Letter to the Editor:
		
 
		
I want to thank Congressman David Dreier for his work to bring cop killers who 
		
cowardly flee the county to justice.  Recently, Congressman Dreier supported a 
		
bill which urges Mexico to work with its Supreme Court to renegotiate their 
		
extradition treaty.
		
 
		
In addition, I worked with him to introduce another bill, H.R. 2363, the Peace 
		
Officer Justice Act, that would make it a federal crime to kill a law enforcement 
		
officer and evade prosecution by fleeing to another county, punishable by the
		
 death penalty or life imprisonment.  This bill, which is supported by the National 
		
Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the National 
		
Sheriff�s Association, will provide prosecutors and law enforcement a powerful 
		
tool to apprehend violent criminals because they can use the federal 
		
government�s power, resources and leverage to seek justice for the victim�s 
		
family and friends.
		
 
		
Opponents of H.R. 2363 erroneously claim the bill gives exclusive jurisdiction
		
 over cop-killer cases to the federal government.  This is far from the truth.  The
		
 bill, in fact, gives an additional tool to prosecutors to seek justice from fleeing
		
 cop killers by making it a federal crime to commit such an act, because the law
		
 does not currently provide for such a penalty.  Opponents also mix apples and
		
 oranges when they claim the bill would ensure that a cop killer would face
		
neither the death penalty nor life in prison.  Their reference to the type of 
		
sentence sought against these types of criminals is the issue addressed by the
		
 bill supported by Congressman Dreier that urges Mexico to work with its Supreme
		
 Court to renegotiate its extradition treaty.  These two bills, both 
		
supported by Congressman Dreier in his effort to fight crime, are worthy and 
		
logical endeavors.
		
 


		
	
Our communities are safeguarded by our brave men and women in uniform.  H.R.
	
 2363 establishes the atrocious act of killing an officer then fleeing as a federal 
	
offense that will help bring these criminals to justice.
	
 
	
Sincerely,
	
 
	
LEE BACA
	
SHERIFF
	


			
	
 
	
And the Winner is. History.
	
 
	
To the Editor:
	
 
	
The other day, I was filling out my ballot for Major League Baseball's All-
	
Star Game and a thought occurred to me. It's not terribly difficult to come
	
up with a system to help make the tough comparisons between great players.
	
How many home runs has a player hit? What is his batting average?  How many
	
runs batted in? There are many numbers we use to measure athletes across the
	
decades. It's comparing apples and apples.
	
 
	
I watched the series "Greatest American" on Discovery Channel and found the
	
opposite to be true. It seems impossible to measure a brilliant president
	
against a groundbreaking scientist against an innovative entrepreneur. What
	
is greatness, anyway? Each choice was great in some way. [Though, with all
	
due respect to Brett Favre and Dr. Phil, I find it hard to put them in the
	
same category as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.]
	
 
	
Like many notable American TV shows - and many notable Americans, such as
	
Alexander Hamilton and Albert Einstein - the idea for "Greatest American"
	
was born somewhere else. Similar programs in England and France chose
	
Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle respectively. To be sure, "Greatest
	
American" only scraped the surface of information about the most significant
	
figures in our history. But there is value in thinking about individuals
	
like Franklin, Lincoln and King - and even greater value in reading about
	
them. The popularity of books by David McCullough, Ron Chernow, Walter
	
Isaacson and many others is evidence that all Americans, not just scholars,
	
are interested in history. The "beach book" we take with us doesn't have to
	
be filled with fluff. It can be filled with the story of our country.
	
 
	
The important choice being made is not in choosing the greatest American, it
	
is in choosing to learn about all of our great Americans. So, when we join
	
our family and friends at picnics and baseball games, when we share hot dogs
	
and apple pie or peanuts and Cracker Jacks, it's worth talking about our
	
country's all stars and the seasons in which they lived. The records they
	
set are not likely to be broken anytime soon.
	
 
	
James G. Basker
	
New York, June 28, 2005
	
The writer is President of The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
	
and the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of English at Barnard College.
	
