A traitor is a traitor |

A traitor is a traitor

The spring air must be must be interfering with Mr. Bergoich (“The pot & the kettle,” VND, April 3) because he skewed my statements again. When I say organizations like OSHA and the EPA help people, this doesn’t make me a statist.

I’m flattered that he compared me to some prominent government people, especially Sen. McCain. I do not share all of their political views but I do believe in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Snowden is far from being a patriot. Webster defines a traitor as a person guilty of treason or treachery, betraying friends, country, a cause or trust. He did this without a doubt and he was well aware of his security responsibilities and chose poorly.

Now, he ranks with Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Your beloved Comrade Putin would have terminated him long ago. Even your own statements, if made 200 years ago, could be treasonous and, undoubtably, you would have made Sen. McCarthy’s list.

I find it strange that in January and February you were pro-Russia. Now, in March, you are pro-U.S.A. I suggested twice that you move to Russia but now your answer is you like it here because everything is free and, if you go to Russia, you might have to go to work. I would like to think that statement was sarcasm but, if not, it is an insult to battered women, the less fortunate, the sick and the elderly.

If you indeed believe “It’s me if it’s free,” then that’s an insult to every man and women trying to scratch out an honest living. I am glad that we have the freedom to live where we choose because that means we will never be neighbors!

Jack Juris


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.