To the editor:
Recent traffic enforcement by Metro and other local agencies on freeways puzzles me. I expect Metro to police city and county streets and make an occasional traffic stop on a freeway. The Nevada Highway Patrol should work the freeways and county roads.
Yet the number of Metro motorcycle officers with radar guns on the freeways seems to indicate a lack of things to do on our surface streets — unless “cherry picking” freeway speeding tickets for revenue as an indirect form of taxation is the goal.
Maybe they need to cut down on the number of motor officers. Obeying motor vehicle laws works best when officers are moving within traffic. Compliance, rather than enforcement, should be the priority.
Put the motor cops back on the streets and off the freeways.
Not about race
To the editor:
I read the Wednesday article, “Reid courts Hispanics.” I especially noticed Sen. Harry Reid’s statement that Hispanics shouldn’t be treated any differently than earlier European immigrants simply because “their skin’s a tone darker.” I have to say how angry I am that Sen. Reid and his Democratic cohorts are trying to make this issue about race.
This is not a race issue, although Sen. Reid, in his bid to be re-elected, is desperately trying to make it one. This is about what is legal and what is illegal according to our laws. It amazes me how many of our elected officials in Washington, D.C., a majority of whom have a law degree, don’t understand the difference between legal and illegal.
Yes, Sen. Reid, we are a nation of immigrants, but my relatives came into this country through Ellis Island, legally, where they had to prove they had a skill with which to support their family and were in good health.
When my husband and I adopted our son from a foreign country, we did it legally — and part of doing it legally was to prove we had the resources to support him (until he reached his majority) with signed and sworn documents proving not only this, but that we had medical insurance covering him from the moment he got off the plane. We had to prove we would not take one penny of any social program funded by any government entity to support him, unlike some of those illegally in our country now and receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.
The only issue Sen. Reid is concerned with is getting re-elected — and that is the real issue. Especially since Sen. Reid blocked immigration reform in 2006. We legal Americans want the laws upheld, not changed so the Democratic Party can continue to have the majority.
As a member of Congress, Sen. Reid swore that he would uphold the laws, not try to change the laws to reward those who have broken them. I could never vote for any lawmaker who is in favor of, and supports those, who break the law.
Kathleen M. Stone
To the editor:
On the front page of the Wednesday Review-Journal, there is a quote from Sen. Harry Reid that I consider offensive. Sen. Reid said, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK”
I believe I qualify to be a so-called Hispanic, as both of my parents were born and raised in Spain and I was born in Havana.
I have been a Las Vegas resident for more than 48 years. After waiting 18 months for an exit visa, I came to the United States as a political refugee in 1962, leaving my birth country to escape the tyranny of government control and a one-party system. Shortly after, I got my residency, and after the required five-year waiting time, I applied for citizenship and it was granted. On the same day I became a U.S. citizen, I registered Republican and have voted in every election since.
I would be equally offended if someone had said, “I don’t know how a devout Mormon can be a liberal Democrat.” I have been an active member of the church for more than 34 years.
To the editor:
In my humble opinion, Tuesday’s report on the latest “jobs act” missed an important point. A review of the contents of this relatively short, 50-page bill reveals that this $26.1 billion measure was also funded, in part, by Congress pulling back a considerable amount of money from the U.S. Department of Defense.
The act contains more than five pages of rescinded Defense funds, to include: $17 million for Army ammunition; $21 million for Army procurement of weapons and tracked combat vehicles; $154 million for Army operations and maintenance. On and on to the tune of more than $2.5 billion.
Every service was impacted — the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserves and National Guard. Other government agencies took hits, too. These agencies included the Department of Education and the Veterans Administration.
Is President Obama truthfully our commander in chief, responsible above all else to provide for the common defense of our nation? Or is he our spender in chief, leaving our flanks unprotected?
North Las Vegas