JUST IF
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s
Stand and Deliver: Opposing Obama’s Court Nominee:
Well, Jeffrey Lord should know. And I unreservedly accept
his analysis in this matter.
He’s much too much a gentleman, however, to say it harshly, as
it must be said in order to get through to some of our
thick-headed Republican Senators who still believe that they
can work with the far left on anything.
Why can’t our American politicians — from the top down — ever
learn that we can’t fight barbarians with Marquis of
Queensbury rules? Well, we can, but they won’t, so the
outcome will be inevitable.
If our Republican Senators see that the Obama nominee is a
flaming liberal, they have to follow the lead of the
Democrats and attack her liberal credentials [I can’t use
the word “Bork” here] from the minute she is nominated, and
to attack her into withdrawing, or attack her until the
Proto-Dictator withdraws her nomination and sends up someone
more moderate.
I’m not suggesting that they do anything illegal, immoral,
or unethical. Just follow the Democrats’ lead and
expose her every weakness, highlight her every act of
judicial activism, and quote with appropriate disgust her
every anti-Constitution utterance. And if she has
erred in her life, expose that, too.
Yeah, I know. I can hear the response that I’ve “pre-judged
her.” No, I haven’t. I wrote in the conditional
- “IF our Republicans see that the Obama nominee is a
flaming liberal,” etc. On the other hand, if they see
that she is a moderate, then they can take the historical
route and try to get at her judicial philosophy and
temperament, and judge her qualifications from there.
But we all know that she won’t be a moderate, don’t we?
— A. C. Santore
If anything good can come of the passing of Jack Kemp it is
powerfully evident in this article. Conservatives must be
galvanized to begin the difficult fight to reclaim relevance in
politics. By remembering the steadfast commitment of Jack Kemp we
can begin to take pride again in our beliefs. I think we’ve been
back on our heels in the recent years, due to the accumulation of
events around the world and doing our best to manage our own
personal affairs. Do not be apologetic to your liberal friends.
Be certain of your argument and polite in delivering your point
of view, but never back off. Keep in mind folks like Sean
Hannity, who is always respectful, but doesn’t flinch or
undermine his argument by deferring to a philosophical opponent
just to be agreeable.
We saw the lack of political courage over the recent decade,
where the members to the right of the aisle in both houses shied
away from the big fights, because their views were being
pilloried by the CNN crowd and their political opposition. They
got along to get along, squandered their opportunity for
meaningful change and got creamed. Now begins the next great
struggle. And if anyone thinks that is being melodramatic, just
think how awful our great nation will be if the president and the
congress are able to enact their wish list over the coming few
years. We can’t begin to imagine what additional encroachments
they can conjure against the American people and the organizing
beliefs the Founding Fathers laid out for us. Start small if you
must. I for one will plan on helping to defeat the Honorable
Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, my home state, by giving
time to his opponent’s campaign. Stuffing envelopes, making small
but steady donations where possible, knocking on doors and
whatever else it may take to make our change one step at a time.
Many similar steps taken all over the country will add up to a
meaningful difference in the next cycle.
— Bruce Love
Darien, Connecticut
HIS TIMING IS GOOD…TOO GOOD
Re: Peter
Ferrara’s
Is Obama Delaying Economic Recovery?
The one point I think is obvious, but unreported…is that he is
timing the “recoveries” to time with the mid-term elections and
his re-election. Probably just enough economic ‘hope’ to get him
past those two events. Why else delay the money at all?
— Larry Thomas
Lilburn, Georgia
Obama has no interest in a recovery. Every move he makes is to
solidify his presidential power.
If he can figure it out, and if we give him leeway, he will
“bury” us (where have we heard that threat before). Obama is the
first president to abhor America. On his inauguration day, he
considers himself a Citizen of the World and America is merely
one of his domains. If he were not so dangerous it would be
funny.
— George Hall
Marietta, Georgia
RACE, STATUS: NOT CONSIDERATIONS
Re: David
Hogberg’s To
Heller and Back:
When considering Second Amendment issues for the citizens of
Washington D.C., remember that we now live in AmeriKKKa.
What is AmeriKKKa, you ask? AmeriKKKa is the USA under one-party
rule. And the Klan, historically, has been the terrorist wing of
the Party.
Ghosts of the Klan make their presence felt to this day. Had you
asked a Klansman whether Negroes could be trusted with firearms,
he’d think you were crazy, and tell you that is why it is
illegal for them to be armed. Party thinking on this issue has
not changed.
When you hear Party leaders advocate waiting periods and
background checks, think poll taxes and literacy tests. The Party
also adopted complex voting registration processes, at
inconvenient places and times, to discourage minority
registration. The same methods are deployed to hinder gun
ownership.
One might argue that the rules apply to all uniformly, but a
disparate impact on African-Americans is obvious. An Equality
Impact Assessment is not even required — just look at the
political jurisdictions, and the targeted groups, where these
roadblocks are erected.
There is another sinister, but intended, consequence to
restricting gun access. Driving While Black is not a crime, but
racial profilers have treated it as probable cause. Carrying
While Black, in many jurisdictions, has been made a felony. Does
anyone doubt that the federal government will follow a
states’ rights approach? That is, the feds will turn a blind eye
while local jurisdictions wield gun laws to harrass and
intimidate their subjects.
— Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
The Heller decision was symbolism over substance. What 25,000
colonists died to secure and was enshrined in the Bill of Rights
and Constitution combined is now just the Bill of Privileges for
those with positions of power and funds to pay the entry fee for
their privileges. It is the same scam it has been throughout
time. Words don’t mean anything; the only thing “governments”
respect is power (to remove them). At the end of the day lawyers
win on both sides of this issue while nothing changes down where
the masses have to live and survive. 400+ years of tradition and
practice came down to over 150 pages of stating the obvious while
then leaving the Fox still in charge of the Hen House. Nothing is
going to change until the Supreme Court of the United States gets
a “pair” and fulfills its duty to protect the Constitution.
— Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
PRESIDENT SUFFIX
Re: Joseph Shattan’s
The Four Pillars of Obamaism:
Le mot juste.
A friend of mine recently came up with the perfect adjective to
describe Obama, his minions, and others of his ilk:
Obamunist!
— Gretchen L. Chellson
Alexandria, Virginia
TIP-NATO-ING OUT OF THE
ALLIANCE
Re: Doug Bandow’s What’s
NATO for Again?
Patriotism, power, and self-interest once again
collide. Just as a young man may be well served having his
broker take an aggressive stance in playing the stock market and
changing to a more conservative posture as he enters retirement
years, Americans are served best if they demand that their
leaders check that their policies are sufficiently cautious.
What is the current value in being not only a member, but the
first among equals, in NATO? From the moment of its
inception until the day Soviet Empire died, the self-interest in
belonging to NATO was clear: America had
self-interest, morally, ethically, historically, and
financially, in keeping the Russian bear in check and out of
Europe. Once the U.S.S.R. was brought down and its military
shown to be a hollow shell of its once proud self, America had
less interest in maintaining its presence in Europe: the threat
of attack was lessened. But asking Europe to go cold turkey
after being dependent on America’s largess for so long would have
led to many difficulties, especially along the diplomatic and
public relations fronts. A slow, sure and steady stand down
of American troops was the logical move. Europe was strong
enough to handle its own affairs, including enough standing
troops to manage the Kosovo conflict. Yet, more than 20 years
after the fall of the “Evil Empire,” American troops and dollars
are still being transferred for European defense. The value
of this transfer does not meet its costs. It is illogical
to maintain our troops in high numbers or to be a member of NATO.
If America were to pull out of NATO, the organization would
die. Further stimulating the economy would be the savings
that could come from withdrawal from NATO; the savings would be
in the billions. The monies would be well directed into
increasing troop levels and readiness here at home.
Withdrawal from NATO is not withdrawal from the world; now is not
the time for neo-isolationism (thank you Messrs Paul and
Buchanan). Now is the time to use our military prudently in
our self-interests.
NATO: an idea and an organization whose time has come — and
gone.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
DRUDGING FOR EVIDENCE
Re: William Murchison’s Killing
Time:
What is happening to print media? Why are newspapers and
magazines failing? Apologists for print media insist
the reason is that bloggers have stolen their readership.
And these same bloggers do not have credentials the print media
does, so they can’t be trusted. And radio shows are
poisoning the well.
The other argument is that with a $500 computer, one can
read articles from perhaps 50 print sources. Such a
deal! What happened?
Matt Drudge is what happened. Matt Drudge discovered
the new media world. And traditional media paid too much
attention to an “old media world.” Drudge and his
followers offer a better media deal for consumers and customers
are flocking to him and his clones in droves.
Old media will have to reformulate itself, make new brands, and
compete for customers. Anyone care to buy a buggy whip?
— Howard Lohmuller
AN IVORY TOWERING CONDEMNATION
Re: Patrick
O’Hannigan’s
Defending Mary Ann Glendon:
As a Catholic I do not think anyone needs to defend any of us who
are Catholic. We merely follow the faith of all the martyrs
down all the centuries. We know we have the true
faith. Because of our monks and their lifetime of hand
writing all Christians have the Bible.
This woman needs no defense. If she had gone she would have
committed a mortal sin and it seems she is smart enough to know
she must first think of her own soul.
Those at Notre Dame who allow this, especially clergy, upon their
death will first speak with Our Lady. Then they will go to
Her Son. I hope the trip to hell for them is a fast ride
straight down.
— Jo Dermody
