• May 1, 2016
  • Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Queens Chronicle

Letters To The Editor

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2004 12:00 am

Dangerous Scenario

Dear Editor:

Most Americans think that since Russia did not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States during the Cold War during the days of the “Evil Empire,” that Russia’s weapons are no longer a threat to us since Russia is no longer an enemy of the United States. Most Americans are right about Russia no longer being a nuclear threat to us thanks to Ronald Reagan’s great handling of the Cold War. But at the same time, most Americans are wrong about Russia’s weapons of mass destruction because they still pose an imminent threat to the safety of America. Russia would never deliberately use its weapons against the United States, but al Qaeda would.

Even though al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have made it clear they would love to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or make radiological dirty bombs, the United States government and governments around the world continue to move at a snail’s pace to protect weapons sites and destroy deadly weapons of mass destruction that are poorly guarded in Russia and parts of the former Soviet Union.

Construction of a major United States destruction plant in Russia, where the majority of the world’s unsecured weapons of mass destruction are kept, was delayed for three years. The delayed destruction plant is being used to destroy millions of portable artillery shells and hundreds of missile warheads filled with deadly nerve agents that are in dilapidated facilities.

There is never a good reason to delay the destruction of weapons of mass destruction to prevent them from entering the hands of terrorists. Terrorists will not delay their plan to kill millions if they obtain weapons of mass destruction. So why is the United States, Russia and the rest of the world delaying the destruction of weapons as if time is on our side?

Every day that passes without major steps being taken to rid the world of improperly secured weapons of mass destruction is a good day for a terrorist. The terrorists know that if the weapons are lying around long enough unsecured, it is only a matter of time before they get their murderous hands on them. If terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, September 11, 2001 will look like just a blip in the history of this country.

What we need is to greatly increase the funding for destruction plants, accelerate the demilitarization of Russia’s stockpile of 40,000 tons of chemical agents. Immediate steps must be taken to provide security for facilities that hold deadly weapons of mass destruction and account for deadly biological pathogen collections across Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Also, a global effort must be made to combat both infectious diseases and biological terrorism. It would be a shame if Reagan’s tireless efforts to defeat the evil Soviet Union were all for nothing because the United States government is not taking strong action to prevent terrorists from acquiring Russia’s weapons of mass destruction.

Charles Spencer,


Flag Amendment

Dear Editor:

Yes, it is another year, where approximately 90 percent of the media’s editorials and commentary professing both hostility and their one-sided opinions against the constitutional right of “We The People,” to seek redress against the Supreme Court’s decision of 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) through an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. A decision that invalidated flag protection legislation that was on the books of 48 states and our federal government for over 100 years.

The Congress tried to reverse the decision by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman). This left the majority with no other choice but to pursue a constitutional amendment to protect “Old Glory.”

I am still amazed after 15 years, that certain members of the House and a minority of senators still use the excuse that they support a “bill,” but not an “amendment” to protect our country’s flag, when they know that the Supreme Court would most probably rule against a bill.

Since 1989, the Citizens Flag Alliance and its over 140-member organizations representing millions of Americans are carrying on this constitutional right, to seek redress against the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision.

Since 1989, all 50 state legislatures have adopted U.S. Flag Memorializing Resolutions and 80 percent of the people have instructed their Congressional Delegations to pass the Flag Amendment. How can anyone overlook these statistics? Maybe I am missing something, but I was taught that this is the people’s government, not any legislator’s or the media’s. They are in Congress to represent “We The People.”

Physical desecration in any form is not free speech, but a repugnant act that cannot be tolerated. It is also time for some elitist justices to stop altering the original intents of the framers and execute the real meaning of this glorious document, our U.S. Constitution.

There is no room for partisanship when it involves the one unifying symbol that binds us all as Americans. No other symbol so readily and clearly says America. We are a nation of diversity. The one unifying symbol of America in war and peace is the flag of the United States of America. It is time for the U.S. Senate to heed the will of the people, pass SJR4 and return it to the states for ratification. “Let the people decide.”

John Severa,

Queens County American Legion,

Forest Hills

School Changes

Dear Editor:

Over the past five years, I have considered it an honor and privilege to serve as a duly elected member of Community School Board 25. Due to changes in the governance structure of the New York City Public School System, that were passed by the New York State legislature, as of July 1st, a new governance structure will go into effect.

