DELAHUNT IN DISGRACE
Re: The Prowler’s Delahunt’s Zinger:
It becomes fairly pathetic that the remark by Delahunt is so eagerly accepted by the Democrats. The Democrats are so eager to demolish those with whom they disagree that they would willingly sacrifice the safety of fellow Americans.
You can bet the hollering and name calling if a Republican had been on the reverse side of that remark. Whether or not water boarding or any other method of gaining intelligence works, the Democrats could not care less. God help the United States with the prospect of a Democratic Party president and two Democratic Party Houses of Congress. Maybe we should all consider a one-way tick out. It is obvious the Democrats will and it is not in the direction they think’
— Harry Russell
Perhaps Delahunt is just voicing what the majority of Americans believe when it comes to terrorism. The terrorists do not have the power to threaten the United States in any meaningful way. Sure there was ONE attack that killed 3,000 people, but that attack took five years of planning when there was zero security. Al Qaeda is not large enough, or organized enough, to justify the Bush administration’s raping of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To keep holding the terrorist threat over our head is ridiculous. We are after all a Superpower. I’ll worry about Al Qaeda when they are walking down the streets of Boston. Right now I fear the Bush administration more than that bunch of rag tag warriors holed up in a cave somewhere.
— Derek Eddy
Forget the War on Terror, we have a war in the House and Senate against each other. They may as well use guns and shoot each other. No difference. There is no harmony, they all feel like Hillary does right now, power and rejection! You can see it in their eyes, the Dems are smug and puffed up, the Reps, rejected and no spine. I watch C-Span and their voting on the floor, they are all mingling, talking, kissy face in separate groups, it makes me laugh and sick at the same time, they are such dorks!, and they are running the country. Who in their right mind would vote Schumer and Delahunt to this office? Very sad!
— R. Nelson
With Kerry, Kennedy and Delahunt we can officially drop the M from Massachusetts. Kennedy is a loser, Kerry is a loser and now Delahunt. The people need to elect some respectable people to represent them because they are also representing the USA and we don’t like it. Thank you Democrats for the high oil prices. I will bow down to your savior NOT
— Jack D. White
Our thanks to The Prowler for bringing out the treasonous behavior of Democrat Congressman Delahunt, who provided aid and comfort to the Al Qaeda subhuman mass murderers of children in schools and mothers in markets. This scum of a Democrat traitor should be brought to a military marshal law court and shot for treason, for bringing Al Qaeda murderers’ attention to the VP’s chief of staff and his family. Congressman Delahunt (B. Hussein Obama’s superdelegate) and his family, however, I’m sure will be spared Al Qaeda’s tender attentions in order to thank him for his special services to their cause.
— Marc Jeric
Las Vegas, Nevada
This is just the latest event that shows the present Republican Presence in the House is gutless and lacks any degree of core values. I am surprised that a Democrat didn’t come forward to call out Delahunt — after all, they are Americans too, aren’t they?
— Charles E. Umhey Jr., MD
BACK TO THE PRESENT
Re: Lawrence Henry’s Grammy Does New York:
I would just like to remark that Mr. Henry is a gem. A real gem.
— Paul McGrath
Mr. Lawrence Henry’s recollection of his grandmother ought to remind all of how near we are to our nation’s Founders, and how young our nation is.
My own paternal grandmother passed away just two years ago. She was lucid and sharp until nearly the end. I made a simple reckoning (I Did The Math) and understood thereby that had she, as a girl, encountered a man of the same age she was when she passed, why, that man could have had a conversation (as a lad) with…Thomas Jefferson.
Imagine that. I’m only 57, and yet my grandma could have said, “Paulie, this guy told me that Tom Jefferson had said to him…”
Kind of makes you think. Our American community of souls is pretty darn tight.
— Paul Kotik
Lawrence Henry replies:
In Samuel Eliot Morison’s single-volume history of the United States, he tells about hearing a story from his history teacher when he was a boy near the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century. That teacher, an old man, had in turn had a teacher who was a participant in the Constitutional convention. What he told him was a joke that circulated at the convention:
“A standing army is like a standing member. It can insure domestic tranquility, but can also lead to foreign adventures.”
