Connect with us

Opinion

Letters to the Editor — Feb. 22, 2021

Published

on

Letters to the Editor — Feb. 22, 2021

The Issue: The death of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh at the age of 70.

I remember where I was when I heard Rush Limbaugh’s very first New York broadcast (“Rush Limbaugh, 1951-2021,” Editorial, Feb. 18).

That’s how much of a transformational figure he proved to be for me and for millions of others.

He renewed an AM radio industry that was in a death spiral. He enabled the burgeoning of a widespread, grassroots American patriotism that had been started by President Ronald Reagan but needed an heir to the leadership position. Rush was always there, year after year.

Rush clearly loved America and its people. Always the gentleman, while he hilariously lampooned the liberal chattering class, his respect for callers was universal, no matter their political slant.

Rest in peace, Rush. I will miss you and your very American sense of fairness and decency.

Vincent Puleo

Staten Island

With Limbaugh’s passing, the voice of American conservatism has gone quiet, perhaps for good.

The fake-news media will continue spreading the vile gospel of the DC Swamp while GOP politicians continue to pretend they’re not just Democrats in bad suits.

With Rush gone, there’s no one brave enough to point out you can’t spell liberalism without “l-i-e-s.”

Pete McArdle

Bethel, Conn.

Thank you for your positive Rush Limbaugh articles.

In the 1990s, when Rush had his TV show filmed in New York, I went to be in the studio audience three times and met Rush personally.

He was extremely cordial, well-mannered, respectful to everyone (audience, staff and television technicians alike) and eminently humble. I was in the audience for his 45th birthday show and also on Ronald Reagan’s 85th birthday.

He preferred honoring others to being honored himself. I have heard Rush described as arrogant and self-absorbed, but if you met him in person like I have, he was anything but.

Chet Jelinski

Whiting, NJ

I was saddened to learn the news of Rush’s passing, a true broadcasting legend and pioneer in conservative radio. As did many others, I grew up with Rush (starting on local media in New York on WABC radio) when I was ducking high school.

I knew at that time, he would be a force to reckon with, and it made me want to go into politics or broadcasting.

No one can replace Rush, nor stop the movement he began. He raised AM talk radio from the dead, brought conservative media into existence, and saved the Republican Party when it was losing its way.

He was a principled, humble and charitable gentleman in his private life, and a fierce lion and defender of American ideals of freedom, less government and the pursuit of happiness. Rush’s talent on loan from God has come due, and paid in full. RIP.

Robert Pearl

Brooklyn

Conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh was a torch of truth who kindly guided listeners through good times and troubled ones alike.

Liberals and the mainstream media will try to diminish, demonize and decimate his legacy.

But “Dittoheads,” with whom he forged a personal connection, knew Rush to be a caring, humble individual who just happened to be a genius and a master communicator.

Driven by his devotion to conservative values, Constitution, and country, Limbaugh was broadcasting almost until his last breath, handling a Stage 4 cancer diagnosis with unparalleled grace and grit, almost daring it to take him down.

While his golden voice gliding across the airwaves is already missed, the legend lives on. Sayonara, Rush, and may the angels guide you home.

S. Silver

Manhattan

The Post has it exactly right when it says that Rush Limbaugh “was an entertainer first, and only then a political commentator.”

Beyond the information one always picked up from his radio show, that’s what made me listen to him over many years.

Donald Nawi

Scarsdale

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

NYC district attorneys’ bogus gesture on subway safety

Published

on

By

NYC district attorneys' bogus gesture on subway safety

The city’s district attorneys say they’ll prosecute spitting on transit workers, but not smoking weed or urinating in the subway — which shows how clueless the prosecutors are about what makes it dangerous underground.

The DAs were showing support for a state bill to make saliva-assaults easier to prosecute. “Spitting on someone is disgusting, especially despicable during this hazardous time where it can lead to very serious health consequences,” said Bronx DA Darcel Clark said.

Clark, Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez and the others want to make spitting or other forms of aggravated harassment against transit workers punishable by up to one year behind bars, with evidence from civilian witnesses (not just cops) being sufficient. It’s an interesting position, after the DAs have done so much to make the subways more perilous.

