Reader Mail

Sweet Dreams

Will pro-life Democrats protect life? Also: Where Are We? Right here. Ben wars, Rudy wars. Plus more.

11.19.06

Send to Kindle

NOT BUYING
Re: Doug Bandow's A Pro-Life Revival?:

Doug Bandow does his very best to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, claiming "the unborn will be more secure if they have protectors in both parties." If the first rule on those stone tablets Moses (or was it Charlton Heston) brought down from Mt. Sinai read "thou shalt have no false gods before me," then the first rule of the Democratic Party reads "no constituent of the Democratic Party shall ever be held responsible for his or her actions."

That is why Democrats can never hold individuals responsible for their actions. If they engage in extra-marital intercourse, and are shocked to discover that the process that nature has been perfecting for hundreds of thousands of years actually results in pregnancy and a child, the Democratic Party will allow them to escape responsibility and destroy the undesirable flotsam or jetsam of that one night stand. For the same reason there can never be a pro-gun Democrat, since firearms ownership is the ultimate privilege and responsibility of any citizen, and the citizen who is not responsible for his actions cannot possibly be allowed to possess a firearm, be it a 22 long rifle pistol or a 308 semi-auto, box magazine fed M-14.

Sweet dreams, Doug. The newly elected "pro-life" and "pro-gun" Democrats will soon realize, if they don't already know, that individual irresponsibility trumps all other considerations, when you are voting for Madame Pelosi and Mr. Reid.
-- Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey

In the wake of the Democrat takeover of Congress conservatives are doing a lot of wishful thinking about the so-called "conservative" Democrats. Time to face reality -- they are not conservatives! They are liberals who talked conservatively to win. The radical left is in charge thanks to them in the House and Senate.

Chuck Schumer has assured the pro-abortion Democrat base that the vaunted "pro-life" and pro-homosexual adoption Bob Casey is safe on abortion. In fact, all these "conservative" Democrats are just retreads of Richard Gephardt -- the blue dog Reagan Democrat who went on to lead the Democrats in the House further to the left.

To those who think the Hoyer victory over Murtha signals a "conservative" insurgency in the Democrat House caucus think again. Hoyer is a tax and spend liberal. Like his party's boss, Pelosi, he's one of the biggest beneficiaries of special interest money in Congress. The only change in the DC swamp is that the left is in charge and they're going to do everything they can to insure Republicans and conservatives remain in the political wilderness for a generation. If we continue to "eat our own," as we have for the last 18 months they have nothing to worry about.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Mr. Bandow is the classic case of someone living in a dream world! What is he smoking? The Democratic Party is rotten to the core. So is the Republican. By the time the so-called pro-life shift in the Democratic Party takes place, and a mythical idea this is, the USA will have been destroyed by its enemies. And why? Because the abortion ban's failure in Dakota alone is a give away that America is a dead society morally. It is finished. There is no political solution for our problems since the cause is spiritual. Mr. Bandow is dreaming.
-- John D'Orlando
Nahant, Massachusetts

PERMANENT DEFEAT
Re: Lawrence Henry's Where Are We?:

Although the author probably didn't intend it, this article is based on question begging and therefore ends up being more like propaganda than open communication. The unspoken assumption here is all too common these days, that anyone who criticizes the Iraq War is playing into the hands of "the jihadists." Since it is unspoken, this assumption can be dangerous.

Mr. Henry concludes that "the electorate has bought" "Nancy Pelosi's description of Iraq". The reality may be that some disagree with Pelosi, but also feel that the Iraq war is being fought improperly, which actually plays into the hands of the jihadists. Specifically, an argument could be made that the scope of the war has been expanded to include Iraqi internal politics which has nothing to do with jihadists. This increases U.S. casualties, makes us look weak, and ties up troops who could be better used to battle jihadists elsewhere.
-- Russell Van Zandt

Somehow most Americans cannot or will not separate Iraq, terrorism, and illegal immigration. This is a very dangerous precedent. Bush's big problem was that he wanted Saddam out but he and his advisers had no idea the Iraqi people were not willing to fight for democracy.

Since history is no longer taught in most schools and colleges the American people can not equate the Iranian threat to Hitler and Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, therefore we are doomed to repeat a similar world wide threat. After cutting and running in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and soon in Iraq, I am not sure the American people have the will to do what it takes to win even if attacked. The Democratic leadership and the media are so far left and so politically correct that the country now believes a war must be fought without killing civilians and without losing a massive amount of military personnel. We have become a toothless tiger and every tin horn dictator knows it.

Perhaps during the next two years Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Schumer, Hastings and Murtha will get enough media attention that the American people will wake up in time for the 2008 election.
-- Dan Mittelman
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

This is a very thought-provoking article and the subject of discussion among myself and friends, all of whom are very left wing democrats. It is from these particular discussions that I have formed two conclusions about the necessaries to be a liberal.

Initially, you must knowingly disassociate your intellect from reality and think only in abstract terms. This means, for example, that you do not see Muslims as bloodthirsty pack of barbarians who wish to kill everyone in the world that holds a different; abase females; and generally destroy society as we know it. This is both what they say and how they act. In short, they walk their talk. But to a liberal none of this is true. A Muslim is a person with little liberal education -- not enough social welfare programs- who is presided over by depots and is therefore understandably misguided. Thus the problem is merely one of exposure. Let Muslims see how much better life could be and they will fall right into humanity's fold. In order to think this, of course, you have to forget about the tens of thousands of murders of innocents. But even more difficult is that you have to ignore that Muslims amply demonstrate that they do not assimilate, they colonize.

Second, you must steadfastly believe and proselytize the U.S. as the source of all evil afoot in this world today. That evil stems from our success. Success in making the most powerful economic engine the world has ever seen. Success in opening doors for people both too weak and too stupid to open doors for themselves. Success in providing the widest array of personal freedoms and wealth in the history of mankind. According to liberals all this breeds arrogance. For example, my good liberal friends tell me with a straight face and in grave earnestness that Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro are manifestations of America's evil. They smell the same sulfur Mr. Chavez did. It works thusly. Except for JFK, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, American Presidents are out for their own self aggrandizement. Only those three Presidents were caring enough to "solve" the third world's problems. (Remember for a liberal to say "solve" is to accomplish the deed.) So the reason we have Mr. Castro and Mr. Chavez is because these are "selfless men dedicated to counterbalancing America's rape of nations, and if you deny we raped them then you are no better than -- insert the name of any well known conservative -- who is just a fascist. "

The only counter balance to this, according to my liberal friends is the government. It must use punitive taxes to take wealth from hard working and successful citizens and give to those who chose to be unproductive. Punitive taxes also must be used to confiscate wealth from corporations to render them less onerous. People must be encouraged or forced to join large collective associations (see e.g. Medicaid) providing better government control over what ever evil it is at that moment liberals need to control. But each of these has as its ultimate purpose to make a society that is beholden to the government for sustenance, intellectual stimulation and direction. This is the European model for social engineering. Mostly these programs are called "safety nets." But like African-Americans here they serve only to enslave those who jump into the net. for once in there is no leaving.

My fellow readers, we may be witnessing the denouement of this once great society.
-- Jay W. Molyneaux

Lawrence Henry is spot on in his evaluation of the mental state of the Democratic Party and its driven (apparently pathological) priority to bring down the American Republic because doing so makes them feel better about themselves. After all submission (aka Islam) is far less work, less fear engendering and basically a lazy way to live. It puts the responsibility of all those pesky decisions that free people make on somebody else's shoulders. "Not my fault it all fell apart, THEY did it. I'm the victim here". If they only wanted to surrender themselves I would have little problem with them, but they are driven to take the entire nation down with them.

Still, Mr. Henry should have in my opinion included the modern Republican Party in this gestalt of the body politic. I am firmly convinced that one of the basic and perhaps even again unconscious reasons for the 06 mid term debacle is that R's were just, well, uncomfortable with the idea of being in power, making decisions and being responsible for the outcome. Far easier to be the minority and always able to blame "THEM". Witness the constant mindless accommodations to the D's in what ever they demanded, half the committee posts, outsized rights to filibuster at whim, never really intending to use the "nuclear option" because, again the light of opinion and the responsibly would be on them. I don't know how you cure that mind set but until the Republicans are ready to kick butt and take names against out enemies, foreign, domestic and political they will remain, as a party, backbenchers on the American and world stage. Right now both parties are passing around the clown makeup while Nero fiddles, to mix some convoluted metaphors.
-- Craig C. Sarver
Seattle, Washington

"Those of us devoted to political observation know that today's Democrats are stark raving postmodernist Leninist deconstructers," Mr. Henry asserts. Well put.

But to also assert that through this most recent election the electorate has bought "this mentality of permanent defeat" that "plays a large part in the Democratic Party" and which has been marketed to the public "with the connivance of the media," as Josh Manchester believes, misses the mark. The Republicans no longer have the majority because of their corruption, incompetence, arrogance and loss of vision, so who else but the Dems could the country turn to, even if it had to hold its nose at the ballot box?

