too horrible to think about. Heaven help us! God, please direct our hearts and minds to your truth.

Opinion editor's note: For further context and commentary on the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, which was blocked in the Senate on a procedural motion Monday, see an explainer in the New York Times responding to a tweet by President Trump (tinyurl.com/baspa-nyt), an assessment of media coverage on the issue by the National Review (tinyurl.com/baspa-nr) and strategy analysis at Vox (tinyurl.com/baspa-vox).

A Feb. 26 letter writer insinuated that the people of Venezuela would be free if they had the right to bear arms as we do. I could just see what would happen if a repressive U.S. government sent the military to control our people, and free Americans responded with guns instead of rocks, which by the way wasn't the case in Ferguson, Mo., after the police shooting of Michael Brown in 2014. There the protesters threw rocks. Fortunately for them, government paramilitary police held their fire. Had the protesting citizens of Ferguson opened fire with their guns, they would have been slaughtered.

If those who claim that gun rights are essential to a free people were to actually face a suddenly repressive government as they often imagine might happen, things would go very badly for everyone, especially for the ones shooting at the better-armed and better-organized troops of the imagined tyranny. Individual citizens trying to form organized armed resistance would be a laughable bulwark against an armed military. And not only would the armed "freedom" fighters be hunted down, the rest of us unarmed citizens would not be distinguishable to the military, and we, too, would be slaughtered.

The Feb. 26 editorial lecturing state Rep. Cal Bahr ("Decorum is kicked, stomped at Capitol") must have been a joke. The Star Tribune Editorial Board says he crossed a line with comments the board believes were inappropriate and unacceptable. Maybe it should consider the Democrats, who have a few (Maxine Waters and others) who have said to go get in the face of Republican politicians and supporters of President Trump, confront them and challenge them physically. The biased editorial wants to make Bahr apologize for things the other party has done much worse. The Democrats should apologize many times over for their words and actions, which actually encourage and threaten people, which is much worse than what the editorial finds against Cal Bahr.

According to "Fentanyl is widely mishandled" (Feb. 20), I guess the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved of the fentanyl patch medically given to my 95-year-old father during the last year of his life. He had fallen and injured his back, and the pain was so serious he could not sleep or move. The opioids caused miserable side effects. Because he never got a tolerance for them, the fentanyl patch should not have been prescribed for his pain, but it worked. The last months of his life were not a pain-filled hell. Thank you to his doctors, who went beyond the so-called helpful special rules to relieve his pain.