2.26.07 @ 12:01AM
Re: Tom Van Dyke’s What Did Conservatives Get Right?:
What did The American Spectator get right? Publishing the pithy and highly entertaining, as well as informative, commentary of Tom Van Dyke. Great quotable quotes, logical and succinct, and easily understood even by one’s most attention-challenged liberal friends…..
Keep ‘em coming, please!
— Barbara Keegan
Los Angeles, California
To the closed mind, the obvious is always the most difficult to understand. The Liberals’ need for self-aggrandizement will continually create problems where they don’t exist so they can feel the overflow of goodness in their generous hearts as they seek solutions with other people’s money.
The laundry in your list will need repeated washings. Do not use Clorox. Hang it out in the sunshine and let neighbors gossip.
Rubba, dub, dub,
— Katherine Henryk
North Hollywood, California
A most timely and excellent article.
I agree with the sentiment and direction of the author in his declared destination. It is what I wish I had the ability to articulate.
My contribution, is to examine the possibility of building a pathway to that declared destination. I know that I have achieved that ambition.
I have used the technology of today to make it just about impossible, for any politician to demand payment of direct taxation on a legal basis in the United Kingdom. Nothing very much will change, in the daily routine of the population. An agreed local taxation will be paid on a very simple single rate over and above a weekly standard.
But as I say, I can put a stop to the elected politicians, in the UK., it is up to people like Tom Van Dyke and others to put the system back together again.
The Google Search Engine, has the BBC Action Network at the top
of its list with “Sovereignty Money Politics Taxation.” There are
many links to organizations that are sympathetic to this idea. I
thought it might be of interest to you. And once again, Thank you
very much for your publication, it doesn’t feel so lonely to know
others are thinking similar thoughts.
— Anthony Flynn
This was a well-organized article. It was set forth in a conclusory
fashion. After some reflection, however, it became apparent that
the logic behind each conclusion was irrefutable. Thanks for a
— Paul Bemiller
Re: R. Andrew Newman’s Been There, Donne That:
I just want to thank you for printing Andrew Newman’s Lenten
article. One of the reason’s I love the Spectator is that
it deals with issues of faith in a matter-of-fact way. No
apologies. No couching your language. We are passionate Christians
and we are engaged in the politics and culture of our nation. Live
with it. Be blessed by it. Keep up the good work!
— Steve Baarda
Re: Paul Beston’s To Retire or Expire:
If the airlines can tell a pilot when to retire, seems to me
there should be an age limit on the Supreme Court, after all they
can kill many more people, think abortion, than a pilot can. Why do
we want the highest court in the land to be filled with very old,
— Elaine Kyle
I suppose failing health and mental abilities of lifetime appointees is of great concern. But I’ve always worried more about they way these justices seem to live in their own little bubble, with little contact with the “real world” or “regular Americans.”
Still, most of late have gotten out before the final crunch. At
least when they know the time is near, they do get out. I give
these justices credit for that.
— Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s True Manhood:
If George Bush did graduate from a navel academy, then no wonder
the war in Iraq isn’t going at all to plan. Enrolling in a navel
academy might teach you a lot about belly buttons, but not a lot
about matters nautical. A naval academy, on the other hand…
— Christopher Holland
I failed to find much humor in “humorist” Jay Homnick’s article on
President Bush and to be too cute by at least half. I also find his
reference to the president’s comparing himself to Truman as
“channeling’ to be mere bloviating. Mr. Homnick’s opinion
notwithstanding, I think our current president will go down as an
exceptional leader, who faced extremely hard choices head on, while
facing incessant criticism by the dems and talking heads in the
media. I truly think that, if and in spite of his low poll numbers,
a line-by-line comparison of the accomplishments of this president
and the previous administration, the results would be startling.
George W. Bush will be remembered by a grateful nation in years to
come, while most will be shrugging, Jay who?
Candler, North Carolina
The difference between Truman and Bush, is Truman knew how to end a
— Elaine Kyle
Re: Christopher Orlet’s Sulejmen the Mysterious:
Why is it that when otherwise thinking people do an insightful/extensive report on subjects such as the Moslem mall shooter in Utah, they end up their piece with a decided slap at a conservative principle (i.e. “right to carry” firerarms)? Do they think this somehow legitimizes them with liberals? Political correctness continues to dictate “thou shalt not speak of Moslem terrorists in America,” just like it requires all “reasonable people” to admit that citizens carrying firearms is dangerous.
This is liberal condescension at its worst, and I’ve found it prevalent among self-professed “conservatives.”
I have no problem with any responsible American carrying his “Smith and Wesson”, in the mall or wherever. I don’t care if my fellow American is a doctor, lawyer, accountant, carpenter, or janitor, he is an American.
As state after state has experienced, crime goes DOWN as
citizens may actually exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Perhaps the survivors of the victims of this terrorist incident
might want to consider a suit against the mall whose policy (very
politically correctly) was no firearms. Obviously the terrorist was
not in compliance. But then, are they ever limited by these laws or
rules? So who are the rules really meant to control?
— Glenn G. Greeno
Mr. Orlet opines: “Personally I find it a bit whacked to want to tote around a Smith & Wesson on the one-in-ten-billion chance a jihadist or a mad milkman is going to show up at the dry cleaners or the post office with a shotgun. Though I certainly understand how the relatives of the murder victims might feel that way.”
I would remind him that it’s not about the odds, it’s about the
stakes involved. I am sure Mr. Orlet has insurance on his auto and
home. No reason to look at having a S&W any differently.
— Sam Guy
Re: Carol Platt Liebau’s See No Evil…Unless!:
All I know is that, if either me or mine fall into the hands of
terrorists, the last thing I would want is a police force waiting
to check with the legal department to see if it was OK to knock on
the door. I sincerely hope a Jack Bauer would to there to do
whatever it took to help me. If I were to die, I’d hope Jack could
“prevent” the terrorists from doing it again.
— Michael Dooley
Mr. Christian Evans advises to “read the Bible cover to
cover…” Well, I suppose this passes for an objective, first hand
contact with an ancient text. “Mr. Plotz is just writing his
impressions of the text as someone who has not read the Bible and I
believe he does so as one who takes the text seriously.” But this
where our time gets it wrong. Raising MY impressions and MY
thoughts on scripture to the forefront gets it all backwards.
Contrary to popular views, Martin Luther did not believe in nor
advocate private interpretation of the Bible. The Word of God
stands outside our petty opinions and has an integrity all its own.
God alone interprets his Word. In this regard, we are to carefully
listen for His voice in the company of His church. In other words,
to read the Scriptures apart from the faith is not to read it at
all. Human beings have neither the resources nor the wisdom to
understand the things of God. All we really know about Him was
revealed on the cross. Before God, “we are all beggars. And that is
— Mike Dooley
Mr. Craig Sarver misquoted me. I wrote, “Anyone who takes time to
read the Bible cover to cover…” which is not the same as giving
the “nominal advice” to “read the Bible cover to cover.” I don’t
mind critiques of my letter, but I would prefer that the critic
actually address what I said rather than what he wants me to
— Christian Evans
I wish to thank Deroy Murdock for replying to my letter re: Rudolph Giuliani. While his criticisms are well-taken, his defense of Giuliani left unanswered some vital questions on where he stands on the vital issues of our day.
For instance, no mention is made of Giuliani’s extreme views on abortion. Not only does he support legalized abortion, he is against a ban on partial-birth abortion, a particularly heinous procedure that only the most ardent liberals want to keep in practice. In fact, when then-Mayor Giuliani was running against Hillary Clinton for the U.S. Senate in 2000, New York’s Conservative Party refused to endorse him. And when asked about his pro-choice views in 1999, he told CNN: “No, I have not supported [the ban on partial-birth abortion], and I don’t see my position changing…I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights.”
