Thanks for telling Fred's story

Dear Editor:

I was so happy when my wife called me and read the story about Fred's return ("Thanks to you, Fred's home," AFN, March 19).

I work in an office building at 45th Street and Chandler Boulevard. One day last week I heard honking and screaming going on outside my office window. I looked and saw this little fur ball running across traffic on a very busy Chandler Boulevard. I zoomed out of the office and joined the chase. I ran for about four blocks, following and hoping he wouldn't run back across Chandler Boulevard. But he did, and Fred continued on back behind Starbucks.

A guy pulled up that had been chasing Fred in his car. To be honest, the guy was kind of spooky and drove even crazier. But for the sake of little Fred I got in and we drove on. We spent 30 minutes combing the back roads to no avail.

For the next number of days I would take a drive back around that area on my way home from work. I found Fred's little "Lost Dog" poster blowing around at Pecos Dog Park and I called the owner's number off the flier. The news was still gloomy.

I don't know why, but I couldn't stop thinking about this little dog and that's why I just wanted to write to say thanks for publishing the story of his return.

Tim Hadlock


Just hammer home the basics

Dear Editor:

The powers-that-be in Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano and our elitists "educators," think that the cure for students' poor mathematics skills is to add more Algebra.

I'm delighted to note that a presidential panel recommends "Hammering home the basics, such as addition and multiplication, and then increasing the focus on fractions and geometry..." just as I have been harping about for years.

"There is, I think, a tendency in American curricula to cover too many things too shallowly," said Larry Faulkner, the panel's chair.

Jim Thompson


You decide

Dear Editor:

Allow me to respond to the letters written in response to my initial letter on the "Protect America Act" from Mr. Day and Mr. Collins (AFN, March 5).

First, I would to thank these gentlemen for their response, this is an important dialogue that needs to begin and I look forward to it.

Let us be very clear about what exactly the failure to renew this act does to America's security.

On Aug. 3, 2007, the Democratic-led Congress passed this bill 60 to 28 and 227 to 183 in the Senate and House respectively. The law allows our intelligence agencies to listen in on terrorists' conversations overseas without going to the FISA courts to get a warrant. In other words, those in favor of this law don't believe that Jane and Joe Jihadist are deserving of the same privacy rights as American citizens.

This is reasonable, as I believe that James Madison and our forefathers never intended to extend the Constitutional rights we enjoy to foreign terrorists.

Not even all of our citizens have their full constitutional rights if they have committed a crime or are not of the proper age for certain rights and, yet, Democrats want to grant those rights to terrorists who seek every advantage in their quest for our destruction.

Now, let us suspend reality and assume for a moment that President Bush and his telecommunication cronies get some sort of sadistic gratification out of listening to suspected terrorists' phone calls overseas and are not really trying to protect us from the bin Ladens and Zarqawis of the world.

Continuing our surreal unreality, the Democrats in Congress who were for this bill before they were against it are simply trying to preserve the Constitutional rights of people whom the United States Constitution doesn't apply to, non-Americans.

Now, for those of us who don't live in Neverland, a more sane analysis of this situation would reveal to us that Democrats in Congress won't even allow this bill to be formally debated or voted on because they know how backwards and intellectually bankrupt their views on it are, and God forbid the American people are made aware of their unbridled stupidity.

The fact of the matter is that the same liberal Democrats who granted this capability to our intelligence agencies in 2007 (and for good reason) now seek to hang American telecommunications companies with the very law they approved by overwhelming margins.

Allow me to translate American telecommunications companies to a term that may be better understood by liberal Democrats:American jobs. That's right, American telecommunications companies employ Americans, and when the liberals on Capitol Hill try to grant ambulance-chasing trial lawyers the ability to sue our companies blind, the result will be Americans losing jobs.

It is important to remember the major differences between the two sides on this bill; those in support of it want to debate and vote immediately while those who oppose it refuse to have a debate or a vote, quietly letting precious intelligence slip away in the name of trial lawyer lobbyists.

Now, I am certain that I will be accused of being a patsy of the evil American telecommunications companies who dare to employ Americans and assist in our national security efforts when called upon, but let's remember that I am the one calling for a debate on this issue, while the Democrats seek to squelch the discussion.

You decide.

Dan Jones

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.