'Activists' and police
Regarding the Sept. 1 front-page article "Officers earned activists' respect:" Our police deserve our highest respect, and they have already earned it by their sacrifices for our community every day. Activists should not attack others physically or verbally. The Tribune article elevated these so-called "activists," who spit on people, yell at people and destroy property.
How many millions of dollars were spent for security?
Our brave Tampa police officers' actions should be commended and serve as a blueprint for future events, but many Americans are convinced these "activists" only want violence in the streets.
I am a longtime Tribune subscriber and couldn't agree more with Gus Lloyd's letter published Monday ("Blood on hands," Your Views).
Although I have enjoyed many of Joe Henderson's and Steve Otto's touching stories over the years, I have been disappointed in the articles they write that leave no doubt about their political leaning. The latest example is Henderson's recent article about Planned Parenthood.
With the RNC in town, there were so many subjects they could have covered, but they spent the entire time writing derogatory articles about the effects on the public, traffic and security. These two are not published in the editorial section of your newspaper, and I think the Tribune should advise them to keep their politics in check in the articles they write.
Finally, in response to Glen Copeland's letter about Pam Bondi spending time away from Florida on the taxpayer's dollar ("Bondi's politics," Your Views, Sept. 3), the current president and vice president have spent much of the year away from Washington campaigning on the taxpayer dollar while yet to set and pass a budget or bring other important legislation to a close.
I've just seen the most comical of all the campaign ads this season. It's the one where they quote the "nonpartisan" AARP. "Nonpartisan"? I almost fell off my chair laughing.
We are speaking about the group that supported Obamacare, right? They should change their name to AARUD — American Association of Retired Union Democrats.
This senior citizen quit them long ago.
Two recent letters to the editor touted the ability to discern political fact from fiction by using "respected search engines," including PolitiFact.com.
Caution should be exercised when using these so-called fact-checking organizations as the final authority on any subject matter. These fact-checking entities themselves have come under scrutiny, and their credibility is questionable.
PolitiFact.com is, of course, a creation of the Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper widely know for its liberal leanings. Using its sophomoric "Truth-O-Meter," Politifact.com claims to be able to judge the accuracy of political statements.
When the fact-checkers are checked, they have been shown to be espousing opinions rather than facts.
R. J. Klein
I found the letter from the Rev. Kim Wells troubling ("Respecting human rights," Your Views, Sept. 2).
I suggest the reverend read Exodus and the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." It does not state except in the case of rape or incest. "Terminating the pregnancy," or abortion, is the killing of an innocent life that has no blame for the act that conceived it. The reverend can sugar-coat it, but it is still the killing of an innocent baby.
If limiting the option of abortion is demeaning and degrading to the woman, how much more so is it to the baby? How much more can you demean or degrade a baby than by killing it?
On page 10 of the Sunday Tribune was a story on the sentencing of a Mississippi man to one year's probation for killing a bald eagle. Shouldn't a human life be more precious and more valuable than that of a bald eagle?
Charles J. Garcia
Rich man, poor man
Walter Williams' article "The rich don't pay enough?" (Other Views, Aug. 29) emphasizes the point that the rich pay the majority of all federal income taxes. When the top 5 percent of taxpayers earn 37 percent of the income and pay 61 percent of all income taxes, it is readily apparent that "tax the rich" is more about dividing the USA than it is about taxes.
The fact that Mitt Romney paid 14 percent, or $2.8 million, in taxes is lost on the more than 40 percent of USA wage earners who paid zero income tax and may have even collected an earned income credit. They are being taught to believe they have some sort of entitlement to the income of citizens who struggled and sacrificed to achieve success by believing the rich did not earn their money or build their businesses. These statements are aimed at dividing the USA into a caste society.
This administration feels it must emphasize every avenue that creates a selfish envy among half of America in order to gain favor with the electorate by offering greater entitlements taken from the rich.
The point lost here is that every time this happens there are fewer rich to tax. The rich can afford to live in luxury in an overseas tax haven.
This exodus of American wealth has escalated during the present administration. Small business owners must cut the labor force and benefits to pay the higher taxes, and jobs are lost.
The rich man and poor man share the same government services. Each should pay at least some token amount.