The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 3)

Surprise, surprise Barack Hussein Obama, friend of Hamas, like all Democrats is weak on Islamic terrorism. What a shock! Even more shocking the American MSM refuses to report on the Obama Democrats appeasement of Islamic terrorism. Who would have imagined such a scenario?

The actions of the Obama administration, British government and Scottish courts make one long for President George W. Bush who knew how to handle miscreant Muslims. Today, "blood for oil" is political reality. Where's MoveOn.org and "No Blood for Oil" when you need them?

Finally, that Obama and the Democrats want to take over the Internet and limit free speech should come as no surprise to defenders of the Constitution. Democrat disdain for the First Amendment, while not as openly acerbic as their antipathy for the Second Amendment, is just as intense. The Democrat battle to limit the First Amendment has been an ongoing struggle since the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the father of American neo-fascism). This is just one more sign that the Democrats are intent on undermining Constitutional liberties in their pursuit to create an oligarchy. One can just make out the sound of jackboots in the background when Obama and Democrats speak and the ACLU acquiesces to Democrat assaults on the Constitution.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

KEEP IT LOUD
Re: Quin Hillyer's Reston Peace Disturbed:

I liked your article and I would agree that conservatives should be careful. Since I wasn't there my take of the event is different from yours. I caught the highlights on the evening news. Even though the conservative activists were in the minority it sure didn't seem like it from the video I saw. The news never showed the left side cheering. Effectively, the right managed to dominate the news coverage here in California.

I would agree that the right should respect this debate but why pretend this is a real debate where conservative ideas are even being considered? Every idea and amendment the conservatives in Congress have had has been shut down with zero debate with the only exception being the Senate Finance Committee.

Beyond the argument for a public option or not, the main argument for reform of controlling costs doesn't add up. Looking at this list which of the following will either raise or lower the costs of healthcare for tax payers:

1. Removing the ability to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Removing life time caps on plan.
3. Requiring national mandates on what plans must contain for one size fits all.
4. Providing portability of coverage.
5. Closing the ratio of pricing down to 2 to 1.
6. Mandating language translators.
7. Grants for coverage of $4600 to $7100 for 150-400% of poverty level.
8. Requiring increased preventive care with zero deductibles.
9. Requiring plans include mental health care, reproductive care, drug dependent care, dental, vision and other services not contained in many currently enrolled plans.
10. Require all plans conform within 5 years or face taxation.

Nearly every reform to the healthcare system adds not lowers the costs to those already covered and will also either lower quality of care or amount care provided through increased waiting.

I say keep it loud until there is real debate.
-- Greg Sneddon

FUNDAMENTALLY HOLLOW
Re: Mark Tooley's "Fundamentalism" Invades Manhattan:

"‘What he [Braxton] says consistently in sermons is talking about the only way to God is through a particular fundamentalist path, which is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and that's a huge change in our theology,' complained one anti-Braxton congregant to PBS's Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly. ‘It's a huge change in our openness and our inclusiveness.'"

A "particular fundamentalist path"? "A huge change in our theology"? No wonder why these people recoiled from Braxton, who admits-sounds like something not voluntarily or joyfully spoken, though, does it? That "Jesus and Scripture are ‘non-negotiables' for Christian congregations."

Given his declaration, it would appear that Riverside Church is not a Christian church. But is that news, especially in the liberal stronghold of the Upper West Side?

Nor is it news that grandiose structures such as Riverside-and nearby Cathedral of St. John Divine, over on 112th and Amsterdam-may represent the apparent current hollowness of some "mainline" Protestant denominations?
-- C. Kenna Amos Jr.