Re: Jeffrey Lords' Acts of Submission:
Mr. Lord -- Great article. We must remember all these facts when voting in November. Our lives and the future of America depend on it and the lives of many in the Middle East. If we don't take voting seriously there will be another Cambodia/Korean-type slaughter because of the Dems cut & run (appeasement)! Thank you for this timely article.
An excellent analysis of post World War II Democratic foreign policy. I suggest the author could submit a supplemental piece addressing modern Democratic politics post Desert Storm. The modern Democrats have reached new highs in terms of foreign policy fecklessness.
-- Doug Santo
And, as if right on cue, we can add this bullet point: *2006 - 09/27, it was reported today on Fox News, that Charlie "you don't call MY President the Devil in MY district" Rangel, would be only too happy, if the Democrats win the House, to use his position, then, as Chairman of Ways and Means, to de-fund the war in Iraq.
Let's see, Charlie, would that be before or after, you impeach YOUR President?
-- Mike Showalter
In his excellent explanation of the Democratic Party's decline, Jeffrey Lord passes over former President Carter a little too quickly. This idiot -- Carter, that is -- did a good deal more than savage the defense establishment; he brought in his Naval Academy classmate, Stansfield Turner, as CIA director. Turner proceeded to eliminate some 900 covert agents around the world, explaining that we need not rely on such unsavory elements for the intelligence we needed, that we would henceforth depend for all we had to know on our national technical means of intelligence gathering, i.e., satellites; he did not explain how satellites were going to infiltrate governments and groups around the world who wished us ill, and of course we were not able to do so. Turner certainly did not do this without, I feel sure, the concurrence of his feckless commander in chief. To this day, this stupidity continues to cause the United States and, indeed, the rest of the world, a misery it does not deserve.
-- John G. Hubbell
Great article. Too bad most Americans will never read it. I've been a Democrat turned Republican for the past 46 years. Yes, I voted for John F. Kennedy, but by the time Lyndon Johnson ran for President, I had achieved enough maturity to look at both the man and what he stood for.
Democrats are not only a disaster on national security; they condone the actions of the many traitors in their leadership.
-- R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
Jeffrey Lord offers an excellent long-view summary of the party-of-defeat's pattern of submission. Interestingly, the word "Islam" does not mean "peace"; it means "submission."
"Acts of Submission" by Jeffrey Lord was one of the finest articles I've read in a while.
Re: Philip Klein's Republican Disease:
I have been longing to read a column like this for several years. Now if only the Republicans would read it and take heed. I voted for President Bush twice, not only for his strong stand on fighting terrorism, but also for his policies on partial privatization of Social Security, school vouchers, tort reform, judicial appointments, his position on stem cell research and his pro-life advocacy. I did NOT vote for him so that he could sign onto the free-speech-limiting McCain-Feingold bill or the huge entitlement programs for education and prescription drugs. For some reason, the Republican Party leaders think we all voted for President Bush based primarily on national security, but it simply isn't true. From what I have heard, read and observed, it is a huge disappointment to millions of Republicans that the President has not maintained a more conservative agenda and that the Republican Senators have not supported him in what we all voted for him to implement. At least the House of Representatives has it right, for the most part.
-- Sue Gray
Mr. Klein has certainly put his finger on a large part of the GOP's problem, or more properly, conservatives' problem with the GOP. There seems no chance that the GOP will ever understand that liberals hate them because they totally disrespect them, and no amount of "making nice" is going to change that fact. There is as much chance of the liberal elite changing its mind about Republicans as there is that the Shia Imams will start preaching about how wonderful the Jews and Israel are, or that the leaders of the Sunni Wahhabist madrassas will start teaching their young charges to rat out their brother jihadists to the American military. When conservative activists stop criticizing members of the liberal establishments during the day and then partying with them at night and exclaiming how wonderful they are and how nice they are, then maybe a step will have been taken in the right direction.
One critique, however, of Mr. Klein's otherwise cogent article. Mr. Pence has forfeited any right to be identified with smaller government by his total cave in to the liberal elite within and without the GOP on the immigration and border issue. His proposal would give the open borders crowd and El Presidente Boosh virtually everything that they want. Pence simply uses different words in his proposal. I guess that is why a good thesaurus is an indispensable thing for a politician.
-- Ken Shreve
As Mike Pence put it: "We will never win by being them, we will only win by being us." Even Mike doesn't get it entirely. He, too, is part of the Washington system. Witness his stand on illegal immigration.
Politicians, by their very nature, will always try to buy our votes with our own money, extracted by the threat of personal ruin by the government.
-- R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
SPEAKING FOR KEN
Re: Hal Colebatch's Imam Livingstone, I Presume?:
I read Mr. Colebatch's article on the mosque in Newham with interest. With interest, but also with disappointment, as I'm afraid the article in badly informed in most respects.
As yet, there is no planning application for a mosque at the West Ham site. Developers are apparently working up a scheme that may, or may not, be granted planning permission by the planning authority, the Thames Gateway Urban Development Corporation (UDC). Until a proposal is even aired, it's pure speculation as to how large a building they propose.
Ken Livingstone has not, to my knowledge, said a word about the scheme. The quotes you attribute to him were originally attributed to a bureaucrat by the scheme's planners in the London Development Agency, Ken Livingstone's Agency for business and jobs, in a badly sourced and inaccurate article in London's Evening Standard newspaper.
There is no planning application for a mosque pending. Ken Livingstone hasn't said a word about the scheme. If a proposal is forthcoming it may, or may not, receive planning permission. If a planning application is agreed, then the size of the scheme may be subject of planning restrictions. And it may or not then be built. But then that's not really as interesting is it?
-- Cllr. James Butler
Labour Group Press Officer
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Slur Politics:
Here's how George Allen can put an immediate end to the racial-slur imbroglio in which he is quagmired.
Media inquisitioner: "Mr. Allen, people who knew you in your past say you have used the n-word. Have you?"
Allen: "So, to rephrase your question, you're asking 'Am I now or have I ever been an utterer of the word nigger?' And my answer is this: 'At long last, sir, have you no shame?'"
Most reporters will immediately recognize that Allen is casting them as McCarthyites and portraying himself as the new Joseph Welch, heroic and lionized defender against Tail Gunner Joe's accusations of Communist party affiliation. It will be breath-taking how fast they drop their Allen-as-racist story line in order to avoid the McCarthy taint.
-- Rich Smith
Yucca Valley, California
Re: Paul Chesser's Wall Costs Worth It:
I very much enjoyed your article on The American Spectator online and really have no sympathy for business people whose success has depended upon illegal labor. I own farmland in Illinois, by the way, and am inclined to be sympathetic to those who earn their living from the land and provide wonderful food products. However, I am a military daughter and wife (Dad and husband now retired) and I've lived in England and Germany. Our food is so cheap it's ridiculous. And so plentiful.
When I voice my objections to being overrun by illegal aliens and people sneeringly ask if I'm willing to pay more for my fruit and vegetables I tell 'em "you bet I am." And I most certainly am. For all the bellyaching by the farmers whose crops are rotting in the fields and orchards, did they never stop to think of the tax burden they were placing on their fellow Americans? Did they really think people would put up with it forever and ever? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that even now somewhere some enterprising soul is designing a machine or machines that can harvest all or virtually all of the crops said to be rotting on the ground or on the vine. Maybe a drastic (I hope) reduction in cheap labor will spur production and development of said machines and keep the produce prices low
Until then, yes, I'll be happy to pay the price.
Thanks very much for your article.
-- Pamela Burke
Sure the price of lettuce will go up. Pears and apples too. But those higher costs pale in comparison to the amount taxpayers save by not having to fund
1. health care for illegal aliens
2. foodstamps for illegal aliens
3. rent subsidies for illegal aliens
4. education costs for illegal alien kids
Other tangible benefits include reduced need (hopefully, elimination) of ESL classes and bi-lingual voting materials.
The bottom line is we pay more for some goods, but it is more than offset by the reduced burden on taxpayers.
While Mr. Chesser does mention some of the costs to our society of illegal immigration, he significantly leaves out huge costs to our social compact.
Item; how much does it cost government at all levels to provide bilingual services at police stations, and hospitals, and schools, and court houses, and government office buildings, and voting stations, and etc.?
Item; how much has it cost in dollars and human suffering to look the other way as the extremely violent gang, MS-13 has expanded exponentially in both membership and activities?
Item; how much has it cost our society to fund obstetrics services to illegals who then give birth to a child on our soil that immediately becomes an American citizen with all current rights and privileges, including the right to guarantee his/her parents can stay here and become citizens?
Item; how much has it cost our society in serenity and civility when we go in an American business and can not successfully transact business because we, the customer, can not speak Spanish, or some other foreign language?
Item; what are the current costs in providing jail space for illegals committing criminal acts, and what are the additional costs of this crime increase on the judicial system of America each year?
Yes, labor costs will have to go up to attract American citizens to jobs in agriculture and construction and some other areas. But how much can be saved in taxes for the items that I have listed above? Oh, and since there will now be additional jobs for American workers, we can advise welfare clients that it is time for them to become productive members of society. Yes, the liberals will scream that the welfare class can't get to the jobs, or would need childcare, or something. Well the illegals seem to have overcome these hurdles, so can perfectly able American citizens currently living on the dole.
One more thing. How many government employees can be laid off because of all these changes and how much of our tax money can be saved in that manner? Oh, wait, that would shrink the size of government. We certainly can't have that.
-- Ken Shreve
If you think a few cents more for lettuce is expensive...how about calculating the cost of the E coli illness spread throughout the country. If you think Illegals living in squalor with different customs than Americans has no effect then I suggest you keep eating your spinach!
Not to mention augmenting the costs we citizens throw in to help corporate big wigs keep more of their ill gotten gains, like $ for health care, schooling, housing etc. No, don't count on the wall being built as the media has an equally egregious agenda much like the mercenary Republicans and the voting agenda of do nothing Democrats.
Alas all three groups, have elected to abandon the principles of this country and the rule of law. By the time they ever actually build that wall I for one will hope to be on the outside of it as the country falls to chaos, mass overcrowding, crime and economic ruin.
-- Mary E. Burke
I must take issue with Judy Beumler's statement in her letter regarding Quin Hillyer's "Saints Alive!" stating: "The (NFL team) owners are wealthy men who should pay for their own stadiums." Not that I don't agree 100 percent with this assertion, but unfortunately what should happen and what does happen are often two very different things.
Dare to ask an NFL owner to pay even a small fraction of the cost of a new stadium these days and he'll simply find another city that's willing to do it all for free -- even one that didn't support their last team. In at least one case they will also use that taxpayer money to bail out the owner's failing businesses. The rest of the NFL owners will overwhelmingly approve the move and the new city's sports columnists and NFL spin machine will make darn sure the history books say the team was moved because the former city "would not build them a stadium" or some such nonsense.
If the old city is lucky enough to get another team it will be after it is agreed that the cost of the new stadium is placed firmly on the backs of the taxpayers. Only then is the original city granted a putrid expansion team with no hope of on-field success for many years to come.
Ms. Beumler should be glad she's not paying her hard-earned tax dollars in Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, Nashville, etc.
Other NFL cities beware. The Saints seem to be secure for now, but for how much longer? The Superdome is downright ancient when measured in stadium-years, and the NFL doesn't bother to hide the fact that they desperately want a team in Los Angeles...
-- Todd Stoffer
Pro-CHOICE is pro-ABORTION. There is NO difference. The pro-choice position is the woman has the absolute and sole decision making authority to kill her unborn baby. And NO it isn't her body. The unborn baby has its own UNIQUE DNA code and is an UNIQUE human being. I am one of "those sanctimonious keepers of "morality"" that is very concerned about the killing of millions of human beings by pro-CHOICE women. Furthermore, it is society's decision which type of sexual acts it will recognize and what types of marriage will be recognized. Also, sexual acts are NOT under the control of a person's DNA code. There is NO DNA sequence that makes a person engage in any type of sexual act (heterosexual, homosexual, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.).
If you make the argument that human's sexual acts are controlled by their DNA codes than ALL sexual acts are normal and should he encouraged. Look at the previous list and decide if that is what you want. This argument is the central tenet of the pro-homosexual marriage position. But unless you are willing to allow ALL types of marriages, by using the pro-homosexual marriage talking points you reveal yourself to be a bigot. You are a bigot because you are excluding all other type of marriages except for heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Oh, and by the way, a morally bankrupt person that is strong on national defense might not have our nation's best interest as the touchstone of his actions. I agree I really hope I do get what I wish, a strong moral person whose central position is how best to protect the USA from its many enemies.
-- Wade Smith
Re: Diane Smith's letter (under "Still Smiling") in Reader Mail's Shakespeare Rehabilitation:
Diane, my hat is off to any Texan who can survive South San Francisco, especially one carrying a "jug of high octane brandy"! I'd be honored to hold the door for you!
-- Mike Showalter
Re: Christopher Orlet's Blame it on Baghdad:
I liked the Lucy Charlie Brown story. Like Charlie Brown who gets a stomachache when Lucy speaks, I get a stomachache when George Bush speaks.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article