PRESIDENT IS POLICY
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Robust Weakness:
As I look ahead for some prospects for a better future, my concern is not so much for Obama’s misguided policies as for the ignorance of all those feckless voters who were taken in by his glib air of superiority. This folly will not be undone until an ignorant electorate finally see what they have wrought.
Obama’s flaws are quite visible to many rational voters but apparently not so much to the many emotional voters who elected him. Severe criticisms of him, fully justified though they may be, will likely be brushed off as ad hominem attacks by his followers and it is they who need to be educated. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians are already on board. We always have been.
Criticism is necessary of course but it is only a start. Misguided voters will recognize the folly of complacency and appeasement only if they realize there is a more promising way. Feel-good policies that are so appealing seem always to be short term and apparently easy, whereas rational policies that are more likely to be successful are typically longer term and more complex and difficult, requiring serious thought and commitment.
But democratic solutions always start with voters. It was their choices that account for today’s bad policies and we will not recover until a lot of voters learn to make better choices.
— William Best
You do a disservice to your readers by painting Chairman Zero as some sort of incompetent boob, a la Jimmeh Cahtah. The Chairman is neither incompetent nor stupid. Rather, he is a shrewd, vicious, angry Marxist who hates this country and all it stands for. He has nothing but contempt for the producers of wealth. He doesn’t want the economy to “recover.” He wants it destroyed.
Understand that The Chairman has an agenda and he is carrying it out with great precision. He intends to destroy the economic engine of this country. That is his plan. In no other way can he make all sectors of this country totally dependent on the Central Government, or Politburo, with him at the head.
Cap and Trade and Single Payer Health plans are not innocent and benign. Their purpose is to bring power to Washington.
Don’t make the mistake of believing that Chairman Zero actually believes that carbon dioxide is a danger to this planet. Cap and Trade has nothing to do with carbon dioxide in his mind. It has to do with centralization of power. Do you think he actually believes that private insurance companies who have to make a profit have nothing to fear from the taxpayer funded “government option”? Puleeez! The objective is to have the Central Government take over the health care system.
Please recognize this man for the malignant vermin that he is. Think Robert Mugabe. That’s who we’re dealing with. Not the Peanut Farmer from Plains.
— Keith Kunzler
NOT A PROBLEM, UNLESS YOU CARE ABOUT CIVILIZATION
Re: George H. Wittman’s Conventional Wisdom on North Korea:
It is important for the world to stand off and let North Korea develop hundreds of longer-range missiles and higher-yield warheads.
After all, we’ve hesitated before while tyrants armed and it always proved to be the right strategy in the long run.
Besides, in the worse case, a few of the survivors might be able to make new children and paint their likenesses on the walls of their caves.
— David Govett
BUT HE WOULD HAVE PUT IT BETTER
Re: W. James Antle, III’s Lights Out:
Ben Franklin warned that only two things in life were definite: death and taxes. If he lived long enough to see the politics of the last 20 years, he would add two more: the party in power will screw itself, but only after it screws the American public first.
— I.M. Kesseled
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Troubling State of Affairs:
Mega kudos to Mrs. Sanford who did not “stand by her man” and who reportedly threw his no-good posterior out several weeks ago until he could think and act straight. How unlike sleazy Hillary, who would not give up her position as an appendage of her equally sleazy husband.
— Jack Wheatley
Royal Oak, Michigan
Re: Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski’s A Religious Test:
The First Amendment is perfectly clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Under a clear construction of the clause, the Muslim call for prayer is perfectly legal, but under the convoluted and current understanding, allowance for public display of religion equals making law establishing a state religion or religious preference. Therefore, if the mosques are to use public airwaves for call to prayer, then the same airwaves must necessarily be made equally available for all other religious announcements. (See any number of rulings that have outlawed Nativity scenes on public property.) Since these announcements would cause an inordinate propagation of public pronouncements (i.e., noise pollution), the intelligent solution would be to severely restrict all announcements. (With today’s technology, the imams can send out calls to prayer via cell phone technology without disturbing anyone who is not interested in the adhan). Further, using cool and clear logic, as opposed to ideological fervor, the right to assemble (call to, and joining in, prayer) is directly connected to the right of free speech. Since the Muslims have the right to prayer, as guaranteed in the Constitution, so do the Christians have a right to pass out literature, including Bibles. How the courts cannot see this is beyond comprehension.
In the words of the Torah, “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” The law is the law for all or it is simply bullying carried out in the pretense of law, and that is certainly a denial of justice.
— I.M. Kessel
AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT
Re: Tom Bethell’s Hazardous Times Ahead:
Regarding Tom Bethell’s assertion that President Bush didn’t stick his neck out on global warming or nuclear energy, I can only ask: how is this observation unique to the field of energy? When did President Bush stick his neck out on anything where the elites opposed him? He rarely defended any of his policies, or even his decisions, when elites attacked them — often quite viciously.
President Bush struck me as a man embarrassed by his own ideology and his own supporters. If he could have found a way to square his ideology with that of the left, I believe he would have been a much happier and self-assured man. That way, he would have instantly achieved the “in” status he seemed to so painfully and embarrassingly pine after. The idea of many conservatives that he was a great leader, the likes of whom we are not soon to see again, is ludicrous. If he had simply articulated and defended conservative positions, and his own decisions, for his eight years in office, we would not now be staring at the prospect of a socialized, statist America engineered by Barack Obama. If Barack Obama succeeds, much of the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush, and his non-stewardship of the conservative cause for his eight years in office.
— Joe Cor
Warriors Mark, Pennsylvania
REBIRTH OF A NATION
Re: Mark Hyman’s Jeremiah Wright Foreign Policy:
Isaac prayed that God would bless Jacob, “Cursed be those who curse you, and blessed be those who bless you,” (Genesis 27:29) Jeremiah Wright prayed, “God damn America.”
Throughout history, God has used people and nations to grant prayers that seem contradictory to each other, but in time were revealed to be in harmony with His purpose. Israel needed to be humbled to fulfill its covenant with God. God chose King Nebuchadnezzar to be His instrument: Babylon destroyed Israel and enslaved her citizens, and Israel was born anew from this.
Now is a time for deep reflection on God’s purpose for our President and our great nation.
— I.M. Kessel