Re: Shawn Macomber’s Immigrants into Patriots:
I rarely read your online edition, but did see the interview with Paul Crespo. It reassures me that my decision to stop my subscription to the print edition of your magazine was right. Instead of defending Americans right to their own memory, customs and identity, you eagerly shilled for the browning of America. Having chosen treason, you should not whine when the day of reckoning for traitors arrives.
— Robin Corkery
There’s not much to disagree with Paul Crespo about — until he tries this little bit of finesse:
“And no matter what your view is on how to deal with illegal immigration, we should all agree that Hispanics and all immigrants in the U.S. should become patriotic and productive American citizens.”
That’s exactly the sort of soft shoe so many of us learned to spot during last year’s immigration battles.
No, Mr. Crespo, I do NOT agree that all immigrants should become American citizens. On the contrary, I think that only legal immigrants should have that opportunity.
— Bob Danielson
Regarding Paul Crespo — brilliant! McCain needs to be looking at him for a Cabinet spot or some position of responsibility in his administration. He’s got more gravitas than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton combined. Semper Fi!
— Michael Tomlinson
I disagree with the author that Americans don’t understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. We do. We welcome legal immigrants and are understandably unhappy with illegal immigrants.
As a U.S. government worker I worked with many Americans of Hispanic heritage. They loved their country and spoke excellent English. I enjoyed working with them and appreciated their friendship.
The problem that has arisen is with the illegal immigrants. Many have no intention of staying here. They want to make money and leave. They don’t play by the rules by learning the English language and don’t know anything about American culture. I watched a Hispanic driver almost get hit by an ambulance because he didn’t know enough to give way to it.
I’m glad Civica Americana is trying to help Hispanics to become part of America. That is what we need. We don’t need divisive multiculturalism. We need more patriotic Hispanic Americans who can participate in both a Hispanic culture and our joint American culture.
— Donna Danckaert
Severna Park, Maryland
I would like to thank The American Spectator and Shawn Macomber for bringing this man and this organization to light. Frankly, here in New England, I had never heard of this man or organization. Let me say that I totally believe, with Teddy Roosevelt, that hyphenated Americans are not Americans at all. That is as true today as it was when old Teddy uttered it. This article seems to be informing us that Mr. Crespo is, indeed, doing the Lord’s work in this regard. I respect him very highly for what he and his group are attempting to accomplish. I also respect him for being a Marine. He was probably a better Marine than I was, but than that would not have been extremely difficult. I mean my separation from the Corps was fairly amicable and definitely honorable. It is just that the only way I would have ever made Marine of the Month would have been for me to be the only Marine left alive in the world at large.
I do think that it is unfortunate that Mr. Crespo and his group have taken the view that they have regarding what is, and is not, something that they should get involved in. Mr. Crespo notes the pool of folks that exhibit, in his opinion, xenophobic characteristics. Yet, he seems oblivious to the great degree to which folks like Mr. Crespo could counter, and indeed refocus these individuals. Mr. Crespo seems to be saying that it is someone else’s job. His job, he says, is to explain America to Hispanics the world over, not particularly the ones already here.
Sir, many of us, and I am one of them, are livid regarding the virtual invasion of our supposedly sovereign country from Mexican territory by mostly Hispanics. An invasion that is totally illegal. I refer to those of us that have no beef whatever with LEGAL immigrants. Heck, we would even agree with you that the immigration rules need a serious reworking. That said, that does not give anyone carte blanche to invade my country. Mr. Crespo, you would gain uncountable allies among the non-Hispanic heritage citizens if you would consistently, loudly, publicly, and frequently stand up to La Raza and the other pro-open borders folks, and the folks that really do want to “take back” parts of America for Mexico. The ones that demonstrate waving Mexican flags in American cities. All I can say to you, sir, is that your silence would seem to indicate agreement with those folks, or at least consent.
Sir, many of us, and I am one of them, are livid at the extra taxes that we have to pay so that the official documents of our various levels of government can be printed in Spanish as well as English. Sir, I think it completely wrong that we have to print voting instructions and the ballots themselves in Spanish. If you cannot speak, read, and understand English, then you should not be voting for our officials until you can. Mr. Crespo, I have not seen you on TV or heard you on radio standing up to the “Hispanic activists” consistently, loudly, publicly, and often against the abuse of our societal tolerance to the detriment of our tax rates and our blood pressures due to irritation levels.
