July 28, 2003 11:00 pm

Dueling over U.N., Mexico

To the Editor:

I've enjoyed my old friend and fellow soldier Dave Arnott's letters, concurring with most of his well-written presentations and so was totally unprepared for his ambush in the July 1 issue. I still feel his knifeblade in my back.

Arnott states I advocate politically distancing from the United Nations but without suggesting improvements. He doesn't realize that secession from the U.N. is the greatest real improvement we can make.

Arnott also said I expressed hatred of the Mexican enemy.

Hatred — no. Anger — yes. Defending ourselves against the real and present threat to our country by Mexico's clandestine mega-invasion must be our primary concern.

Improvements? As I have often expressed: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) as the Constitution provides, use our Army to defend our borders from invasion, (3) place a sensible moratorium on immigration and (4) make English our mandatory national language.

Arnott bragged about traveling in Mexico and at being a border agent while averring that I have done neither. So far, all Arnott has done is produce a lot of oral flatulence, and in refute to his untruths, I worked in Guatemala for United Fruit in the early 1950s, extensively traveled in Mexico and was a federal officer on the Mexican border at Eagle Pass, Texas. I also speak Spanish fluently.

As for Dave Arnott "not being at war with Mexico," he is still being affected by Mexico's degenerating invasion which he admits to but misses the point. An invasion does not have to be by uniformed troops deployed in an honest campaign as opposed to a far-more-sinister operation that is costing us far more dearly currently — and far into our cultural and nationally identifiable future — than an honest declared war.

So get a clue, Dave. Stick to the truth. Prevarication does not become you.

Jim Bovard


Write to your relatives

To the Editor:

Jim Bovard's July 7 letter citing David Arnott's "oral flatulence" in a recent reply to Bovard's Mexican Manifesto is akin to a skirmish between a tornado and a hurricane. Both generate far too much wind.

The public would be better served if each would write loads more letters to their relatives and fewer communiques to the editor.

Michael Rosenbaum

La Grande

We can't return to yesterday

To the Editor:

In response to Al MacLeod's letter in the July 3 Observer, pretend you are a person of color raised in Harlem, N.Y. Or pretend your parents arrived here from a Third World country.

As a student you love school. Your parents want you to succeed; however they do not have the knowledge to give sound advice, nor money to provide you with what is needed to stimulate your mind.

Your friends tell about trips they've taken to art museums, science fairs or other countries. There are no computers in your home, no one reads to you and there is no one to explain the world to you. You started school barely able to read or perhaps barely able to speak the language.

The universities you apply to want only students with a 4.0 gpa. They aren't interested in your dreams or your potential. They don't want to know about your drive to succeed, or your willingness to work hard. They can only admit students with high scores, and they are sorry but you don't qualify, unless of course you are a great athlete.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have been encouraged by our affirmative action laws. He would have been pleased to see that the playing field, after decades of inequality, is finally level. I would hope that you wouldn't want our country to strike down laws that help the less fortunate, and go back to the days when the only citizens with equal rights were white males.

I do not understand the objection to a law that is in place solely to ensure that those who are less fortunate can get a helping hand. It's one of the things that make this country a wonderful place to live.

D. Dominguez