Now the president wants better security?


To the editor:

We have all heard versions of the saying, “locking the barn door after the horse is gone,” but it seems that’s exactly what President Barack Obama is doing by requesting $4 billion for the State Department for additional security for our diplomatic corps — or corpse, as he might say. Why at this time, long after the Benghazi incident and in light of new evidence suggesting a White House cover-up?

Why wasn’t the need for additional security for our diplomats addressed the weeks before the Benghazi attack, when it could have saved four American lives? Why did the president and his “Obamacrats” ignore the requests for help, then refuse to acknowledge the attack as an act of terrorism?

The budget was presented long after that fatal event and apparently included all the funding for embassy security. Now that the Benghazi incident is more than a “bump in the road,” its priority suddenly rises.

It becomes more and more obvious that the importance of protecting Americans serving abroad should trump the billions spent on military and financial aid to Middle Eastern nations who are using us and hardly could be considered allies.

Egypt is now governed by Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood followers. Is it possible that the jets and tanks we have paid for could find their way into the hands of those who would attack our one ally in the area, Israel? Or with the weapons-dealing climate in the area, could they possibly be used against Americans serving their country?

The president would rather support those who have no love for us. He only chooses to change his path as opportunism dictates.

ROBERT LATCHFORD

HENDERSON

Blood sport as product

To the editor:

In response to your Friday editorial, “Ultimate snub: UFC finds New York not ‘open for business’ ”:

Do you folks actually believe some of the tripe you editorialize upon? The Ultimate Fighting Championship is peddling a “product,” and New York state continues to ban it because lawmakers are working with the Culinary union to hurt the Fertitta family?

Has it ever occurred to you that the UFC promotes unspeakable violence in the name of entertainment, and its “product” should rightly be banned? Is the only criteria for allowing the bloody exhibitions put on by the UFC that they make money for the state? That states even sanction such ghastly and beastly “shows” tells me a lot about the coarsening of the American psyche.

While I’m no fan of New York state and its usual interference in the daily lives of its citizens, as evidenced by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I wholeheartedly agree with its decision to not sanction violence for the sake of violence simply to make a buck.

JERRY FINK

LAS VEGAS

Like father, like son

To the editor:

I’m pretty sure that Friday’s editorial cartoon by Pat Oliphant, which depicts President Richard Nixon asking President Barack Obama if he can call him son, was a comparison to the current administration. It shows us that both sides pull these stunts.

What should have been included was Mr. Nixon warning Mr. Obama that he resigned over his responsibility in Watergate — reflecting one scandal, much less three.

No one got killed in Mr. Nixon’s indiscretion. The next time the pot calls the kettle black, it should finish the story.

CAROL McLENDON

HENDERSON

Abolish the IRS

To the editor:

After everyone involved in the IRS scandal goes to jail, the IRS should be disbanded. The best way to do it would be a flat 10 percent income tax, 10 percent capital gains tax and 10 percent corporate tax. The first $25,000 earned is tax-free, everything after that is taxed at 10 percent.

If you get rid of all deductions for everyone, no one could play politics with the tax code. Get rid of all other taxes, then require a three-fourths majority in both houses of Congress to raise taxes.

Shrink the government. The power to tax is too great a political weapon to be allowed to go unchecked.

Now is the time to act against the IRS because the next person it will target is you, whether you’re a conservative or not. It is time to demand a change to how taxes are collected.

ALAN GALINS

LAS VEGAS

Comprehensive

To the editor:

I cannot agree more with Sherman Frederick regarding the word “comprehensive” (“More thoughts on sex education,” Sunday column).

All politicians use this word as if it’s some kind of magic word. And I’m not just talking about the state legislators. Our Washington, D.C., politicians are even worse. Sometimes I think they don’t even comprehend the meaning of the word.

“Comprehensive” can mean all-encompassing — see the comprehensive Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill. Both try to be all things to all people, but it can’t happen.

Comprehensive’s root word is comprehend, which means to understand. Maybe someone should explain that to the politicians, especially Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who famously spouted this quote regarding the aforementioned Affordable Care Act: “We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what is in it.”

FRED KOSHMERL

LAS VEGAS

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.