I refuse to accept that we must accept the Dems' -- really, the intellectuals', elitists', liberals', socialists' and leftists' that populate and/or support their party, as well as the mainstream media's -- "mentality of permanent defeat," no matter how much their collective guilt, abysmal self-image and loathing of anyone not like them drives their belief that America must endure defeat, rather than self-reflection, progress and freedom.

No matter how much the Dems, their allies and their media lackeys believe they and the rest of us should wear permanent hair shirts and surrender or allow our country to be subjugated, I do not believe that most Americans embrace that outcome, or will ever embrace that outcome, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof. But should the Dems et al. push such mentality, I know they'll find themselves in the political minority, at least in Congress and, one hopes, elsewhere.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia

Was there a time when King actually lived?

I always thought Larry King was a wax figure operated by computer and in sync with a tape recorder. Half the time this character doesn't even know the name of the person he is suppose to be interviewing. He is a total embarrassment. Only a moron such as Ted Turner would hire him.
-- Burton Hollabaugh
Marion, Indiana

FORCE FEEDING
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Grinning Like a Persian Cat:

Jay D. Homnick's article makes me wonder how long it will take America to understand Frederick the Great's dictum that diplomacy without force is like music without instruments. Until this simple fact is understood well and understood widely, America will always be the sucker and the loser, no matter what it tries and who it deals with. All the problems with Iraq, with Syria, North Korea, terrorism, the UN and America's worthless allies come down to the ridiculous failure to understand what every diplomat, politician and think tank guru should have learned when they were still wearing diapers. The only possible conclusion is that there are fundamental flaws in America's foreign and defense policy system that nobody seems capable of recognizing, let alone coming to terms with. Great news for the bad guys but terrible for the rest of us.
-- Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

HOYER AHOY
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Nancy Pelosi Carter:

I remember ol' Steny Hoyer saying "I'm a tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend Democrat. Make of it what you will."

Ahh, the arrogance. Make no mistake, this is what passes for a "moderate" in today's Democratic party. Murtha vs. Hoyer ? Some choice. The difference between Pepsi and Coke.

They now have the reins. God help us.
-- David O'Brocki
Lutherville, Maryland

HIGH STEAKS
Re: Ben Stein's Dollar Signs at Ground Zero and Kent J. Lyon's letter (under "Rich Men, Poor Men") in Reader Mail's Unforeseeable or Preventable?:

What a wonderful article. My husband forwarded the link to me and on it will go. As I told my husband, it brought a bit of shame from within. Never mind a $42 steak...those men and women fighting for us would love to sink their teeth into a Carl's burger.

So many are oblivious to it all. Bob and I live in Seaside, CA on the old Fort Ord and he works for the DOD at the Presidio of Monterey. We so admire those that fight for our lives and our freedom. Whenever I am close enough to a military person they get a thank you for all they are doing and if it happens to be in a line for a cup of coffee or something else I can afford, it's on me.

Thank you for stirring that feeling inside of me once again.
-- Jane Hanson
Seaside, California

My vote is to put Kent J. Lyon on your masthead and pink-slip Ben Stein. I have spent the last few days watching Ben advocate tax increases on the "wealthy" that even his co-commentator on CNBC, none other than the Hon. Charles B. Rangel, (D-NY) did not want to enact. What was up with that? Then when asked by an incredulous Kudlow how such tax increases would be received, Ben said, "I don't care." True story.

Thanks a lot Ben, and so long. I used to enjoy your Diary (for decades even) and your appeal to the long suffering types such as Kent J. Lyon. But, bit by bit, your vanity, star-worship and your astronomical wealth did what it does to most: It allowed you to sink into a peat bog of mumbling self-absorption, decadence, and now, irrelevance.

Why do former conservatives who do well in life then go over the hill and become liberals advocating pernicious liberal things, such as tax increases on working people already way-overtaxed? I think it is because when people reach a certain level of wealth, (safe to say that Kent J. Lyon and I are not there yet) they get alarmed on a real gut-and-brainstem level. Not at the poor, or the lower middle class. They get alarmed that the upper middle class is starting to acquire wealth equivalent to theirs, and that they are starting to impinge on their Malibus, their Sandpoints, their Desert Springs, etc. Apparently it really steams their clams when this happens.

In other words, they become liberal because they, having achieved their own personal fortune by the rules of conservatism, don't really want anyone else to be wealthy, or even free. They change their strategy to liberalism, which allows only a few to be wealthy, and only the wealthy to be free.

