- The Washington Times - Thursday, April 5, 2007

Sexual predators

Finally, it seems that the Maryland General Assembly is headed in the right direction for stricter laws regarding sex offenders.

There are other guidelines that can be implemented to help bridge some gaps. The Adam Walsh Act would not only help fill in these gaps, but would also provide a monetary bonus for the state. We hope that the Maryland General Assembly will keep moving forward in a positive direction for strict laws and guidelines for sex offenders.

Still, we are fighting in North Carolina for Jessica’s Law as well as the Adam Walsh Act. North Carolina has 111,000 children yearly reported “abused” and “neglected.” Presently, 10,000 registered “sex offenders” move to new addresses or jobs daily. Children, women, elderly, incapacitated and handicapped people are especially at risk from sexual predators (“Assembly bumping hard calls to 2008,” Metropolitan, March 27). North Carolina is no different; we have a large numbers of registered sexual offenders.

We hope that North Carolina lawmakers will take a stand for tougher laws against those who prey on children. This past year, we voiced our outrage to North Carolina lawmakers for failing to provide stricter laws against sex offenders.

Our children should not be used as Democratic or Republican leverage, and our lawmakers should not allow politics to get in the way of protecting our families. Hopefully, our state lawmakers will heed the call and pass the Jessica Lunsford Act for North Carolina

Individuals who commit sexual crimes against children need incarceration or strict, comprehensive monitoring. Often, administration officials have failed to let law enforcement know of the placement of paroled sex offenders in their communities, allowing violent sex offenders to go free and not providing mandatory hearings or stricter penalties for noncompliance.

Over the past several years, I have given time to push for tougher laws regarding sex crimes, especially sexual predators. I have worked with sexually abused children and have seen the effects. The soul is amputated and takes a lifetime to repair, if ever.


Charlotte, N.C.

Habla Espanol?

Tony Blankley’s “Newt, bilingual ed and the PC police” (Op-Ed, Wednesday), is correct in supporting Newt Gingrich’s opinion that immigrants are best served by an education system that emphasizes English immersion and American history. This approach will certainly help them to become an integral and productive part of our society faster.

However, on the same token, it is vitally important to underscore the need to recognize that our children are at a competitive disadvantage in our global economy because our education system fails them badly by ignoring the need to learn foreign languages at an early age when the human brain can best absorb them.

In Sweden, for instance, English education starts in the third grade and another foreign language elective is offered when students reach the sixth grade.

In our country, considering that Spanish is spoken by the largest number of people in the Western Hemisphere as a primary language, it would make sense to make it part of the grammar-school curriculum.

This is not a politically correct issue; it is simply a practically correct issue in a global economy where our clients south of the border are overwhelmingly Hispanic.



Faith and free speech

The article “4th-grader wins rights case” reports that a federal judge intervened to protect the free speech and equal protection constitutional rights of a fourth-grader who ran into the fabricated “wall of separation of church and state” when she tried to share with classmates a card describing her own faith in Jesus Christ (Web site, Wednesday).

Unfortunately, discrimination against religious faith in educational institutions extends well beyond the fourth grade, including bias in medical school. Anecdotal accounts of such discrimination range from quietly rejecting prospective medical students who profess a personal faith or a belief in creation to censoring medical professors who hold religious views.

Because religious discrimination, like other forms of discrimination, typically involves hidden motivations and subtle pressures that are tough to prove in court, unchecked bias can spread like cancer in educational institutions.

Scientific educational institutions — especially those with a politically correct compulsion to artificially divorce faith from science — can be natural breeding grounds for anti-faith bias.

As medical student Brett Whistler noted in an e-mail to me, “There is a gross misunderstanding in our society that is permeating into our profession through medical schools that unless you conform to politically correct behavior, you are being unprofessional and should be expelled from the profession.”

Dr. Pat Marmion, a physician fired after giving a presentation to colleagues on abortion complications, laments in a similar e-mail, “Being pro-life is not politically correct, and [for us], directorship of departments, fellowships and similar positions are out of the question.”

Occasionally, emboldened perpetrators of anti-faith bias slip up and provide enough substantive evidence to investigate and prosecute. Such proved the case with a Texas Tech University biology professor whose medical school recommendation policy required his students to affirm a personal belief in evolution. Only when the U.S. Justice Department investigated complaints that the policy constituted religious discrimination did the intolerant professor back down.

In March 2007, the Department of Justice launched a new initiative, the First Freedom Project to “strengthen enforcement of laws against religious discrimination and hate crimes, and other laws protecting religious freedom.” If the accounts coming out of medical schools are any indication of religious discrimination in education, the department will have its hands full of cases to prosecute.


Vice president

Government relations

Christian Medical Association


Exonerate CO2

If April1 hadn’t fallen on a Sunday, the Supreme Court decision of April 2 to consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant might have been taken as an April Fool’s joke (“Court hands ‘greens’ 2 big wins,” Page 1, Tuesday). This is a bad joke indeed, because it can spell the end of Detroit and the decline of American industry generally — with incalculable consequences in both domestic and foreign policy.

How did we get there and what can be done?

Massachusetts et al sued EPA to regulate CO2 emission from automobiles. But instead of defending vigorously by showing the lack of evidence for CO2 climate effects — and indeed citing the counter-evidence — EPA produced only some mealy-mouthed, generalized statements about scientific uncertainty. Well, that’s not good enough.

The Justice Department didn’t distinguish itself either. Plaintiff’s legal “standing” hinged on a flawed affidavit whose science was never challenged. The affidavit was given by a scientist who worked for a major environmental advocacy group — an obvious conflict of interest — and gave his opinion about the future instead of citing facts. On top of all that, his predictions were well out of line with “mainstream” science — as presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But all is not lost. EPA still has a chance to exonerate CO2. The evidence is clearly there — in an official government report to which EPA contributed — but can they connect the dots? It’s a matter of competence. And the affidavit could be challenged — on the basis of the 2007 IPCC report.

If the feds mess it up, the economic consequences could be dire. A future president might appoint another Carol Browner to be EPA administrator. Even a Republican president could choose another Bill Reilly. EPA would then use its discretion to try to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and set emission standards for cars and powerplants. America would then become a country of windmills and Toyotas, as prosperity goes down the drain.



Science and Environmental

Policy Project


Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide