The Sunday article “Drunks drain city coffers” clearly shows that it is a toss-up whether drunken drivers or pedestrians cause the most deaths, and that to raise the fees on alcohol would not stop or hinder the number of street drunks.
Better to fine the people who give street beggars the funds to go the nearest liquor store to buy their alcohol, and also the stores that sell alcohol to drunken street people, just like the bars who pour drinks to intoxicated patrons.
With a deepening recession, there likely will be found more beggars and drunkenness on the streets, making it less safe for the other pedestrians.
Frank Norton, San Francisco
Wrong approach to border
Let me see if I have this right: President Barack Obama is using our money to sue Arizona for doing the feds’ job of securing the border.
Obama wants to go to court to insist that it is the federal government’s job to seal the border and that it refuses to do so, so the U.S. will not let Arizona do it at its own expense. He admits that he will take no action until he can ram through Congress a complete immigration bill and he needs open borders to create an emergency to get it through.
He is refusing the good in order to hope for the perfect. It would seem a more prudent course to seal the border first to create an atmosphere of considered and reasoned debate for the formulation of a proper bill.
James Keefer, San Francisco
City vs. federal law
President Barack Obama said he is suing Arizona because he doesn’t want states to interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Arizona simply said that it will follow and enforce federal laws.
There are many cities and states that are sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. That, to me, interferes with federal enforcement. However, cities like San Francisco, with laws that contradict federal laws, are immune from Obama lawsuits. Go figure.
This only serves to underscore Obama’s duplicity and deception. We have a leftist liar now posing as a president.
Adam Sparks, San Francisco
Death penalty a must
It is outrageous and disturbing that, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may not get the death penalty if he pleads guilty before a military commission.
As far as I am concerned, he is a war criminal (the U.S. always says it is fighting a war on terrorism) and should be executed if convicted. If being responsible for killing nearly 3,000 innocent people doesn’t get you the death penalty, what will?
It seems that terrorists sometimes receive more rights and protection than American citizens themselves.
Kenneth L. Zimmerman, Huntington Beach