Regarding "Above the law" (Your Views, July 7):
Above the law? That's President Obama, not Gov. Rick Scott.
For all those residents who are having a cow over Scott's statements that he will not (in the future) enforce Obamacare, get over it. Where is your anger over Obama's public announcement that he will not enforce all our immigration laws — that the president will ignore portions of the immigration laws he disagrees with and implement his own law? How about his direction to Attorney General Eric Holder not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?
You have a chief executive of our country flagrantly doing the very thing you accuse our governor of. Obama picks and chooses which laws he will obey. Try to at least be consistent.
Thanks, Gov. Scott
I've noticed for the past week or so that many letters complaining about Gov. Rick Scott pointed out his decision to deep-six the high-speed rail project in Florida. For a real eye-opener, go to: http://www.capoliticalreview.com. You'll discover how much the rail project is going to cost the taxpayers of California. It's in the billions and billions. The cost projection per person for traveling from Bakersfield to Fresno, a distance of 125 miles, is going to be $100. If that's a bargain, the Los Angeles Times doesn't think so, and neither do the people of that state.
I think Scott did us a big favor.
Obamacare tax appetizers
Why is there a debate about whether Obamacare is a tax or not? Not only did the Supreme Court rule that it is a tax, but funding Obamacare leaves no doubt. There will be taxes on all Americans beginning in 2013. Obama tax appetizers include the following:
Additional taxes associated with the law will be implemented through 2018.
Most polls show that a majority of Americans oppose this law. As the details for funding become available and our health care delivery changes for the worse, I imagine more will dislike this monstrosity. Now that Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats passed the law in a partisan and underhanded manner and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, take her advice and read it to know what's in it.
The article in the Sunday Views section, "Beware negotiating with the Taliban," by Jay Hood was very disturbing. I read it again, once again in total amazement at the audacity of President Obama and his administration thinking the Taliban really wants to negotiate with the United States (or anyone for that matter) and that releasing any one of the five terrorists now locked up at GTMO is a good thing!
There's even history there, with the freed Mullah Abdul Qayyum Zakir (aka Abullah Ghulam Rasoul) in 2007. As the article stated, since his release from GTMO and his release in Afghanistan without trial or even a hearing, he has returned to fight. Zakir's efforts have caused "hundreds of American, Allied and Afghan Security Force deaths, with thousands wounded." And Obama is thinking of doing this?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that anything we do in the direction of releasing even one of these terrorists just convinces the Taliban that we are weak. The Taliban aren't interested in negotiating at all with anybody under any circumstances. I would hope that Obama and his administration don't plan to make us look weak and, most importantly, would not purposely put our fighting men and women in harm's way by releasing these killers. But it sure makes me wonder.
Thanks to retired Army Major Gen. Jay Hood for his warning about freeing these five evil individuals who were captured for their terrorist actions. Under our rules and laws it would be sufficient to sentence them and carry it out as we did against Osama bin Laden. Should they be released on a midnight ride, wouldn't it be strange and coincidental that none arrived at their given destination?