KILLING RUDY'S CHANCES?
Re: Philip Klein's The Eye of the Rudy:
There are words to describe what enabled the authors of the subject articles to write them: delusional, crazy, insane, mad, demented, or, perhaps, infatuated with the Rooty. I think all apply, summed up by infatuated dementia.
If the authors think that I am a one-issue kind of guy, namely abortion, think again. How about his weakness regards Second Amendment rights; his twisted ideas about the constitututionality of public funded abortions (according to Rooty, it's in there); that leads to his definition of "strict construction" in defining the judges he would appoint to all levels of the Judiciary; and, his support for gay rights. And, that's just off the top of my head. With a little refreshment of the Rooty's record, I could come up with more.
For Chris'sakes folks, the Rooty is a New York liberal, there's nothing there for conservatives.
-- Wade White
Franklin, New York
I just finished reading "The Eye of the Rudy" by one of you anti-child loving writers, Philip Klein. These radical neoconservatives you have writing for your publication continue to bother me. Even though I no longer purchase your magazine I still check into your webpage to see if you have changed your evil ways. When is your publication going to realize that anyone who promotes the willful slaughter of the unborn is not a Godly man, much less a presidential man? I can think of nothing more sinful and evil than the murder of a child. I believe that God will hold every man/woman who supports abortion responsible for promoting the slaughter of over 30 million Americans since 1973. I also believe that if I were to vote for a baby killing Democrat in Republican clothing I would also be held responsible when I face God's judgment. No thank you! I refuse to put politics above the love of God and children. I'm also willing to state that most conservatives that have a God fearing heart view the situation the same way as I do.
Your magazine was once a bastion of anti-abortion views. Today it has turned into just another mindless publication following the herd of American's anti-child mentality. Shame on you, shame on Philip Klein!
-- Gary Martin
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
A MORMON IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Catching Mitt on TV:
Apparently, in his 60 Minutes interview, Mitt Romney said the following: "I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't image anything more awful than polygamy."
If this is true, then Romney is one of two things: an idiot, or a liar. It's possible that he is both. For a man who grew up in the Mormon Church to not understand a pivotal point of doctrine such as polygamy, is idiotic. The Mormons did not practice polygamy to "build a generation out there in the desert." The practice of polygamy was begun by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, when Nauvoo was the largest city in Illinois, surpassing Chicago (which was a small trading post in the mid-nineteenth century). It was not done because Mormons were dying by the truckloads. The church was winning converts by the thousands. Romney must sleep through Sunday school and Priesthood classes on the Sabbath day, or he would have known that it is church doctrine that polygamy will be practiced in the eternities, that God the Father is a polygamist, and that even Jesus is said to have been married to both Mary and Martha. Call this disgusting if you will. Call it incorrect, fabricated, blasphemous, sexist, or any other negative connotation you may, but this is something all Mormons who grow up in the church learn. Do we really need another idiot in the White House?
But I fear it is not idiocy that prompted Romney to say these things. Anyone who changes his mind so readily on abortion, then tries to play down the change, is more likely to be lying. I do not know what is in this man's heart (and I don't care to), but I suspect that a lie to appease the horrified Evangelicals (who will never vote for an "unChristian" Mormon regardless) is much more in line with this man's modus operandi. Another establishment Republican with a penchant for power, like his good buddy Senator Hatch.
If Mr. Homnick cares where Romney stands on the issues, rather than what his religion is, look no further than the above pusillanimous statement from this 60 Minutes interview.
-- Brendan R. Merrick
Budd Lake, New Jersey
I am afraid that Jay D. Homnick does not seem to get it when it comes to Romney's Mormonism. Many Christians consider Mormonism to be little more than a cult, especially conservative Christians. It is lumped into the same category as Jehovah's Witnesses. For that matter, many conservative Christians view Seventh Day Adventists with suspicion. Not quite a cult, but not quite Christian either. Hatch and Reid are being elected by regional constituencies. There is a categorical difference in power wielded between a Governorship or the U.S. Senate and the Presidency. Given the power of the Vatican in world affairs, people were right to worry about the influence the Pope might wield over a U.S. president. Just the same, people are justified in worrying about the influence a cult could wield over the president. The fact that his stand on abortion or gay rights is the same as many Christians has nothing to do with it. The point is how much power will a cult wield over our president? You may not like people thinking these thoughts or asking these questions. It may be horribly politically incorrect to do so. But longstanding and ingrained teachings about Mormonism will not be overcome because Romney is telegenic and has the right stand on social issues.
-- Steve Baarda
LIFE IS UNFAIR
Re: The Washington Prowler's Here Royal Fairness:
The radical left typified by Ms. Pelosi and her ilk will ALWAYS be for freedom of expression and castigate and vilify republicans as being opposed to it. However, I am unable to find a single instance going back To Mrs. Gore's attempt to regulate lyrics in music in the 70's, where Republicans advocated against freedom of speech. (You may remember this was Mr. Gore's first foray into the limitation of speech far beyond what The Supreme Court says is permissible. Mr. Gore hadn't the courage to undertake this himself, lest the possible backlash cause him to be "un-elected.") So he dispatched the simpering Mr.s Gore, then an attractive blonde woman who based her objections to Christian theology.
The party of socialism in America liked this so much -- very little backlash because the media was in favor then and now of anything proposed by democrats. You will note that any speech by any conservative at any leftist institution, such as a university, is usually attacked as impermissible by students and faculty; and the speaker is always heckled and ridiculed unmercifully while he or she is trying to speak. This is because democrat radicals cannot be exposed to other points of view. Theirs are so shallowly understood that they may easily be taken away by another philosophy. We have progressed to the point where any Judeo-Christian message is a "violation of Church and state" separation; any public mention of those attributes that make a female a female is verboten; and as we all know we can no longer use the phrase "global war against terror" because the radical left controlled Congress doesn't like it. It conveys too much truth.
Now the final assault. The radicals will shut down the so-called "right wing " media. Any venue for expressing unhappiness or disgust with the democrat controlled PBS, or the democrat favoring MSM will be tightly controlled. Why? In order to preserve freedom of speech dummy! If democrats start a venue dedicated to the principle most Americans need democrats to tell them how to live, what to eat -- no trans fats, dammit! -- what they can drive, and how to heat and cool their homes and nobody listens, how can they get their message across? Everybody knows radicals run the MSM and so we don't believe ( or read or watch) them much any more. The democrats have to stop us from hearing the messages we enjoy and believe.
You are free to speak only as long as your message is consistent with the principals of democrat orthodoxy: surrender, government control, dependence, and class hatred. You'd better be careful, America. This is exactly what Hugo Chavez did last year in Venezuela. He closed media outlets "that inhibited the socialist revolution." That is now happening here.
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
So Nancy Pelosi and her little gang think they can put a stick in Rush Limbaugh's gears? And, having it demonstrated this past year that the Loonies of the Left can't stay afloat even as they are continually bailed out by the benefactors, she turns to the FCC for fairness. Apparenty history tells them nothing. John Kerry tried to get bookstores not to carry Unfit for Command and failed at shutting the Swift Boat story down. Managed to get a TV show canceled, but that proved to his detriment, too, with attendant publicity.
I can't wait for the star of Air America, whats his name? Got a big winning smile right in the middle of a loser's face -- oh, Al Franken -- - I can't wait to hear a Paul Shanklin parody with the theme of sliding from SNL to Air America, finally sinking to running for the U. S. Senate for a gig, played over and over, interspersed with the howler of Hillary saying "Ah've come too fahrrrr, ain't noways" -- however it went -- her Mizz Bojangles riff at the black church -- and Al Gore's doleful Global Warming dirge. That is not to say that humorous parodies are the sum and substance of Limbaugh's show. In his three hours daily (I don't know how he does it) he touches on many important issues that are completely ignored by the "drive-by media."
Rush Limbaugh provides for his listeners what no one else does. He plumbs the depths of every quoted word ever uttered by these fascile liars. What "they" said last week, last month, last year or as far back as their lies take them, for the listening audience to reflect on how little the truth means to them, how unabashedly they about-face on any issue, if there is political gain to be made. And he does it with caustic good humor and his own excellent insights. He is dauntless and has no peer. He knows it. They know it. And that is why they would like to resurrect a law to stop the unstoppable. Long may he rave!!!
-- Diane Smith
South San Francisco
Hagel can't help himself. My wife and I put together this limerick a few years ago in response to a bleg from Michael Ledeen (and "won" his award, by the way.) Hagel hasn't changed a bit since then.
There was a man from North Platte
Whose head was too big for his hat.
He was a RINO named Hagel,
Who would always finagle
On which side of the aisle he sat.