I was unaware of Giuliani’s 1989 statement regarding the family. However, two points must be raised. First, the political climate on this issue was much different in 1989 than it is today. Outside of radical organizations like ACT-UP and some far-left members of academia, not too many people openly supported gay marriage back then.
Second, Giuliani refused to support the “Defense of Marriage Act” in 2004 saying, “I certainly wouldn’t support (a ban on same-sex marriage) at this time.”
My question is, why not? The last time I checked, being conservative at its most basic level means preserving that which is good, and benefits our society as a whole. Marriage between one man and one woman has existed for thousands of years, and study after study has confirmed this institution to be beneficial. If Rudy Giuliani could not stand for this most basic institution, what right does he have to call himself a conservative?
Finally, as impressive as his clean-up of New York City is (and it is impressive), why did he advocate a stronger federal role in gun control, including backing the Brady Bill? Not too many card-carrying conservatives would agree that this was prudent.
My thanks to Mr. Murdock for setting me straight on his own
record. I stand corrected. But I must close by asking: if Rudy
Giuliani would not take a stand for preserving marriage as an
institution reserved for one man and one woman, be pro-choice to
the point of opposing a ban on a type of abortion that Patrick
Moynihan called “too close to infanticide,” and stand against
gun-owners rights, why is he being defended as a
— Greg Hoadley
Deerfield Beach, Florida
Thanks for helping out, Mr. Murdock, with a great piece. Hopefully, with the addition of someone of your inestimable credentials, we can break through some of the barriers of bias toward Rudy. Let it be said that Rudy isn’t perfect. Three wives (?) but who’s counting, New York mayor, yada, yada, yada, etc. Name even a potential “conservative” candidate who is perfect? Newt? The Democrats crucified him over how he handled the divorce of his first wife, among other things. Still, maybe, and I like Newt, but he’s not in the race, yet. And, Rudy’s got a lot to learn. He could us a little “gravitas.” There are some good pieces about whether Rudy is a good choice for looking forward, he needs to get past 9/11. And even those, like Ms. Fabrizio’s, which make some pointed psychoanalytical arguments about Rudy’s trustworthiness, constitutional philosophy, etc. We’re not voting for Pope, although I wonder if Ms. Fabrizio would be able to support any of a number of past holders of that hallowed office if they were running for POTUS. How about St. Augustine, Ms. Fabrizio?
Maybe, someone else will show up who could do a better job of
slaying the Shrillary Billary dragon. If so, I’m on board. And,
maybe Rudy is just what the MSM thinks will undo the GOP. Maybe.
But, as it stands now, the bottom line is this. When you
wake up on January 21, 2009, what will be the world you have made?
A former U.S. Attorney who served under one of the best President’s
in the history of the country, supported by someone like Deroy
Murdock (and Andrew McCarthy, I might add, for those who don’t
know), or “It Takes a Village” and her idiot, or maybe we’ll just
“peace out, brother,” and enjoy a few years of an
— Mike Showalter
Rudy could do something to allay the fears of the Second Amendment community that he is in bed with Ted and Chuckie on this issue. He (unlike slippery McCain) can claim that he suffered from a cultural bias and admit that he was wrong to support lawsuits that were designed to destroy the firearms industry. Talking sweet words to hunters is an old ploy that the last two Democrat Presidential nominees tried with little effect.
A convincing admission of being wrong on this issue would work
wonders for the former mayor. But is he smart enough to do so?
— Arthur Downs
Wild Quail, Delaware
Re: Catherine Pape’s letter (under “Don’t Forget Rudy’s Flip-Flops”) in Reader Mail’s Deroy Murdock Weighs In:
“Rudy is a Damn Yankee who is on his way to the presidency,” Catherine Pape wrote.
Rudy lost the “Damn” on 9-11.
He is the one Republican who could shame Hillary into
Sign up for our weekly newsletter:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
By John Corry
By Mark Steyn
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
By Mark Steyn
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
By Brit Hume
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.
Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.