- The Washington Times - Monday, September 24, 2007


Ahmadinejad at Columbia U.

Columbia University has every right to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the school today; I just don’t think it should have (“Ahmadinejad at the U.N.,” Editorial, Tuesday). He has one job so far as I can tell, and that is to spew anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Semitic hate speech as quickly and often as possible. His country supports terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah; not too many people dispute that. For anyone to say those groups were not at the very least pleased about the results of the September 11 attacks is just ridiculous. I applaud the New York City police for opposing his request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.

I did read a few of the comments released by the university’s top brass as to why Mr. Ahmadinejad was invited to speak and how important it is that the students be able to hear and question the views of world leaders, regardless of what they and their oppressive governments stand for. Again, I respect their right to make that decision, but strongly disagree.

Finally, Iran’s oppressive regime continues to stifle opposition at home and has no plans of changing. Mr. Ahmadinejad is only in his position at the pleasure of the clerics and I am sure they are quite pleased with his rhetoric, otherwise he would be ousted. He has no power in that country, just a big mouth and a large microphone. Why one of our finer institutions of higher learning wants to give him an opportunity to bad-mouth us here at home is beyond me.



Back-door amnesty

I definitely agree with Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican: The Dream Act proposal has the potential to become a “Trojan horse to try to find a path to citizenship” for a larger group of people (“ ’Dream’ for illegals gets a wake-up call,” Page 1, Thursday).

The Democrats are deceitful and extremely crafty in presenting this proposal to the American people. If you ask the average American whether he or she opposes legalizing the children of illegal aliens who were brought to the United States when they were young, they would say: “Of course not, those children should not pay for their parents’ mistakes. They deserve a chance.”

But the truth of the matter is that this proposal amounts to back-door amnesty for a group of people at least two or three times the number of children they are trying to reach. The minute these children (one can hardly call them children when the age limit is 30) become legal residents, they can submit immigration papers to apply for legal residency for their parents, spouses and/or siblings. I can hardly think of the millions who would be legalized by this proposal without our knowledge.

This information must be passed on to the American people so that they know the truth regarding this proposal. Otherwise, this Dream Act will become a nightmare for the average American citizen, as our schools, hospitals, jails and public services will be burdened by people who entered our country illegally.



The wrong historical analogy

I’m sorry that Nelson Marans (“Reich revisionism,” Letters, yesterday) did not understand my letter (“Needed: a multifaceted approach,” Letters, Friday). Let me clarify.

I responded to Peter Huessy’s column (“When negotiation doesn’t work,” Op-Ed, Thursday) in which he cast a very broad net and ended up painting all terrorists from the past 40 to 50 years in the same color. By doing this he portrays all terrorists as having the same intention and ultimate goal. I took issue with this because his reasoning is faulty and what he perceives as strength should actually be weakness.

Since Mr. Huessy used an analogy from World War II, I felt obligated to also use one, mainly to avoid any call of comparing apples to oranges. I used the two examples from 1941 to illustrate first that the Axis powers, while signers of treaties of cooperation, were not very good partners. While challenging the Allied powers on multiple fronts, there was very little coordination since they were acting in their own best interests. Italy distracted Germany in the Balkans in an effort to regain national pride, and Japan refused to help Germany even after the Germans declared war on the United States for no good reason, since we only declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941.

I called for a multifaceted approach (personally I despise the term because of overuse) in an attempt to show that the approach used so successfully in World War II would have to be broadened if we are to succeed. I am not the one to come up with these solutions; that is the responsibility of our elected leaders in Washington.

Lastly, by accusing me of revisionism instead of perhaps incoherence, Mr. Marans shows a dearth of understanding and a misinterpretation that I cannot help with. Everything I stated is fact; how they are misinterpreted shows a problem symptomatic of the times in which we live.


Linthicum, Md.

Ron Paul a principled conservative

In the article “GOP rivals take aim at Giuliani” (Page 1, Saturday), some Republican candidates chastised Rudolph W. Giuliani for being weak on gun-owner rights. As mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani supported some gun controls and called the National Rifle Association “a pack of extremists.” He is far from a conservative purist.

Another candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul from Texas, who is not mentioned in this article, is conservative on every issue. He is pro-gun rights, pro-life, pro-First Amendment (as compared to Sen. John McCain and Fred Thompson who both supported restricting freedom of speech in campaigns) and is in favor of substantially reducing government spending and taxes. In addition, Mr. Paul has advocated abolishing whole departments in government: the education, energy, and homeland security departments.

In a column “Electoral quirks” (Commentary, Thursday), Donald Lambro points out some peculiarities with the various campaigns. Mr. Giuliani has the highest poll numbers, yet he comes from a very liberal area and his highest office was mayor of New York City. In the past, Republicans have nominated only governors or senators for president. Furthermore, Mr. Lambro states that even though Mr. Giuliani is winning in all the nationwide polls, he is losing in other polls to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (peculiarly only fourth in nationwide polls) in the first four primary states. But what I believe is even more peculiar is that Mr. Paul, who supposedly has only 2 percent national support, is the top sought-after Republican on the Internet. In addition, of the 24 different straw polls of Republican candidates in the last four months, Mr. Paul has won nine, including one in Maryland. In fact, he has done better than any other candidate in these straw polls other than Mr. Thompson, who has edged him out 12 to 11. On the other hand, in these straw polls Mr. Paul has beaten Mr. Giuliani 21 to 3. The point is that since Mr. Paul has done so well in these straw polls, his supporters must have had a greater intensity than supporters of the other candidates.

It is too bad that a conservative like Ron Paul cannot get the national media attention that he deserves.



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