I can't think of a worse reason to change philosophies than that.
-- Francis Dillon
Indianapolis, Indiana

RUDY OR NOT
Re: Philip Klein's reply (under "America's Mayoralty") and John D. Lakemoor's letter (under "Ready for Rudy") in Reader Mail's Unforeseeable or Preventable?:

First, Mr. Lakemoor opines that Mayor Rudy would not propose additional gun control laws because he knows that the GOP base does not support it. Sir, would you kindly point me to something that assures me that a President Rudy WOULD VETO such legislation sent to him by a Democrat Congress?

Secondly, Mr. Klein points to the electoral demographics of New York City, and asks that I/we give Rudy a pass on his liberal stances because of same, as I suggested might be appropriate for Gov. Romney. I have no problem whatever giving Rudy the benefit of the doubt due to such demographics. But what has he said since leaving office to distance himself from such ultra liberal stances? I have seen no reports that he has renounced gun control as a universal public good to be worked toward. I have seen no reports of him backing off on his "all abortions, all the time" views. I have seen no instances whereby he has endorsed, nor even accepted, any of the more conservative views of a huge part of the GOP base of voters.

Yes, I will be in the forefront of those applauding Rudy for his law enforcement views and track record. I am more than willing to listen and believe in his fiscal views running the US Government. I will also be in the forefront of those applauding Rudy for his performance on and immediately after 9/11. I think Rudy would make an excellent Attorney General of the U.S., or a wonderful Sec. of Homeland Security. But it takes more than that to be POTUS. I question his foreign policy expertise at this time, not that I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but I haven't been yet. I could see myself supporting Rudy for VPOTUS with a conservative POTUS. I am not, however, prepared to give up the principles that have governed my entire life of 6 decades merely because Rudy may be electable. McCain also may be electable, but that doesn't mean that I could vote for him. Of course if the Dems offer another Gore or Kerry, well, all bets would be off, as far as my vote is concerned.
-- Ken Shreve

I think that a Giuliani victory is not only not impossible, it's very likely if he and his party will just play it right. But you have to pick your fights wisely instead of foolishly. You have to be for something, not just against what you don't like. You have to have a vision and a plan for accomplishing it. You need to be able to inspire people to follow you in that vision. If you're against something, tell me what you're going to replace it with and why that will be better. And above all, know when to speak out and when to stay silent and just keep on going down the road you've chosen. And remember that old saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar." A successful leader needs to know how to apply that wisdom.

I want to vote for a leader, not a wrecking ball or a whining complainer! And I don't mean that you can't propose or take hard measures or speak hard words, but they have to be constructive and you have to be able to tell me why they're constructive.

I could go on, but I'll let a few things speak for the rest.

Giuliani might well be the man who can inspire people to follow a clear concise and constructive vision for the country. I hope he has one and will step up to the plate and hit the ball right out of the ballpark. In any case, I know of no other conservative politician I would vote for except as the lesser of two evils. And I really hate doing that!
-- Roy W. Hogue
Newbury Park, California

"Think about it, my fellow conservatives."
-- John D. Lakemoor

John Lakemoor's predilection for a Giuliani presidency springs from odd roots. Rudy has made a fetish of being his own man, "this is my stand and to hell with what you think" kind of governance. After 9/11 this was seen as a sign of strength perhaps, I agree with many of his stands. But I don't see him suddenly when elevated to the presidency suddenly reversing his decades old defended (more like set in concrete) moral stands on liberal social issues like gun control, gay marriage, support for illegal immigration and abortion "knowing the bulk of the GOP is not for that"?? After a long guerrilla war against the entrenched democratic oligarchy of NY and never wavering, he turns into a "devout, full-throttled conservative" for political expediency? Support the man all you like but don't build castles in the air over a sudden total reversal of all he has ever stood for and proved he will hold onto come what may. Electability is one thing, caving in to all we have fought against all our lives in an effort to save a nation is something entirely different.

Think about that, my fellow conservatives.
-- Craig C. Sarver
Seattle, Washington

FROM MUNICH TO TEHRAN
Re: William Tucker's How About a Nuclear Standoff?:

"Let's allow Iran into the nuclear club and explain the rules of membership. They'll catch on fast."
-- William Tucker

Those who you claim will "catch on fast" aren't concerned about this life. Millions of them indoctrinate their children about the virtues of "martyrdom." They aren't afraid of destruction; they seem to welcome it.

You are seriously out of touch with the grave threat we face. Almost daily, I am reminded by the events of that particular day what it's going to take to win this clash of civilizations, and it's sobering. Millions of complicits hoping for our annihilation will die, along with millions of their innocents. We may lose millions of American lives before we wake up to a simple fact: They're fanatics who'll stop at nothing. They merely lack the tools to achieve their ends. For now.

It's called appeasement, Mr. Chamberla... I mean, Mr. Tucker.
-- Michael Selick
Akron, Ohio

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article