PRETTY FACE AND SILVER TONGUE
Re: William Tucker’s Put Men Back to Work:
Mr. Tucker was far too kind to Barack Obama when he wrote, “The President is being revealed for what he is — an academically trained intellectual with a lot of abstract ideas who doesn’t have much real feel for the country . . .,”. At best Obama is a pseudo-intellectual with marginal or inflated academic credentials. Why do so many conservatives feel they must placate the left and fawn over this obviously inept buffoon? This is PC civility run amok. Obama is a failure who seems bent on destroying our economy and Constitution and it is time to call a spade a spade.
While pleased Sarah Palin is doing well on her book tour, in the wake of her startling resignation as governor of Alaska, shouldn’t conservatives/Republicans move cautiously before anointing her “savior” of the right? We need to learn from the radical Democrats’ mistake — a pretty face and silver tongue do not make a leader or President. Unlike independents and populists, who are easily wowed by transitory star power (illustrated by the Obama fad), conservatives should be judicious and careful in selecting “leaders.” This is particularly true in the wake of the disaster that is called Obama “Presidency.”
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
“Our failure to adopt nuclear has reverberated through the economy.”
No need to worry, Mr. Tucker. As this is written, lawyers and community organizers in President Obama’s administration are hard at work on a perpetual motion machine.
— Dan Martin
A TRULY BORING STORY
Re: Reid Collins’ Tiger Truth:
Enough, already! I am sick of the 24/7 coverage of this “story;” there are more important things going on in the world than the marital infidelity of one athlete. Tiger was a cad — period, end discussion.
— Gretchen L. Chellson
WORTH THE COSTS
Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s Nuptual Disagreements:
A radical suggestion: pay unto Caesar what is due Caesar and pay unto God what is due God.
The states have a Constitutional right to regulate contracts and religious institutions have the right to perform marriage rites, so take the state out of marriages completely. Have people make their contracts as they wish and then let them shop their contracts out to different churches, mosques, temples and other religious authorities and seek the sanctification of marriage. Some religious institutions will accept the contracts and others won’t. If this is unacceptable to the Left, then they are out to destroy marriage for all in the guise of gay marriage as many on the Right believe. If this is unacceptable to the Right, then they are asking the government to impose their morality on minorities, and that would be inconsistent to their philosophy. Simple, no?
Chaos may reign for a while, but isn’t freedom and honest worth the cost?
SAVE MONEY, LIVE BETTER
Re: Andrew Cline’s A Good Obama Flip-Flop:
Americans are subsidizing those countries that have drug price controls. Pharma makes extra profit in the USA to make up for less elsewhere. Americans should insist on paying the lowest prices they can get, and the market will then put pressure to allow prices to balance out, and Pharmas will then adjust. In practice, American prices will fall and Canadian prices will rise, profits will balance out between the two and Pharma will still develop new drugs as always. Nothing distributes resources more efficiently than the free market. Nothing.
As Walmart says , “save money , live better.” Cline’s all wrong on this one.
Re: Brian Clowes’s Good for China, Good for the World?:
Kudos for Dr. Clowes’s excellent article! We need more pieces like his. The dangerous lies and word games the pop controllers are using need to be exposed and debunked, as Dr. Clowes has masterfully done. We cannot let the pre-born baby killers establish a new World (dis)Order with their “reproductive health.” The new socialism of the United Nations de-Population Fund and its ilk are stealing millions of dollars from hard-working and decent, yet naïve Americans, into their coffers in order to “fix” a so-called “climate change problem” by pushing abortion and abortifacient contraceptives. I propose that instead of talking about a “climate change problem,” we start talking about a “lunatic change problem”. And we all know who the lunatics are!
— Adolfo J. Castañeda,
THE LAST LAUGH
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Laughing at the Left:
Just a few minor corrections for Mr. Hillyer, and an observation: The earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so it can’t have been doing much of anything for six billion years. And from what I’ve read, temperatures have been flat or cooling now since 1998, which in fact is 11 years, going on twelve, not just eight or ten.
My observation is this, and it was inspired by Mr. Hillyer’s last paragraph describing “blue-in-the-face uncontrollable laughing (fits).” I believe The Left has a master plan with all of its goofy hijinx, and that is, namely and precisely, to induce such spasms of laughter in all who don’t share its views, as to prove fatal, thus clearing the field of all opposition. This would, indeed, give The Left the last laugh, were it not for the fact that its members have no sense of humor.
— D. Reich
Peter Ferrara’s excellent article, one of the few to do so, accurately points out that global warming has much more to do with power and money than science. Little wonder that the Obama administration, some members of congress and much of the press side with the chorus of denials expressed by far too many scientists. Denial is party line.
California Senator Barbara Boxer contended that this is primarily a “stolen e-mail” problem. Some in the press characterized the concern disclosed by the (hacked or leaked) e-mails as a problem only in the eyes of Republicans.
Carol Browner, the Obama administration’s climate “czar,” said she considers the science to be settled. She was quoted “I’m sticking with the 2500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.”
Has the advice to journalists “follow the money” become obsolete? Are the lessons of Watergate old hat? Ms. Browner is on the board of one of the leading carbon offset trading companies, APX. Isn’t it conceivable that there could be a conflict of interest?
Has the press ever taken a look at another dealer in carbon offsets, the Chicago Climate Exchange? Chicago — isn’t that the home of many in the Obama administration?
Carbon offsets are remarkably similar to the indulgences sold by the Catholic Church in the middle Ages. After the sinner confessed and paid up, his or her sins were absolved. Carbon offsets work in the same fashion, enabling the “sinners” to continue to indulge in cars, large homes, and private airplanes and even belching smokestacks.
My advice those still in denial about Climategate: Buy five carbon offsets — go and sin no more!
— Stan Welli
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s President Spock:
I think the reason Barack Obama lacks judgment and common sense is because the man is a screaming narcissist — he loves himself and he doesn’t give a fig for anybody else. He goes to Oslo, makes a speech on accepting the most undeserved prize in history and refers to himself more than 30 times. The man is an embarrassment, he is well short of maturity, he doesn’t know what he is talking about and his philosophical ideas mostly come down to trying to please everybody by splitting the baby in two. The man is a teenager who wants to have his own way and never have to clean up his room.
The essence of good judgment is to be able to understand how other people might view the same event and then having the courage to make a decision and defend it. Lincoln was very good at working out what the public would think and so was Ronald Reagan — it was probably his greatest strength. Both men had a high degree of moral courage, they were not frightened of making hard decisions and they stuck to their guns when the fur was flying. Both Lincoln and Reagan were very modest men and it did not require any emotional sacrifice on their parts to see the problems of the day from a wider perspective. But Obama can’t do that, he is way to arrogant to consider that he might be wrong and to concede that others might know more about an issue than he does it. Lincoln and Reagan were leaders who understood the problems of the day and could explain them well enough for the American people to support them and persevere through trying times. Obama is a dilettante.
— Christopher Holland
DUMPING THE LOAD
Re: Ben Stein’s We’ve Figured Him Out:
Ben Stein hit the nail on the head. Imagine having a driveway to your garage that never got finished. One day you are out watering your lawn and here comes the government cement truck and the driver tells you that you have to take the load of cement whether you are ready for it or not. The truck dumps the load right in front of your garage and drives off leaving you the bill thinking that he has done you a favor.
You have two choices, both of which are not good. You can spread the wet concrete out so it is not hard to deal with later when you want to get rid of it, or you can let it harden and then jack hammer it out later. Either way, you are left with an expensive mess that you were forced into paying for in the first place and now have to pay in order to get rid of it. When are the American people going to wake up to what is going on here in our country? All the politicians are doing is telling you the wonderful things they are doing for you in order to get re-elected — without the least bit of attention being paid to accountability or to transparency or to the American people who elected them. Hopefully we can stop this “truck” before it dumps its load.
— S. Chisholm
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.