The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Palestinian Problems

3.21.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

Sadly, Mr. Lerner and others who have the sense to see what's coming with LOST, it appears that our Senate does not.

I wrote to both of my Senators with reasons to not vote to ratify. One answered with a short form letter saying that he would keep my thoughts in mind. The other answered with a long form letter
obviously written by some research group, repeating the history of the treaty.

I responded to the latter and asked him about one particular part of his response -- "accession to the treaty would not result in any changes to current U.S. domestic or foreign policy" and asked him these questions:

"1. Is the following clause not in the treaty: participating states, 'shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards applied through competent international organizations'?" [It's in the treaty several times, by the way.]

"2. Will not application of that clause require us to adopt laws and regulations because of the treaty, and, as a result, require the very "changes in current U.S. domestic or foreign policy" that you say will not result?

"3. And will not application of that clause require those changes whenever a "competent international organization" requires it?

"4. Would not such a requirement invade our sovereignty?"

This was his first answer: "Your message has been received by my office and will be carefully reviewed by a member of my staff." At least the other Senator used the first person singular.

His second answer will be his vote to ratify.

If I added to this letter the rest of what I want to say, you wouldn't print it.
-- A. C. Santore

One observation, it seems to me, about ratifying LOST is that if the U.S. does this it will surrender
its control of drilling off of our coasts. The end result may just be that you will be able to stand anywhere on the U.S. coast and see an oil rig.

I wonder if the enviros, in particular our Florida representatives have thought of this?
-- John Cropp

RUBE GOLDBERG
Re: John Tabin's Fun with Fascism:

Having heard Goldberg tout his book and read some exerts I now know one thing, Jonah missed his history classes. Apart from some interesting extrapolations -- anyone who thinks deeply about any issue is to be congratulated -- this book is a re-writing of history, revisionism if you will. It sounds appealing to those who think every ill of the world can be put down to the damn lefties, but unfortunately for Jonah, Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany were as Right-wing as you'd get, more George W. Bush that Bill Clinton. As for Goldberg's coupling of Nationalism with Socialism, Goldberg better go back to the French Revolution and consider the seating at the Tennis Court Oath, then study a couple of centuries of history and then maybe Goldberg and his bedfellow Coulter wouldn't be national jokes. Also, thank you American Spectator for stopping your Obama fawning and you obvious love-in with him, and countering with a bit of journalism.
-- Nathan Maskiell
Melbourne, Australia

Mr. Tabin offers a fair and hopefully inviting thumbnail sketch of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. It is arguably one of the most important books on American politics in the past several years, well worth the investment of time for those who haven't yet had the pleasure of reading it.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Trade, John McCain, Business, Islam, Books, Law, Iran, Israel, NATO, Socialism, Fascism, Energy, Oil