Letters to the Editor

The Soviets’ Nikita Khrushchev threatened to ‘bury’ us? Look around

Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet premier and first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, gestures with his fist to emphasize a remark during his address before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Sept. 23, 1960.
Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet premier and first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, gestures with his fist to emphasize a remark during his address before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Sept. 23, 1960. Associated Press file photo

First shovels of dirt thrown?

Anyone remember when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was purported to have said his nation would “bury” the United States and take it over without a single shot fired? Better pay attention.

Bonnie Hromcik,

Benbrook

Send a message on the shutdown

“A nation of cowards” — Attorney General Eric Holder of the Obama administration described the United States that way during Black History Month in February 2009.

When I heard that, I was incensed. Maybe that was Holder’s intention. But today, it’s taken on a different meaning.

We memorialize Martin Luther King Jr., an American who gave his life for us, while 800,000 federal workers are being forced to do their jobs without pay — again, forced to work without pay. There’s a name for that, and we fought a civil war over it.

The partial federal government shutdown could be ended immediately if we refuse to be “a nation of cowards.”

If federal workers refused to work, it would give the crooks a big surprise. If the rest of us would support them, the crooks would quickly realize they work for us. And the next crook we elect would think twice.

Michael Serrapica,

Cresson

Let’s not follow others’ examples

I have three questions about Bud Kennedy’s Sunday column, “Does the ‘Fort Worth way’ still get results for all?” on the front page of the Local & Texas section.

Does he suggest that:

▪  Fort Worth adopt the “Dallas Way” and its dysfunctional school district and city council, each of which seems to spend more time in the criminal courts defending its members than it does in governing?

▪  “Getting along” through discussion, respect and compromise should be displaced in favor of petty jealousies and political advancement?

▪  The Fort Worth City Council follow blindly behind Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio in dealing with sanctuary cities and their high crime rates committed by people who have violated our immigration laws to come to this country?

Charles Curry,

Fort Worth

Ongoing rule by artificial conflict

Perhaps it’s time we are honest. With regard to the partial government shutdown, there is one person charged with managing its outcome, and that is the president.

Short of the House of Representatives and the Senate voting to overturn a presidential veto, it is he who can change everything immediately — if he wants to.

The president apparently prefers to hold hostages and continue his policy of rule by conflict. Increasing the divide and anxiety in this country is sport for him.

Those who blame Democrats should remember that the Republican-led House and Senate were also unable to pass anything the president would commit to for more than a few hours.

Wendy Stoecker,

Arlington

False choices on sanctuary cities

Let’s talk about what sanctuary cities are and how they work.

First, immigration is controlled through federal law, so local authorities have literally no authority in those matters.

Second, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer request asks authorities to hold people after their release dates, depriving them of due process. Last year, Los Angeles County lost a class action lawsuit based on that principle.

Third, when local authorities are seen as an arm of ICE, the community becomes fearful of reporting crimes — and the bad guys prey on them.

So local officials have the choice of violating individual rights, alienating the local community and risking financial liability, or simply meeting the letter of the law — in other words, sending arrestees’ fingerprints to the FBI. Sanctuary cities do the latter. They cooperate with the feds as required by law, and no more.

Charles Stonick,

Granbury

  Comments