 

		
	
 
	
To the Editor:
	
 
	
I guess I could take Mr. Tabor's allegations about PETA more seriously if
	
the criticisms were emanating from a man who was truly committed to
	
alleviating animal suffering. ("PETA is an Animal's Worst Friend" 7/3). The
	
truth is that PETA, like all organizations grappling with the problem of
	
companion animal overpopulation, euthanize animals. When PETA learned that
	
homeless animals in North Carolina were being gassed with fumes from the
	
tailpipe of a pick-up truck and being shot with a .22 rifle while tied to a
	
pole, they began subsidizing euthanasia through a local veterinarian. I
	
think we can all agree that a painless death is better than being shot and
	
left for dead. Further, PETA has spent more than a quarter of a million
	
dollars improving facilities in N.C., has delivered hundreds of dog houses,
	
free food and sterilized 7641 animals at minimal or no cost. 
	
 
	
Is killing homeless animals a travesty? Absolutely. Those of us who have had
	
to do society's dirty work by euthanizing healthy dogs and cats will be the
	
first to admit it. Nobody wishes it were not necessary more than we do, but
	
a painless death is better than what life has in store for homeless animals
	
who are born into a world that does not want them, that does not care for
	
them and that does not deserve them. 
	
 
	
If euthanizing dogs and cats and disposing of their bodies was a crime, I,
	
along with almost every animal control officer and animal shelter employee
	
in this country would be guilty of that crime. We are only doing the grim
	
work that our throw away society has delegated to us. It is ironic that the
	
people who often care most about animals, animal shelter employees, are
	
forced to kill animals. 
	
 
	
People who are shocked or outraged by the fact that the bodies of dead dogs
	
and cats find their way to landfills and rendering facilities by the
	
millions every year should wake up and do something about it. More than
	
15,000 dogs and cats will be killed in shelters across the country today.
	
Their blood is on the hands of those who continue to patronize breeders,
	
puppy mills, pet stores and people who fail to spay and neuter their
	
animals. The only thing more tragic than the fate of homeless animals is the
	
fact that their deaths are entirely avoidable. A truly humane society would
	
prevent them from being born in the first place.
	
 
	
Since Mr. Tabor sees fit to lecture readers on hypocrisy perhaps it is he
	
who should come clean. Mr. Tabor alludes to the innocuous sounding group
	
known as the Center for Consumer Freedom. CCF is an industry front group
	
that represents the interests of tobacco companies, restaurant chains, meat
	
producers and others who stand to lose from increased government regulations
	
and public scrutiny. CCF attacks PETA and other "radical" groups such as
	
Mothers Against Drunk Driving because the vested interests CCF represents
	
stand to lose money as a result of effective advocacy campaigns. A more apt
	
appellation for the Center for Consumer Freedom would be the Center for
	
Cunning Fabrication or perhaps Charlatans for Crafty Falsification.
	
Actually, Cons fraudulently Covering-up Falsehoods is probably the most
	
accurate of the three. 
	
 
	
Sincerely,
	
 
	
Leana Stormont, J.D.
	
Iowa City, IA
	
 

			
	
 
	
As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on S.J. Res. 12, the flag protection
	
amendment,the following is offered for your publication consideration from
	
the perspective of a U.S. Navy veteran, Legionnaire and proponent of the
	
measure:
	
 
	
Will They Still Sing "God Bless America"?
	
 
	
By Daniel S. Wheeler
	
 
	
Often I am asked by reporters, "What harm does it do to burn a flag?"  This
	
question usually comes from young men and women, most of whom aren't
	
veterans, and I frequently sense that they really don't understand why this
	
issue is important.
	
 
	
Recently, I was asked this question: "Tommy Lasorda told the story of a flag
	
burning during a Dodger game in 1976 where Rick Monday ran out on the field
	
and tore the flag away from a protestor.  When they became aware of what had
	
happened, the crowd stood and sang 'God Bless America.'  Doesn't that prove
	
that we don't need the flag-protection amendment?"
	