The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, to strike down the Washington D.C. ban on handguns is at once distressing as it is gratifying, for there are other aspects of the case not mentioned by Signor Ver Bruggen that may shed some additional light in evaluating the full impact of this momentous decision, and its impact on the citizens of the nation’s capital, as well as the rest of the country.
As I previously noted in these pages (March 19), I was in the Court and heard the oral arguments in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. I was also seated not five feet from both the District’s Mayor and the Chief of Police, which offered me the opportunity to observe their body language and expressions during this extended session. When it ended, I am reasonably sure they knew their side would lose; in fact, I believe they were surprised that their ban on a citizens right to own handguns, what Justice Scalia wrote in the Court’s opinion as the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” would come so close to winning, for they and the gathered throng could hear the tone of the questioning from the justices, although, as I wrote earlier, that is no guarantee which way they will vote. Still, to these eyes and ears, it was a “slam dunk,” to use another felicitous phrase.
The disturbing fact remains, however, that had the mercurial “swinger,” Justice Kennedy, changed his mind, or his decision to join the majority, what would have happened is unthinkable. During the oral arguments, Kennedy’s questioning was pointed and direct: along with the probing questions asked by Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia, Kennedy seemed to be implacable in his criticism that the District government had overstepped its legal bounds. Justice Alito said little; Justice Thomas, true to form, said nothing. But after having read the decision, I wonder if “the swinger” did not exert some influence, perhaps in toning down the reach of the decision? Time…and memoirs…will tell.
On the other side, Justice Breyer, along with Justices Ginsburg and Souter, were, from the outset, chary of a private citizen’s right, under the 2nd Amendment, to bear arms, and their line of questioning led me to conclude that they would dissent if the majority ruled otherwise, which I thought certain. But it was Justice Stevens who completely hoodwinked me, for his line of interrogation led me to believe that the Supremes would vote 6-3 to invalidate the ban. Be careful what you wish for.
The majority, or “Opinion of the Court,” was written by Justice Scalia, although each justice in the majority may suggest changes and/or deletions. In assigning him that task, Chief Justice Roberts demonstrated a profound respect to his associate for his fidelity to constitutional principles, mutually shared, during his tenure, and he did not disappoint. In summarizing the judicial philosophy that has marked his more than two decades on the Court, and his adherence to principle over pragmatism, Justice Scalia summarized this landmark case with this sentence:
“A constitutional guarantee, subject to future judges’ assents of its usefulness, is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
— Vincent Chiarello
Finally, the obvious meaning of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights has been aired! Putting to rest all the bizarre stretches of the imagination, that confounded logic, the anti-gun nuts prattled for the last seven decades!
So very happy that five of the nine idiots in the US Supreme Court finally got something right, and finally put to rest the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that every American citizen has a right to own and use a gun, as an individual and personal right. It’s almost a joke that just five of them had to strain to discover the obvious? The other four are hopeless. Now maybe these anti-gun nuts will shut up and go home?
It’s time is start repealing all these “gun control” laws that infringe on constitutional rights! All criminals in America need to be put on notice that their intended victims are no longer disarmed, by dingbats and politicians, with ridiculous “gun control.”
Empirical evidence continues to prove that armed citizens drastically reduce crime. And why not? The scarcity of unarmed victims is most obvious to criminals!
— Samuel A. Hill
Weare, New Hampshire
Justice Antonin Scalia did a good job explaining the history, foundation of the 2nd amendment. He even made the point that the right is not location (community) specific. Since most crime does not occur in the home and the Court left the license of that right in place nothing of practical good changed with this ruling. DC government will do everything possible to license away that right through the usual means of fees and bureaucratic burden. Non DC residences still have no right even in someone’s home there. Transporting firearms throughout the city are still at risk for all practical purposes. The majority stated and assumed as much that no one would be prosecuted for self defense use even in violation of the current ban. I make no such assumption and suspect the D.C. government will make the life of anyone with an openly displayed gun hell. The Court had a historical opportunity to send a clear message to governments that thumb their noses at the 2nd amendment and see such regulations as a revenue source. They missed the mark.
— Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
WAITING IN THE WINGS
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Conservative Star Ascendant:
Quin, excellent column about a young man who sounds impressive. It’s absolutely great to hear that there are some up-and-coming conservatives in the Republican Party.
Of late, I have been so disappointed in our Congressional Republican “Leadership,” for their lack of intestinal fortitude in confronting the numerous inane, wrong-headed and dangerous activities of the current Congressional majority.
We have a considerable number of polls in this country that constantly trumpet the fact that Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Not once has any polling organization, to my knowledge, asked the question: “Why do you feel that way?”
Anyone who looks at the approval ratings of the current President (a good man, but too much of a gentleman to win in a dirty fight), and our Congress (rightfully, even lower than the President’s) should have no problem understanding why Americans feel uneasy. There isn’t any American leader out there who is willing to “knee him in the gut, and punch him in the nose,” to win. Our enemies don’t intend to fight ‘fair.’ Why do we insist on fighting them with our hands tied behind our back?
Maybe the next generation of politicians will see the rise of some true leaders, who can get the country back on course, without our having to “First, kill all the lawyers.”
— R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
It seems to me that a core of individual conservative legislators is starting to coalesce into something we “limited government” types will be enormously proud of in the years to come.
I believe this core includes, and will soon include: Sean Parnell, Tom McClintock, Steve Scalise, Jeff Flake, John Shadegg, Barbara Cubin, John Linder, Mike Pence, Marsha Blackburn, Jeb Hensarling, Paul Ryan, and Rob Wittman. The majority of this “core” dozen are “young guns” and will be around for quite a while. Others (John and John) are of the “seasoned” variety and can provide true conservative guidance that only comes from years of experience. All (except for John Linder) are members of the RSC. And we’ll have to give John a big pass on that one since he is the recurring sponsor of HR 25.
That said, these folks represent the future for conservative ideals in the House of Representatives. Taking Quin’s eloquent bio of Mr. Scalise into account, I see no reason why this group can’t expand into a true conservative majority in the not-too-distant future.
— Owen H. Carneal, Jr.
Sounds like the person we need to run for Governor in 2012. Run Steve run!!!!!!!
— Michael Eby
ON THE SCENE
Re: Erin Wildermuth’s Out of Amsterdam:
I have to challenge Erin Wildermuth. She is wrong in her conclusion that Europeans are not against immigration or Islam per se. It is exactly Islam and Muslim immigration we are against, as we learn more about the Koran, and especially its call for Muslims to migrate to countries of the infidels and how they’re to behave in order to win the trust of the population and then how to strive to qualify for influential positions, all with the specific named end purpose of Islam to be able to take over control. Do all the immigrants have this in mind? Of course not. But neither did the Germans expect to start a world war, when they voted for Hitler, nor did the common Russian long for a Soviet, but they did get it in spite of that in both cases no God was involved, not even a massive belief in the goals. Experience with such overtaking achieved since the Koran was written has perfected the tactics to such a degree, that Islam already after a few decades has got a strong foothold in all of Europe, also in the northern parts, that never have had any experience with Islam before, which of course has been exploited. So far the Koran’s advice has been followed by the letter.
Wildermuth is right, though, in writing that we have to get our knowledge from the net. There is plenty there. Let me point out just a single one: www.islam-watch.org.
