Editor’s note: Our audience had some things to say about Rachel del Guidice’s account of what she saw at the recent LGBT pride parade in Washington, D.C., and on Fred Lucas’s reporting on the official review of the FBI’s treatment of Hillary Clinton. Those responses dominate this week’s collection of views. Be sure to write us at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: Rather than get into a discussion of the moral qualities or lack thereof that might exist in the participants in the parade covered by Rachel del Guidice (“I Went to DC’s Gay Pride Parade. Here Are 9 Things I Saw”), I would like to talk about the prevailing sense of disrespect that this movement embodies.

I have found in my life that you cannot bully your way to being granted the respect you seek. In fact, the harder you to try to force this, the more resistance you will receive.

What this points out is that these people of the LGBT pride movement are aching for a fight. Whether it is some perceived injustice or an actual one, they have an in-your-face attitude that really is off-putting.

Why would anyone who is desirous of social acceptance assume a stance that is sure to polarize if not antagonize the people they meet? I would think that this tactic is bound to fail.

I tend to believe that the pride movement has assumed its agenda will not be willingly accepted. I am assuming that their agenda is social acceptance.

Perhaps they are seeking reparations for past injustice. That is not going to work, but if that is their aim so be it. You cannot force people to condone behavior they do not support or approve of themselves.

I know that if you want respect you have to stop disrespecting the people from whom you wish respect. I think the greatest resistance to the movement is that people see much of the public attitudes and behaviors as being inappropriate, and even more so when children are present.

As a parent, I would prefer my children not be exposed to certain aspects of human behavior when they are pre-teen. This movement has to remember it represents a tiny fraction of the society. If they make up more than a percent or two, I would be amazed. If this movement is really such a small minority, demanding respect and protection is a difficult thing to get.

If the pride movement is seeking to shock the rest of us with displays of their preferences, they have succeeded. Shocked we are. Now, how is acting in such a disruptive manner going to help their cause? It isn’t.

I will leave this issue with the same question that I asked already: How do you, as the pride movement, expect people to respect you if you offer none in return? I believe this one answers itself.—Glenda Goode

I find it interesting that those who claim they are oppressed, discriminated against, and victims of society become the oppressors and biased as soon as they feel they have any “power” to do so.—Jim Southern

 ***

Rather than anecdotes, I’ve yet to see a serious analysis of how representative the “gay pride” parades are of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in general.—Sandy Kramer

***

Most gays do not behave like the fanatics. My gay friends and family are horrified by their behavior.—Cheryl Deta

Just the concept of a “gay pride parade” suggests there is nothing about homosexuality to be proud of. Pictures from the parade make it clear just how degenerate this corner of American culture has become, with no societal restraints permitted.—Breck Henderson

***

One only has to attend a gay pride parade to see just how sick and perverted the LGBT community is. Just look at them. They don’t even care what they do in front of children.

The Bible tells us that it’s a choice, and what we are seeing proves that point. No city or country has embraced homosexuality or sexual perversion and survived.

Scientists and historians all know that Sodom and Gomorrah were real places, destroyed by extreme heat. You can mock God if you wish, but God will not be mocked.—Johnnie Simpson

***

When those in the gay community treat others with ugly disrespect, they shouldn’t be surprised by the response.—Sandra Holstein

***

It depresses me that young children are being exposed to all the sexual fetishes at this parade.—Denise Matzavinos

***

So sad. Delusional fascination with such little wisdom or concern for nature. The evolutionary cul-de-sac continues.—Jared Shahan

***

I do not feel I have anything against the folks who are openly gay,  or anyone with different beliefs than I have. But some of this stuff in the D.C. “pride” parade is vulgar and unbecoming.

They seem to want to be outcasts and they sure show it in this parade. Why not just live normal lives and do normal things? Be Americans and work together for the good of all.

With vulgar actions, some set the example for what folks do not want to see. Shape up if you want to be considered anything other than what you symbolize in this parade.—Pamela Caskey

Tucker Carlson’s Take on Donald Trump

Dear Daily Signal: Thanks, Tucker Carlson, for your absolute candor (“An Interview With Tucker Carlson on What Makes Trump a ‘Political Genius’”). I agree with you a lot, though not all the time. Our current political climate is disgusting and mostly due to the elites in D.C. who don’t want to empower the American people. This equates to more power for them and less freedom for us.—Helga Miller

***

About Rob Bluey’s interview with Tucker Carlson: In just months, President Trump has shown that he will go down in history as the greatest president this country has ever known.

