NUTSO CONSERVATISM
Re: Jed Babbin’s Are
You Nuts? (No, but thanks for asking.)
Well, there you have it. The package is nearly complete. Having
already defined conservative principles as hate crimes, liberals
have now shown, with charts and graphs and footnotes, that
conservative philosophy is mental illness. All that’s left is to
show that we shouldn’t be allowed to run around loose, let alone
vote and have families.
— Larry Thornberry
Tampa, FL
At some point, when I was still very young (mid-40’s), I observed
that there are two kinds of people in the world: 1. Those who will
admit that they are insane and, 2. Those who will not admit that
they are insane.
True to form, the “Berserkely Study” (without its authors having
the faintest idea) looks like a self study. Additionally, its
points apply to two groups of people who are of the second kind
(above): Illiberals in general, and Democrats in particular.
Again,
— Carl Gordon Pyper
Monett, Missouri
Lemmesee —
* The State of California has a 38 BILLION dollar deficit
* more than the total of the other 49 states combined
* Our state bond rating is just above junk status
* California Universities will SURCHARGE (over and above
tuition) students $3,000 if their parents earn $91,000+
* An illegal alien can attend a CAL University cheaper than a
Medal of Honor winner from Tulsa
* Our 4th graders test scores are above those of Guam (one up
from the bottom)
* The “car tax” triples October 1st
* Sales tax goes to 8 3/4% in some counties
* Our interstates are the longest parking lots in the world
* We are trying to recall the finest governor money can
buy…
* And the nuts at Berkeley call me delusional?
Hey, Jed — I’m going to take a pass on the whiskey; pass me the
Prozac…
— Mike Horn
Tracy, CA
PROMISES KEPT
Re: David A. Curtin’s Promise
Keepers — Remember Them?
Please tell David A. Curtin that his PK article was nicely done.
I am not a PK’er myself, probably never will be, but with David, I
too find something reassuring in a group of men promoting fidelity,
honesty, and hard work.
Thank you.
— Jerry Levy
CALIFORNIA SEER
Re: George Neumayr’s Bringing
Up the Riordan:
George Neumayr sees no point in a Riordan candidacy for
California governor, posing the question ,”What is the point of a
recall that would replace a tax-and-spend Democrat with a
tax-and-spend Republican?” Let us not forget that Gray Davis is a
corrupt hack who is only using the governorship to build a war
chest for his presidential ambitions. None of those things are true
about Riordan, who will use his office to improve conditions within
the state.
To folks like Neumayr who prefer a more dyed-in-the-wool
conservative like Tom McClintock, I would like to pose some
questions of my own: how is McClintock different than 2002 GOP
nominee Bill Simon? Or 1998 nominee Dan Lungren? Why do you expect
that the outcome at the polls will be different this time?
Maybe the reason that a feckless stiff like Davis keeps getting
elected is that being able to paint the conservative GOP nominee as
an anti-choice right-wing extremist is truly a winning strategy in
California today. A more moderate candidate like Riordan robs Davis
of his only argument, and broadens the fraction of the electorate
inclined to vote “yes” to a recall. It appears that Schwarzenegger
isn’t going to run; I predict that if Riordan also stays out that
Davis will beat the recall.
— Tim Bacon
Wrightwood, CA
OLD IN A HURRY
Re: Roel Slachmuylders’ letter (“The View From Old Europe”) in
Reader Mail’s Making
Sense of It All:
Roel Slachmuylders is right, after the planes hit the towers on
9-11 we should have all gone to that hill in Italy from that '70s
Coca-Cola commercial and begged forgiveness from our moral
betters.
— Jennifer Corbeil
Investigator
Roel Slachmuylders, who speaks for all Europeans, needs to vacate
whatever property that he occupies and tender it to whatever
population owned the land prior to his conquering tribe.
As usual, Jews, who have lived thousands of years where the
state of Israel is today, deserve no permanent state while
Palestinians terrorists (who have refused to accept their own
state) do.
Israel represents a large, permanently anchored, unsinkable
aircraft carrier in the Middle East and acts as a minder and
reminder of America’s power.
Israel also reminds me of the Mel Gibson character in the
Lethal Weapon series. America is Danny Glover.
Every once in a while Mel “goes off” and Danny can do nothing
about it (bombing Iraq’s nuke plant, for example) and that is good
enough to keep plenty of those Arab states in line, unless we have
a president like Clinton, whose weakness even a bonehead like Uday
Hussein understood.
And… take back what you said about Mr. Rumsfeld because with
words alone, inside two minutes he would have you crying like the
Euro-girly you are; Roel Slachmuylders!
— John Carrigg
Downers Grove, USA
I can’t wait to see the responses to Mr. Slachmuylders’ futile
attempt at revising history. Regardless. He obviously doesn’t
understand that in spite of our policies, perceived or real,
Americans will defend and strike out against those who choose to
bring harm or threaten our citizens. Furthermore, the fact that we
uprooted the Taliban and removed Saddam and his cronies from power
without the U.N. is proof enough that we could care less about what
wimpy Europeans think of us.
— A. Diaz
Texas
And the point of publishing Roel Slachmuylders’s hate filled
screed
would be, what?
— W. B. Heffernan, Jr.
Reader Rolf Schlachmuylders should have included his address. He
might miss out on the notice of the next SS reunion.
— Chas Dana
In his recent letter regarding the Lawrence Henry article “We
Used to Have a Deal,” Mr. Slachmuylders spouts many of the same
tired misconceptions, misrepresentations and outright fabrications
trotted out by the pro-Arab/anti-Israeli faction for many years
now. A need for brevity precludes a full history lesson at this
time, but some the letter writer’s more grievous assertions should,
in the interest of honest debate, be exposed.
Mr. Slachmuylders states that “both the U.S. and Europe, after
WWII, took sides … favoring Israel.” That statement could be
interpreted as truthful only if one accepts completely the Arab
claim to all of the Middle East. As should be well known
by now, both sides (the Arabs and Jews) had conflicting claims to
the Holy Land. Only after coming to the obvious conclusion that
these competing claims could not be adjudicated did the world
community (through the UN) reach the difficult-but
necessary-decision to partition what was left of Palestine into
separate Jewish and Arab states. Although less than what they
wanted (and significantly less than what had been promised them by
the world community in the past), the Jews accepted this compromise
as being a fair and just solution; essentially, the best deal they
could strike. The Arabs, of course, would accept nothing less than
everything, and chose war instead. So yes, by choosing the side of
compromise, the U.S. did, in a sense “take sides,” in the same
manner in which our government “took sides” in World Wars I and II
by backing the democracies over the totalitarians.
Continuing, Mr. Slachmuylders states that the land was “someone
else’s: the Palestinians.” Is the writer aware that a significant
portion of the Arabs living in Palestine at the time of the
proposed partition were, in fact, immigrants from other Arab lands?
That these Arabs, just like the Jews, had moved to Palestine to
forge a better life for themselves and their families? Why is it
that Arab immigration to Palestine (which was never restricted, or
even accurately accounted for by the British during the mandatory
period) is considered natural and entirely appropriate, whereas
Jewish immigration is seen as some dark, evil force?
Mr. Slachmuylders is likewise blatantly incorrect in several of
his assertions. For example, the notion that the Palestinians “lost
78% of their country to Israel” is so ludicrously false that the
writer is either blissfully ignorant of the facts, or is willingly
espousing Arab propaganda. Even a casual reading of history would
inform him that 76% of Palestine was barred to Jewish immigration
entirely when the British, in a completely arbitrary and capricious
move, created the province of Trans-Jordan (later to become the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) from all of the land of Palestine east
of the Jordan River. In other words, although the British
government (and the world community itself) was committed to the
establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine (boundaries to
be determined), 3/4 of Palestine was removed from the equation
simply to reward an Arab emir from the Arabian peninsula, Abdullah,
who had the misfortune of losing a civil war to the Al Saud clan.
Likewise, the assertion that only massive “military support from
western countries, mainly the U.S.” led to the Palestinians losing
their land turns history on its head. In fact, the U.S. took an
even-handed approach to the arming of the parties in the coming war
of 1948, barring arms sales to both parties. Of course, this put
the Israelis at a tremendous disadvantage, since the many Arab
states had plenty of suppliers willing to sell them arms. In fact,
if it weren’t for the Czechoslovakians selling them weapons, the
Israelis might well have lost their first (and only) war. If they
had, it is certain there would have been no other
Arab-Israeli wars, since the stated aim of the Arabs at that time
(and, to be perfectly frank, ever since) has been the total
destruction of the Jewish state, and most of the Jews themselves.
As for the claim that Israel was not granted the right to “keep its
new conquered lands” — it is not for Europe or the U.S. (or Mr.
Slachmuylders, for that matter) to tell the Israelis, alone among
all people that, having been the victim of unprovoked aggression,
and having successfully resisted this aggression, they must now
give back unconditionally all of the land they won. It is a
well-established rule of war that a defender who repels an
invasion, and thereafter takes the war to his enemies, is not
required to return any land to the enemy until the aggressor signs
a treaty of peace.
Since all of the Arab governments after their wars with Israel
refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist (and, indeed, always
acted as if their defeats were glorious victories), Israel is under
no obligation to give away any advantage won through the blood and
suffering of their armed forces and citizens.
This brings us to the “We in Europe are so much more
sophisticated and nuanced than you uncouth Americans” portion of
Mr. Slachmuylders’ letter. Incredibly, while Mr. Slachmuylders
admits that Europe and the US both were subject to Arab blackmail
starting in 1973 (“the Arabs closed off the oil taps”), he actually
would have us believe that the Europeans’ caving in to this
intimidation was a “more equitable” change in politics. Almost
comically, Mr. Slachmuylders misses the true meaning of his point
that “there was a well-established and very influential Muslim
minority in Europe” namely, that the Europeans are now captive to
their fear of this “very influential” (read: very intimidating and
fear-inducing) Muslim immigrant minority.
In a bit of self-parody which was apparently unavoidable, Mr.
Slachmuylders even throws in the obligatory, thinly-veiled
anti-Semitic slur: “Henry Kissinger — not coincidentally a Jewish
American..” He would have us “soften” our approach to the Muslim
world, like our intellectual superiors, the Europeans. Yes, by all
means, let us turn a blind eye to rape, destruction, a culture of
death, gassing of women and children, torture chambers, a national
press that would do Der Sturmer proud-all of this we
should be willing to accept “as the Europeans had done,” because we
should “do the math-4,000,000 (Israel) vs. 120,000,000 (the
Arabs)?” Perhaps Europeans like Mr. Slachmuylders are sanguine in
their complicity to atrocities, just so long as the Arabs keep the
taps open. And if a few (million?) Jews die in the process (not to
mention the many tens or hundreds of thousands of Arabs and other
Muslims, victims of Islamo-fascism), well what is a sophisticated
and nuanced European to do?
— Mark W. Tinder
Bridgewater, New Jersey USA
NORTHERN EXPOSURE
I wish to compliment your good work! Keep it up and call me a
fan!
— Mary Manion
Ottawa, Ontario
