I get the best letters …

I get the best letters from readers after a Sunday column. I try to acknowledge all of them, but I know I miss a few. Pro or con, I appreciate hearing from 99 percent of you. (The unbalanced 1% who can’t stop using foul language and racial slurs, well, that’s what the spam filter is for.)

For example, the special column on Christmas Day asking Sen. Harry Reid where Nevada’s "gift" was from his health care "reform" bill produced too many letters to acknowledge. The column was "Drudged" (meaning it was picked up by the Drudge Report) so I received e-mail from around the country. The column itself produced some 500 comments and made for a very interesting discussion board. I am sure the Reid campaign minions were busy keeping up with the commentary from inside the borders of Nevada, as they should. Gents, if the pro-con ratio is any indication of election day come November, you have your work cut out for you.

Last Sunday’s column saying that it is President Obama’s world view and policies on terrorism themselves that make us less safe also produced a fair amount of commentary. I thought I’d share several e-mail letters from readers on that column with one commentary: Some readers thought I called the president and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "unpatriotic". I absolutely did not. As the column clearly stated, I think the president’s world view and his brand of political correctness make us less safe. He personally, I am sure, wants to keep us safe. But left to his own liberal devices, his tendencies to appoint incompetent political wards (like Napolitano) to posts of key national security, coupled with his desire to treat terrorists like criminals in need of a public defender instead of enemy combatants in need of GITMO, inherently make us less safe. He has produced from the top a thinking that identifies less with the effective security measures of the Bush Administration (which wasn’t perfect, BTW) than it does with the terrorists.

I’d refer you to this blog item over the weekend for this distinction. You might also take a quick look at this blog item, which I hope is a sign of change within the Obama White House.

Anyhow, I do get the best letters. Get some!

Dear Mr. Frederick:

Continue with your excellent commentaries. I want the heat to be on our current leadership until they are sent packing. Alternate your articles on the administration with your info on "Uncle Harry." They are deserving of all the critical remarks that can be mustered.

L. W. Benafield

Dear Mr. Frederick:

Just read today’s column in the LVRJ and wanted to thank you for speaking frankly and honestly about the failing non-action of the Obama administration to keep us safe from terrorists. Keep it up. The world needs to hear this over and over again to comprehend that their precious Obama is not the man who should rule this country.

Elizabeth Jex

Dear Mr. frederick:

Great commentary !!!

Back to basics. A war on terror is a war against terrorism no matter the source. In war-time there is no room for rhetoric. Based on my experience as a combat infantryman during WWII, you kill or be killed (General Patton’s truism). Emphasis should be placed on the oath of "…protecting the USA against all enemies", I botched this phrase but the meaning is clear.

I’m with you four square on your beliefs re your viewpoints and the USA. Please keep up the good work.

Thank you.

Tony Stephen
Las Vegas

Dear Mr. Frederick:

Thanks for another great article. And your closing sentence speaks for so many of us out here. Someone call the town hall meeting and I will be there!

James Edwards
Jackson, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Frederick:

This is the first time I am commenting on one of your weekly screeds. I have often disagreed with your views (though not always).

This one, I could not let pass.

I found your argument yesterday to be hysterical and unworthy of a patriot. We need more courage than I am seeing from the ‘conservative’ side in US politics. I lived in London during the IRA troubles and was almost the victim of two different bombings on visits into Europe. So I know something of how a mature society deals with terrorism. The Brits and Europeans held firm, kept their institutions intact and dealt with the scoundrels. There was little of the hissy-fit reaction that we are seeing in the US now.

But that would not be enough to prompt this note. What did, is your smear on the patriotism of our President. When you speculated that the President (and DHS Sec’y Napolitano) " . . . identify . . . with the radical Muslim terrorists" you crossed a line into demagoguery and smear tactics. Fair enough to criticize their performance in office, but you went further to smear their motivations. That is just disgusting to me. You are sounding far too much like another cleric who wandered into politics, the infamous Father Coughlin of 1940’s radio.

Let’s also recall when the infamous ‘Shoe Bomber’ tried a similar attack some years ago. Your hero G.W. Bush took six days to say anything (as opposed to Pres. Obama’s three-day hold, last week). I don’t recall you going all hysterical and nasty over that delay by Bush, so the hypocrisy of this tirade looks even worse, in comparison to your own prior reactions.

From reading your columns for several years, I realize that you have very fixed notions and will probably not change. I think you owe both our President, and Sec’y Napolitano apologies for your smears of their patriotism.

Very sincerely,
Kevin Greene
Las Vegas

Dear Mr. Frederick:

Your tragic fear-mongering and politicizing a national security matter is insulting to the country. You assume thoughtful person cares what you say. Your remarks about the President’s affiliations and affinities are unpatriotic if not worse. When did you become an expert on national security issues? Yellow press led by people like you, Glen Beck and Rush attempts to resurrect an era in journalism that is an historical shame. Did Bush and Cheney make the country safer by illegally invading Iraq on false pretenses, missing the intel on so many matters including 9-11, ignoring the growing threat in Afghanistan for 7 years and on and on. Why not ask Colin Powell or Richard Clark about their views, though they’e no Sherm Fredricks.

The last idiotic, sad but almost laughable analogy is you propping up a Hollywood movie character, Col. Jessup, as a model. Have you even served in the military in a position of responsibility and authority? Ask the military about this Hollywood character. Let’s recall he ignored orders of his superiors and caused the death of a young Marine. He then engaged in significant criminal activity, cover up and perjury in an attempt to send 2 innocent young Marines to prison for life for following his orders. Who "can’t handle the truth" and have the courage to bear the consequences of their actions? I know my family with distinguished military service would cheer that this SOB is "going to prison," ( I believe Tom Cruise’s last words to him). Please print this along with your CV reflecting your background on these crucial issues.

Marty Greer

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

You May Like