- The Washington Times - Sunday, February 25, 2007

Americans oppose amnesty for illegals

Charles Hurt’s report on Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain and their favorite pro-immigration lobbyists illustrates these purported legislators’ blatant disregard for Americans — especially citizen workers (“Senate illegals bill near complete,” Page 1, Thursday).

In putting the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, National Council of La Raza and Service Employees International Union above their constituents, they have automatically belied their own contention, “It’s good for the country.”

Americans by more than two to one rightfully oppose huge amnesties (paths to citizenship/permanent residency) and foreign guest-worker expansions that give away their jobs, resources and futures, and instead support immigration reductions such as Rep. Steve King’s attrition-through-enforcement solution.

Government exclusively taking big business’s side on behalf of foreign labor is contrary to our democracy and no one believes amnesties lead to anything besides more amnesties that import crime and poverty at Americans’ expense.

Messrs. Kennedy and McCain — both of whom have atrocious immigration voting records — would do well to remember this. As to the Chamber, ACLU, La Raza, et al., let’s be clear: Given that most Americans want no amnesties, guest-worker programs or visa increases at all, legislators’ prime directive is satisfying citizens. Imagine that.


Lafayette, Calif.

The way to victory in Afghanistan

“Afghan war timelines” by Arnaud de Borchgrave (Commentary, Friday) underlines the dangers to U.S.-led free democratic countries.

President Bush can avoid defeat in Afghanistan only if he stops Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism into Afghanistan. The only way to do it without military confrontation is to hit Pakistan at its weakest point. But for billions of dollars in assistance from the United States and Western sources, Pakistan would be bankrupt.

It does not require rocket science to figure out that making all financial assistance to Pakistan conditional upon President Pervez Musharraf destroying Islamic terrorist camps and logistics facilities in all Pakistan-controlled areas would result in U.S. victory in Afghanistan.

If the United States is defeated in Afghanistan because of its ally Pakistan, American power and influence in the world would decline and every Islamic and rogue country would defy it.



More on the Armenian genocide

The editorial on the Armenian genocide resolution (“Pelosi’s pandering against Turkey,” Tuesday) is off base not only for reasons given by letter writers Jules Boyadjian and Leon Baronian on Thursday, but also based on a previous editorial on the subject dated Feb. 5, 2001 (“Genocidal politics”). In it, President Clinton was criticized for caving in to the Turkish lobby. It said: “This type of Clintonian reasoning is chilling, considering the atrocity in question… At some point, the United States will be pressured to recognize the genocide of the Armenians. The European Parliament, Italy, Belgium, Argentina and now France have already done so. Postponing this acknowledgement after eight decades is counterproductive.”

Believe it or not, not all Armenians (I am one) hate all Turks. I am alive only because of a courageous Turkish lady. She took in and hid the Armenian family next door (including my father at age 5) and saved them from the Turkish soldiers who were killing Armenians on sight in the massacres of 1895. Many Armenians can tell stories of being saved by Turks, though the numbers are small. This was no balance to the destruction of a minority race.

Paid lobbyists, phony journalists, phony academics and foreign governments have no business interfering with the Congress of the United States of America.




In two separate letters, Jules Boyadjian and Leon Baronian express their extreme displeasure with the editorial (“Pelosi’s pandering against Turkey,” Editorial, Tuesday) that opposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to call for a house vote on the Armenian genocide resolution.

Similar resolutions have been brought to legislators here and abroad in the past. Most have been rejected, but more are being accepted by some nations. This is unfortunate, but it shows how effective the Armenian propaganda has been, partially because of the anti-Islam sentiment engendered by Islamofascist terrorism. Nonetheless, the Armenian accusation that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against its Armenian population remains an unwarranted accusation.

The international community adopted the term “genocide” in 1948 because no existing term like “war crimes” adequately described the enormity of the Nazi Holocaust. It takes an enormous leap of faith to describe what happened to Armenians in 1915 as “genocide.” While the Ottomans were at war against the invading Russians, some 100,000 renegade Armenians joined the enemy. The Ottoman government decided to relocate the Armenian population away from the war zone. Thousands died on the long march under primitive conditions. Thousands more were killed by Turks and Kurds of the region in revenge for the Armenian betrayal. There was great concern in the Western world about the suffering Armenians and accusations of “war crimes” against the Ottomans were front-page news.

After World War I, the victorious British and French imprisoned 144 Ottoman officials and high-ranking military personnel and held them for trial in Malta over two years. After extensive investigations, with American participation, all were released because “no incriminating evidence” against them could be found. The British had assigned as the head prosecutor for the Malta trials the respected Armenian scholar of the times, Haig Khazarian. Even this Armenian prosecutor had to agree with the results of the lengthy trials of Malta.


Fort Washington

No security through more violence

In his “An overarching strategy” (Thursday, Commentary) former Adm. James Lyons’ strategy in Iraq means just more killing and animosity for generations. Building security in Iraq will require quite the opposite — limited force applied with justice — best performed by unbiased actors, such as internationally in the United Nations framework.

Most troubling is Adm. Lyons’ suggestion that we fund and equip the Mujahideen-al Khalq (designated a terrorist group, it has targeted Americans in the past) as a means to undermining the Iranian regime. This criminal proposal is a prime example of our nation’s profound hypocrisy in waging a global war against terrorism by funding terrorists. Twenty years ago we created Osama bin Laden by using that same “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” tactic. If Adm. Lyons is looking for a perpetual world war he certainly has a good recipe.

Being “ruthless in pursuing our objectives” got us into Iraq. Getting out will require ruthless honesty about the absurdity of trying to achieve “security” through more violence.



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