Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Rumsfeld Speaks, Democrats Screech:
Hey, don't take it out on cow colleges. They tend to be in red states.
-- Richard Becherer
Please tell Mr. Tyrrell it's always good to get his take on current events, most particularly his clever critique of the latest Rumsfeld speech. Secretary Rumsfeld is a man of sterling character, wisdom and vast experience. The puny of intellect, embarrassingly vocal Senator Reid never fails to disappoint. And Minority-Leader Nancy Pelosi lives in an alternate universe, where only those who are terminally elitist and self-loathing embrace the words that drool from her mouth.
For these two mental midgets to even attempt critical analyses of our mighty Secretary of Defense is to laugh. That there is even a chance the likes of a Pelosi-Reid super majority exists for us in the future, should galvanize the opposition in November. I pray our Secretary of Defense makes himself available frequently in the months to co...the taller he stands, the shorter their fuse (and Nancy's purple-faced rage is not a pretty picture).
-- Barbara Haugen
Cedar City, Utah
This was the first time, as far as I can recall, that I've read anything by Mr. Tyrrell. But if this typifies his writing, it will not be the last. Reid, Pelosi, et al. are always ready to accuse (usually falsely) others of playing politics over matters of grave concern to our country. They should remember that when someone points an accusatory finger at someone else, three of their fingers are pointing back at themselves. To put it in its simplest terms, Rumsfeld has it right, Reid and Pelosi have it horribly wrong.
-- W. MacDiarmid
Murphy, North Carolina
Americans who love our country and want to keep our FREEDOM, need to be very careful which party they vote for. One wants to give control to the U.N. and follow laws that come to us from overseas, they would try and "understand" the terrorist and say oh poor things they have been mistreated. The other wants to follow our Constitution and try to keep terrorist out of our country and not treat them as common criminals, but as someone that wants to wipe America off the maps. Although I am not crazy about the lack of border control from the Republicans.
-- Elaine Kyle
It seems to me that whereas the mainstream media and their henchmen of the Democratic Party flagellate Sec. Rumsfeld on an hourly basis, they treat Sec Rice and her State Department munchkins with an obsequious condescending unctuousness. As Dr. Tyrrell points out, it is deemed unsporting, unseemly, or, horror of horrors: politically insensitive for the Sec/Def to clearly, convincingly, and loyally explicate the administration's Islamofascist policies and efforts. Why should this be? Perhaps because Ms Rice pays attention to these termagants and Mr. Rumsfeld does not? The administration has set new standards for poor performance with respect to communication with its citizens...Rumsfeld is about the sole exception....Mr. Lincoln had his Stanton...Bush his Rumsfeld, and a good thing I say.
-- J.C. Eaton
I thank God that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld are leading the country at this crucial time. Beginning with George Bush's second inaugural, followed up by several speeches by the vice president and now Rumsfeld's masterpiece to the American Legion, these speeches and the ideas they set forth document a comprehensive understanding of current world affairs tempered by the hard won lessons of 20th century history. The ideals and directions these leaders espouse are in the best traditions of America. Traditions that hold regardless of political affiliation.
Many politicians who oppose the current policies seem to have lost touch with reality. Many in the main stream media also seem to have lost touch with reality. The best example of this is the Keith Olbermann soliloquy delivered yesterday in which Mr. Olbermann equates the Bush administration with the Chamberlain administration and critics of the war on terror with Winston Churchill. This is the world stood on its head.
Rumsfeld's description of many critics as "morally confused" is spot on.
-- Doug Santo
A contemporary of Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson, while in France for the Versailles Treaty conferences, once said to an aide, "There must be no delay. It has been so always. People will endure their tyrants for years, but they tear their deliverers to pieces if a heaven on earth is not created immediately." (Ref: The Great War and the Shaping of the Twentieth Century, p. 340.)
Wilson could just as easily have been speaking those words today: Democrats suffer having to appease tyrants for years, and along comes Bush to deliver them and the rest of us from those tyrants, and he gets torn to pieces for not creating a heaven on earth immediately, if not sooner.
Keep up the good work.
-- Gordon Paravano
Mr. Tyrrell is right to point out differences between the appeasers of the 1930s (in power and smug) and today's (out of power, smug and opportunistic). It may also be helpful to contrast those being appeased. Yesterday's appeasers were confronted with a movement -- national socialism (Nazism) -- that constantly reassured its future victims that they had nothing to worry about. It was about reclaiming some limited territory with historic Germanic connections, etc. Hitler sounded quite reasonable.
Today's appeasers are confronted with a movement -- some call it Islamofascism -- that constantly reassures its future victims of their impending annihilation. The Islamofascists sound somewhat less than reasonable -- at least when compared to der Fuhrer. There are religious directives from the leaders of this movement to kill Americans at all times in all places. There is talk about wiping other nations off the map and promises that a nuclearized jihad is unstoppable.
If the 1930s doves were naive, their modern progeny are stupid.
YUP!! You got it!!! The Dems are a party of Bumper Stickers and bumper stickers don't win elections.
Mr. Tyrrell is again spot on with his critique of the socialist Democrat reaction. Democrats, socialist liberals, respond to historical citations the way vampires do to holy water. And, as I have become more and more convinced that socialist liberalism is a psychological pathology, I offer here an explanation as to reason for that reaction and possible consequences.
It revolves around a trait that I first heard enunciated by Ann Coulter; to paraphrase: to liberals, history began this morning. This is a very telling statement, and it appears to me to be absolutely true. They have committed themselves to a world-view that is in almost every sense demonstrably and totally at odds with reality. I have listened to the usual liberal spokespeople and their fellow travelers in the Mendacious Media. From the economy to homeland security to the war on terror, the only way they can say what they say with a straight face is to not only ignore what happened yesterday, but they have to concoct a fantasy world where a past required to produce the present they envision actually exists.
However, maintaining this illusion is not easy. It requires continuous reinforcement from patients who suffer the same delusions. This is evidenced by absolute inability of socialist liberals to tolerate anyone or any idea at variance with the fantasy. Witness the obvious Mendacious Media templates/action lines. A tremendous expenditure of emotional energy is also needed. Hatred is a powerful emotion. I believe they have fed and nursed their collective hatred for President Bush to the point where it is the principal power source for their twilight zone world. Consider the things the socialist liberals call him and the explosive vehemence present in their voices. Sometimes I wish I could hear a conservative voice with such passion.
If any part of the above is true, what then? In the event the socialist liberals regain power, look for them to spare no effort, or any of our money, in the attempt to remake the country to fit their fantasy. Reality being, well, real it tends not to bend to ideology. The collision between reality and fantasy will result in a dislocation that will make the Carter presidency look very good by comparison. They will, of course, impeach and, if they get the senate, convict the president for something.
What happens when there is no more George W. Bush? Hatred, to be really effective, has to be constantly fed. Without W, the fuel will start drying up. If another source of hatred isn't found (and they've already lined up some potential replacements: Christians, capitalists, entrepreneurs, non-Darwinists), their fantasy world will destabilize.
The result may be similar to the sudden release of an over wound spring; that is: unpredictable, unpleasant, and messy.
All of this speaks to the fact that, for our own wellbeing and the future of the real United States, the socialist liberals, Democrats, cannot ever, ever regain power. Period.
-- John Jarrell
San Antonio, Texas
Wow!! You really hit that one on the head. If the Neville Chamberlains in the Democratic Party don't wake up and face the reality that we are at war with a group of individuals whose prime aim in life it to kill everyone of us, this country is going to fall.
Their hatred for President Bush knows no bounds of decency and has clouded their muddled thinking. Our enemies are real and not imaginary, these people want us dead and there is no way to convince them otherwise.
Your article should be mandatory reading for every Democrats and naysayer who is against our efforts in Iraq and the world scene of Terrorism.
Outstanding article, need more like it.
-- Charles H. Sillery Sr.
Go Rummy!!!! I love this man -- he always tells it like it is -- truthful and straightforward!!! I love it. This drives the Dems crazy, because it's something they never do. Support our troops, they are doing a fantastic job!
Re: Joseph M. Knippenberg's Religious "Diversity" at Georgetown:
It is easy enough to see Prof. Knippenberg's snide attack on Georgetown's ministry program, but let's be serious: last time I checked, Georgetown is a ROMAN CATHOLIC institute! Why on earth would a so-called "evangelical Christian" even want to go there?!?! What's wrong with Bob Jones University, Liberty or Oral Roberts?
The author's tone is consistent with the liberal attitude of demanding "rights" when there should obviously be none. You go to a Roman Catholic school, then you need to follow the college's rules. The right of free association means these students should freely go to school somewhere else. Thankfully, at my Church and her institutions we freely reject schismatic and/or heretical groups.
More importantly, we should address why Georgetown would allow heretical, to them, groups on campus to exist in the past. I think the real story is the moral/spiritual decay of this Jesuit college (and I gather most RC colleges).
-- Andreas Giannopoulos
Los Angeles, California
Georgetown is a Catholic and Jesuit institution that has a diverse student body. The Holy Father has repeatedly called upon Catholic institutions to recover their Catholic identity. As a private Catholic University it has a duty and a right to define that identity according to the broad mandates laid out by the Holy See and by the Jesuit general in Rome. To compare it to China is obscene. I would wonder how many "conservative" institutions allow Catholics to teach (Wheaton just dismissed a Catholic convert from Evangelical Protestantism), one should ask how many Protestant universities allow much less pay for a Catholic chaplain on their campus.
-- Theodore O'Connor
Re: Jim Powell's The Worst Big Government Conservative:
Jim Powell's impassioned critique of Teddy Roosevelt, although touching on important issues, is based on a radically libertarian vision of the United States that defies reality.
Let's begin with a bedrock observation: the United States is a nation of 300 million people, spread across an entire continent, with an advanced industrial-technological economy, trade relations that cover the entire globe, and confronted by powerful international enemies.
Does Mr. Powell seriously believe that this nation could operate successfully without a strong central government? Without a federal income tax or its equivalent to support that government? And without a vigorous executive to give direction and strength to that government? Granted, each of these issues raises further important questions to which conservatives and liberals have very different answers.
But Mr. Powell's suggestion that Teddy Roosevelt is somehow to blame because the United States today does not have a small, Congress-centered federal government that is supported by import duties (or whatever source of income Mr. Powell would find unobjectionable) strikes me as ridiculous.
It is impossible to have a great nation without a strong central government, with responsibilities and power commensurate with the needs and ambitions of the country. Whatever the faults of our current federal government -- and there are many -- we could never be governed by a libertarian fantasy.
-- Steven M. Warshawsky
New York, New York
Jim Powell's TR article saved me several hours of research. I have always felt I must be missing something about Teddy Roosevelt. He has always been held in high regard by conservatives but appeared to me as Hillary Clinton with a personality. State solutions were always best, particularly when they served his political interest. He hyped Upton Sinclair's work (the Michael Moore of the time) even though he knew it was nonsense.
I do think invading Canada would be cool, however.
-- C. Wagener
DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE
Re: Christopher Orlet's The Myth of the Democracy-Hating Muslim:
I'm still not convinced that Muslims are capable of democracy. Of course Muslims will claim to want democracy in a poll. They're not stupid. But that's like asking if they want world peace. The question is not would democracy be a nice thing to have, like a new television set, but what are Muslims willing to sacrifice to have democracy? Most Iraqis refuse to give up the corruption that enriches them or tribal and religious loyalties that corrode democracy. Consequently, they refuse to turn in the terrorists that swim among them and murder civilians. To Iraqis, democracy would be nice if all it cost was a purple finger. It's one thing to mildly desire democracy; it's quite another to want it enough to sacrifice, possibly your life, for it and then build a culture of the rule of law that can sustain it. Most Muslims are light years from that culture.
A growing field in economics studies the effects of culture on economic development and finds a strong cause/effect relationship. If culture determines the economics of a country, surely it has an effect on the politics, too.
-- Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
IGNORANCE IS RIGHT
Re: William Tucker's Grotesque Ignorance Exposed:
Whose ignorance is being exposed? Tucker's article, and many of the letters that followed, seem to be glossing over the fact that this John Mark Karr frenzy was whipped up not by their hated "liberal media" enemies such as the NY Times, NPR, etc, but rather by conservative/tabloid news sources. Tucker almost concedes as much when he points out the ridiculous, sensationalistic headlines ("Sex Change Shocker", "Perv's Lair", etc) trumpeted by the NY Post and Daily News, but then backs off, complements their "sensible" editorial pages, and throws in a token jab at the NY Times. Talk about a misdirection!
This media circus was not created by your old foe, the so-called liberal media. It was spawned and fed by conservative sources like Fox News, MSNBC, the aforementioned NY tabloid rags, and many others. Sure, the NY Times ran some modest articles on the Karr fiasco, but it didn't run any gigantic front page photos coupled to absurd headlines. This is NOT a coincidence; your average NY Times reader does not want to devote a large portion of time to finding out about the Perv's Lair, or the Sex Change Shocker. Neither, I will concede, does your average TAS reader. But some people clearly DO want the scoop on such things, and the free market is giving it to them.
So who are these drones that gobble up sensational news from conservative tabloid outlets? I don't know exactly, but I can confidently say that they sure aren't electing any liberals into office.
-- Nathan J
There is a little mentioned alternative to the "who killed Jon Benet," and that's that she killed herself and all we've seen since then has been a cover-up of that.
Please bear with me, I've only read one book on the topic, so I'm no expert. But from what I've heard Jon Benet was left alone on Christmas eve, while her parents went to a party and they didn't check in on her when they returned. That's a long time for an over-pressured little girl to be left alone on the biggest kid-holiday of the year. Suppose she committed suicide by crudely hanging herself. Suppose she wasn't discovered until the wee hours of the morning.
With a very Catholic mother and a wealthy businessman for a father, that suicide would certain to get lots of embarrassing news coverage. Blame would particularly attach to the mother for those beauty pageants. The strange way the girl seemed to die, garroted, would leave marks that would cover up the marks of hanging. Everything about the case that's odd would be the result of attempting to come up with an alternative story in the middle of the night, led by an emotionally distraught mother. The odd discovery of the child, the refusal to talk with the police would all be indications the parents knew their story wasn't very plausible but didn't want to be pressure into contradicting themselves. There's no need for an outside intruder, no need for a perverted dad, no need for a killer mother. Their behavior is well within the norm for those in their social position. The rich cover up things the poor would never think of hiding.
Something to think about anyway.
-- Mike Perry
Re: Elaine Kyle's letter in Reader Mail's Karr Wreck:
In common with Elaine Kyle, I am also tired of hearing and reading the almost always inaccurate term "African-American." I characterize it as inaccurate, because most people who call themselves "African-American," are not, but rather are simply "American," as Miss Kyle suggests.
Consider the reality of the situation. The term "African-American," can be applied to a person born on the continent of Africa who has emigrated to this country and become a naturalized American citizen. A person born in this country is an American, no hyphens involved. All of my Grandparents came to this country from Ireland, and became American citizens. They could have called themselves "Irish-Americans," had they chosen to so do. My parents were born here, and thus were simply Americans, or, "Americans of Irish Ancestry" if you wish.
There is also the matter of "race" to be considered. I am also tired of hearing about that topic as well. That is not to say that there are no longer people who are prejudiced towards people whom they perceive as "different" from themselves. That said, for many years, when confronted with a form to fill up in which I am asked to indicate my "race," and given a series of choices, I have always checked "Other" and written in "Human." That is also the reality that we are all, irrespective of skin color, bone structure, and facial characteristics, members of The Human Race, note the it is "The" Human Race, with the singular word "the" denoting that there is actually only one "race," not many. Of course, acceptance of that by those who maintain their positions of "leadership" by promoting divisiveness as opposed to unity will never happen. And as a closing comment, that whole concept of "diversity" being something to celebrate is complete foolishness. At one time in this country we understood that strength lies in unity. Prior to the American Revolution, the colonists were being told "Unite or die." We adopted as a motto, "E Pluribus Unum," which translates to "One out of many"(not "many from one," as that arrant jackass Albert Arnold Gore once said), and the rallying cry of the labor unions in the old days was "In union there is strength." Today, fools yammer away about "celebrating diversity," and our society is increasingly worse off for that idiotic notion.
-- W. B. Heffernan, Jr
Re: Kate Shaw's letter ("Change of Clothes") in Reader Mail's Salt of the Earth:
Oooh. It seems like I ruffled some fur. Meow!
Ms. Shaw would have us believe that gay men are to blame for the chaotic state of women's fashion?
It couldn't possibly be that gay men happen to be designing the clothes that women are buying, could it? That must mean if women were not buying the clothes gay men are designing, gay men wouldn't be designing women's clothes for very long. Right?
Ms. Shaw fails to understand the business of fashion. The paying customer decides with her purchase what is fashionable, not some designer.
Men's fashion is simple and stable. Men want to look good, and nothing looks better on a man than a fitted suit. So a man knows what he wants and he goes out and buys it.
Women's fashion is complex and constantly changing. Women want to look good, but what looks good on her varies with the season and the circumstance. So a woman knows what she wants, and she goes out and shops for it.
The difference between men's and women's fashion is as clear as the difference between buying and shopping. One gets done. The other never ends.
Oh, and we're all so proud of Ms. Shaw that she can afford a Ferrari Dino, not to mention the two mechanics and the specialist to protect her from con men and gay automotive designers while shopping for it. You go, girl!
Personally, I drive an old beat up pickup. It's got 200,000 miles on it, a big dent on the side and bad paint. But it's paid for and it gets me to where I need to go. Which is to any number of dozens of houses spread out over sixteen cities and towns every day that my real estate corporation has listed for sale.
Could I afford a Ferrari? Sure. But I'd rather have the money.
The difference between buying and shopping. And the difference between men's and women's fashion.
-- Scott Collier
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article