Even better than Ronald Reagan, who this writer considers one of the best.

And just for the record, it is God who put President Trump there. It is written in Daniel 2:21: “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.”—Peter A. Sarjeant

***

This is excellent. After eight long years of Mr. Empty Man and the successful Clintonectomy, we now have a president who is genuinely proud of America and being American. And he is apologetic to no one for either.—Bob Alexander

How the FBI Pursued the Clinton Email Scandal

Dear Daily Signal: It’s sad, is my reaction to Fred Lucas’s report on the inspector general’s findings (“‘A Cloud’: 4 Top Takeaways of Watchdog Report on FBI’s Clinton Email Probe”). The deep state says of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok: “Sure, he hated the president, but there’s no written evidence he actually did anything biased.”

Kinda like when a Mafia leader brags, “Nine indictments, no convictions!”—Robert Arvanitis

***

It’s time for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to cowboy up and fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, and all who were involved at the top of the FBI and Justice Department. Convene a grand jury to prosecute everyone involved.

If the FBI agents who took freebies from journalists were rank and file, they already would have been outed and fired. But this is all seventh-floor swamp rats. They all deserve to receive the maximum sentence for their corruption.—Jim Scofield

***

Whitewash, smoke and mirrors, coverup. No justice for America; the deep state is still active. Subpoena the field agents and appoint a new special counsel.—David Shultz

***

The Feckless Bureau of Inquisitions is the perfect arm of our banana republic shadow government to protect their own swamp creatures and exact punishment on anyone outside the swamp, i.e., Americans.

It’s time to reset the federal govrenment that hijacked our country long ago.—David Gray, Houston

***

I disagree that the value of prosecuting Hillary Clinton would matter only to those who are political opponents (“5 Key Questions Inspector General May Answer About Clinton Email Probe”). As a former holder of a security clearance, I took the documents indicating the penalties for disclosing classified information very seriously.

Clinton’s insolence will lead to further breaches and only can weaken the country’s security. Her actions should be punished, just like with any other citizen.—Brian Grammer

***

I’m completely on the outside, and this is only an opinion. It appears that those doing the FBI’s Clinton investigation included a few needing to be investigated. This investigation should be in federal court, in front of a jury. A real jury.—Phillip Bryant, Nashville

***

If one of us did the things the FBI agents are accused of, and if a common citizen did the crimes Hillary committed, we would be prosecuted. This is a great test of the fairness of our judicial system.—David Johnson, Denver

***

Legit FBI agents more than deserve a platform to expose the evidence they uncovered that would have led to Hillary’s indictment, if not for their boss who let her off the hook after they knew they had her.—Pat Toms

***

Bribery cuts both ways, as Fred Lucas’s story on one of the inspector general’s revelations indicates (“Sports Tickets, Other Freebies for FBI Leakers Raise ‘Bribery’ Issues, Legal Experts Say”).

Arrest the so-called journalists who were handing out bribes and the FBI agents who were accepting those bribes. If an indictment can be obtained, prosecute. Why should the left be exempt from questionable prosecutions?—Dave Hunter

***

Those who took bribes must be stripped of their retirement benefits and prosecuted.—Pablo Jay

***

Shut down the FBI right now. It has been nothing but a political organization since its inception. End it.—Andrew Stern

The Summit in Singapore 

Dear Daily Signal: Regarding the podcast interview of Bruce Klingner, The Heritage Foundation’s expert on Korea, by Katrina Trinko and Daniel Davis, I ask how you would compare this start to any other start in the past 30 or 40 years (“U.S.-North Korea Summit a Disappointing Start to Negotiations”)?

How many billion dollars did Trump pay to meet? How many key terrorists did he trade for a traitor?

How many additional nukes will North Korea have after Trump told the dictator what is going to happen if North Korea tries to expand their arsenal?

No other president has even come close to what has transpired in the short amount of time Trump has been involved in this affair.—Donn Lee Steuck, Sherry, Wis.

***

Anyone who has ever negotiated for anything as mundane as business insurance knows there has to be a starting point. And the president should be congratulated for that. Even you people seem to want our country to fail at everything. Give it a rest.—JaNelle Kappel, Holland, Mich.

***

This president could balance the budget, eliminate our national debt, and end poverty and crime and violence in our neighborhoods, and the liberals would still try to find something to denigrate.

I have no great love for this or any previous administration. I do not trust the North Koreans. But give the man his props on this.

If Hillary Clinton were president and did this, there would be liberals literally worshiping in the streets. Give the process a chance and let’s see what happens.—Larry Miller, Philadelphia

***

I usually appreciate The Daily Signal, but two articles criticizing the summit are more than absurd. We are all aware of the challenges—human rights, etc. I have followed the North Korea issue for many decades. I am saddened that you folks seemingly have fallen prey to the mainstream media and the establishment critics more than I realized.—Mike Cloncs

***

First president to meet face to face with North Korea. I guess it’s disappointing because he didn’t drop the sanctions. And have a B-52 carry a plane full of cash to Kim.

That’s the way all other administrations have done it in the past. Attack President Trump all you want. But time will tell.

If Trump says it went well, you will have to trust what he said. And stop second-guessing him. Until it’s proven differently.—Butch Jolly

***

Nothing stated by the president suggests that the U.S. will take any actions to give relieve to the North Korean government until complete denuclearization occurs.—Bob Reichert, Punta Gorda, Fla.

***

About Fred Lucas’ report, “6 Big Questions About What Comes After the Trump-Kim Meeting”: Exclude Congress! They’ve had 30 years to do something about North Korea. They have earned the scorn.—Mike Croslin, Carterville, Ill.

***

Democrats, liberals, and the mainstream media would have been kissing Barack Obama’s feet if he had met with Kim Jong Un.—Allan Richardson, Derby, Kan.

***

Trump nominating himself for the Nobel Peace Prize because he had a photo op with Kim Jong Un? Because that’s what it’ll amount to. Trump has as much as said so. “Don’t expect too much,” he said.—Edward Buatois, Cleveland

The Attempted Massacre of GOP Lawmakers, a  Year Later

Dear Daily Signal: In Rachel del Guidice’s story on the one-year anniversary of the congressional shooting, Rep. Mike Bishop says he still can taste the dirt in his mouth (“1 Year Later, Lawmakers Who Were There Reflect on Ballfield Shooting and How It Changed Their Outlook”).

I know because after more than 40 years, I can still taste the dirt of Vietnam in mine and relive those times. It is something you never forget.

The thing here is not the gun but the person behind it. No new or existing laws will prevent a shooting.

People have to have a different mindset. Bad and deranged people will always find a way to kill.—Michael Hayes, North Carolina

***

Does anyone else want to join me in making the case that behavior has to change? We seem to have generations who feel that it is OK to engage in violence should you not get your way. We are seeing this throughout society.

Several Republicans are not running for re-election, citing threats to their families. This is way beyond un-American.—Joan Gibson

Upholding Religious Freedom in the Wedding Cake Case

Dear Daily Signal: Emilie Kao provides a very interesting explanation of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Christian baker Jack Phillips (“Why the Supreme Court’s Ruling for a Christian Baker Was Not ‘Narrow’”). Well worth the read.

Regarding “crying wolf,” I have often said the same about sexual abuse and harassment claims. The plethora of phony claims just to get attention diminishes the valid claims and raises the bar on the burden of proof for legitimate victims.—Joan Bacigalupo Murphy, Ellington, Conn.

***

It was only “narrow” to the agenda of the LGBT individuals who do not want religious people to have equal rights. The ACLU is usually on the wrong side of traditional Americans.—Hollye Adkins Holmquist

***

There’s no such thing as a “narrow” decision from the Supreme Court. Conservative-leaning lower courts will apply the ruling as precedent, while liberal-leaning lower courts will not.

This is the kind of opinion that only can lead to future cases and conflicting decisions from different courts. At some point the Supreme Court is going to have to address the central issue.—Dewey Brown

***

This gay couple could have shopped at that bakery all day long for doughnuts, pastries, and cookies and such. But a special order for something that goes up against our very beliefs is something else. So no, the bakery did not ban them.—Janice Sternik

***

“Narrow,” “wide.” I bet the Christian baker doesn’t care what they are calling it.—Jim Cornell

Jeremiah Poff helped to compile this column.