Since the passage of the school governance package, many individuals have approached me and asked me if I would be seeking appointment or election to the new Parent Advisory Board. I chose not to do so because, quite honestly, it is my firm belief that the new governance structure will not provide parents with a real voice in the education process and the selection process was not one that I thought made much sense. Only time will tell how effective the new governance structure is.

I will continue to be an advocate for the educational needs of all children, especially those with special needs. It has been my pleasure to assist parents in need of information or assistance during my term as a member of Community School Board 25. I will continue to be a strong advocate. I have a vested interest, my three sons.

David Rothstein,


Judge’s Decision

Dear Editor:

I have personally known the family of Supreme Court Justice Laura Blackburne for more than 25 years as a friend, neighbor and a vocal, registered Republican (obviously not a political ally of Mr. Blackburne). You have every right to take a stand against the legal decisions of Justice Blackburne, however, I must question your motives that are devoid of fact.

Your editorial rails about only two legal decisions during her career although it is safe to say that she handled more than 100 cases, per year. Justice Blackburne’s decision to deny the arrest of a “suspect” in her courtroom is to be decided, “on the facts” by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (the person was only a suspect, not charged with a crime, at the time the officer appeared at her courtroom). I think the process is called “Due Process.”

Your bias appears in your reference to her initial “sin,” that of releasing a person because of “Due Process,” or in your words, “because the district attorney ‘allegedly’ (?) violated the suspect’s right to a speedy trial.” The Queens D.A.’s office was required to bring the defendant’s case to trial in 180 days. From all reports in the “unbiased press” Justice Blackburne dismissed the case after three years.

Your tactic is to ignore the actions of the D.A. in denying a defendant a speedy trial and focus on the judge who followed the law and avoided a permanent reversal decision by an Appellate Court, preventing a future trial. Isn’t that called “killing the messenger?”

Mayor Bloomberg, Michael Pallidino and Patrick Lynch are not wise enough to dictate the editorial opinion of a fine newspaper.

Lee Bostic,


Bad Noise

Dear Editor:

There has been some news that our Mayor Bloomberg is planning to have rules or laws regarding noise to have fines. It makes sense to a degree when neighbors blast their music (live or recorded) at any time without any consideration. It’s annoying when adults don’t try to quiet down screaming children. Other inconsiderate people honk their horns to let someone know they have arrived, too lazy to get out of their car to ring the bell or just scream the name out, as if there is only one Susie or Maria in one building.

The most bothersome noise is the theme “music” from the Mister Softee ice cream truck. Yes, they do deserve to make an honest living but they can do so at a lower decibel, for a much shorter period of time and not late at night. I’ve heard one at 10:30 p.m. and several times while driving on one street between two avenues. After the truck pulls away it is not necessary to keep hearing it when it is two streets away.

Anyone that agrees with me should contact their representatives and/or the mayor’s office.

Cherie Appel,


Gloves Off

Dear Editor:

I strongly agree with letter writer Tim Caravello that the only way to catch sleeper terrorist cells in America and crush Islamic extremist hatred is to start getting tough on Islamic extremist mosques (“Back Seat,”) letters to the editor, June 10th).

Islamic extremist mosques, which are a large percentage of Islamic mosques in America, are accessories to terrorism. These mosques provide safe havens for terrorists to prepare and plan attacks and recruit new terrorists, terrorism financiers and planners. Nobody that loves America would attend Islamic extremist mosques. Nobody that condemns terrorism in the name of Islam would attend Islamic extremist mosques, where leaders frequently giver sermons supporting violence against non-Muslims.

Caravello compared the occupants of Islamic extremist mosques to racists that attend Ku Klux Klan rallies. This comparison is almost right on target, but a little off. A better comparison to occupants of Islamic extremist mosques are people that belonged to the Nazi Party before and during the Holocaust and World War II. The similarities are striking. Both are members of Hitler’s Nazi Party and people that are members of Islamic extremist mosques support killing other people that do not practice what they practice.

Hitler hated Jews. Osama bin Laden and his Islamic extremists supporters hate non-Muslims. Both bin Laden and Hitler were allowed to continue to preach hatred and gain strength until they killed so many innocents, it became impossible to ignore them. If the good countries and militaries of the world would have arrested Hitler and his supporters during all those Nazi rallies, speeches and meetings before his rise to power, millions of lives would have been saved. If we arrest and/or deport all people who practice pro-terrorist, pro-bin Laden Islamic extremism, we will save tens of thousands of lives and the future of our country.

Let’s not make the same mistake with Islamic extremists that we made with the Nazis. The gloves must come off.

Mike Lorenzo


Welcome to the discussion.