Letters to the Editor, May 14

May. 13, 2014 @ 12:40 PM

Truth shall rise up

How dare racists and history revisionists like tea partiers, Cliven Bundy, Laura Gutman , Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney continue to spew their immoral, fearful speeches (havoc wreaked upon African-Americans by cradle-to-grave government dependency, being takers, and our having no work ethic).

Any government dependency by us is what the government takers owe my ancestors for 300-plus years of enslavement with no wages. These crumbs we are dependent upon already belong to us.

Those with no work ethic and dependency are the past slave owners, their descendants and the government which allowed and profited from free labor and illegal, inhumane conditions inflicted upon my people. Who were these "God-fearing" people and programs who also decimated and stole from the Native population? They are the ones still dependent on government programs/laws which allow devious profitability to continue in 2014.

If present day racists want to determine who the real takers, criminals and government-dependents are, just take a close look in a mirror and then continue to search backwards for at least six generations.

The truth crushed down shall rise up again!

Wilma Liverpool

Durham

The issue at hand

It didn’t take very long for a liberal apologist to spring to the defense of his heroes in the wake of the announcement of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi tragedy. Ted Reuter took on the challenge in The Herald-Sun May 11 and as usual with liberals he gets the issue at hand all wrong.

As in the instance of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, where liberals distorted the issue and made it all about the defense of the president’s sex life, Mr. Reuter tries to make the case that the Benghazi investigation is about a simple embassy attack. 

In the case of Bill Clinton the issue was really about Clinton’s inability to tell the truth, both to a grand jury and to the American people. He committed perjury in his attempt to cover up his extracurricular activity and that was the issue.  When he was inaugurated, Clinton swore before the American public that he would uphold and enforce the laws of the land. He failed by lying and he should have been removed from office.

In the Benghazi incident our president and our secretary of state both lied to the American people and to the families of the four Americans who were killed about the cause of the attack and in their claim that they would bring the perpetrators to justice. 

They failed to provide adequate protection and twiddled their thumbs while the attack took place. Then they lied. 

That is the issue at hand, Mr. Reuter.

Jamie Huff

Oxford

Benghazi was different

Ted Rueter's Sunday Letter to the Editor overlooks two important reasons why Congress should investigate the ""scandal" of Benghazi.

The attack itself is not the reason for the investigation.  The investigation is necessary to find out (1) why repeated requests by ambassador Christopher Stevens for more security at a very susceptible location were denied and (2) why the administration continued to say that it was not due to Islamic terrorists, but due to some obscure video.  Neither of these factors was present, I believe, at the embassy attacks when George W. Bush was president. 

The Benghazi embassy should have received priority security considerations in spite

of previous budget cuts because of its location. And all available evidence indicates the

video was blamed for purely political reasons because President Barack Obama had previously been claiming that Islamic terrorism was essentially defeated and to admit that it was a terrorists attack would look very bad in the upcoming election. 

The Obama people elected to lie for purely political reasons and that is a very important difference from the other attacks that needs to be exposed.

Dennis House

Chapel Hill