— Arild Ejsing
Danish people’s pensioner
As far as it goes, Erin Wildermuth has provided a modest tableau of changes, both imminent and already taken, by the leaders of several Western European nations in dealing with their problems created by illegal immigration. Such as it is, her article emphasizes what is being done to deal with this issue among the major countries where such problems, especially those created by mass Muslim immigration, have required politicians to take a stand. What she has left out, such as the implications of the defeat of Ken “the Red” Livingston as Mayor of London, or the election of Gianni Alemann as Mayor of Rome, the first non-Socialist in more than 50 years to hold that post, who actively seeks to remove all illegal aliens from “the eternal city,” as well as what can be added to her reportage, would better complete the picture, and paint a more realistic portrait of how some nations of Western Europe intend to proceed in avoiding the path toward becoming “Eurabia.”
Of all the countries that Wildermuth describes in her story, there is, in my judgment, no more active and pointed effort to deal with the problem than in Italy. Although Italy does not have the numbers of immigrants, especially Muslims, that France has, or the level of violence initiated by these immigrants, or their children, as in England or the Netherlands, the sense that Muslim and Eastern European illegal immigration was destroying the fabric and unity of Italian society has been evident for more than a decade. But as Wildermuth pointed out, the flash point usually came with the increase in personal violence: in Italy, the cause celebre was the murder by bludgeoning of Giovanna Reggiano, the wife of an Italian admiral, in her home in Rome by a Rumanian illegal immigrant. That murder shocked the nation.
It is a stretch, but not by much, to say that Reggiano’s murder was the sole reason the Socialist government, which had done precious little to address the issue, fell, and replaced by a Center-Right coalition that intends to confront squarely the problems created by illegal immigration, because as Wildermuth briefly notes, the difference is the meteoric rise of the Lega del Nord, or Northern League. Headed by Umberto Bossi, who, when I served in the U.S. Embassy in Rome, was considered a “madman,” and who for more than 20 years has decried the lax attitude of Italian governments in dealing with this issue. On a practical level, what is decidedly different is that of the 22 governmental positions in the cabinet of the (4th) Berlusconi government, Northern League officials hold only two, but they are the key to dealing with illegal immigration: Roberto Maroni is Minister of the Interior, or chief law enforcer of the nation, and Bossi, Minister without Portfolio, who will deal with federal affairs, not the least of which is how the nation will deal with illegal immigration. No other current government in Western Europe is so positioned to deal with this contentious issue as is the current Italian leadership. Will they succeed?
The issue will be joined when, or if, the EU intervenes, which I expect it will, to alter or cancel current policies of the Berlusconi government. But Bossi will hold Berlusconi’s feet to the fire, and there will be a lot of hand wringing and gnashing of teeth before the issue comes close to being resolved. Still, it will be Italy, then, that will serve as the testing ground to see if illegal immigration to the European continent can be resolved. The stakes are very high.
— Vincent Chiarello
Wildermuth says, “Deporting illegal immigrants mostly misses the mark. The thing that Europeans are reacting against is not immigration or Islam per se, but rather a serious spike in violence. Perhaps their nations should respond to this by cracking down on serious crimes instead of further criminalizing peaceful immigration.”
The problem with that approach is that Wildermuth would probably object to “cracking down on serious crimes.”
Think about it. How do you crack down on violent crime? Either you fill the streets with police, you provide community resources to change the culture of violence which means trying to change the culture of the Moslems living in Europe, or you have police watch anyone they profile as being more likely to create a crime and follow them around to protect their potential victims, or you have detectives infiltrate the Moslem cultural groups and spy on them. I suspect that Wildermuth would object to all of those approaches.
— Yaakov “Jim” Watkins
Re: Joseph Lawler’s There Will Be Hearings:
First off, Mr. Lawler is completely wrong. Speaker Pelosi said in April of 2006 that her party had a viable plan to lower gas prices. I am sure she will implement that as soon as the multi-millionaire Democrats now running the country (because they feel like poor people) realize the price has gone up about a buck and a half on their watch.
However, if one was a cynic, and believed Ms. Pelosi was just “blowing smoke” for some political advantage, the explanation for the Democrats’ failure to act even though they have this plan is simple.
America is too fat and we pollute too much. So for our won good they are going to cause gas prices to rise ever more by diminishing the supply and ever increasing taxes on gas. Then for people who make less than $20,000 (which without gas will be everyone) there will be free bicycles and a light small trailer to go with.
Thus the Democrats will have solved three problems that plague Americans. The huge corporations that have contributed so much towards the high standard of living we enjoy if we work will be shuttered. Fat will melt off people as they ride their bikes to the food banks and unemployment office. More money for bike swill be made by scrapping those vehicles — save for Congress of course — and selling them to prosperous countries like Ghana, Ethiopia and Pakistan.
It will be the democrat utopia: everyone poor and dependent on government for sustenance.
— Jay Molyneaux
Re: William Tucker’s Death Should be Reserved for Killers:
I am neither a lawyer nor a scholar so this may explain my simple outlook and question. I don’t see how the Supreme Court can judge that killing a child rapist is wrong, but rule that killing the unborn is right.
— Paul Melody
Before Paul became a saint, he attacked the Christian Church. If he didn’t actually have a hand in the martyrdom of St. Stephen, at the very least, he cheered for the murderers.
Let’s say Paul had been put to death as an accessory to murder before he converted. We would be without roughly half of the New Testament today.
God gives us life — God and who else? No one.
Only God can decide to give a life. Only God can decide the value of a life. Only God can decide when a given life has served His purpose, and should end.
Even God’s only Son realized this, and chose to go to Heaven by way of the Cross rather than have men or even angels use violence to help Him resist arrest (Matthew 26:50-53).
In politics, this means that the state must never, under any circumstances, either condone or practice the taking of a human life.
No abortion, no capital punishment, and no “mercy” killing.
There are evil people in the world, and God does give us the power to destroy — physically, at least — a life that He has bestowed. But He does not give us the power to avoid paying for it later.
I’m not sure where this puts me in today’s political spectrum. When I first spoke these thoughts out loud, about a dozen years ago, they got me branded as a loopy liberal moonbat, because I admire Jesus Christ for refusing to kill anyone, even His killers.
I see the question coming — do I know where such an attitude might get me, in the face of actual evil men today? Yes — it might get me killed, physically. Where Jesus went, I am ready to follow.
May God grant me the courage of these convictions if He ever tests me.
— Byron Keith
William Tucker has used an entire column to prove a point that is not to the point. The concern with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Louisiana’s penalty for child rape is not what the penalty should be, but who is to decide what it should be.
In effect, Justice Kennedy and the four lefties on the Court have made themselves into a kind of super legislature, able and excessively willing to choose the laws by which the citizens of Louisiana should govern themselves. They have chosen to distort an amendment of the Constitution to defend their personal preferences, while ignoring the great constitutional principle of federalism.
What hubris! It’s as if they have assumed that the SUPREME Court deserves to be the supreme arbiter of our republic in all matters. Better had the founders named it simply That Court in D.C. Then, perhaps, the supremes would keep to their appropriate tasks, and let the states and the other branches of the Federal Government keep to theirs.
— Richard Donley
New Lyme, Ohio
Mr. Tucker’s argument is excellent, but it should be directed against state legislatures, not the Supreme Court, which should not be micromanaging valid state laws.
— David Harris
Re: George Neumayr’s Religiosity Without Religion:
In the case of Christianity — or rather his lack of connection to it — for Barack Obama, who’s now assumed the role of the-one-who-rightly-divides-the-Word-of-God-and-no-one-dare, it’s that he has no real knowledge of or grounding in the faith he proclaims. Nor does he have a genuine relationship, if any, with Christ Jesus.
Some verses from the New Testament come to mind regarding Obama, some of his so-called “spiritual” advisers, and the cult he’s created or allowed to be created around him.
2 Timothy 3:1-5, 8-9: “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. . .
“Just as Jannes and Jambres [the Egyptian magicians] opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth — men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.”
2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
— C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
Re: Reader responses in Reader Mail’s Judicial Activists Strike Again:
Reading through the reader’s responses, several things come to mind.
First, the Supreme Court has a long a treasured history of completely ignoring the Constitution and making rules on whatever they want. This goes back through the whole of our history. We have two choices on changing it. First, wait for a change in the court’s structure and challenge their rulings in the court system and hope that we make it back. Or we push for an Amendment that overrules their ideas. Either, or both, of these ideas should be followed.
As for the actual application of the death penalty. Note something about the term. It’s a penalty, not a deterrent. It’s there to punish those who step far enough outside the law, who do enough damage unto someone else, that they deserve the punishment. Of course we shouldn’t kill people for theft or fraud (at least through the judicial process. In protecting your property, you should have the right to do what you must), but those who comment heinous crimes against the most innocent? And here’s another question for you, Mr. Terrell: Without the state imposed death penalty against child rapists, what then is the comfort onto the family of the victim that would discourage vigilante action? Personally, I think child molesters and rapists should have the death penalty hanging over their heads. These people are demented. The fear of death may be the only thing that prevents them from committing their actions in the first place.
Second, in defense of President Bush. The attacks of 9/11 were planned, financed, and prepared under the ‘protection’ of President Clinton. The actions of the Gore campaign and the Clinton White House in 2000-2001 prevented any Bush security appointee from being able to do his job until well into the summer of 2001. Those attacks succeeded due to the actions of the previous administration, not Bush’s. More importantly, since 9/11, outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack against any American interest abroad as well as domestically. Not that plans were not attempted, only that those involved were captured before their plans could be carried out. After the ’93 WTC bombing, there were the bombings of the barracks in Saudi Arabia, the embassy bombings in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. That’s three attacks between ’93 and ’01. There is also evidence to suggest that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were involved in the attacks against American troops in Somalia. Me? I’m seeing a difference there. The truth is, Al Qaeda is on the ropes both in terms of personnel and philosophy. People are turning against the organization, and that is in large part due to the actions Bush has taken.
Bush has made mistakes, bad ones. He pushed the powers and size of the government, especially the executive branch, way past what they were supposed to be. He’s an ineffective leader and a worse communicator. These are all valid arguments to make against him, but the concept that he has made us less safe isn’t one of them. The evidence just doesn’t support that.
Third, to Mr. Ahlert. Actually, yes, the size of the budget and debt, as well as the powers of the government, are exactly the kind of things that libertarians such as myself and Mr. Orlet deplore. I think the problem that Mr. Orlet is trying to point out is that Libertarianism is mostly a political, not a social, philosophy. Because of that we find ourselves in a bind. How do we advance solid social ideals, such as the importance of the nuclear family, when the forces destroying those ideas are using the power of government in their actions? How do we socially conservative libertarians defend ourselves against an overwhelming liberal message bombarding us through our media? Mssrs. Leppla and Hannon show this worry very well in their responses. These are hard questions to answer.
Finally, on the left and fascism. It’s so easy to forget, due the Nazi hostility against communism, how closely related these two ideologies really are. First is the problem with the terms ‘left’ and ‘right.’ Leftism, in general, refers to any ideology that desires an increase in government involvement and power. This is the reason that progressivism, communism, fascism, and socialism are all closely related on the left side of the political spectrum. Libertarianism, however, would be the extreme right, with a limited government. Anarchy would be the ultimate ‘right-wing’ approach, no government at all.
And so we come to defending Mr. Ferrara’s description of Ms. Huffington and related American leftists and their attacks on people. His descriptions are accurate, and he not only provides the quotes that lead him to the conclusion of the left’s fascist tactics, but explains why he reached that conclusion. In one quote, you see Huffington’s desire to completely remove an opinion that differs from her from the public discourse. That is the essence of fascism. And while Mr. Ferrara is making a point about Huffington’s arguments, and why we should rightfully discard them and her, he doesn’t, not once, suggest that she should be completely cut out of the argument.
