MESSAGE FROM THE PAST
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama:
Thanks, Mr. Lord, for another excellent piece. Such bad memories. Such hope for a rescue.
You ended your essay with this question: “What does all of this mean for 2010?” and suggested an answer, “That it may well be 1966 all over again.”
Well, we can certainly hope so, although whereas hope springs eternal, it always lands in reality.
The difference, it seems to me, between then and now is that LBJ, for whatever harm he and his plans caused, was not deliberately trying to wreck the American economy so he could replace it with some form of leftist government-controlled state.
I am unalterably convinced that that is Obama’s plan. Look about you. He’s already taken a number of giant steps to that end. And simply couldn’t control his glee when asked about it on television the other day.
Obama’s campaign was an enormous web of bald-faced lies read from a script over and over again — all calculated to get himself elected by a supremely gullible public — transparency in government, change in Washington, ending earmarks, no more appointments of lobbyists, cut the deficit by the end of his first four years, etc
Every one of those false promises was broken before he was in office a couple of months. The deficit he has caused and continues to cause will not be reduced within the lifetime of anyone now walking the earth.
And the web continues to be woven every day.
He will make Hugo The Snake Charmer look like a piker! I will put nothing past Obama — including setting himself up as “Leader for Life.” Mark my words.
Call me a “prophet of doom” if you want to, but I’m probably more of a Cassandra.
— A. C. Santore
The question is not whether Democrats would cede power to Republicans in 2010 or 2012. The question is whether Democrats would cede power peacefully. I have my doubts. A bond has be severed, a family divorced.
— David Govett
TRIPPING ACROSS THE AISLE
Re: Larry Thornberry’s The Specter of a New Arlen:
Charlie Christ is Florida’s shining star. He is as you wrote a political dilettante, always seeking another office to chase. Charlie is one of the most poll-driven pols there is. He makes the Clintons look rock steady. But Charlie’s main qualification for ever higher office is his intellect: he has none.
I think if you check, it took Charlie three or four tries to pass the Bar exam to get his lawyer’s license. I am quite sure he never successfully practiced, because he speaks like a moron. He uses little words (often mispronounced) and very short sentences. I remember being present at a presentation he made as a member of Florida’s cabinet against a new industrial facility located near Bradenton, Florida.
Charlie put up a green, four foot high cut-out in the shape of Florida with a blue circle representing Lake Okeechobee. (The lake was erroneously located at about where Orlando is — the Lake is a hundred miles south, but geography is not something Charlie has mastered.) Charlie strode mightily into the chamber, his carefully dyed silver hair lacquered carefully in place, his George-Hamilton-orange-tan precisely sprayed on with hands high, palms out, signaling silence for the multitudes.
Charlie then pulled out his laser pointer and shot himself in the chest with it. Finally finding the range, he aimed it at Palm Beach (on the other side of the state) and announced that “Florida is green and beautiful. I want it to stay that way. Thank you.” And left.
It was a major speech and the only one Charlie ever gave within my hearing that was intelligible.
If Charlie is the future of the Republican Party, I’m staying with the Libertarians.
— Jay Molyneaux
I wish I could move to Florida just so I could vote against Crist in the senate primary. When will Republicans realize we do not need people like him, Specter, et al? When will the Republican National Committee and the senate caucus wake up and withdraw all support and privileges for their like?
It’s better that we should wander in the minority wilderness then to “reach out” across the aisle. This bipartisanship has delivered us a witch hunting socialist administration.
— Jim Sherlock
Waldwick, New Jersey
CULTURE OF SUFFERING
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Monstrously Anti-Life:
Thank you so much for your article. My thoughts about President Obama are that when he spoke about abortion he wouldn’t want his daughters to have to “suffer” through an unwanted pregnancy. He would allow them to abort his own grandchildren. There is definitely death in the White House not only for unborn but for the country.
— C. Handley
God bless you for writing this wonderful article!
— Betty Cravens
PUTTING IT NICELY
Re: James M. Thunder’s The Destruction of Notre Dame:
You have missed the point. The point is 50,000,000 babies have died in this country and the president chooses the supreme court that decides this issue. Obama is a baby killer and has filled his cabinet with baby killers. Notre Dame (Mother Mary) is horrified. You should be outraged. Where are the campus protests, where are the bishops, where is the clergy? Only a few “old Catholics” seem to mind. God will not stand by, He will, and soon, act. Prepare for the holocaust, there will no fence sitting, you are either with God and His laws or you will perish forever in Hell. There is no nice way to put it.
— William Richter
ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO
Re: Peter Hannaford’s Mexico’s Half-Reported Drug War:
I grew up in Mexico. This war is no new thing, only the reporting of it. Growing up in the wealthiest colonia, attending school with the wealthiest people in the country, more than once I had to hit the floor to avoid shots from a drive-by. Violence is second nature to Mexicans, whether it be involved with drugs or marriage. Forget it, close the borders and kick the illegals out before they share more than Mexican food with us. (Too late, they already have.)
Somebody needs to clue in your clueless writer: There are no, repeat no, assault weapons at gun shows. Assault weapons are — manifestly unconstitutionally — heavily regulated, and require a $200 tax stamp, inter alii, to transfer.
Since when do you reprint press releases from the anti-gun lobby? This is a far cry from your wonderful tabloid of the early ’80s! Or, does Hannaford, like Pres. Bush, have a Mexican domestic who cleans under the bottom drawer of his bureau? (By the way, I speak Spanish better than anyone there.)
— Grant Bratrud
GOLDEN DAYS WEREN’T SO GOLDEN
Re: Roger Scruton’s The New Humanism:
Mr. Scruton’s indictment of the new Humanism is spot on, but he’ll find no correction in the old humanism — merely the first crucial steps toward the new humanism. Mr. Scruton strikes the right note when he calls the old humanism of his parents “a rearguard action on behalf of religious values.” Indeed at least his parents’ generation of humanists knew what they had put at stake.
The struggle that remains with the Christian faithful today, however, is not just against the hedonism of the new humanism but also against the moralism of the old humanism. This struggle is central to Christ’s parable of the Prodigal Son. The hedonist Prodigal seeks a life on his own terms without the father, but eventually moves toward an understanding of ultimate happiness in the father’s (God’s) kiss. But the one who is most at risk in this story is the elder brother, who lives as an old humanist in complete obedience to the father, unaware that what motivates his commitment to proper living are the same rewards and drive for independence from the father that nearly destroyed the younger brother.
No doubt England would enjoy better living if everyone could maintain an elder brother’s commitment to decorum, but the old humanism and the new humanism are little more than way stations along the same road of where England is today.
— J. Douglas Johnson
Re: Ben Stein’s Straight A’s for AA:
At a time when everything is on edge I appreciate you taking the time to notice what a wonderful company we really are. Again, THANK YOU. And thank you for flying AA.
— AA agent JFK