 
	
When I heard the question, I was reminded of what Gen. Patrick H. Brady,
	
Medal of Honor recipient, said. He pointed out that nobody can change your
	
mind or my mind about protecting our flag.  It's the children of America
	
that we have to think about.  
	
     
	
What happens when they lose, or are no longer taught, respect for our flag?
	
What will happen when an enemy threatens our nation, or even attacks our
	
country, and our moral fiber has become so desensitized -- our patriotism
	
has been so eroded -- that ordinary citizens aren't willing to stand and
	
fight for the United States?
	
 
	
Brady reflects on those who have died in battle, and those who risked their
	
lives for this great country.  He says that the men who wear the Medal of
	
Honor risked their lives for their country - many of them died -- but he
	
wonders if they would be willing to risk their lives for the "country we are
	
becoming."
	
 
	
Then I think about those thousands of men and women singing "God Bless
	
America" in Dodger Stadium.  Why were they doing it?  Well, obviously they
	
did it because they loved their flag.  
	
 
	
But why do they love their flag, and why do they love their country?  It's
	
not something you are born with, this patriotism and love of our flag.  It's
	
something you learn from your parents, your teachers, your Sunday School
	
teachers, your drill instructors, your life experiences.
	
 
	
Throughout the lives of those who rose to their feet, we had laws protecting
	
Old Glory.  Throughout their lives, they'd been taught that America was a
	
good nation, in fact, the greatest nation on earth.  Many probably risked
	
their lives in her defense.  They understood that "the tree of Liberty is
	
watered with the blood of patriots."
	
 
	
That's why they stood and sang.
	
 
	
But what of this generation, and of the next?  What are they being taught
	
about love of country?  What are they being taught about the greatness of
	
America?  How many of them will start each school day pledging their
	
allegiance to our flag, as most of us did?  How many of them will learn the
	
proper way to respect her, and what she means and why patriotism is
	
important? 
	
 
	
And what of those who grow up learning that the flag is just one symbol
	
among many, just one point of view, not deserving of any special
	
recognition, dignity or respect?  How will they reconcile the idea that we
	
prove our love for our nation's flag by allowing those who hate America to
	
desecrate it without penalty?  
	
 
	
Twenty years from now, when another Rick Monday snatches a flag from someone
	
who is trying to burn it, will the crowd still sing "God Bless America," or
	
will it rise in anger because the game has been delayed?
	
 
	
It's certainly true -- as we've heard people say -- one person burning a
	
flag, or urinating on it, or defecating on it, or trampling it under his
	
feet, will not harm Old Glory.  But it's not true that no harm is done.
	
 
	
The harm is done if the American people fail to respond to such vile and
	
hurtful conduct.  The harm is done only if, by our apathy, we condone the
	
defiling of the banner that has draped the caskets of our American heroes.
	
Edmund Burke once said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
	
for good men to do nothing."
	
 
	
Failure to protect our flag by law is not a celebration of liberty; it is
	
the celebration of evil.  A great nation cannot preserve its greatness by
	
turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to that which is wrong, to that which is
	
destructive, to that which is immoral and evil.
	
 
	
What harm does it do to burn a flag?  
	
 
	
Over time it destroys the very fabric of our nation.  It undermines the
	
goodness that makes us great; and it ensures that future generations will
	
not stand and spontaneously sing "God Bless America" because they will not
	
know that - once -- God did.
	
 
	
 
	
Daniel S. Wheeler is the President of the Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc., and
	
the Executive Director of The American Legion National Headquarters in
	
Indianapolis, Indiana.
	