-- Pat Birmingham
Re: Doug Bandow's Congress All Pumped Up:
Besides the time it takes for refineries to change over to the mandated summer blends, the main reason for the increases in local fuels prices is demand. Despite gas being between 3 and 4 dollars a gallon, most Americans plan on taking many long trips this summer. I've read that summer driving this year's travel will outpace last year's. A simple, but long term solution for our energy woes is to encourage nuclear power. Public utilities consume more oil than do our automobiles. Consumers must now compete not only with Asia for oil, but also with their local power company. As demand for electricity increases during the peak summer months the price of crude oil goes up. Almost 60% of our oil imports go to fuel the utility companies.
Yet, the same people who complain to the government about high oil and gas prices also demand that the government "do something" about Global Warming. In a few years it will be next to impossible to build any new refineries or power plants; the regulatory and start up costs will be too expensive. Carbon taxes, Carbon caps, newer, "cleaner" gas mandates, etc... are headed our way. In 2008 many people will be going to the polls with $5 dollar a gallon gas prices hanging over their head. They may also be facing $800 a month heating bills. Look no further than Congress to find the "root causes." Another way to lower energy costs is to create a recession. Congress is working overtime to ensure that it will happen.
I just finished reading Mr. Bandow's article concerning the Oil Industry and proposed Congressional action. He is correct that Congressional action to further regulate the Oil Industry would be a disaster, but his excuse for rising fuel costs being merely a response to outside market forces is not entirely accurate.
The price of refined fuel products is tied to the price of raw materials. But this is not the true determining factor in pricing any petroleum based product. The overwhelming factor in setting the price of any product is self-interest; i.e. greed. For huge companies, the driving factor is most always stockholder dividends. The greater the profit in a quarter, the larger the dividends. And it should be noted that CEO's, COO's, CFO's and senior company officials generally hold a large amount of company stock and usually are paid additional bonuses for producing large profits. Thus, the price of petroleum fuels is set at what the industry believes the market will bear. To help achieve that goal, prices are raised incrementally, a few cents at a time at the pump.
To illustrate this, we have to debunk the Katrina myth. The Oil Industry in the U.S. radically raised fuel prices in the wake of Katrina. The subsequent public and political backlash caused them to reduce pump prices by 25% virtually overnight. Now it must be remembered that refinery capability was still down, wells were off-line and crude prices were still up. But, none of the Oil Companies lost money for that quarter, or for the next few quarters. In fact, due to increased use of motor fuels directly related to the storm clean-up, they posted record dollar profits, though their profit margin, in percentage, remained nearly the same. Since then, crude prices have fluctuated and recently were at record highs, though still in the same range as initial post-Katrina levels. But, domestic production is up since Katrina, all refineries were brought back on-line, though one has since been closed due to an accident and worldwide demand is remaining constant or increasing.
Now the question is; how could the Oil Industry not only survive, but reap huge dollar profits, by reducing it's prices in 2005, but have to raise prices to record levels just prior to the summer driving season in 2007 under better circumstances than existed post-Katrina? Because, Oil executives believe that they can make more money without any backlash at the present time. In their arrogance, they made a mistake in 2005. Now, they feel that they can raise prices without an immediate backlash.
Remember though, Government regulation of industry pricing is generally bad. Consumers can control retail prices and should. The present fuel increases have already translated to higher food prices as well as higher prices of other consumer goods. It may be time for the consumer to look to their wallets and decide to curtail fuel consumption. Consumers should dictate market prices, not Government regulations.
-- Michael Tobias
If the environmentalist would allow more refineries to be built it would be a good first step in lowering prices. At least there would be backups when another hurricane hits. The "protectors" of our land do not want drilling anywhere in America, but don't want us to import oil. Just get government out of it and let market prices work.
-- Elaine Kyle
COLOR BY NUMBERS
Re: Robert VerBruggen's letter (under "The Test Results Are In") in Reader Mail's Snap Judgments:
Robert VerBruggen's test results are meaningless simply because the association of "white" with "good" and "black" with "bad" is a cross-cultural universal constant, found in Asia, India and even in Africa itself. It therefore has nothing to do with incipient racism, but more likely is a vestige of man's primordial fear of the night. Man being a diurnal creature, and most of his natural predators being nocturnal, one can easily understand how man would fear the darkness and come to correlate the black of night with evil, while the coming of the light would be greeted with joy and be associated with goodness. Excessively civilized people such as Mr. VerBruggen, who have not had the benefit of huddling around a small fire while the wolves, jackals, leopards and lions prowled just outside the small circle of light, seek to transpose their own intellectual theories and concerns onto a primitive response acculturated over the course of a million years. It might also help if VerBruggen and his lot bothered to investigate cultures other than their own, and did so with the same hermeneutic of suspicion they use in sniffing out white racism.
-- Stuart Koehl
Falls Church, Virginia
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article