Here is my thoughts on the USE OF THE WORD “REDSKIN” as published in the Washington Times on Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Washington Times, The (DC)

Redskins furor is a government creation

October 7, 2014
Section: Letters
Byline: By    THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Redskins name controversy is another example of political correctness causing divisiveness (“FCC will consider petition to ban ‘Redskins,'” Web, Sept. 30). The government is not addressing racial tension; it is creating it. I have represented American Indian clients and been awarded honorary American Indian status. I have heard American Indians use the word redskin as a descriptive, not a pejorative. There has been use of the word in tribal mottos and American Indian enterprises. It has appeared in movies and cartoon without any protest of which I am aware. I cannot recall an instance where the word was used in private conversations in a derogatory manner. Historically, there has been racist imagery of American Indians, but the words “Indian” or “redskin” were not racially charged names, no more so than “whites” and “blacks.”

New derogatory implications are the creation of government in the name of political correctness. Once government led the charge, the liberal sycophants joined in. American Indian groups, whose members never complained before, suddenly protested under government encouragement and sponsorship — although others defended the name. The press, which used the word innocently for generations, jumped on the bandwagon in the spirit of pseudo-enlightenment. Now the federal government again wants to take a bite out of the First Amendment and ban the word.

I say, “Go, Redskins.”

LARRY HORIST

Boca Raton, Fla.

My view on Obama’s dubious war authority as published in the Palm Beach Post on Sunday, September 28, 2014

You can see the online article here.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/point-of-view-waging-new-war-under-iraq-authorizat/nhWkN/

Point of View: Waging new war under Iraq authorization a sham

If you want to know why there has been no war authorization from Congress, look to the Democrats and election politics. While President Barack Obama said he wanted congressional participation, he did nothing to gain it. In our system, presidents come to Congress to request a Declaration of War and Congress votes.

Obama did not do that. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could have conducted a vote if Obama had just picked up the phone and requested one. To avoid the Republican-controlled House of Representatives from sending a war authorization bill to the Senate, Reid put the upper chamber in recess, effectively preventing any congressional vote before the election. It is now obvious that Obama was disingenuous when he claimed to want congressional participation.

Informal head counts clearly show that a request for war powers would have passed with overwhelming Republican support. On the other hand, the Democrats are split on the issue. With part of Obama’s political base vehemently opposed to even a clearly defensive war, a vote in support of the president’s action would likely further damage Democratic candidates, especially in those all-critical Senate races.

Rather, the Obama unilateral action relies on improper use of the original Iraq War authorization of more than a decade ago. It is no small irony that the past votes of people like then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are now part of Obama’s rationale — even though they later regretted their votes.

The dubious use of the previous war’s authorization is another abuse of power necessitated for solely political reasons. The Obama approach is neither good warfare nor good governance.

LARRY HORIST, BOCA RATON