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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article