Group just looking to advance animal welfare

Monday’s commentary by Will Coggin (“Will animal lawyers dog the legal system?”) was predictably misleading.

As the director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, Mr. Coggin represents one of a network of front groups for unscrupulous businesses trying to thwart public interest groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The Humane Society of the United States.

Rather than accurately presenting the ways we are helping animals, he uses hyperbole and improbable scenarios to scare people into believing falsehoods about our organization.

Take a closer look at the Center for Consumer Freedom and you’ll find it has no social welfare mission. The group has been condemned by the media for misleading the public. “60 Minutes” dubbed its president, Richard Berman, “Dr. Evil.”

But look at the Humane Society and you’ll find that we’ve always been about protecting all animals from large-scale cruelties.

When it comes to the law, our attorneys work tirelessly against factory farming, puppy mills, the fur trade, the exploitation of captive animals and more. In the past year alone, our legal efforts have protected millions of living, feeling creatures from cruelty.

The only ones who have anything to fear from the legal prowess of the Humane Society are the industries that regularly and systematically disregard the welfare of animals.

Sarah Barnett

Washington, D.C.

The writer is public affairs advisor and special assistant to the COO for the Humane Society of the United States

Liked Norm

I was sorry to read of Norm Clarke’s retirement in his final column in Thursday’s Review-Journal. I wish him nothing but the best. Until reading about him, I hadn’t realized that he had been with the paper for 17 years. I looked forward to reading each and every one of his columns and I will miss him.

Rachel Crosby wrote a fitting tribute to him in the same edition.

Patricia Schmitt

Las Vegas

Voter ID

I write in disagreement with the courts allowing anyone to vote without voter ID (Sunday Review-Journal, “Voter ID laws dealt legal setback”).

With illegals pouring over our southern border by the tens of thousands, thanks to the Hillary-Obama administration, it is necessary to ensure that those voting are American citizens. Not only is there a terrorism problem to be concerned with, but allowing non-citizens to decide the direction our government takes is not only illegal, it is insane.

Of course the Hillary-Obama administration supports this kind of convoluted system because it is well-known the Hispanic bloc votes Democratic — and Hillary would be the recipient of that vote.

With a Democratic president in control of immigration policies, it sounds like there is a monumental conflict of interest taking place.

Ron Moers

Henderson

Saudi connection

It is very apparent that the Saudi Arabian government contributed substantial funding for the 9/11 attack. In fact, the majority of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens.

How could Bill and Hillary Clinton, knowing of this tragedy, accept in good conscience millions of dollars from the Saudis for their Clinton Foundation? In my opinion, their acceptance of the millions of dollars from the Saudis is the epitome of immorality in that it not only spits in the faces of all of the families of those killed in this disaster, but in the faces of our nation’s entire citizenry.

How can anyone who is aware of this issue and many other negative controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton want her to become the commander in chief of our great nation?

Clarence Lanzrath

Las Vegas