Asked if the tougher law would bring the mentally ill and homeless into the criminal-justice system, Clark called it a “citywide problem that we need to come to grips with.” In other words, the greater good matters more.

Yet Manhattan DA Cy Vance and most others now refuse to prosecute fare-evaders, arguing that the cost of a MetroCard swipe is too low to justify wasting the resources. Hauling public urinators before a judge is out of fashion now, too.  

Problem is, small disorders beget large ones: Public chaos is an open invitation to serious criminals, and a license to act out against other citizens. As these low-level violations have increasingly gone unenforced and unpunished, commuters have seen the subways (and the streets) grow more dangerous and greater disorder in the system.

The rising number of assaults on MTA workers is just one result — and it won’t actually be fixed by the targeted law the DAs deign to support.

The Transport Workers Union should laugh at this supposed favor: A promise to prosecute one isolated set of crimes won’t reduce the growing dangers in their workplace. For that, they need a law-enforcement system that once again puts public safety first for everyone.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Liberals are pushing us fast back to the bad, old days

Published

on

By

Liberals are pushing us fast back to the bad, old days

When public policies have produced disastrous results, and when alternative policies have resulted in immediate, seemingly miraculous improvement, why would anyone want to go back to the earlier policies?

The earlier policies — a pullback from active policing and certain punishment, an open-handed welfare system providing income for single mothers — were put in place in the 1960s, within living memory of some of us. The intentions were good. It was a time of high hopefulness that America’s shameful history of racial discrimination and mistreatment were over.

The public accommodations and employment sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, controversial when passed, were more successful than even their most enthusiastic advocates dared to expect. The justifiably draconian measures of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 resulted almost immediately in full enfranchisement of black Americans.

Some sought more advances. As violent crime rates rose alarmingly among the blacks who had been streaming into cities for 25 years, prison populations actually declined, and police in major cities were reined in. As national unemployment rates fell, births to unwed mothers and welfare dependency rose. In the decade from 1965 to 1975, violent crime and welfare dependency, both heavily concentrated among blacks, nearly tripled — tripled.

For two more decades, crime and welfare dependency remained at the same high levels, sometimes zooming higher. Only with the work-required welfare reform of Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin and the active policing pioneered by Rudy Giuliani in New York in the 1990s did the numbers come sharply down.         

Left behind were central-city neighborhoods with burnt-out houses and empty lots; empty and bombed-out storefronts; downtowns and entertainment districts abandoned and boarded up. 

Now it looks like we’re starting the same cycle again. The death of a suspect in Minneapolis last May led to a resurgence of Black Lives Matter “mostly peaceful” protests (“mostly peaceful” means “often violent”) and an even sharper rise in murders than after the BLM movement emerged following the 2014 Ferguson, Mo., incident.

Murders were up about 30 percent in 2020. Police departments are being defunded, effective crime-stopping procedures banned, criminal penalties reduced and low-dollar burglaries left unprosecuted.

We know where such policies led before. Is there any reason this time will be different?

Soft-on-crime policies were exacerbated by a surge in the number of children raised without fathers by mothers on welfare from 1965 to 1995. Reform, first by Thompson in Wisconsin and then by Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton in the 1996 welfare bill, required mothers to work.

Social workers’ focus was changed from handing out more checks to helping moms get and hold jobs. The results: Welfare rolls plummeted; teen births plunged; kids raised by working moms did better in school and in life. 

Liberals have tried to stealthily roll back the reforms. They’ve been joined by some cultural conservatives, worried about population decline and eager to encourage potential parents with modest educational credentials and skills.

These include Sen. Mitt Romney, who supports a child allowance that is fully refundable — which is to say that government will send a check to parents, married or unmarried, who have no income-tax liability to offset. His and other proposals have a high cutoff, so affluent parents wouldn’t get anything.

Conservative supporters worry about the nation’s birth rates, sharply down since the 2007-08 financial crisis and even lower in 2020, and point out that many young people tell pollsters they’d like more children than they end up having. The fear is that America would end up like Japan, with an elderly population, a stagnant economy and stunted innovation.

