- The Washington Times - Saturday, October 21, 2006

How big?

It’s welcome news that the Institute of Medicine has given fish a clean bill of health (“Seafood’s benefits outweigh risks,” Nation, Wednesday). Most level-headed people have always known fish is a health food, but that hasn’t stopped a host of environmental groups from spinning tales about “toxic” tuna and mercury-endangered pregnancies.

Giving “brain food” the skull-and-crossbones treatment was one of the most irresponsible things the environmental movement has ever done.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Environmental Working Group and Oceana owe the American public a swordfish-sized apology.

David Martosko

Director of research

Center for Consumer Freedom

Washington

Stay-at-home voters

The combination of story headlines on Page 1 on Thursday was fascinating: “Democrats would reverse Bush’s work” and “Conservative voters likely to stay home.” What does this say about the electorate and about the Republican Party?

It says that despite the view of the political elites, the electorate is intelligent. Yes, the Republican Party has done some worthy things, particularly the tax cuts and supporting aggressive pursuit of terrorists. But a Republican-dominated government has also presided over the fastest growth in government spending in our history as well as largest entitlement increase (the Medicare prescription drug benefit).

Add to that a remarkable tin ear about illegal immigration, and we are left with a Republican base that has learned the political equivalent of Newton’s Third Law: For every good action taken by the Republican Party, there is an equal and opposite bad action.

Although the Democrats will be even worse on spending, immigration and regulation than the Republicans have been, the Republicans have not given us a good enough reason not to stay home.

ROSS KAMINSKY

Nederland, Colo.

El presidente

Despite assurances from The Washington Times, I will believe President Bush’s signing the border fence bill when I see it (“Border-fence bill awaits signing,” Page 1, Wednesday). And the legislation’s real status is “murky”? This is starting to stink.

In fact, Mr. Bush is the best president Mexico ever had. He consistently chooses the well-being of Mexican citizens over that of Americans. He has routinely insulted Americans by saying there are jobs we won’t do (which necessitate opening the borders to foreigners), while leaving out the critical phrase “for a living wage.”

Why a man of his power defers to Mexico City is curious, to say the least, but there’s no question that he does. If he opposes Mexico by signing the fence into law, it will be the first time in his presidency he has defied his Mexican pals.

Using trade as a Trojan horse, Mr. Bush is working to dismantle precious American sovereignty and create an EU-like state to undermine our constitutional government (as vaguely underexplained on the government Web site spp.gov).

A fence cutting across Mr. Bush’s new North America mega-conglomerate does not conform to the globalist playbook. So, if the bill somehow gets lost or times out by “accident,” no one who knows this president’s record on borders and sovereignty will be surprised.

DANA GARCIA

Berkeley, Calif.

Appeasement doesn’t work

In her Thursday Commentary “Dialogue is the key,” Georgie Anne Geyer demonstrates the failure of journalists to understand that history is the best teacher. She calls for dialogue as the key to resolving the North Korean dispute, implying that if only President Bush would talk to the North Korean dictator, the dispute (not of our making) would be resolved.

As a true believer of “talk and talk and talk,” she ignores history and broken agreements. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain journeyed to Germany in the 1930s and dialogued with Hitler. He returned to Britain waving a signed agreement claiming peace in our time and that Germany will never go to war with Britain. Shortly thereafter, Hitler signed a treaty with Stalin, only to turn against Russia when it suited his purpose.

In the 1990s, President Clinton was instrumental in dialogues with Israel and Yasser Arafat leading to successive Oslo agreements. But at the same time, Mr. Arafat exhorted his followers to ignore the agreements and continue the war against Israel.

In the late 1990s, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright danced with the North Korean dictator, sealing an agreement calling for North Korea to abandon nuclear power in return for food and oil.

In 1993, Hezbollah attacked Israel. Secretary of State Warren Christopher journeyed to Syria and negotiated an end to the fighting. This agreement lasted until 1996, when Israel was again attacked, resulting in still another U.S. sponsored cease-fire.

In 2006, the negotiated cease-fire was broken by Hezbollah, supported by Syria. Another cease-fire agreement was reached, this time with involvement of the United Nations.

A democracy cannot dialogue with dictators or terrorists and expect to achieve binding agreements. As Chamberlain learned, appeasement simply does not work. Promises and signed treaties mean nothing but create dangerous illusions of peace.

WARREN A. MANISON

Potomac

A righteous democracy

In Rich Lowry’s “Theo-Panic” (Commentary, Thursday), he refers to “the bizarre Christian Reconstructionists who actually want an American theocracy.” This statement indicates very little familiarity with the extensive writings of so-called “Christian Reconstructionists” (CRs).

If the term is being used in this article as it is usually understood in modern times (that is, a kind of “church-state” where “clerics” rule and every sin mentioned in the Bible — and some extrapolated — is punishable by the state), then the CRs are being falsely accused. CRs (according to their own words, in writing) believe in an institutional separation of church and state (though not a separation of religious ideas and public policy) and a maximum amount of freedom consistent with those relatively few laws from the Bible that are actually crimes. This causes some to label the CRs as “quasi-libertarian.” CRs also support the enactment of biblical principles into law through the normal “democratic” processes (within an overall republican structure), not through some kind of ayatollah-like dictatorship.

Critics may not agree with or even like Christian Reconstructionists, and that is their right. However, the critics should at least read the works of the CRs so as not to attack a “straw man.” In short, CRs do not want an American theocracy, as that term is commonly understood. They do want righteous laws and policies based on Scriptural precepts. Is that so bad?

KEVIN L. CLAUSON

President

Patrick Henry Institute

Lynchburg


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