To the editor:

Groan! Once again, the Opinion Page of the June 12 Daily Journal features “Inside the Washington, D.C. beltway” Dan Thomasson “Trump cements image with climate decision”), pontifically addressing “…nitwit ultraconservatives” (His words, not mine) — an arrogant label that includes most Hoosiers living and working in Johnson Country.

Again, WHY does the Daily Journal waste newspaper white space showcasing another clear example of the ongoing civil revenge campaign against President Trump?

Trump, a “…history-ignorant isolationist whose American First blather is unsustainable, if not ruinous, in a global economy.” Really? Well, the only ignorance I read being expressed in this column is penned by the individual (Thomasson) who has totally misread the hopes and preferences of the American citizenry.

An electoral majority who elected President Trump is now grateful he is doing what we the people — not liberal progressive Democrats — voted him into office to do, and the sooner the better!

How self-deceived is this op-ed columnist from Washington, D.C.? He really believes “…Trump’s actions were to save face for not accomplishing all those things like health care and tax reform and a top-heavy military budget he promised would happen quickly to make us great again.”

(Whew! Don’t look for any commas in there; there simply aren’t any! And this, penned by a former editor of the Scripps Howard New Service?)

Not expecting President Trump to accomplish much in his first five months in office is he? On the plus side, President Trump is unwinding eight years of “negative change” foisted on us by his predecessor! He more than deserves a break, from tunnel vision political writers like Thomasson. Dan, join the growing ‘choose civility movement’ and accord our president respect, empathy and tolerance!

Here’s a mystery for you, found in Thomasson’s parting rant: “…some of this nation’s strongest businesses are putting together a consortium to make up the U.S. share of (presumably Paris) accord expenses.”

Really? I’d say good for them but for this question: Why spend all money that way, when there’s so much more good to be accomplished here in the U.S., fighting disease, poverty, violence and other social ills?

George Allen