Lee Zeldin's comparison of Donald Trump with Alexei Navalny, Alabama frozen embryo ruling

We know Alexei — Trump is not him

My stomach turned reading about former President Donald Trump’s claims of being treated like the late Russian dissident Alexei Navalny [“Trump is not like Navalny,” Editorial, Feb. 21].

There is no similarity between the two except in his mind. If it were true, Trump would have been stowed in a remote prison ages ago, with minimal contact with the public. There would be no need for a specific charge, a trial and no ability to appeal his sentence. There would be no travel or speeches, and his family would have had to leave the country for fear of arrest. Clearly, there is absolutely nothing equal in their treatment.

Trump’s narcissism leads him to somehow associate his own plight with those who seek to bring progress to the masses. He shows that he cares little for the public, little for his associates and only for his own fame, freedom and money. Let’s just say I wish him justice.

— Lisa Gladstein, Islip Terrace

Unconscionable? Despicable? Deplorable? These are just some of the adjectives that come to mind when thinking of former Long Island Rep. Lee Zeldin’s comments comparing Donald Trump to Alexei Navalny [“Trump as Navalny: Is Zeldin serious?,” Letters, Feb. 25]. Zeldin knows that apparently getting murdered in jail by a dictator who put him there for speaking up for democratic ideals isn’t the same as Trump going through our judicial system in four different states on 91 charges backed by a plethora of evidence.

Obviously, Zeldin must think our judicial system is as amoral and corrupt as his mentor. Our judicial system is based on democratic principles that are admired around the world, and for Zeldin to politicize it is deplorable.

It seems to me that too many Republicans are so fearful of retribution by Trump and his radical followers that they will compromise their own morality to kiss the ring. They lack the courage to do the right thing for this country.

— Barbara Kurek, East Islip

Don’t play waiting game with Putin

Because of Alexei Navalny’s death, the United States is increasing sanctions against Russia [“U.S., EU pile hundreds of sanctions on Russia,” Nation, Feb. 24]. Now? Wasn’t invading and bombing Ukraine more than enough for us to have increased sanctions earlier?

The United States and the West hold $300 billion in Russian assets that can be used to aid Ukraine. Republican gamesmanship is giving Russia an edge that Ukraine won’t survive. We can use Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own money to help defeat him.

Ukraine is taking on an enemy of ours without asking our fighting men and women to take part. So, why are we doling out sanctions piecemeal? What makes anybody think that Russia will stop if we continue not doing everything we can?

Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, and we did nothing. He took Austria, and we did nothing. He took France, and again we did nothing. Finally, we entered a war that cost us more than 400,000 of our armed forces. Had we helped at the beginning of the fight, would the war have escalated?

By helping stop Putin, we help protect our allies and we protect ourselves without American lives being lost.

— Franz Kirsch, Northport

Frozen embryo ruling creates more division

I don’t agree that a frozen embryo is a child, just as a blueprint and a pile of wood is not a house [“Ala. top court: Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ ” News, Feb. 21].

A human blueprint is the DNA in that embryo. The child-building materials surrounding the DNA in those embryonic cells are made from several universal elements.

The creation of life is a wondrous process with those elements providing the gradual nine-month progression from embryo to fetus to baby.

At what point it can be considered a child can be questioned, but a frozen embryo is certainly not one.

— Bill Domjan, Melville

It was with great disdain that I read Arthur Caplan’s guest essay [“Alabama embryo ruling imperils women,” Opinion, Feb. 27].

He says that this ruling bans in vitro fertilization, and it suggests that if embryos are babies, you cannot kill them. If they are as much wanted as the ruling indicates, why would anyone kill them?

Multiple embryos are produced to lower the cost and burden of repeatedly attempting pregnancy. If these embryos are a product of human reproduction, why would you eliminate the mass production to keep the one? Are these not babies or potential babies?

Caplan’s opinion that the Alabama Supreme Court put forward an “erroneous” view of the 17th century is atheistic in the true sense. We are all made in the image of God from conception.

— Anne Marie Brull, Rockville Centre

Arthur Caplan’s essay was most informative. I did not realize the science behind implantation and ultimate birth. I believe his essay should be provided to all Long Island congressional delegates before they get to vote for a travesty bill falsely claiming that human life begins at fertilization.

— Barbara Haynes, Hauppauge

So let me get this straight. The same people who are trying to force a woman to have a child are the same ones who now are trying to stop a woman from having a child.

They should kindly make up their minds about how they want to control American women’s rights.

— Carol Galati, Ridge

If frozen embryos are children, shouldn’t they be taken as dependents on tax returns?

— Rony Kessler, Franklin Square

The Alabama Supreme Court ruling will eventually become the Scopes trial of the 21st century, pitting fundamentalist religion versus science [“Embryo ruling a gross perversion,” Letters, Feb. 25].

— Alan Reff, East Williston