And, Mr. Crespo, why should I have to press any button on my phone to continue in English when I call a commercial enterprise in America? Why would it not be better for Hispanics to press a phone button to switch to Spanish? After all this is NOT a Latin American country — yet.
Mr. Crespo, do you not find it extremely rude for those of Hispanic roots to cluster together at work and in general public restaurants and speak Spanish exclusively? I have personally been into Mickey Ds, Wendy’s, Burger Kings, in the Miami area where I was literally the ONLY one that spoke English. I have had a hard time ordering a burger and fries for lunch because the counter help had such a poor grasp of the English language. Now I would fully expect that if I was in Mexico. I think it is entirely rude and wrong in a city in the United States.
Mr. Crespo, let me sum up. Silence indicates acceptance and/or agreement. For all the good work that you seem to want to do on behalf of what it means to be truly an American, you undermine your credibility when you refuse to publicly chastise the Hispanic activists, agitators, and multiculturists that are tearing this country apart and driving a wedge between our citizens, those that are seeking to Balkanize our society. Sir, our DIVERSITY is NOT our strength. Our unity is our strength, and our lack of that unity, that assimilation, that homogenization will be our death warrant as a once great country.
Thank you for what you are doing, sir, but please consider trying to do that part of the job that you are not presently doing. A job half done is a job not done at all.
— Ken Shreve
Shawn, outstanding, enlightening, and very helpful to me. In the America of today, one has to stay constantly on guard not to get swept up in the politics of the moment. I do want to make sure our boarders are secure, but I do not want to ever lose sight of what America stands for. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, it has always been men and women like Paul Crespo that have sacrificed and contributed greatly toward making America the great nation that it is today.
Also, I saw one of the first responses to your article. Whining? Browning of America? Based on the content of your article, I am not sure where that came from.
If you have the opportunity to speak to Paul again, please tell him that as an American, I appreciate his efforts and I am very glad he lends his numerous talents to improving our country.
Shawn, take care, and keep up the excellent work.
— Bill Gardner
Huh! “Many very good people all over the world, especially in Latin America, are following all the rules yet still waiting in lines for years trying to come to America legally. That’s just ridiculous. It’s not right and needs to be fixed.”
Why is it ridiculous, why is it wrong, and why does a law, passed by the Congress — the people elected by the American people to represent them, and signed into law by the President–also elected by the American people — need to be “fixed”? Because Mr. Crespo doesn’t like it? He always has the option to go back to Cuba if he doesn’t like it here. Nobody will stand in his way, unlike in Cuba.
Why you can’t ask such fundamental question invalidates your, or Mr. Macomber’s, claim to be a journalist. Propaganda artist, yes. Sickening.
— Carroll Melton
Shawn Macomber replies;
Immigration policy is not the only law passed by our representatives that should be fixed or, better yet, completely scrapped. What would writers for this magazine do to keep busy if every legislative declaration from Capitol Hill was considered so sacrosanct, beyond questioning? And is encouraging every person who disagrees philosophically or morally with a law passed by Congress to accept it or go to Cuba? (Never mind the poor taste and ill-judgment of telling a man like Paul Crespo who served 12 years in the U.S. Marines to go stew in Fidel’s Hell because he might disagree with you!) I’m assuming there might be another option or two outside of extradition to communist countries and keeping our mouths shut, but, then again, what do I know? I’m just the traitor eagerly shilling for the “browning of America” as I await my “day of reckoning.” Seriously, this kind of rhetoric could never demean anyone as much as the people
who choose to employ it.
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Pants on Fire:
Didn’t Al Franken already cover this in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them?
— Mark A. Tarnowski
Mr. Tyrrell — Thanks for yet another great article on the Clintons, and their “understanding”(?) of the truth. In this political season you may never run out of material to continue this thread your words are part of.
— Paul Siegel
In her campaign speeches in Iowa (and elsewhere), Mrs. Clinton claimed that she was instrumental in crafting and then helped pass the SCHIP legislation that created a national health insurance program for the children of low-income families. This more than deviates from the truth. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were the prime movers of this legislation. Bill Clinton initially lobbied against this program, much to the surprise and anger of Kennedy. Mrs. Clinton claims she has been an advocate for children’s issues for 35 years, and the SCHIP program is a key event in that advocacy. This is malarkey.
