- The Washington Times - Monday, August 9, 2004

Premature labels

This is in response to Kevin Jennings’ July 30 letter (“A gentleearandahelping hand”) asserting that his GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) organization ensures that homosexual students are not harassed in schools.

The fact is that teen-agers’ same-sex attractions do not automatically mean that they are homosexual. Many teens gothroughtemporary episodes of idealization of same-sex peers and should not be urged to prematurely label themselves as homosexual as GLSEN encourages them to do.

For those teens who do actually show gender-identity confusion, professional gender-affirming therapy is available. Most parents hope to maximize the likelihood of their child growing up to be heterosexual and comfortable in claiming his or her own masculine or feminine nature.

Teens have the right to be presented with all options. But instead of presenting all of the facts on sexual orientation in a fair and balanced manner, GLSEN encourages confused and impressionable youth to immediately self-identify as homosexual and thus ensure a future homosexual outcome. Is this what our children deserve?


Executive director

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays

Fort Belvoir

Missouri and marriage

Being a Missourian, I find it quite amusing that Cheryl Jacques, president of the nation’s largest homosexual-activist group and a non-Missourian, finds herself an expert on Missouri and Missouri politics (“Missouri vote sparks action by gay activists,” Page 1, Thursday).

She blamed the traditional-marriage amendment on President Bush, saying it was his effort to “distract Missourians from the fact that the state has lost almost 80,000 jobs in the past 3 years.” There are several flaws to this viewpoint.

The first would be the simple fact that Missouri legislators decided to bring the issue to voters in the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Court overturning a law banning same-sex “marriage” there.

Yes, there is a marriage law on the books here, but we all know it was only a matter of time before someone challenged it. The amendment now makes it clear, it is not unconstitutional in Missouri to ban same-sex “marriage.”

Secondly, it seems that Ms. Jacques is guilty of the very thing she so barrenly accused the president of: using the jobs issue, in her case to detract from her obvious contempt that the majority have spoken, and loudly.

The fact remains that Missouri has lost many jobs because of our governor’s blatant ignorance on how to create them. The recession hit Missouri harder, not because of the president’s policies, but because of Gov. Bob Holden.

He refused to ease regulations and lower taxes on small businesses as incentives to create new jobs. That’s the truth. I know because I lived here, worked for a small business and lost my job.

For haughty out-of-state people to pretend they know more about Missourians than the stubborn mules born and bred here is laughable at best.

Their views, along with their unabashed support for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, have assured the president of a landslide here in November.

Missouri is an election battleground state no more.


Ozark, Mo.

Among schoolchildren

Regarding Brian DeBose’s “Kerry pans president for staying with tots on 9/11,” (Page 1, Friday): I remember where I was on September 11; does Sen. John Kerry remember where he was? Mr. Kerry said on Thursday, “Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, ‘America is under attack,’ I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it.”

What was Mr. Kerry doing to protect America while he was being evacuated from the Capitol? He wants us to believe that, had he been president, he would have run into the nearest phone booth and changed into his superhero outfit and saved the day.

But, the truth is that no one, other than the people on those planes, could have done anything. In a little more than one hour, the damage was done.

Yes, President Bush was reading to schoolchildren when he was told that “a second hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center.” Instead of frightening those children and scrambling out of the school, he elected to remain calm and continued reading for about five minutes. During those minutes, the president’s staff made arrangements to secure the chain of command and prepare for the president’s departure. Mr. Bush calmly said thank you and goodbye to the young children and then went to the other classroom to do what needed to be done.

What would Mr. Kerry have done in those initial minutes that would have changed that day? Unless he possesses the power to turn back time, the outcome would have been no different.


Public affairs associate

National Center for Policy Analysis


Sen. John Kerry’s comments regarding President Bush’s actions on September 11 only adds to the ever increasing body of evidence that shows he is not the right man to be president of the United States.

His lack of understanding of the totality of the presidential role, his pandering to the radical left and his callous disregard for a commitment made to a group of children make it clear that compassion and the grasp of issues and circumstances in context are not Mr. Kerry’s strong points.

It is quite obvious, however, that Mr. Bush, by fulfilling a commitment to read to a group of children, did not in any way harm or fail in his duty to the United States. And while most people would have understood had Mr. Bush immediately left without reading to the students, it is clear that the president found five minutes with a group of children a “sacrifice” he was willing to make for his country.

Look at this picture. Now who is the compassionate candidate?



Less is more

In “Jitters over Yukos” (Editorial, Thursday), you state that the Russian government has “antiquated ideas about safe production levels,” and imply that things would be better for everyone if they pumped their oil faster using Western techniques. The Russians have it closer to right than you do.

Western techniques don’t put oil where nature didn’t already put it.

Pumping more now by necessity means pumping less later.

As the world’s thirstiest oil consumer, we think that more now is better.

We are wrong. More now means a higher peak of global oil production followed by a steeper decline. National interest, whether Russian or American, would not be well served by climbing to a high peak of oil production followed by a steep decline. A low peak with a slow decline would help us to avoid economic disruption.



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide