Justice as usual for today’s Democrats

In a recent TV interview, Hillary Clinton made an unequivocal statement that she is “100 percent positive” that she will not be indicted for her email issues. I thought that a “100 percent” statement was pretty bold.

Then, I watched a video of President Obama endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

Let’s see … the director of the FBI works for and reports directly to the attorney general. The attorney general works for and reports directly to President Obama.

President Obama could have, at a minimum, delayed his endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. Instead, he puts his inflated reputation on the line and essentially signals his underlings — the FBI and attorney general — not to indict Hillary, lest he look like a fool.

Welcome to justice under the Democrat Party. If you condone this type of blatant hypocrisy, then go ahead and support Hillary Clinton. I’m sure she’ll appreciate your vote and construe your acceptance of this type of “justice” as a mandate and use it as a model for business as usual in her administration.

J.J. Schrader

Henderson

Smoking hot

It is fine for the editorial staff to voice an opinion in their newspaper. Readers, however, should expect a well-presented argument with substantiated facts. The June 8 editorial on marijuana was very lacking.

For example, the statement that marijuana contains nearly 500 dangerous chemicals does not mention if any are present above a dangerous level and at what usage rate they become dangerous. Remember, our drinking water from Lake Mead contains many dangerous chemicals, but all are below levels considered dangerous.

Next, the assertion that cancer and five other serious ailments are linked to marijuana use does not include information about how they are linked or at what dose level. Again the same could be said for nearly everything in your refrigerator.

The money argument is also a red herring. The core of Question 2 is personal freedom, not money.

By including such biases in a flawed editorial you can accomplish only two things. One, some people actually believe your arguments and form an opinion not based on the facts, or two, some people see the poor case you present and consider the editorial staff of the Review-Journal to be untrustworthy.

Neither result is good for the paper or the public.

Brian Landsberger

Las Vegas

Naming rights

In response to the June 8 column by Steve Sebelius, “What’s in a Name? Nothing, really,” regarding the College of Southern Nevada’s North Las Vegas campus:

Apparently Mr. Sebelius missed the lesson from one of the world’s great motivators, Dale Carnegie. Mr. Carnegie once said something along the lines that the most important and sweetest sound in any language is a person’s name. In this respect a name is everything. Something important, to be considered with care.

The identification of the community — North Las Vegas — that gives life and breath to the existence of this component of the College of Southern Nevada is significant.

It is vitally important for any local community to be identified with education and it is for that purpose that Mayor John Lee has been devoted to ensuring education is part of his city’s brand.

Bob Jack

North Las Vegas