 

			
	
 
	
 
	
Dear Editor, 
	
As all prison reformers welcome Federal receivership, of this
	
highly troubled prison health care system, many more inmates are still dying
	
as we wait. This obvious dismal medical negligence, still persists. The
	
Department of Corrections, denies good Doctor's requests, and threatens
	
them, so they can remain silent. The guards create medical conditions,
	
through abuse and torture of inmates, which  produces the out of control
	
medical guarding-costs !!  The guards deny basic medical treatment &
	
medication for inmates who suffer from life-threatening illnesses. The
	
guards have no business, playing Doctor or Nurse. No wonder some inmates
	
commit suicide!!  Torture does not reduce crime!  It is a definite crime in
	
itself ,which causes crime to rise, because people who have been tortured
	
never get over it. Luckily,if they do come out of this pit of hell, funded
	
by our tax dollars, would you want them, as your next door neighbor ??  The
	
system does not care, about our safety!!   If they cared, this abuse and
	
torture would not exist, as it is now. They abuse prisoners, knowing, darn
	
well, they will be thrown out into society,with worst problems !!!  We the
	
People pick up the tab, torture business as usual !!!
	
 
	
Alexis Endurance,San Francisco, Calif.
	
United for No Injustice Oppression or Neglect 
	
 
	
  

			

	
 
	
Op-ed: Flag Amendment Fixes Constitution
	
By Patrick H. Brady
	
 
	
As we near a Senate vote on the flag amendment, which passed the
	
House for the sixth time June 22, the hysteria in the media runs wild. They
	
fear it could pass and, in their frenzy, they distort the facts. From recent
	
radio and TV interviews, it is clear to me that many of them have not read
	
the amendment and do not understand its purpose or impact. Tragically, they
	
mislead their audience and are blatantly unfair to the truth. As an aside,
	
many of those who fight for the right to desecrate the symbol of our country
	
are outraged at the desecration of the symbol of many terrorists. Let's look
	
at the truth. 
	
 
	
Many in the media support flag desecration as free "expression."
	
One need only think of the many types of expression to know why the Founders
	
wisely eschewed that word. Some, in desperation to fit their objections into
	
the First Amendment, use the word "speech" in contradiction of the
	
dictionary and in defiance to reason. 
	
 
	
Sixteen years ago 90 Senators voted for a statute to protect the
	
flag after the Supreme Court, in Texas v. Johnson, took that right away.
	
Those Senators could not have so voted if they believed flag desecration was
	
constitutionally protected speech. Three of four Americans, all 50 states and
	
over 70 percent of the Congress agree that desecrating the flag is not
	
speech. 
	
 
	
Critics say the amendment protects the flag and changes the Bill
	
of Rights. It does neither, and this is important to understand. 
	
 
	
The flag amendment says: "The Congress shall have power to
	
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." An
	
amendment, of itself, does not protect the flag. It simply takes control
	
over the flag away from the courts and returns it to the people where it
	
resided until 1989. Once the amendment is ratified, and only then, can a law
	
be passed to protect the flag. This point is fundamental for those Senators
	
who seek a statute to protect Old Glory. They can have a statute, but only
	
after an amendment is ratified by the people. 
	
 
	
As for changing the Bill of Rights, consider this. By judicial
	
fiat, with a single vote from one Supreme Court Justice, flag desecration
	
was inserted into the Bill of Rights. If you deny this, then answer this
	
question: If the Court had declared that flag burning was not speech, would
	
they then have amended the Bill of Rights? 
	
 
	
One pundit feared the amendment would curtail the rights of
	
those who hate us. There are no laws against hating, but there are laws
	
against hateful conduct. Flag burning fits both roles. But this is about
	
rights, the right of the people to protect their flag, the right of the
	
majority to rule, the right of the people to define their Constitution. And
	
beyond the flag, this issue spills over into the right to protect our
	
children from pornography, the right to own property, to pray, to post the
	
Ten Commandments, and to say the Pledge of Allegiance. 
	
 
	
If we can recapture our flag, we will have begun a march to
	
recapture our Constitution. 
	
 
	
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Patrick H. Brady is a recipient of the
	
Congressional Medal of Honor, credited with the medical evacuation of over
	
5,000 combat casualties while serving as a "Dustoff" helicopter pilot during
	
the Vietnam War.  He is Chairman of the Board of the Citizen's Flag
	
Alliance, a coalition of more than 140 civic, fraternal, veterans, minority
	
and business organizations representing some 20 million Americans.
	
 

-------------------------

-------------------------