Today's Letters: First, defend the Constitution

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published October 18, 2007

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The oath of office is very similar for both the president and the members of Congress. Protect the Constitution, it says, not protect buildings, oil resources or democracy in the world. It's not even what President Bush says is his No. 1 priority, to protect Americans. No, it says to protect and defend the Constitution.

Why do we as citizens tolerate a president and Congress that willfully surrender the principles of our Constitution to the "dangers" of the moment? Our country and Constitution have survived many temporary crises, without betraying the document that our representatives are sworn to protect.

Whether it is habeas corpus, detention without charge, a civil war in Iraq, or spying without warrant, no temporary dangers are worth losing the basic foundation of law that has supported this county since its birth.

We as citizens should call on all our representatives to follow the oath they have sworn to uphold.

Bill Baird, St. Petersburg

As private citizen, Al Gore is a winnerOct. 13, story

Gore offers more passion than truth

Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming, which include a documentary film that ignores opposing viewpoints, uses fear tactics to focus on emotional responses rather than rational ones and fails to acknowledge the massive negative effects a Kyoto-style treaty would dump on economies and on the well-being of developing countries. Gore has also been caught in a number of blatant errors in his presentation of the "evidence" (in one of which he claims that oceans will rise more than 20 feet when actual estimations come closer to 16 inches in the next 100 years).

I admit that Al Gore appears to care deeply about his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming, but he also uses massive amounts of energy and burns massive amounts of CO2 while he's up on his pedestal preaching for everyone else to live like peasants. Gore should be judged on more than his apparent passion. What about the truth?

It's scientifically proven that the Earth is in a warming trend, but Al Gore's belief in man-induced catastrophic global warming is not even close to being scientifically proven.

Randy Goggin, New Port Richey

Party reflections

Isn't it interesting that former Vice President Al Gore joins former President Jimmy Carter as a recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize - and that both are Democrats! Doesn't this say something for their party's concern for the downtrodden among the Earth's populace and for the status of the planet we live on and share with others? Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush also deserve commendation for their joint efforts to help victims of nature's wrath in the Pacific.

Can we envision the present occupant of the White House committing himself to such service after his term ends? I sincerely hope so.

Charlie Connor, Treasure Island

A global joke

It's not a joke - yet. Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing to the fore global warming. The question is: Years from now will this be determined to be the decade's biggest joke?

Many scientists believe global warming is part of a natural cycle in the solar system and can be compared to our winter, spring, summer and fall, only these "solar seasons" cycle over hundreds of years.

Awarding Gore the peace prize seems to be more of a political statement when you consider the small group of political socialists bestowing the prize. The good news is, thanks partly to Al, this has become a new industry. Maybe the prize should have been for promoting - dare I say the word - capitalism.

On Oct. 10, columnist Lowell Ponte wrote: "Earlier this month a British judge ruled that Gore's Oscar-winning climate film An Inconvenient Truth promotes "partisan political views" and cannot be used in the nation's schools without identifying it as, in effect, Orwellian agitprop [propaganda] ..."

Ahh, the world is definitely down side up. I may put on rose-colored glasses and vote for Hillary. At least when she is elected, the world will become safer, we can claim victory in Iraq, and we can put this global warming scare to bed.

Steve Schuler, Clearwater

In good company

I can't wait to see how the "right" will try to discredit Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize.

Al Gore, former congressman, former U.S. senator, former two-term vice president, author, film producer, Oscar winner, and now the winner of Nobel Peace Prize. Whew! Al Gore is the most qualified ever to be president.

Gore will not run for president; he is living a bigger life. Now he joins former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as being among the most admired men in the world. President Richard Nixon, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are on the "least-admired" list.

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and now former Vice President Al Gore - what a wonderful and fabulous consortium.

Sylvester J. Thomas Jr., St. Petersburg

Historical genocide

Look at our own hands

The U.S. Congress is considering a vote on whether Turkey committed genocide nearly 100 years ago. The more we raise the issue itself, the more we raise the question - and very rightfully so - of what occurred on our own soil nearly 150 years ago.

Our politicians and many of my fellow Americans must think we live in a vacuum and are absolved of any violence - past or present.

The world has changed in the last few generations. There is almost total transparency, so ethnic cleansing can no longer hide. If one country attacks another, the world agrees defense is necessary. In light of what is in the news today we must call events what they really are, power grabs, land grabs, oil grabs.

Fred Mitchell-Horowitz, Safety Harbor

Pontiff praises church, America Oct. 15

Learn the facts

It seems that the major point in this biased article was to publish the Armenian view of a perceived genocide in the early 20th century perpetrated by Ottoman Turks. The extent of the rebuttal was a short sentence: "The Turks strongly disagree".

Modern day Turkey will never concede to this demand. Please, I urge all your readers to read the facts. Armenians residing in Eastern part of Ottoman empire, 95 years ago, allied themselves with Russia and took up arms against the Ottoman Turks. This revolt resulted in severe consequences, however, they did not constitute an orchestrated, planned act of genocide. The Ottoman Turks suffered severely and in far greater numbers during this period.

The U.S. Congress is absolutely an inappropriate place to debate this highly sensitive issue.

R. Monteith, Tampa

[Last modified October 17, 2007, 21:43:08]