— Fred Edwards
“As the Clintons enter their 17th year at the center of the national stage, some Washington pundits are running out of patience with them.” News flash to the punditocracy: Many, many, many of us ran out of patience with them a very, very, very long time ago.
As for HRC’s claim that she can only remember “misspeaking” once in the past 12 years? Brassy.
But couple her prevaricating with Barack Obama’s whoppers, the Dems have two really trustworthy wannabes. Not.
— C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Conservative Economics 101:
In publicly held companies most executives, including CEOs, are bureaucrats having risen through the ranks by not making mistakes. They all can easily be replaced by similar people in the talent pool. Executive compensation has become excessive because the board of directors, and shareholders, do not do their job. Boards are generally too friendly, too incestuous and too lazy. Shareholders are too distant and handcuffed by both lack of funds to defeat an incumbent board and corporate by-laws.
Maybe a requirement by shareholders that the CEO cannot be paid compensation greater than 20 times the lowest paid hourly worker would be appropriate? A rising sea lifts all boats.
— Nelson Ward
Cowles, New Mexico
The economy is also tied with the energy industry, which is currently a mess in the U.S. because of overhyped environmental concerns. The president should use whatever bully pulpit he has left to expose the shameless Democrats who are blocking the exploitation of our own resources. Releasing the oil and gas resources in Alaska and on our coasts for exploitation would initially provide a boost in American confidence because it let the public know that our government is truly concerned about energy independence and not just giving it lip service by subsidizing always-too-late-too-little alternative fuels. Together with more nuclear power plant licenses, it would be a sign that less of our money will go to oil-rich countries in the future. Currently, we have no hope for ever even approaching energy independence. Instilling some hope, not the vague Obama-in-the-sky hope, would go a long way to help us out this mess.
— Patrick Minnis
Good idea, Quin, good luck.
You write; “A benevolent dictator who implemented just those mentioned in this column, though, would surely catalyze the strongest, most lastingly solid economy the world has ever known.” That is the ONLY way you will ever get your good program implemented.
— Ken Shreve
Re: Meghan Keane’s The Emperor’s Rub:
There was much, much more to the John Profumo scandal that just sleeping with not one, but two, young women with ties to a Soviet agent.
It was more than just coincidence that the Soviet Yankee class ballistic missile submarine was an almost exact copy of the U.S. Ethan Allen class ballistic missile submarine. John Profumo could have given more details on this strange ‘coincidence’ had the English wished to be further embarrassed.
— R. Goodson
STEAL A LOT
Re: Jagadeesh Gokhale’s Lock Them in a Room:
The two major difficulties, aside from avarice and cowardice of our elected officials, are the magnitude of the dollars and the time horizon. Most people cannot begin to fathom numbers like trillions; the term remains, at best an abstraction. 75 years from now is beyond the average life expectancy of any who is even beginning to contemplate the meaning of Social Security. Neither of these excuses our citizenry from its responsibility of understanding and controlling these costs, but our elected officials are supposedly, though not demonstratively, smarter than the average bear. (Living off the government dole does not take intelligence, but it helps.) American tax dollars are transferred from the personal income of the many to pay a few (but growing) to manage our affairs intelligently. Apparently, we are not getting our money’s worth.
In the words of Bob Dylan, “Steal a little and they put you in jail. /Steal a lot they make you a king.” Our boys inside the beltway have their own little fiefdoms. It is time, not 75 years from now, for the American people to wake up and demand action from our leaders. The money they are burning up is ours and will remain so for generations to come. If we don’t stand up now, we will be handing our great grandchildren a heavy burden and no fair explanation.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
THE GOOD FIGHT
Re: Elizabeth Terrell’s Question Authority:
Having now worked in the Northern Virginia area for a couple of months, I feel Elizabeth Terrell’s pain. And not just on the inability to mount the traffic mirror, but on the increasingly confiscatory burden the local pols are placing on the backs of the good people of Arlington County.
