To the editor:
In his May 26 letter, “Liberal fascists seek to suppress dissent,” Mark Acciard writes meaningless comments that say little or nothing, use the vaguest of terms, lack specificities, and spread broad generalizations.
In his letter, “they” represents liberals but he fails to name one. And the melody continues from there: “They fought for freedom; today they harass, spy upon, investigate and castigate.” Who, what, where and when, Mr Acciard?
Again, nameless, “the very same people” (whoever they may be) “champion the IRS targeting their opponents, for no other reason than they have criticized the president.” Who, what where and when, Mr Acciard?
In his final paragraph Mr. Acciard drops another bomb, tying Hillary Clinton to the death of our ambassador in Benghazi by using the word “murder” to describe death in a terrorist action, adding a more ominous connotation to Hillary Clinton’s name. He then assumes it was on HER failed watch.
My objections to the Acciard letter are the lack of specifics and objectivity and the unproven assumption: “It does not matter that her ambassador was murdered on her failed State Department watch.” Now Mr. Acciard is a mind-reader and psychologist of sorts who knows Hillary’s feeling over a tragic incident.
Mr Acciard often asserts his knowledge of the Constitution but readily ignores the standard of American law. “Innocent until proven guilty” — a bit of advice for all those trying to impeach the president.