- The Washington Times - Thursday, March 15, 2007

The Second Amendment and freedom

Like all supporters of the right to own guns, Tim Dudenhoefer bases this right on the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (“Guns and the Second Amendment,” Letters, yesterday).

But it is obvious that this means that because it was paramount at that time to have a group of people ready to withstand surprise attacks from diverse groups of armed aggressors (including the English) it was necessary for the citizens to have weapons near them.

But times change and the “well regulated militia” is now the National Guard supported by the police and the U.S. armed forces. There is absolutely no need for the old-style militia. The Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to bear arms was to arm the militia, a fighting force. To say that in this modern civilized society it gives the right for all citizens to carry guns is manifestly wrong and results in the United States having 117 guns deaths for every 1 death in Japan, where gun ownership is not permitted.


Harrow Middlesex, England

Problems in Mexico

It would appear that Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan have finally found the answer to their problems. It is not found in blaming the rest of the world but rests squarely on the shoulders of the Mexican government that for centuries has failed to use the country’s resources and manpower to benefit the masses instead of themselves (“Mexico warns jobs key to halting illegals,” Page 1, Tuesday).

Mr. Sarukhan, however, still wishes to blame the immigration polices of the United States for Mexico’s failures. Despite massive economic aid, hundreds of factories and hundreds of thousands of American jobs, our neighbors south of the border still can’t get it right.

The root cause of Mexico’s problem has not changed and will never change as long as they speak in terms of migration instead of immigration. They never mention that by crossing the border illegally their nationals have broken their laws as well.

Mexico will always be involved in an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the United States no matter what we offer. They have no desire for social reform in their own country as long as we have fifth-column politicians in the United States who would rather pander than fight.



Maryland and capital punishment

Thank you for addressing the repeal of Maryland’s death penalty (“Senator to save death penalty,” Metropolitan, yesterday).

Maryland has executed 71 violent prisoners since 1930; 68 of them between 1930 and 1967 and three of them between 1977 and 1999. I take comfort in knowing we did not use lethal injection before 1967.

With statistics like these, it is no wonder the death penalty has not been a deterrent in Maryland or most other liberal states. Why do Maryland Democrats want to protect violent criminals like John Couey who rape and murder our children? Why is it that Maryland Democrats do not want to pass Jessica’s Law and favor lighter sentences and rehabilitation for this scourge? Why do Maryland Democrats want to support and protect terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who just confessed to killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and personally beheading Daniel Pearl? Why is it that Maryland Democrats want to protect violent criminals who kill our police officers in cold blood from the death penalty, but hypocritically only support it only for corrections officers and prison staff? Are our children not good enough? Are the citizens not good enough to be protected? Are our police officers who risk their lives daily protecting us not good enough?

It is obvious rehabilitation is not the answer, as a great percentage of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. If anybody needs rehabilitation in right and wrong or the difference between good versus evil, it is the Democrats of Maryland. The only solution and deterrent is an archaic and productive death penalty.



Moral decline

Thanks to Cheryl Wetzstein for her excellent article “Americans see media aiding moral decline” (Page 1, March 8), which included the suggestion that the cultural left in America could be a primary cause of Islamic anger toward America. Someone finally noticed the elephant in the room.

The article includes mention of Dinesh D’Souza, the author of the new book “The Enemy at Home, The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.”Mr. D’Souza states on his Web site that the cultural left, which includes members of both major political parties and their allies in the press, academia and the nonprofit sector, has “fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world, that are being overwhelmed with this culture.”

So, how do these societies deal with the incessant stream of this material that flows from America and Europe over the airwaves, including the Internet?Perhaps they feel that the only way to stop it is to bring down those that create and send it, as they tried to do by hitting our financial district in New York on September 11.

It also provides a possible glimpse into why the imams in America do not more actively speak out against the war against America. Many imams speak against the violence, but you don’t hear them speak against the movement to bring down our declining culture.

Many religious and conservative groups in our society are also saddened and concerned about the direction of our country and its cultural moral decline. Mr. D’Souza speculates how interesting it would be if the cultural conservatives in America, in all their different forms, “joined with Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values and then work together to halt the spread of such things.”

However unlikely this partnership might be, can you imagine what would flow forth from the cultural left should this alliance take root?



Twisting Justice Thomas’ words

Clarence Page (“Colorblind in his own mind,” Commentary, Wednesday) extols the Rev. John E. Brooks’ efforts to cast a wide net in recruiting students for Holy Cross College when he was the academic dean there and concludes by saying that Justice Clarence Thomas “has no intention” to do the same thing in his own recruitment of law clerks. But Mr. Page’s only basis for this conclusion is that Justice Thomas was unapologetic during congressional testimony that his clerks happen to be white males: “I don’t have quotas.” There is no inconsistency between taking steps to ensure that you have the widest recruitment pool possible, on the one hand, and refusing to use quotas or preferences, on the other.



Center for Equal Opportunity

Falls Church

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