Ms. Terrell, having been unsuccessful at a proper permitted mounting of the safety mirror, should remember a slightly worn and paraphrased adage often credited to my heroine, Admiral Grace Hopper: it’s often easier to gain forgiveness than get permission. I say mount the mirror, earn the gratitude of those who benefit, and force the bureaucrats to make you take it down. Perhaps a revolt with torches and pitchforks by the bent-fender crowd will change their minds.
Fight on, sister.
— Joe Dougherty
Falls Church, Virginia
Re: Christopher Orlet’s I’m OK — You’re a Half Wit:
I have nothing to say pro or con Susan Jacoby and her book about our anti-intellectual nation. But in his review, Christopher Orlet sneers that any teen with an iPod could refute her theories. (Which are not theories, actually, but, rather, opinions).
In fact, if that were so, no one would be writing books deploring American anti-intellectualism.
— Michael Jondreau
Santa Monica, California
WHEN READERS ATTACK
Re: Michael Roush’s letter (under “Hate the Haters”) in Reader Mail’s Roosting Roosters:
Trying to prove a moral equivalence between Democrats and Republicans (as Mike Roush and desperate Democrats are doing) is impossible. Democrat history of manipulating racial issues to advance the party’s political fortunes is an ongoing saga. Never has the national Republican Party supported racial prejudice or openly discriminated against African-Americans. For those who think challenging Democrat voters at the polls is a racial issue it isn’t. It is about keeping Democrats who play fast and loose with voting honest (I’ve done it in predominately white voting places myself when Clinton and Perot voters were indifferent to election laws).
In this year’s election as always it is Democrats making race a major factor. Obama is using it to secure votes and Northern white Democrat politicians who back Hillary are saying Northern white Democrats will not vote for a black. When race, ethnicity and religion are used in politics to attack individuals it is normally Democrats doing it to people like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Judge Brown, Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, Justice Alito, etc… It wasn’t Republicans asking if “Barack Obama was black enough?” Republican antipathy for Hillary and Obama has nothing to do with gender or race, but everything to do with their lack of ability and radical agendas.
As for the ministers cited none are racially divisive like Jeremiah Wright. There may be differences in matters of theology and ecclesiology between Protestants and Roman Catholics, but that is a spiritual not political matter. Falwell’s and Robertson’s post 9/11 ill-chosen words were theological and not political. They only became political, because the media chose to make them so. Unlike Jeremiah Wright they both apologized for their intemperate remarks. Wright on the other hand refuses to repudiate his slurs against the US and his racially insulting or divisive statements. In fact, his spiritual protÃ©gÃ© Barack Obama has gone out of his way to defend and justify Wright while the liberal media and Obama’s supporters have continued to condone such hate speech.
On race and religion the differences between Democrats and Republicans are significant and pronounced. While the GOP is not the party of God (Joshua 5:13-14 illustrates God doesn’t take sides per se) it has more often been on the side of the “angels” regarding race relations in the U.S. than its counterpart.
— Michael Tomlinson
As a mixed race (Irish-Native American) baby boomer, there are few subjects more depressing and tragic in boomers’ lives than the discussion of race relations. I have been to more race seminars, lectures, organized discussions, controlled confrontations, sensitivity trainings, etc than I can remember since kindergarten. Yet, it all has been unproductive and unrewarding. After 45 years, given the contemporary unyielding resentment and anger, I have given up hope — at least for this generation.
In spite of all the sound bites from the politicians and talking heads about a need for a “national dialogue on race” in this country, it will never happen nor should it happen. Having such as dialogue would stand only to make things worse. The racial waters have become so corrosive and toxic that even sincere exchanges will alienate considerable portions of the citizenry.
I have given up any hopes for genuine reconciliation between all the races in contemporary America. Real progress may be made after this generation passes away. Perhaps even after the next generation or two. But for now, I have come to believe it is not humanly possible for all of us to “like” each other. What is possible and necessary is to treat each other with civility and respect. Yes. This is meeting a serious issue with low expectations. This is far from the wishes of Martin Luther King and the other men and women of the Civil Rights Movement — no denying it. But it is attainable and to a large degree it can be enforced.
Time is on the side of the ideals of the Declaration. It is an affront that we get it so wrong for now. But it is an error to believe we can do all the time what we can only do some of the time. As they say in psychiatry, start where the behavior is at — not where you want it to be.
— Mike Dooley
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://spectatorworld.com/.