To the Editor:
Like many of your readers, I served my country in the military and am proud of that service, which, for me, included duty in the U.S., Germany and Lebanon. I have diligently voted in both local and national elections since age 21, but it seems I am getting less trusting of our politicians, and for good reasons.
Recently, I learned that Bill Clinton has become a “close friend” of two dictators, one in Columbia and the other in Kazakhstan, through two business deals. Both of them are guilty of multiple human rights violations, voting frauds, voter intimidation and the murders of political opponents and ordinary citizens through the use of death squads and assassinations.
One of them, Alvaro Uribe of Columbia, still maintains close ties with the Columbian Drug Cartel, ties that date back to the 1980’s, when he was mayor and governor of Medellin, the drug capital of Columbia. Clinton and his foundation were paid 140-150 million dollars for his “services/political influence” on these business deals.
Is it now possible that these two sleazy dictators and a drug cartel may try to influence our elections, our foreign policy and even our war on drugs? I am afraid that the answer is “yes.” And, if it happens, whom can we blame?
Please be careful who you vote for on April 22.
Francis P. Hughes
To the Editor:
While I appreciate your message that our citizens need to rectify certain prejudices, you have sadly missed the mark. Your oh-so-typical argument is limited to your resentment that a man cannot marry another man in certain states. What about other groups that are discriminated against? Would you defend John Doe’s right to marry his goat and consummate their marriage? Surely, our citizens have an implied right to judgment. Claiming “everyone” should be treated equally is much too broad as the justifiable exceptions are obvious. Officially, the United States does not define marriage as between a man and a woman – no Federal Amendment has passed in Congress as of yet. Some states may prohibit “same sex” marriage, but those laws do not prevent a gay man from marrying a woman. If 37 of 50 states passed Defense of Marriage Act(s), would it be just for the Federal government to override the will of 75 percent of the state governments? If you say “Yes” in this case, you effectively claim the Federal government should have legal reason to override the states again with any social issue. Precedence, my friend, is a slippery slope. Our country is indeed the “Land of the Free.” Had you written this in Singapore, China, Russia or any other soft – authoritarian state, you would be jailed or worse. Finally, your own resentment does not make our society hateful and prejudiced. You must not have gotten the memo about our aid to Africa and our chance to have either a black or female president…