- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- Neal Boortz defends Hillary Clinton for representing child rapist
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Top federal judge uses pizza to explain complex Obamacare situation
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Drought-plagued Californians turn to paint to keep lawns green
- ISIL now forcing Iraqi shopkeepers to veil mannequins in Mosul
- 11 parents of Nigeria’s abducted girls die
- Genetic mapping triggers new hope on schizophrenia
- Turkish P.M. Erdogan won’t speak to Obama, but he’ll take calls from Biden
Letters to the Editor
Question of the Day
Those of us who live outside the "logic-free zone" of Washington know who is largely to blame for the country's economic problems ("OPEC strangling American economy," Op-Ed, Friday). It is Congress.
Whether it be a reluctance to drill in Alaska or offshore, which adds to spiking oil prices, or incessant deficit spending, which has weakened the value of our dollar, the American people are the victims.
Congress couldn't fix these messes today if it had a set of instructions.
It is understandable that Californians would like to have Ronald Reagan's statue in the U.S. Capitol's National Statuary Hall ("Out with the old," Culture, May 15) but it is outrageous that it will replace the statue of Civil War hero Thomas Starr King instead of the one of the missionary Miguel Junipero Serra.
After all, Junipero Serra died three years before the Constitution was written and 64 years before California became part of the United States. Moreover, he was a loyal Spanish colonizer. He built a chain of missions in what later would become California - missions that exploited the labor of American Indians.
Americans for Religious Liberty
Barack Obama has disappointed me. I voted for him in the Indiana Democratic primary, but now I understand he is a hypocrite.
On a national television show, Mr. Obama told opponents not to criticize his wife when she says something in a speech that others conclude should be challenged or criticized. However, Mr. Obama doesn't try to stop others, including his staff, when they challenge or criticize something that Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband says when he speaks in support of his spouse. This is a hypocritical double standard.
In the Bible, St. James wrote that "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." I voted for Mr. Obama in the spring. I will not make the same mistake in the fall.
In his letter to The Washington Times on May 20, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. once again shows contempt for the American public's ability to reason for itself.
In his letter, Mr. Biden tries to convince us that Barack Obama's statement of willingness to meet the Iranian government without conditions is less outrageous than President Bush's request that the Saudis increase oil production.
Let's see, talking to Iran, a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, exterminating Israel, and supporting and arming terrorists in Lebanon, Iraq and who knows where else, is less problematic than the president visiting a non-nuclear ally to discuss economic issues?
Mr. Biden portrays himself as an astute, thoughtful foreign-policy expert - but he keeps coming up short on the "astute" and "thoughtful" parts.
I get a kick out of the current trend of Democrats taking the ill-advised statements of their candidate-colleagues and rephrasing them or reinterpreting them - as the good senator tries to do - by claiming that the statement left a "false impression." That's a claim Mr. Obama may be able to make, but unless Mr. Biden is claiming the ability to read minds, we will have to stick with the words, not the impressions.
This is in response to the letter "Judge not, least ye be judged" (May 19). The Eucharist is sacred to Roman Catholics because it is the presence of the living Jesus Christ. It is not to be consumed by anyone whose soul is not in a state of grace, and it is not to be consumed just for show.
For instance, when Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis denied Sen. John Kerry Communion in his archdiocese, the archbishop was not judging the senator - only protecting the Blessed Sacrament from being blasphemed by Mr. Kerry and his long-standing voting record on the subject of abortion and partial-birth abortion. The archbishop was doing his duty as a protector of the sanctity of the Eucharist and the Roman Catholic faith.
Archbishop Burke did not judge the senator or any pro-abortion member of Congress. They have continued to judge themselves by committing a sacrilege when receiving the Eucharist while their souls are not in a state of grace.
Indeed, all the pro-abortion Catholic members of Congress know this to be a fact, so if anyone was "throwing stones," it was these pro-abortion Catholics knowingly throwing stones at the teachings of the Catholic Church to which they profess to belong by receiving Holy Communion as if it were just a mere wafer rather than the body and blood of the living, risen Christ.
The fact that Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl participated in the giving of Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic members of Congress during the recent Papal Mass is, as the writer said, "between him and God." May God have mercy on Archbishop Wuerl.
STEPHEN A. DRAGOS
How is it that false claims about immigrants can distort the national debate, but there is no distortion when we are talking about illegal immigrants ("Distorted debate about immigrants," Letters, Thursday)? When did the NAACP begin to speak for all blacks, when it doesn't? Now, let's really get something straight. I don't appreciate anyone attacking our freedom of speech by way of trying to censor the media or any other group of American citizens who are fighting against illegal immigration and for our country.
John Trasvina of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) never once mentions the term "illegal immigration" in his recent letter to the editor. People continually try to blur the lines when it comes to legal and illegal immigration.
American citizens have had our debate on illegal immigration. We do so every time we raise our voices against amnesty. Black Americans would love to have a debate with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on illegal immigration and how it affects our lives. We want to know why this organization aligns itself with groups that don't really have an interest in black issues. We would ask why it is not working more on our behalf.
It is amazing to this writer that the National Council of La Raza, MALDEF, the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League want to have a discussion about immigration - but the debate is not about immigration because "we are all immigrants."
The debate is indeed about illegal immigration. There is no debate to be had when our First Amendment rights and our country are under siege.
Help Save Maryland
The Capital Area Alliance Against Illegal Immigration
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- Hamas terrorists wear Israeli army uniforms to ambush soldiers in Gaza
- LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- Rep. Jared Polis' anti-fracking crusade riles Colorado
- Rick Perry: County jails in Texas have taken in 203,000 "criminal aliens"
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq