Bidens clearly prefer government over charity

To the editor:

It was made public the other day that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, reported approximately $385,000 in income for 2012, and their tax filling listed approximately $7,200 in charitable contributions. Do the math and figure the percentage: less than 2 percent. What does this say to the general public? To me it says a lot about the vice president, and it’s not positive.

The United States of America is known to be one of the most charitable countries in the world. Conservatives and liberals support many worthwhile causes. I believe most Americans, regardless of income, do their best to support national and local charitable institutions.

Perhaps Mr. Biden’s logic is to let the government do it, not the many worthy private, nonprofit organizations. After all, isn’t the vice president a champion of “big government is better?”



Border control

To the editor:

I couldn’t agree more with Frank Musaraca’s March 22 letter, “Modify 14th to exclude illegal immigrants.” Only children born to citizen parents should be considered citizens of our country. All other children should be considered citizens of their parents’ country. Our representatives must amend this antiquated birthright interpretation. Mr. Musaraca’s letter hit the nail on the head.

Larry Brown also had a great letter (“Border control,” April 9), which lots of people agree with. It’s about time the government finished putting up the fence along the southern border.

Why aren’t our laws enforced? We couldn’t sneak into any other country and get away with it. Then they come to our country and demand we change our laws to accommodate them?

Why don’t they stay in their own countries and demand that laws be changed to give them more help if they need it? Because they know our government is so weak and full of representatives who can be pushed around and forced into what these criminals want. Amnesty should never ever be considered if immigrants come here illegally.



Campus after dark

To the editor:

The majority of the current Nevada Legislature should hold their heads in shame. Their failure to allow legitimate concealed carry permit holders the ability and right to protect themselves on Nevada college campuses is beyond an intelligent and printable description (“Campus carry gun bill dies for Nevada legislative session,” April 12 Review-Journal).

Not mentioned is the economic fact that most of the evening students can’t afford to attend school during the day. It’s obvious that the campus police feel threatened, but not as threatened as students on campus at night in a “gun-free zone.” Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, did her best to protect not only her two daughters on campus, but all others as well. If I had daughters in the same situation, I would have them carry and keep quiet about it. If no one knew they were carrying a small .32 in their purses, gamble with the penalty. The gamble is a better alternative than the possible after-dark campus situation.



Gun elimination

To the editor:

The president would eliminate all guns if he could. I would be in favor of this, too, if I was going to be protected for the rest of my life, 24/7. I guess the rest of us will just have to wait minutes for the police when seconds count.



Maniacs with knives

To the editor:

Apparently, Gloria Edrich thinks it’s better to let lunatics with knives run amok because they kill fewer innocents than lunatics with guns (“Texas college attack validates gun control,” Sunday letters). She doesn’t understand that the lunatics will always pick a “gun-free zone” because there is nobody there who can stop them quickly.

These gun grabbers will never admit that there are limited means to stop or decrease this madness. If we are unwilling to take the lunatics out of the public, we must be able to stop them quickly. Law-abiding people must be allowed to defend themselves no matter where they are.

Posting signs and enacting unenforceable laws have proved worthless in keeping the lunatics from causing mayhem.




I’ve read a great many letters in the Review-Journal from terminally uninformed individuals. However, Wilson J. Matos’ diatribe in Tuesday’s newspaper, “Stand up to the NRA,” was singularly outstanding for its anger and ignorance toward an institution that seeks to protect our constitutional rights.

He claims the National Rifle Association has an agenda to “sell more guns.” The NRA doesn’t sell guns, Mr. Matos. This organization promotes responsible firearm ownership. The NRA was established in 1871 for that very purpose.

What are you doing to make this a better world, Mr. Matos? The killings that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School that Mr. Matos refers to were not carried out by a rational person. Adam Lanza wasn’t an NRA member. Nor were any of the other mass murderers, either here or abroad.

My advice to Mr. Matos is to do some research on whatever subject he wishes to expound upon. This world has enough problems without demonizing those who seek to preserve our rights as American citizens.



News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like