And as to Global Warming. Not one single critic has ever suggested that there wasn’t warming between ’68 and ’98. What we do ask is that we are shown solid and empirical evidence of a few things. There is some discussion as to how much of warming there was, but the evidence shows it to be about 0.4 degrees. Is this unusual in a 30-year period? The answer is: No one knows. We’ve had no way to accurately measure global average temperature until about 35 years ago. In relation, will this warming trend continue indefinitely? The answer is: No. It stopped in ’98, and global average temperature has since declined by at least 0.2 degrees and appears to be on a trend to completely eliminate the rise within the next few years. Finally, we want solid and empirical evidence that this warming can be linked to the increase of a trace element that compromises an amount of our atmosphere that it is nearly impossible to measure it in terms of thousands of a percent. Carbon dioxide represents about 357 parts per million of our atmosphere. That is so small that you can create a significant difference in the measurement of the air before you simply by exhaling. Oh, and one last thing. Can anyone actually prove that the recent increase in carbon dioxide is entirely due to man’s activities? I’d say it probably is, we produce a whole heck of a lot of it. But no one has yet come forth with solid evidence that man’s activities are causing the whole, or even the bulk, of the recent increase.
These are all valid arguments, and conservatives would really like for these arguments to be acknowledged and have answers for those questions. And to deny that these are valid arguments, to shove dissenters out of the public debate, to refuse to answer… that is fascism. That’s not an ad hominem attack, that is the simple truth.
— Charles Campbell
Re: Adrian S. Robert’s letter (under “Arianna’s Back Alleys”) in Reader Mail’s Huffington Puffington and responses (under “Now You Know How Roush Feels”) in Reader Mail’s Judicial Activists Strike Again:
I read the comments from your faithful readers regarding comments by one Mr/Ms.(?) Adrian S. Roberts with much amusement.
After first reading the article Roberts replied to in typically liberal gibberish, I was tempted to sit down and write a letter similar to those in Reader Mail of June 27. But then I thought to myself, “Why bother? Nothing I — or anyone far more able to express themselves cogently than I — can say would not do anything to enlighten people such as Roberts. Liberals are called “deranged” for a reason — they are!
Everything Messrs DeSisto, Chase, Arand, et al. say is absolutely true. Yet — we all know without any doubt that a liberal who thinks like Roberts will dismiss it as “just more Conservative nonsense.” That, after all, is how they think. Conservative is bad — liberal is good. Period, end of story.
Gentlemen — you waste your breath and wonderful writing skills on such as Roberts. Thoughtful analysis escapes liberals. Facts escape liberals. Their “perceived” facts trump anything a Conservative could say. Mr. DeSisto could quote statistics showing Liberals contribute less of their earnings than those nasty Conservatives all he wants — it will not change one iota their deranged thought processes. For God’s sake (am I still allowed to mention His name?), they don’t even have the fortitude to refer to themselves as what they are — LIBERALS, not “progressives.” Actually — neither fits their twisted idea of government well — Marxist or Socialist better suits them.
My condition is similar to Ms. Teus’s. I am a retired NYPD officer with a pension of $30k, and am on Social Security Disability due to injuries sustained in the line of duty. I would bet that despite my financial situation I give a higher percentage of my income to charity than does this Roberts character. The last thing I want is big government running my life and taking even more of my limited funds out of my pocket to give to people who want me to support them rather than working for an honest wage.
Well done, Gentlemen and Lady — I never fail to be impressed by the quality of the vast majority of AmSpec‘s readership. I have to wonder why people such as Roberts don’t spend their time on Daily Kos and HP, where others share their twisted views. Oh — I forgot — they probably don’t have jobs to go to, hence their lives spent on blogs reviling Conservatives.
— Bruce J. Emmott
Merrick, New York
Mr. (or Ms.) Roberts’ letter must be satire written deliberately as such by one of your regular readers. No one, left or right, would in all seriousness compose a response to this article which so perfectly proves Mr. Ferrara’s point about the liberal tendency toward “hysterical vituperation.” It is too perfect to be real.
— Lee Hoffman