The American Spectator

Reader Mail

WHAT WILL THEY TAKE AWAY NEXT?
Re: Brooke M. Goldstein and Aaron Meyer's Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands:

Look for Holland to mandate sign language as the exclusive means of communication, with all but the middle fingers and while wearing mittens. Next, it will be illegal to look directly into another's eyes, in the event that it might offend them. (One might gaze briefly into one's own eyes in a mirror, but only for an instant.) Next,…
-- David Govett
Davis, California

Business at the same old stand.

Anne Frank and her family were hauled off in perfect conformance with the laws then in force in the Netherlands. Whatever happened to the fellow Dutch who turned them in?

 From the looks of things, they went on to write more of Holland's laws. Somebody should tell Wilders to run for it while there's time.
-- Martin Owens
Sacramento, California

When democracy is threatened, be it by spear, knife, gun, tank or nuclear device, both the Left and the Right put on sackcloth and ashes. Wailing, gnashing of teeth and lamentations are heard to heavens gates. And rightly so. But when democracy is denied its sustenance, freedom of speech, not a whisper wafts from our lips.

The Netherlands has every reason to hang its head in shame. Every free nation has reason to tremble in fear.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Chairman Mao would understand this ruling, as would dear old Fidel, and most certainly Putin. As for those citizens within the Netherlands, well it may take them too long to realize the path their society is traveling.

Over here, in the States, we will glance at them, but not much more will come of it. We have our new savior, Obama. Soon, we will learn just how we must act toward his decrees.

How many can recall that angry religious leader, the man with the scowl, sitting in that small room talking about how he intended to go back to his beloved Iran and remove the Shah?

Anger (over being left out) seems to drive many people.

"Religion of peace" is what Ali mumbled to us right after 9/11 when the stars offered a tribute to comfort and rally our spirits.

Kinda like the husband who is caught in bed with his wife's best girlfriend whereupon he looks up at his startled wife and says: "Honey, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?"

Perhaps it is time to apply that old duck test. Does it quack, waddle, etc.?
-- R. Philips
New Mexico

Spoke to me cousin last night and he recounted an incident at work Tuesday afternoon. It seems he was the only one (not to be confused with the "One") who did not vote for our current president and let it be known. This upset his fellow employees who complained to his supervisor. He was formerly reprimanded for "upsetting" people. When he asked why his feelings were not taken into account during the last 6 years of Bush-bashing the response was that nobody was upset by it. He was told "we don't like you talking politics and bashing Obama." Even though his contention was the opinion was within the context of conservatism versus liberalism the response was the same. "We" don't care. His response was not documented.

At least one can argue a point of law in a court however distorted the law may be but in American workplaces where there is fear of termination, this is just as chilling but not "cool.
-- Name withheld

IT'S GETTIN' HOT IN HERE
Re: Paul Chesser's Profiles in Cowardice:

Mr. Chesser gets it right in his piece on Arkansas. The global warming cult wants to cut off debate in any way possible. If the cult disallows opposing viewpoints, the masses will be indoctrinated by the lies and shoddy research put forth in the press. Then the masses will gladly give up more personal freedom in order to "save the planet." The real truth is that global warming is a hoax. There is no scientific information anywhere that proves such is happening. Weather patterns are cyclical and there is not enough data taken with high quality instruments to show that we are cooling or warming over the last 100 years. So what if we are, who's to say that it's a bad thing for the earth to change temperature? I'm old enough to remember the 1970s when the left pushed the idea that we were entering a new "ice age" if something was not done. That something is always more government regulation and less personal freedom. Ultimately, the cult wants to subject the entire world to the rule of the few. Global warming pseudo-science is just their current tool. I urge all Americans to think about what they read and hear, then apply common sense thinking to it. I believe very little of the cult propaganda will pass the common sense test.
-- Brian Jones

The cry of the alarmist is one of hysteria. As a scientist specializing in material science I read and follow technology trends and journals from all over the world. In the last 18 months I have been reading European articles that read something like this: "since the debate over Global Warming is over and settled anyone who argues against it is an enemy of the human race and needs to silenced!"

Amazingly enough it was written by scientists about taking away the right of speech from scientists who disagreed or questioned their conclusions. Pardon me but when did science advance by silencing disagreeable opinions? Especially opinions from noteworthy academics and researchers!

Well they are right it is settled and over. Last year the earth lost 2.5 degrees, the total we had supposedly gained since the beginning of the industrial age. The newer forecast is 5 years of colder than normal weather. The German researchers who spearheaded the GW scare recently decided to call it global climate variation and said they would revisit GW in about 15 years. What happened to "we only had 12 months to save the planet" or humanity would be extinct?
-- Richard J. Kaiser

The greatest public service which The American Spectator could perform is the complete annihilation of the global warming quackery. Perhaps launching a separate magazine on the subject would be beneficial. There is not one shred of truth to any of the imbecilic assumptions and assertions of these Nazis, but because they follow Jospeh Gobbel's advice to tell a lie often enough they have prevailed in their pursuit to de-industrialize, tax, and control in ways to make Pol Pot envious.

Global warming forms the basis of a neo-pagan religion which in turn carries with it the most mind-numbing anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, but pro-totalitarian agendas for a new world order. It is long past time for adult supervision of these hyper-emotional children.
-- David Bonn

OH FOR GOP'S SAKE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s No Time for Mischief:

Well, we can already see the GOP in stupid mode. As a breathtaking budget-busting smorgasbord of government pork (projects of sufficiently small interest that private capital and local government capital have been unwilling to fund) and transfer payments/wealth redistribution are being put forward as "stimulus," Republicans crow that they have not been totally cut out of the process and they might get some of theirs as well. What nonsense! When has government "enterprise" and "fair dealing" ever effectively substituted for private entrepreneurship in obtaining sustainable economic growth? All the "stimulus" will do is delay recovery, possibly ignite inflation, and build in increased public sector spending to reduce potential economic growth for years to come. When has socialism ever worked? There is an alternative that Republicans could be pushing: the Reagan solution (in a time of BOTH rising unemployment and rising inflation) of reduced marginal tax rates, sound money, and some restraint on government spending. Don't expect the GOP Congressional "leaders" to present such sensible ideas. They are too invested in cutting a deal so they can avoid looking like an opposition party as we all sing Kumbaya along with the Obamamessiah.

The sheeples in the GOP have already shown of what stuff they are made. There were exactly two votes against Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Now, unlike the radical Democrat senators, I do believe that elections have consequences and the president should get to choose cabinet members who are comfortable with his program. However, it is reasonable to expect a key cabinet member is of good character. The Democrats not so long ago rejected John Tower as Secretary of Defense on character issues, and at the time I believed this was reasonable (if the charges of his alcoholism were true). Now we have signed off on a Secretary of State, who not only has no relevant experience to hold this post (which is the President's call), but is an unindicted crook and beneficiary of influence peddling to foreign governments. We are about to sign off on a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury, and the most political Attorney General since the days of Bobby Kennedy. Does anyone on this blog believe that the Democrats would allow similar situations to slide through the confirmation process almost unopposed?

Well, GOP congresspeople, keep on smilin' as you get rolled in this era of bi-partisan cooperation in socialism and third world style corruption. I can already see elements of the Obama style as National Scold. As the not-so-new Democrat policies keep failing to rescue America from internal economic problems and external threats, you can nod your collective head and bleat about the need for us all to come together under the wise stewardship of the Obamamessiah as he calls for Americans to sacrifice -- their income (we must be forced to help the less fortunate), their comfort (break out the Jimmy Carter sweaters), their cars (microboxes should be good enough for any of the little people), their freedom of speech ("fairness doctrine", hate speech legislation). If I believed in God, I could only say, God help the United States of America. It doesn't appear that anyone else is going to do so.
-- Stephen Zierak
Kansas City, Missouri

VOTE FOR CROOKS, GET ROBBED

In 1933 as people were reacting against bankers, financiers and the New York Stock Market FDR appointed Joseph P. Kennedy as Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission. Partisans charged that Kennedy made his millions by speculating in stocks, commodities, real estate, Hollywood studios and, of course, bootlegging. Roosevelt countered: "In times like these, we need the biggest crook in the country in there." Is that the kind of Treasury Secretary we want in charge of trillions of dollars of "bail out" money? We get what we vote for. May we get what we deserve!
-- Michael McCarthy

GETTING SHORT WITH SCHAPER
Re: Steve Schaper's letter (under "Disease Can Also Kill You") in Reader Mail's Gettin' Bossy:

Mr. Schaper asks "Perhaps the author could explain how needed medical care that is too expensive for those unable to afford insurance can be obtained?" I am not the author, but I would be glad to answer his question.

Medicaid or just walk into any emergency room. No money is needed for either one.
-- Garry Greenwood
Gearhart, Oregon