Beware!

Dear Editor:

Beware, the big bad Republicans are at their war of inciting vocabulary. First it was that “arrogant” black man in the White House. Then a few weeks ago it was that “arrogant” junior senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren and her plea for prosecution of the too big to fail banks. Now it is gearing up for the 2016 election, and let’s get the front runner.

After Secretary Clinton’s news conference regarding emails, the Republican line is see how “arrogant” she was talking to the people and the press. You can tell she was lying because she wouldn’t look into the camera. But, of course, she was addressing a live audience, and not necessarily a TV audience and she seem to be quite focused in her news conference to speak to the audience assembled.

But, of course, the congress is all a twitter and outraged that some rule, which wasn’t in existence at the time, was broken by Secretary Clinton. So now Congress is going to investigate “Hillarygate.” They are just sure she has broken the law. But is it not strange that the House of Representatives is not worried about investigating 47 sitting United States Senators for treason and sedition following their letter to a foreign government advising them that a treaty they are negotiating would be overturned by the next Republican executive. Remember the old adage, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” All or none, but I would hate to see those 47 traitors absolved of their seditious crime.

William Rook

Claremont

Government liberty?

Dear Editor:

In his letter of March 13 regarding recently-imposed FCC Internet regulations (euphemistically labeled “net neutrality” by its proponents), it appears Mr. Merrill Ring thinks that liberty comes from and through the government and government regulations; that a handful of government bureaucrats, acting as masterminds, can finally bring us to the ultimate harmony of information utopia—through government regulation. The technical term for that is, I believe, hogwash.

To be blunt, it’s none of the federal government’s business to “maintain the status quo,” as Mr. Ring asserts, nor to do any of the other things he cites, nor to do any of the things in the FCC’s 300-plus pages of new regulations. And, ultimately and conclusively, it is nowhere within the government’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers.

Some may recall that we have a First Amendment precisely to prevent the government becoming an arbiter of information exchange.

Truly, it would be a breath of fresh air if, just once in a while, we would hear Mr. Ring and other like-minded fellow citizens extol the intelligence and capabilities of each one of us, as individual human beings, as individual citizens, to make our own decisions and manage our own lives.

My sincerest wish is that every American citizen would align himself with the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson when he stated, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.”

Douglas Lyon