- The Washington Times - Sunday, January 21, 2007

Red China and ‘free trade’

Finally, it appears that some conservatives are speaking out against President Bush’s policies rather than continuing to cheerlead for him (“Conservatives slam Bush policies,” Nation, Saturday). For six years most of the news media, especially in talk radio, has falsely presented him as a conservative, thus providing cover for his globalist positions regarding open borders and so-called free trade. I am glad Rep. Duncan Hunter is speaking out against both issues, but especially on our China trade policies, which jeopardize our national security as much as our wide-open borders.

Communist China has used our free trade giveaways to expand and modernize their military, including building nuclear-armed submarines, a more robust ICBM arsenal and the ability to destroy our military satellites. Yet the policy of the Bush administration is to continue to encourage our manufacturing, including hi-tech companies, to move to this communist regime. We are not only subsidizing and enabling their ominous military buildup but also weakening ours by depleting our capacity to make goods. This is a suicidal sellout of our national security and sovereignty to reward multinational corporations, and more prominent conservatives need to be speaking out against it.

Mr. Hunter may surprise a lot of country-club Republicans in his presidential run by putting the country first over corporate profits.


Doylestown, Pa.

The Duke scandal

In my view, the greatest long-term fallout of the Duke University scandal will be the exponentially rapid and downward spiraling of confidence of the American peoplein our criminal justice system (“State agrees to take Duke assault case,” Nation, Jan. 14).

The task falling upon the shoulders of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper is not to try the case,but to restore confidence that justice can prevail — no matter the gender or race of the defendant or the accuser.


Professor of Psychology

Florida International University


The futility of force

Frank Salvato’s article, “The war against radical Islam” (Forum, yesterday), almost gets the Islam issue correct, but not quite, because: 1) religion and ideology are not synonymous, and 2) radical Muslims are not necessarily organized. Each imam, in fact, each Muslim, is free to interpret the Koran and propagate his interpretation. There is no central clearinghouse or spokesman, including no spokesman for “radical Islam.” We must question not the ideology but the basis for the religion — in fact the basis for all religious and non-religious ideas of humankind.

The question needs to be raised of every religion: How do you know that your sacred writings are the word of God? Only this question addresses the underlying principle that drives the Muslims in Iraq. Each little band of Muslim outlaws is motivated by the principles in the Koran. By raising this question of every religion and non-religion, we show no prejudice against Islam. We will be seeking the truth about humankind, without coercion, in every case appealing to each person’s intelligence.

We may need first to overcome the false teaching that truth differs from person to person. U.S. citizens who have decided that there is no objective truth have no arguments against Islam. They can at best resort to force. The futility of force is evident in the failure of the United States to extinguish the Mafia, the drug trade and, to date, the Iraqi insurgents.


Oak Hill, Va.

Martinez the wrong choice

Sen. Mel Martinez, in “RNC elects Martinez as head,” (Page 1, Saturday), said, ” I do not support amnesty for illegal aliens.” And he also said, “I do support strong border enforcement.”

Every Cuban who leaves Cuba and enters the United States without a visa is an illegal alien. But, unlike every Salvadoran, Mexican or Honduran, every Cuban who sets foot on American soil is given amnesty.

I have seen no attempt by Mr. Martinez, or any other amnesty opponent, to repeal this law. Apparently, Mr. Martinez’s support for strong border enforcement only applies to those Cubans who don’t set foot on dry land.

Mr. Martinez and others support this type of amnesty because they dislike the government of Cuba. Will they now extend it to Venezuela?




The circumvention of the rules by Robert M. Duncan, Republican National Committee chairman, to establish a new position, general chairman, at the RNC, and have Sen. Mel Martinez voted in to fill that position, simply confirms my prior and future political donation policy. I have always donated funds to individual legislators because I’ve always known that the RNC does not reflect the rank and file of the Republican Party.

According to the article, Mr. Duncan stated hisjob “is not to make policy or headlines but to win elections.”Mr. Martinez supports: President Bush’s wholesale giveaway of American citizenship and Social Security benefits; the sham border security initiative that gives National Guard troops only one authority — to run away from armed Mexican gangs invading American Territory; a belief that American rule of law, sovereignty and territorial integrity are quaint and outmoded principles; and growth of government spending that rivals that of President Lyndon B. Johnson. If hethinks that is how to win elections, he’ssadly mistaken.

While Iraq was the 500-pound gorilla of the 2006 election, that issue is not what caused conservatives to stay home on Election Day. The only Republicans running away from the critical fight in Iraq are the Republican politicians on Capitol Hill with jello knees and spaghetti spines and no sense of history. As President Truman said, “The only thing new in the world is the history we don’t know.”

Now that Mr. Martinez will be, in Mr. Duncan’swords, “the voice of the party,” don’t expect too many conservatives to listen to him, much less follow his lead.



Boxer’s question and FDR

In his letter regarding Sen. Barbara Boxer’s exchange with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (“Boxer’s tunnel vision, Jan. 21), Denis Ables asks us to imagine the senator putting the same question to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Churchill or Lincoln.

To be fair, FDR had no choice regarding war; it was thrust upon him when both Japan and then Germany declared war on the United States. But more importantly, FDR’s oldest son James was a Marine officer already on active duty at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. As Executive Officer of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion, Major Roosevelt was awarded the Navy Cross in the celebrated commando-style raid on Japanese-occupied Makin Island in August 1942. Later in the war, he was awarded a Silver Star while attached to Army forces invading Makin.

Mrs. Boxer would never pose her question to FDR, because it just wouldn’t fit.



Copyright © 2019 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