WHO'S RUNNING YOUR COUNTRY?
Re: George Neumayr's The Unholy Triumvirate:
The Dems were off by 24 years. Under an Obama presidency "G-d damn America" becomes pro-American; bombing the Pentagon a "worthy goal." Shades of "newspeak!" George Orwell, contact your office -- stat!
-- Gretchen L. Chellson
If, as the media so gleefully projects, Barack Obama becomes the next president, our government will be headed by representatives from Chicago, San Francisco, and Las Vegas -- arguably, the three least-trustworthy cities in the nation.
-- Jon Lindquist
Las Vegas, Nevada
President-to-be Obama's past tells us what our future will be like. The government now controls credit decisions for most college, home and business loans. Next year when Congress writes new regulations the Democrat leadership will be able to determine the qualifications of the people receiving loans based not just on "credit worthiness" but on the social benefits to society. This determination is already taking place in California where students from several Christian schools were denied admission to the state universities. They were taught from science, social studies and literature textbooks that had a religious point of view while only textbooks with a (politically correct) secular point of view are acceptable. Instead of "In God We Trust" students learn "In Government We Must!" As a community organizer, Mr. Obama was given 50 million dollars to get Chicago high school students to "function as part of the initiatives, ideas and solutions that radically change society." You can figure that when he gives out college loans he will require students to do "change" oriented community service. When asked if people have a right to a "home," he answered, "yes." But, given government's housing goals and control of credit, planners will decide what size housing you need and where you will live. You may be free of debt, but your suppliers and customers may be faced with requirements, restrictions and production goals determined by central planners. Businesses may be free to sell, but buyers will have directives as to what they can purchase. Everyone will have environmental and healthcare, wage and benefit, union rules and product standards they must comply with. When government controls the money, the politicians control the people. It will be government of the politicians, by the planners and for the party. This may not be the agenda of all Democrat politicians, but when you vote for a moderate you empower their party's radical leadership who won't give up power! Is this the kind of change you want?
-- Michael McCarthy
You are the first person to put into print my deepest fears. The liberals are so sure of themselves that I am not sure they will tolerate opposition. What is the fairness doctrine other than an attempt to limit freedom of speech? Will there be laws against "hate" speech and we, the liberals, get to determine what qualifies? Obama scares me, really scares me.
As for defending the country just hand Iran the bomb now if Obama wins.
As for defending the country just hand Iran the bomb now if Obama wins.
In 6 months time the American public will be crying over rather than celebrating the election results of 2008 unless things change dramatically and that soon.
-- Denny Smith
I am a retired police officer of 25 years and would rather face a bank robbery-hostage situation where the robbers are Al-Qaeda and the hostages are girl scouts than for this Country and its Constitution to be held hostage by robbers like Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Frank-Dodd-liberal Republicans. I fear for our Constitution.
-- Mike DeVita
This frantic game of musical chairs between McCain and Obama would be entertaining were it not for the memory of Al Gore conceding, rescinding, leaping back into the fray, getting frayed, then attempting to frag George Bush.
Undecided voters are like last minute Christmas shoppers -- prone to buying something that is truly awful and paying way too much for it.
Have they fixed that ace-in-the-hole vote suppression that Al Gore tried to pull off in 2000? The one that would deprive our millitary serving overseas of having their votes counted? I hope so.
I take my vote seriously and would ask no one to be influenced by my thinking. I have just completed the herculean task of reading eleven propositions -- pro and con arguments -- to my husband and insisting that he listen and decide for himself how he would vote. He doesn't need to have them read to him, but he won't read them himself and he tends to be carried away by TV advertising. So I read, and repeat and discuss and insist he consider or not vote. As he approaches 85, having survived a dissecting aorta a couple of years back, his concentration is not quite what it should be. But to me, voting and driving a car require a certain skill level and if you don't have it, don't do it. Would that that much care is being given to assuring the independence of the aged voting in nursing homes! Do I hear a rueful chuckle?
We have our Prop. 2 -- no doubt the brain(less)child of PETA. By the year 2017 this Proposition will prevent pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens from being confined in pens too small for them to stretch their limbs or flap their wings. I shop at a meat market where they proudly display a sign that says their veal is "humanely raised." I said to my butcher, "But in the end you still make cutlets and scallopini out of the little fellas, don't you?" Stretch their limbs? Hey, why haven't airline coach passengers ever thought to have PETA intervene on their behalf?
We are faced with one of two things come November 5 -- McCain will win by a squeaker and every two-bit lawyer in the Western hemisphere will descend on the offending state(s). Remember the wall-eyed ballot counter in Dade County gazing at what might have been a hanging chad? I don't recall any of those Democrat toadies having to have a vision test before they discounted ballots they thought suspicious.
Or Obama will win. And frost will be singing "At the Copa -- copa cabana" as he wings off to his retreat south of the border -- there to wait for his pension checks to pay his $24-a-month staff of housekeepers
I will keep on keepin' on -- a conservative in a viper's nest of liberals here on the left coast -- as I read nightly input from "frost" wherever his wanderer's heart takes him. He writes a thoughtful letter and I hope we go on hearing from him in Paradise. I don't know if his threat includes if McCain should get elected. May we have clarification?
-- Diane Smith
Re: Eric Peters's The Camaro's Last Ride:
Eric better stick to writing about automotive history because his thinking is worthy of a government-mandated recall regarding his future prognostications.
The new Camaro is way more car than the current Mustang is. The base models bring a lot of value to a long forgotten market segment. Remember it has similar performance to the Mustang GT from a V6 that is very state of the art. Not the minivan motor in the base Stang. Lest we forget this is a pony car with an independent rear suspension bringing handling to a class that has never been blessed with this technology. Another item to remember its the Camaro will not have a Pontiac sibling to split sales with for once.
Besides, people who want one will buy it. Gas prices are sliding back to reality and the economy will get going again once things get sorted out. Plus he forgets lots of SUV owners leases will be ending and be looking for something that's fun and gets better mileage. Perhaps GMs timing will be golden as America rediscovers the joys of driving a car again over the plundering SUV busses that have been all the rage up till gas hit four dollars a gallon.
-- Paul Petersen
Re: letter from Marcus Bressler (under "You a Terrorist? Do You Promise?") in Reader Mail's Surprise, Surprise:
Mr. Bressler is absolutely and utterly correct that the only legal qualifications for high office are set forth in the Constitution.
However, if the franchise is to mean anything at all, I and every other American remain free to evaluate the candidate and approve or reject him on any basis we may choose. If I don't like the candidate's position on any or all issues, tie, or his running mate, or his friends, or his comb-over, or the beer he drinks, or indeed any other criterion I may wish to apply, then that's that. No person anywhere at any time has any right to alter or abridge my vote; he may cast his vote as he thinks fit, as I have.
Where Mr. Bressler and I might differ is on the subject of "vetting." A free and even nominally unbiased press would see to it that each candidate's history, viewpoints, and character are properly and accurately illustrated, that we might each apply any qualifications our consciences might dictate; for the press, at worst to back the candidate more in line with principles of freedom is in their own long-term best interests. The idea that the greater part of the national media are not in the tank for one candidate over another is ludicrous. Imagine if you will Senator McCain having spent the better part of the last thirty years associating with a Klan wizard, or an abortion clinic bomber; we'd not hear the end of it. In the meanwhile, I shall weigh any of Senator Obama's illusory accomplishments against the fact that none of the Secret Service who would be asked to take a bullet for him -- or indeed the servicemen of whom he would be Commander in Chief -- would be given the pass he has been given when applying for their respective jobs. The best vetting is a free and informed electorate; one that would proceed as we appear to be doing, or would elect an Ayers (as Mr. Bressler correctly points out is constitutionally possible, having not been convicted) does not deserve the freedom it enjoys.
As for the Oath of Office, which Mr. Bressler references in his final paragraph, it hardly bears mention that this oath is the nearest thing to meaningless; the only question is whether the winning candidate will violate it that same afternoon, or wait til next Thursday.
-- John Lengyel
Re: David Catron's The Fear We Need:
Great work by Mr. Catron on Obama's scare tactics. What goes unmentioned, as usual, is that doctors who provide basically FREE care to Medicare recipients, are rewarded with what would be construed as "slave labor" in most third world countries. Consider getting $400 to repair the gall bladder of a Medicare recipient! The average attorney is getting $300 per hour to litigate suits and that is for EVERY HOUR he or she can trump up. The doctor gets that for the operation AND three months of care! So where exactly does that $800 billion go? As is always the case in government programs, most of the money goes to those who run this failed system.So Obama and his ilk go on offering all these freebies to the elderly, knowing full well that the doctors, far better trained than even "Harvard lawyers" by far, are getting basically nothing to provide the service.
At some point, this big balloon will crash amidst blame on the doctors, who tirelessly have provide care day and night for all their professional lives, only to be sued for their efforts by Obama clones.
A friend related to me that he was sued for a small scar on one such Medicare recipient whose plan paid the requisite $400 and the lawyer got $40,000 for his part. Now THAT is what is wrong with the system. The operation is life-saving and the scar is NOT life-threatening, but consider the balance in the outcome!
-- Robert Mandraccia MD
Ft. Myers, Florida
PICKING OUR BATTLES
Re: Mike Roush's letter (under "A Healthy Fear") in Reader Mail's Far From the Tree:
Aw shucks. Mr. Roush obviously got a hold of one of our supersonic decoded rings and now knows the evil designs lurking in our deep, black hearts. Of course we think Democrats are socialists -- and not the good kind either. Of course we think a lot of government programs are just socialisms that do not march under their own flag. How is it that these "programs" that supposedly are adequate answers to an assortment of needs always without fail increase the power and size of the state? How is it the "holier-than-thou" set hyperventilates when the government looks at what books and magazines you read but are perfectly placid with a state that knows the intimate details of your finances? What business is it for the government to know how much you make and what you do with it? It seems to me that the left's concern for liberty is rather selective and unbalanced.
Yes the general public thinks Social Security is a good thing. The right can propose other alternatives; but the truth is no one will listen. Social Security is just an issue we cannot win -- for now. Social Security is also a government sponsored Ponzi scheme. For now, Congress uses Social Security as just another revenue stream to use for all sorts of things beyond paying its promised benefits. But the day of reckoning is coming near. Social
Security's surplus will dry up and its benefits will have to come out of general revenues. There will be fewer "contributors to support each Social Security recipient. (Remember those baby-boomer embracing their retirement years). The young simply will not stand for so much of their income being drained from them so Biff and Kathy can cruise across the country in their RV. But, of course, this is just a rightwing fantasy issuing from their black hearts. Isn't it, Mr. Roush?
No matter what type of government or economic system we may have, there will always be unfortunate people who for whatever reason cannot cope or function under the demands life makes on them. These we must help and care for. It is our "Christian duty". But just let us be clear on what we are doing. It is charity which a free and self-governing people choose to bear. And the vast majority have no need for such charity.
Yes, there is much socialism embedded into the American way of life. It is the right's mission to propose and advocate alternatives. We have to win the assent of the American people to go a better way. Step by step, we must convince them of the superior virtue of liberty. The right will always have its advances and retreats. We are not hiding anything from anyone. Like any intelligent person, we pick and choose our battles
-- Mike Dooley
Mr. Roush writes, "The far right hates the government programs that the vast majority of Americans view as part of our social safety net. To the right these programs are nothing more than socialism and their agenda is to abolish them. The problem for the right is too many Americans support these programs."
Mr. Roush is correct that Conservatives and Libertarians are fully against most government programs. The nature of the opposition is not that the government provides so called"safety nets" but that the programs are not constitutionally justified. Mostly they are socialism (i.e., the redistribution of income). That the government provides poorly woven safety nets is further reason to oppose these government programs. Lastly, while personalized Social Security plans would currently be of less value than they were a year ago, the fact remains if the money that was stolen from workers pay (i.e., Social Security payments) was instead invested in stocks, the people who receive Social Security stipends would be hundreds of thousands dollars better off today.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
CALL IT BOTH WAYS
Re: Peter Ferrara's Voter Fraud:
Voter fraud is a hot story now, but... remember all the pump-priming stories about the faulty computerized voting systems that filled the mainstream media in 2006? Before the election, plenty, but afterwards, silence. The Democrats won. Why ruin a good thing?
Should McCain win, the voter fraud issue will live on. Should Obama win, it dies.
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida