Letters To The Editor
Letters to the editor: Don't revive draft
Don't revive draft Regarding "A troubling military gap" (Our Views, June 8): In reply to the editorial staff's request to debate the issue of reviving the draft, Congress rescinded it in 1973, probably because the country was in turmoil over the Vietnam War. In spite of Charles de Gaulle's warning to stay out of Southeast Asia, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and we were involved. JFK sent 1,500 advisers, LBJ and Robert McNamara escalated the war and Nixon was able to wind it down and end it. He was admonished by Joseph Alsop, a prominent journalist, for his decision to remove troops from a ridge overlooking the previously massacred city of Hue. That is when I got involved. Like so many, my patriotism was 110 percent during my enlistment in World War II. However, I was fiercely against this so-called "police action" from Day One in Vietnam.My neighbor's husband, a colonel in charge of an F-4 Phantom jet fighter squadron, came home and said it was like boxing an adversary with one arm tied behind your back. I sent a lengthy letter to the Trib, and the paper printed every word: "Young draftees were sent over there against their will to a limited type war." So, please, let us not revive the draft. Bob Zander TampaExercise in sabotage I am always amused by the few liberals who try to defend the IRS on the tax-exempt targeting issue by claiming they were acting with a necessary caution. First, they always bring up the Citizens United decision, which makes no sense since it had nothing to do with any increase of conservative grass-roots groups. And the amounts of corporate donations involved in that case go to huge super PACs and large national organizations, not anything small local groups that were being targeted would receive. They also like to imply that the (c)(3) and (c)(4) rules say there can be no political activity when it is allowed but limited, and they can't endorse a candidate for public office. So if the IRS was concerned about an applying group doing excessive political actions after receiving an exemption, then they should either have denied them or flagged them for a future audit to see if they are complying. What they should not have done is keep them hanging for a few years while bombarding them with intrusive and inappropriate questions ≠- especially only conservative organizations. But, of course, that's exactly what the IRS did because it was all an exercise in sabotaging U.S. citizens engaged in constitutionally protected opposition to the Obama administration. Anyone who defends those who tried to stop this does not understand what this country is all about. Chris Scaglione TampaArm of political party Regarding "Maybe IRS was right" (Views, June 9): The theme of Alvin Wolfe's letter completely misses the point. Americans have no problem with the IRS going after tax fraud or investigating the tax-exempt status of an organization. Everyone should pay his fair share of taxes. However, when the IRS or any other department of government acts as an arm of a political party, that is terribly wrong. The obstacles the IRS put in front of groups requesting tax-exempt status because of ethnic, religious or political beliefs were purely political and had nothing to do with their applications. The fact these groups had political views opposite of the current administration was the reason for the harassment and intimidation. And don't believe the story that this was caused by some IRS field offices, as that is ludicrous. Kenneth R. Lowe Sr. Sun City Center Try different news source Wolfe can only be an unabashed liberal Democrat. What Wolfe (and most liberals trying to defend the IRS) fails to state is that there were no unabashedly political groups from the liberal side of the spectrum that complained or were delayed, though quite a number were funded by George Soros, a very wealthy billionaire ultra-left-wing ideologue. Media Matters, a very liberal organization, has the same tax-exempt status that the IRS has been stonewalling organizations with "tea party" and "patriot" in their names for more than two years. The fact is that most tea party groups being continuously delayed are not wealthy, but small grass-roots organizations. Wolfe concludes that the IRS must be trying to do something right. I suggest Wolfe stop listening to CNN and CNBC for his information and try a fair and balanced network to learn what oppressive tactics this administration has taken to silence anyone who believes in a different political viewpoint. There is in my mind no question that this came down Charles "Chuck" Salzmann New Port Richey Whose side are they on? Seems some of our representatives have a problem with the word "constituents." I always thought that meant the legal, tax-paying, voting Americans who live in their district. Now it seems to some of our representatives that this now applies only to illegal aliens who steal jobs and welfare, vote illegally and can walk freely into any representative's office to complain about how badly they are being treated. Like, how dare Gov. Rick Scott veto legislation that would have allowed some young immigrants to get a driver's license! How dare we say "no" to any "criminant." And just why are our representatives violating federal laws to aid and abet them? I have a suggestion: Why don't we require all of our representatives to call ICE before sitting down with "criminants"? Then, when ICE arrives, our representatives could explain just how our laws work and the correct process for immigrating to the U.S.A. Craig R. McNees Tampa
The Daystarter: Roy Moore wonít concede Alabama Senate race; ex-Tampa police sergeant learns fate; older Americans take too many unneeded pills; Raysí dilemma: Retool or rebuild?