Are we really free? Or is this tyranny?
To the editor:
I read your July Fourth editorial (“How free are we on this July Fourth?”) with great interest, and I agreed with every word in it. We are being stripped of our liberties and freedoms, and of our privacy, bit by bit, in seemingly small but effective ways. We are much like the giant in “Gulliver’s Travels,” who was tied down by a number of threadlike strings, applied while he didn’t notice, until finally he was unable to move.
What I’m wondering is when we will begin to see this newspaper describe these acts by their correct name, which is “tyranny.” And when we will see our imperial president described by the correct term, which is “tyrant”? He continues to bypass the Congress with an increasing number of orders that deny us, the citizens, representation. Many of his orders go against the wishes of the majority.
Did the sentence, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” ring any bells this Fourth of July? Because that’s what we have — and it will get worse.
BILL CONKLIN
LAS VEGAS
Obama as Morsi
To the editor:
We saw the protests in Egypt. They had elected a man — Mohammed Morsi — who claimed he wouldn’t try to implement an Islamic regime. He made all sorts of campaign promises that he didn’t keep. In fact, in many cases, he did the exact opposite. Finally, the Egyptian people had enough and demanded that he be ousted from the presidency.
Are you watching, America?
We have seen the same actions from our president. He says he doesn’t want to transform us into a socialist state, then he initiates socialist policies through highly partisan legislation. He promised he would reduce federal deficits, then he ran them up at record rates. He decried intelligence agencies “spying” on citizens, then expanded such intelligence operations. Throw in his complete disregard for our Constitution, as he uses executive orders to mimic monarchy (“If they don’t do what I say, I’ll act”), and you have the mirror image of Mr. Morsi in the visage of Barack Obama.
Do we, the American people, have the courage to rise up and throw out these socialists and pseudo-monarchists in 2014 and 2016? Our survival as a free-market, freedom-loving people depends on it.
JOSEPH SCHILLMOELLER
LAS VEGAS
More Cops
To the editor:
Raising taxes in order to hire more police officers and give raises to the ones currently employed is ridiculous (“More Cops may not mean more cops, but who’s counting?” Jane Ann Morrison column, Thursday Review-Journal).
Metro can argue that the funds are needed to help secure the valley’s safety, but it can’t show any concrete proof that having more officers is going to reduce the crime rate here in Las Vegas.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie said he wants to reinstate longevity pay increases as well as merit pay increases. What he’s proposing is that taxpayers, who are already struggling in this economy, should pay for raises for those who are already making more than the majority of the people who will be funding their raises.
It’d be worth considering raising taxes if, and only if, the sheriff didn’t say that the money would go toward raises. Could they really be so desperately in need of funds if they’re going to use the money to increase the pay of the ones already employed by them? I think not.
Raising taxes in this economy for a reason such as this is only going to infuriate taxpayers. Metro should find a way to streamline operations to improve the department.
PORSCHE JEFFERSON
LAS VEGAS
The little guy
To the editor:
The subject of Gregory Inwood’s Wednesday letter, “Pedestrian crossing,” is something I’ve noticed for a long time but never took the time to write about. Every time a pedestrian is injured (or killed) by a motorist, the information reported at the beginning of the story relates to whether the pedestrian was in a crosswalk and the make and model of the vehicle involved.
What difference does it make? The important story is that a person has been injured by a motor vehicle. Not being in a crosswalk doesn’t make a pedestrian fair game for negligent motorists. The law in most states is the pedestrian has the right of way.
Is the motorist held more responsible for hitting someone in a crosswalk as opposed to running down someone crossing where there are no crosswalks? The pedestrian is no less injured whether in a a designated crosswalk or not. White paint apparently doesn’t make it any safer to cross a street.
A pedestrian has a duty to exercise caution, but a driver shouldn’t be excused for neglecting to watch out for the little guy just because he isn’t between the white lines.
PAUL FRANO
HENDERSON