A version of this, limited to one year, has been inserted in the “COVID relief” bill of President Biden’s administration. A single parent with two kids, working or not, could qualify for $7,200 a year plus $6,400 in food stamps. Advocates argue recipients would keep working because benefits wouldn’t be reduced by wages earned.

Mickey Kaus, renegade liberal blogger, argues that that’s nonsense. A “large subset of recipients will go from one worker to zero workers.” That means “millions of kids growing up in fatherless homes, where nobody goes into the labor force, where the mainstream world of employment is a foreign country.”

Past experience says he’s right and that, as with high crime, the people most hurt will be black Americans. I can’t see any reason this time will be different, and I look ahead with dread.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Letters to the Editor — March 6, 2021

Published

on

By

Letters to the Editor — March 6, 2021

The Issue: Gov. Cuomo’s acknowledgment of sexual-harassment claims against him from three women.

In his press conference where he addressed the sexual-harassment allegations, Gov. Cuomo seems to have adopted former President Bill Clinton’s “I never had sex with that woman” approach with his equally ill-advised statement (“ ‘I never touched anyone inappropriately,’ ” March 4).

The Post’s front-page photo appears to clearly contradict that statement, as the governor has a vice-like grip on the throat of a horrified-looking Anna Ruch.

Former aide Charlotte Bennett also contradicts his statement that he was unaware that his behavior was causing discomfort, since she filed a formal complaint with top administration officials.

In retrospect, he probably should have listened to the lawyers who advised against discussing it.

Anthony Scro
Whitestone

Cuomo is a lawyer and was the state attorney general.

In addition, sexual-harassment laws and mandated training have been in place for decades.

For him to claim ignorance about his actions is unfathomable. If anything, his comments reveal that he is definitely unfit as a leader.

Jim Glaab
Elmsford

Cuomo’s “apology,” if you can call it that, was an Emmy-winning performance.

The cracking voice, the manufactured tears and the absurd claim that he didn’t realize his actions would be taken the way they were by the women who were the recipients of his disgusting behavior was nothing more than political theater.

The bigger apology needs to be made to the family members who lost their loved ones as a result of his heinous nursing-home decision. That apology should be made when he announces that he is resigning as governor.

Robert DiNardo
Farmingdale

It’s about time Cuomo gets his just deserts.

While these sexual-harassment allegations are very serious, please do not forget about the thousands of nursing-home deaths. I don’t trust the feds to investigate the “king.”

Thank you to The Post and Bernadette Hogan for keeping his feet to the fire.

Mary Harkins
Manhattan

The expression on Ruch’s face as Cuomo grabbed her head in both his hands suggests that she thought of him as something other than “a cool dude in a loose mood,” as he has described himself.

He claimed: “Sometimes I think I am being playful. I never inappropriately touched anybody, and I never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable.” But one look at Ruch’s reaction makes it unmistakably clear that she felt he was inappropriately touching her, in a way that definitely made her uncomfortable.

Perhaps Cuomo really believes you can fool almost all people almost all the time with Emmy-award winning fast talk.

Julia Lutch
Davis, Calif.

The front-page picture of Cuomo holding this poor girl’s neck is worth a thousand words.

For him to say: “I never touched anyone inappropriately” is just an outright lie — something he excels at lately. This consummate actor, with his phony apologies and crocodile tears, makes me sick and fools no one.

Do you want to know who really is crying? All of the families who lost loved ones last year after his mandate condemning senior citizens to horrific death.

Mike Pedano
South Farmingdale

Cuomo is in a tailspin. He has portrayed himself as hyper-sensitive to women’s issues in the past, when he suggested that then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh take a polygraph to prove his innocence.

He also apparently intervened when he perceived an inappropriate relationship between his daughter and a state trooper.

Add to this writing a book that lauded his leadership skills during the pandemic, along with receiving an Emmy for his televised daily briefings. One has to wonder what his publisher and his adoring fans are thinking now.

Phil Serpico
Queens

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

Continue Reading

Trending