- The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Afghan persecution

Thank you for bringing the plight of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who faces death because of his conversion to Christianity, to public attention (“Afghan man faces death for Christian conversion,” Page 1, Monday). The situation detailed in the article is particularly egregious, as the lives of so many U.S. servicemen and women, many of them Christian, were sacrificed to free Afghanistan from the oppressiveness of the Taliban. In turn, the current government in Afghanistan sees fit to use its power to persecute an innocent man because he will not renounce his faith in Christ. Unbelievable.

OLYMPIA FAFOUTIS

Severn, Md.

In defense of Bush and troops

From the Democrats’ despicable behavior, one would think President Bush started this terrorist war against freedom (“Political offensive targets Bush,” Page 1, Saturday). The Democrats have been so unpatriotic as to ignore the war on terrorism and stick to their usual muckraking politics and obstructive behavior. To listen to the Democrats, one would think there are no serious attempts to murder innocent U.S. citizens anywhere in the world. They carry on as if all is well in the world…

Mr. Bush has had to fight enemies on two fronts: foreign radical terrorists and domestic political terrorists. He won’t say that, but I will.

What does it take for U.S. politicians to rally around our flag and support a president who has been confronted with a new threat at least potentially as lethal as the Cold War or World War II? Can so much hate for one individual account for their actions? Are they incensed because the country is more conservative than socialist and liberal? Why are they skirting on treasonous acts?

There comes a time in a nation’s history when political labels must be put aside.. There comes a time when the sword must replace rhetoric; all patriots must be willing to fight for our freedoms and right to life; and King’s Mountain, Brandywine and other well-known Revolutionary War battles and the sacrifices of those who died and suffered must mean something.

Why are the Democrats attacking a president in his second and final term in office? Why are they attacking a president who is doing everything he can as commander in chief to defeat an enemy who freely murders innocent people in the name of religion? Are the Democrats so intellectually bankrupt that they have no clue and no solutions or plans to achieve anything but the defeat of Mr. Bush’s efforts to defeat terrorism and continue the financial well-being of the country? Where is their plan for our country’s domestic security, economic well-being and success on foreign battlefields?

I fail to see how the Democrats can win any election by attacking, obstructing and criticizing anything Mr. Bush or Republicans say or do. It would be folly to elect candidates who have no plans to move our country ahead. Apparently they feel the voters are gullible to their obstructive and destructive guerrilla tactics to wrestle Congress and the presidency away from the Republicans. Why indeed?

AL BARRS

Greenwood, Fla.

I wish to voice my opinion about the critics of the Bush administration and the war on terror in Iraq (“Political offensive targets Bush,” Page 1, Saturday).

The Democrats and left-wing critics of our president and the war are irresponsible in their repeated damaging criticism of his administration and the conduct of the war in Iraq. There is no doubt in my military mind that Osama bin Laden will be found in due time.

Our mission over there is not a failure, but it was and is a success, keeping the U.S. safe from another September 11-type attack masterminded by bin Laden and his al Qaeda cohorts. Domestic surveillance is the right thing to do, and the Patriot Act is the law of the land.

The mission was accomplished, as we took down Saddam Hussein and there has not been another terrorist attack in this country since September 11, 2001, thanks to the great leadership of President Bush. We should support our president and the administration, the conduct of the war on terror and our brave troops in their valiant effort for a final victory over the insurgency and the terrorists who remain to be hunted down.

As a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars who was recalled for Operation Desert Storm in 1992 with a Pentagon assignment, I fully support the president, the administration and the conduct of the war in Iraq today and in the future.

AL EISNER

Wheaton

Guest-worker wages

In a March 15 letter to the editor, “Immigrants and wages,” Stuart Anderson attacks my report, The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers — F.Y. 2004, published by the Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org). In this study of applications for foreign guest workers on H-1B visas, I found employers were making prevailing wage claims that averaged $18,000 a year below the actual prevailing wage. H-1B worker wages averaged $13,000 below the prevailing wage, and the majority of H-1B wages were in the 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

Mr. Anderson calls my research “questionable,” claiming that employers actually pay H-1B workers 22 percent more. To back up this assertion, he cites data taken from an unnamed law firm for unnamed employers, for an unknown number of applications and for unnamed occupations. In contrast, to get my results, I used the employer-certified disclosure data that Congress mandates must be provided to the public in order to monitor the status of the H-1B program. If the data is a problem, perhaps Mr. Anderson will join my call for better data collection and reporting in the H-1B program.

To support his characterization of the H-1B program, Mr. Anderson cites one report that did not measure H-1B wages and another from the Atlanta Federal Reserve from which he judiciously cuts and pastes to make his point. Yes, the report does say the H-1B program does not have “an adverse impact on contemporaneous unemployment rates,” as Mr. Anderson quotes. However, on the same page the report says some results “do suggest a positive relationship between the number of LCA applications and the unemployment rate a year later.”

What Mr. Anderson is telling us is that we shouldn’t look at the available data showing disturbing trends in the H-1B program because hidden somewhere in there is data showing all is well. The reality is that my study joins a long parade of reports documenting problems in the H-1B program and there are more disturbing results yet to be published.

JOHN MIANO

Summit, N.J.

A parking solution

The District Department of Transportation is vexed on how to deal with the long-standing policy on Sunday parking near places of worship (“DDOT forbids double parking,” Metropolitan, March 14). Illegal and double parking prevail on Sunday, typically in the mentioned Logan Circle area, but the solution may be more feasible than what you reported.

What has happened to the typically healthy person’s ability to walk, if only from a Metro or bus stop? Is mass transit or walking such anathema to these people that only their private autos provide salvation? Washington is blessed with moderate weather conditions, and a stern commitment to use alternate transportation can easily bridge the infrequent occurrence of inclement weather.

Parking has evolved into the untenable problem of simply too many autos. The solution should be addressed from none other than the pulpit. Auto ownership has taken monumental dimensions, and only sobriety and the willingness to “bend” can provide us with a respite to this problem.

EDWARD ABRAMIC

Washington


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

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide