LETTERS: Bilbray criticizes, doesn’t offer solutions

I have a few comments regarding Democratic congressional candidate Erin Bilbray’s op-ed (“Boehner’s ‘leadership’ hurts Nevadans,” Jan. 19 Review-Journal). First, I’d like to say that I vote for the person, not the party.

Ms. Bilbray is critical of what House Speaker John Boehner has or has not done in Congress. I think that it is time to fire Rep. Boehner along with Sen. Harry Reid. Talk about misguided leadership. Rep. Boehner will not bring up bills from the Senate, and Sen. Reid does the same in the Senate.

Ms. Bilbray also mentioned comprehensive immigration reform. Why would the House pass a bill knowing the president will enforce the parts he likes, while ignoring the parts he doesn’t? See Obamacare as an example of that. Let’s close the border first, then work on the other parts of the immigration issue.

Nevada also has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States. Why? Again, see Obamacare. Health care rates for businesses are on the rise, and there is no certainty about the future due to all the regulations imposed on all kinds of business ventures.

Instead of criticizing, Ms. Bilbray should tell us how she intends to solve Nevada’s illegal immigration and unemployment issues.

CURKLIN JACKSON

LAS VEGAS

Iranian nuclear deal

To the editor:

It appears that the Obama administration is getting its Iranian nuclear deal pushed through for reasons many Americans fail to understand. Why should we suspend sanctions on a country that has a history of harboring terrorists, lying about its nuclear program and dragging its feet on allowing international inspectors access to its facilities? It would only serve to increase political tensions in the Middle East, as our staunch ally, Israel, opposes it.

One fact that should be noted: the only assurance that we have is the agreement made with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who seems to be second banana in Iranian politics; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei looks like the top dog. He has long taken an anti-Western stance and received support from hard-line Iranians.

Because Iran already has a considerable stockpile of highly enriched uranium (not the kind used for power production), what assurance do we have that this will be destroyed and further production halted? Former promises of allowing inspections have failed. Let them build windmills and solar panels for power.

It is reported that the White House claims it will cost us $7 billion, a rather modest amount in Obamatalk, but what do we get in return? If the administration is thinking that loosening sanctions could allow us to buy cheap Iranian oil, resulting in cheaper gas at the pump before the next election, the public should be reminded that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline would accomplish the same thing — and put Americans, not Iranians, to work.

Allowing a nation with a history of anti-Western sentiment to possibly move one step closer to nuclear capability at the expense of throwing allies under the bus is not a smart move.

ROBERT LATCHFORD

HENDERSON