- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Reader Mail
Under Attack
(Page 2 of 4)
The goal of the democrat leadership is a Cuban style democracy. One Party, one leader, one candidate, one correct vote. Strict control of the population by a central state apparatus and we serve the government, not the other way round.
Costa Rica looks mighty good to me!
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
The time has come for the argument against over-taxing the rich to get down to the real issue. It’s actually very simple. The next time someone from the left comes on one of your shows and starts talking about how the rich “can afford it” or how the rich “need to pay their fair share” or how “the little guy needs some relief” or some other platitude, you have to be prepared to pound them on the following points:
But it’s their money. When did it become legal to plunder the rich?
What happens if the rich quit? What if they decide to shut down their businesses? What happens if the rich say to themselves, “the heck with it, why should I work 20 hours a day trying to run a business, if no one is at least going to say thank you? Why should I work myself to the bone, just so that I can have more money confiscated from me? I don’t mind helping, but I’m not going to stand here and be called villain when I’m the one forking up the money to pay for everybody else’s living. The heck with this……..I quit!”
What happens if Atlas Shrugs? Then what are you going to do?
This country was built on the premise that its citizens were free to keep the fruits of their labor. If the government violates that fundamental right of man, then where does it end? I submit to you that one needs look no further than the failed state of North Korea and the former USSR to see what’s in store for us, once we go down that path that says the government has the power to take “from those according to their abilities” to give to “those according to their needs” which is what’s really behind Obama’s statement to “spread the wealth around”. We all know that is the basic tenant of Marxism, and that whenever it has been tried throughout history, it has ended in disaster for the people of the country or regime that perpetrated it on its citizenry.
This is the argument that needs to be made, and the sooner it
starts, the better.
-- Richard DeRosa
Stockton, California
"False ideals cannot be shattered by criticism. Right ideals must
take up the battle against them." -- Franz Werfel
Social Security was an integral part of an interesting experiment
(completely without Constitutional foundations, which is why the
Supreme Court knocked down many components of the FDR’s New Deal,
and which is why he subsequently sought to stack the SCOTUS,
which also was ruled to be completely unconstitutional
which makes FDR the father of abuse of executive power --
yet the Left who idolize Roosevelt deplore Bush 43) that morphed
into an entitlement transmuted into an inalienable right (for
both native born and illegal immigrants). The thing with
experiments is that they require monitoring, verification and set
end points. Social Security has none of these qualities. One
might well wonder how people ever survived before the Nanny State
put a pacifier in the mouths of babes (citizens). The answer was
family support and real community support, not community
organizers.
Social Security is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever invented.
And what makes it so great is the people who get short change
(royally screwed) aren’t today’s voters; in fact, most of the
victims of this inter-generational rip have not yet been born.
While it is true that if Social Security was ended today the
result would be devastating to the economy in general and the
elderly in particular a change is sorely needed.
Obama’s offer of change is to further drain and re-channel
today’s resources. We Baby Boomer’s (I am at the tail of end)
need to wean ourselves off Social Security within a reasonable
time period (ten years from the start of the next
administration?) if we to be able to face our grandchildren with
clear national conscience. If we don’t begin to make changes now,
I fear for my grandchildren -- and they are far from being
born.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
READ CLOSELY
Re: W. James Antle, III's Rocking
the House:
Antle's report is false. I just received a solicitation from the
NRCC on behalf of Michelle Bachmann this morning. What are you
trying to do?
-- Tal Campbell
Beaumont, California
W. James Antle, III replies:
Comments
Leave a Comment
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Losing It
- Barney and Friends
Stuart Koehl| 10.27.08 @ 6:25AM
Regarding Mike Dooley's letter of 27 October, "Under Attack", while the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople (to give the full and accurate title) as recited in the various Western Churches includes the famous (or infamous) Flioque clause (the Holy Spirit "who proceeds from the Father and the Son), in fact, the original Greek text of the Creed merely states that the Holy Spirit is "the Lord and Giver of Light, who proceeds from the Father". This has been, of course, the major bone of contention between the Churches of the East and West since the 9th century.
In an effort to resolve the matter, the Pontifical Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity issued in 1996 a "Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit", which begins by stating that the original, uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed is the only "universally binding ecumenical symbol of faith". It also points out that the Fathe alone is the "Archos Anarche", from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, while at the same time noting that the Holy Spirit is sent into the world by the action of the Son.
Underlining the point, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI use the Creed without the Filioque when writing ecumenical documents. As a Byzantine Catholic--a member of an Eastern Catholic Church that follows Orthodox practices and beliefs while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome--I have not used the Filioque in any liturgical service since the mid-1990s, precisely because it is the policy of the Church of Rome to respect the Tradition of each particular Church in the Catholic Communion.
Moreover, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops is at the present time completing the process of eliminating the Filioque from vernacular celebration of the Mass of the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church, "in order to bring liturgical practice into line with doctrine". When the Filioque is finally suppressed throughout the Latin Church, the cause of Christian unity will receive a tremendous boost by bringing all the apostolic Churches of the world under the same Symbol of Faith.
It's interesting that the Episcopal Church, which has in general walked away from all forms of Tradition in the last half century, should be clinging tendentiously to the Filioque, a doctrinal innovation of dubious theological import, at a time when it is jettisoning most of the other core doctrines it carried away when it broke from the Church of Rome back in the 16th century.
Craig Sarver| 10.27.08 @ 1:32PM
God, I hate this letters format!
ruth| 10.27.08 @ 4:50PM
Me, too! What was wrong with the old one?
J. Peter Freire| 10.27.08 @ 8:49PM
We're going to make this one page again -- sorry about this problem.
Pul DeSto| 10.28.08 @ 1:12PM
Thanks, Mr. Friere. I don't like the new letter format either.
Ms. Know| 10.30.08 @ 12:23AM
It is not over, the polls aren't votes. Majority of these polls are bias towards the liberal illuminati, so they mean nothing until next week.