- The Washington Times - Thursday, September 13, 2007

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

American fairytale

As Customs and Border Protection El Paso field office Director Luis Garcia advises agents “to limit inspections of vehicle and pedestrian border crossers as wait times escalate” (“Border checks limited to speed traffic,” Page 1, Friday), the Security and Prosperity Partnership globalists are aiming this month to integrate America, Canada and Mexico.

While we’re busy pretending to have a border, let’s imagine an attack on a fictional country led to a trumped-up war. Let’s also pretend the country’s leader opened its borders to millions of unchecked aliens, illegal and criminal alike, meanwhile spying on citizens.

Supposedly that would be for the free movement of goods and people across borders and the protection of the country from terrorism. That’s funny — terrorism is neither a place, a thing, nor, even, a certain person or a known set of persons. And spying on citizens while aliens freely come and go?

The leader, dissatisfied with following the country’s laws and highest-court rulings, makes new regulations saying he can ignore the old ones whenever he likes, while touting the country’s freedom and democracy.

What a strange place.

Even people who know better go along, as if they have turned into robots. Pretending, you know.

It gets stranger still.

The leader continues to be unhappy with the country’s Constitution and insists that being the ruler of the land entitles him to end its sovereignty by agreeing to merge it with other countries. Change democracy at will? So then we’re pretending he’s busy with his ruler friends making a new world order subjugating its citizens’ self-determination to a trilateral council. It has a long name — the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

That North American Union, courtesy of our old evolution-by-stealth alliance — President Bush and Congress.

Through pretending?

M.L. PINKARD

Lafayette, Calif.

Chertoff on sanctuary cities

For years, House Republicans have railed against local law enforcement policies that encourage immigrant victims and witnesses to report crimes to the police.

They say these policies provide “sanctuary” for immigrants here illegally and dismiss the reason why police support them in the first place.

When local cops pledge not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses, they encourage people to report crime and can take more criminals off the streets. These policies have nothing to do with shielding criminals from deportation or interfering with the federal government’s right to enforce our immigration laws.

However, a front-page story misrepresented Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s congressional testimony last week to take an opposing position (“Chertoff warns meddling ‘sanctuary cities,’” Sept. 6).

During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Mr. Chertoff was asked by a Republican representative about so-called sanctuary cities.

After indicating that there was some confusion about what the congressman even meant by the term, Mr. Chertoff replied, “I am not aware of any city, although I may be wrong, that actually interferes with our ability to enforce the law. I certainly wouldn’t tolerate interference.”

The story omitted the first part of Mr. Chertoff’s statement, calling into question whether any city actually interferes with the government’s enforcement mission, and reported his pledge to get tough on a hypothetical city that might.

The committee’s Web site has the videotape. As for withholding federal homeland security dollars from these hypothetical cities, Mr. Chertoff went on to say, “I have to say, the consequences of that might be to put the citizens at risk.”

A more accurate headline for the story could have read: “Harping on so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ a waste of time and breath, Chertoff testifies.”

DOUGLAS G. RIVLIN

Communication director

National Immigration Forum

Washington

Bristol’s bigotry

In his Sunday letter “Short on substance,” Ali F. Sevin attempts to refute the strong factual evidence put forward by Stella Jatras (“Genocide as policy,” Letters, Wednesday) by citing the discredited Adm. Mark Bristol.

Adm. Bristol was a notorious racist and bigot whose hatred of Greeks and Armenians, as well as his anti-Semitism, have been documented in well-researched historical works.

Adm. Bristol has been criticized by many of his American contemporaries, including Consul General George Horton and Edward Hale Bierstadt of the Near East Relief Committee for his questionable reporting and analysis of the realities that were transpiring in the Near East. Both these Americans and others fully back Ambassador Henry Morgenthau’s irrefutable proof of the Turkish genocide that victimized Greek and Armenian Christians.

Adm. Bristol referred to Greeks as “the worst race in the Near East.” Such a vile comment directed at an entire group of people, especially when they were the victims of deportations, forced death marches and mass murder, makes Adm. Bristol a stooge of the Turkish nationalist criminals and discredits his biased reporting.

THEODORE G. KARAKOSTAS

Boston

The general and the loons

Gen. David Petraeus‘ forecast that 30,000 U.S. troops could be out of Iraq by this time next year helps both the Republicans and the Democrats (“Petraeus eyes troop reduction,” Page 1, Tuesday).

First, it gives GOP members of Congress the political body armor they desperately have been seeking, and second, it offers Democratic members the ammunition they need to keep the pressure on the White House. Despite his failure to deliver a knockout punch to either side, the general proved to be a very capable fighter. Do I hear veep bells ringing?

DENNY FREIDENRICH

Laguna Beach, Calif.

Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought that the political discourse in our great country would stoop to such a low level.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of troops in Iraq, went before a committee of the House of Representatives to report on the status of our actions in the war on terror in Iraq (“General defends report, dignity,” Page 1, Tuesday).

The day before his appearance,theorganization MoveOn.org purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times with a full photograph of Gen. Petraeus that referred to him as General Betray Us. It was an unprecedented attack even for a left-wing group led by George Soros.

Most Americans know full well that MoveOn.org was the financial driving force for the Democratic Party in the 2006 elections.

Mr. Soros actually said of the Democratic Party after the elections, “Now it’s our party: We bought it, we own it.” Almost all the candidates in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee refused to denounce MoveOn.org for this incredible attack on Gen. Patraeus. Could it be that MoveOn.org does in fact own the Democratic Party?

In case you missed it, Congress authorized the war in Iraq, and Gen. Patraeus was confirmed almost unanimously by the Senate to his current post.

The men and women who volunteered to fight the war on terror and their leaders do not deserve this kind of scurrilous attack. The lefty loons and their benefactors in the Democratic Party should be condemned for this attack on the one institution that protects all of us.

RON MILLER

Jonesboro, Ark.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide