Both Barrels - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Both Barrels

Re: Robert VerBruggen’s NIU Nightmare:

As long as guns and ammunition are easily available, we will continue to have tragedies like those that occurred at Columbine, Virginia Tech and NIU. Why can’t people like Robert VerBruggen dispense with the BS and simply confess that the loss of human life in events such as these are acceptable costs for our Constitutional right to bear arms? His painful analyses of what NIU did or didn’t do right, whether or not a change in the law governing high capacity magazines would make a difference, the virtues of licensed gun owners and the evils of “liberals” are all really tiresome and insipid.
Mike Roush
North Carolina
P.S. Who was the genius on Fox News who thinks packing heat on our alcohol and hormone drenched campuses is a good idea?

I’m always amazed at the prognosticators of gloom and doom in the conservative movement. Is there a recessive gene within a portion of the conservative political population that leads them to desire political defeat? Do some conservatives really want to lose elections believing that it helps the movement? If they want higher taxes and more government spending I’m sure Republicans would oblige and unlike Democrats keep the nation safe.

Robert VerBruggen’s statement, “WITH AN ELECTION coming up in which a Democratic president is likely and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is conceivable, all this does force Second Amendment supporters to look ahead.” Hold your horses Mr. VerBruggen — you may want to lose in November, but even if your prophecy does come true I count only four Republican Senate seats at risk (New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado) and 1 Democrat (Louisiana). Even if the Dems hold all their seats and take the four Republican ones at risk that leaves them four short.

Since 1980 neither party has had a filibuster proof Senate. The Democrats came close with 57 seats in the 103rd Senate and the Republicans with 55 seats in the 109th. The last time Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate the proto-Obama Jimmy Carter (America’s worst President) was in the White House, fighting with his own party, destroying the American economy, empowering fanatical Muslim extremists and allowing the U.S. to be kicked around in the world.

In 2006 just enough conservatives proved gullible to Democrat propaganda to help them retake Congress, but surely after the Reid/Pelosi Congress those “lose to win” conservatives have learned the lesson that Democrats make lousy leaders and “blue dogs” aren’t conservatives. If not I guess they’ll keep undermining Ronald Reagan’s legacy while pimping his name to help liberals.
Michael Tomlinson

Your article was well reasoned until you started to go soft for the sake of the lefties. An armed student in either case would have mitigated the carnage in both cases, immeasurably.

The gun grabbers agenda is to disarm America, period. I, like John Lott, believe that more guns equals less crime. I will never accede to the left on any demand they make for gun control. I can only get 10 round mags for my HK USP 45. If I could buy 30 rounders for it, I would.

What we don’t get in this country is, if you commit a crime you should get punished, not rehabilitated; if you commit a crime with a gun you should get 10-15 years on top of your sentence just for the gun or knife or pipe..

If you are a law abiding citizen there should be few if any laws abridging your second amendment rights.
Case closed.
Gene Hauber
Meshoppen, Pennsylvania

The disconnection from reality which allowed Steven Kazmierczak to perpetrate his slaughter is tragic. The codified insanity, aka “gun free zones,” which allowed him to do it completely unimpeded is criminal.

Those who wish to lay down like lambs before lions are not satisfied to offer up themselves alone. They insist everyone else remain vulnerable to a madman’s whims as well. Their rationale rests on the idea that legally armed students and faculty would turn college campuses into “shooting galleries.” That “shooting galleries” is precisely what they’ve gotten — twice and counting, so far — absent the ability to stop the carnage is a testament to what occurs when blind adherence to ideology trumps common sense.
Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

It is apparent from many of Robert VerBruggen’s statements of fact that he is as guilty as the Brady Campaign is for making them up to support an opinion. It is difficult to find a trainer in the defensive use of firearms that supports the opinion that so called “High Capacity Magazines” do not provide an invaluable edge in a defensive situation. This is especially true for home invasions. A home invasion involves multiple perps and the rare occasion when the victim(s) resist with firearms there usually is a firefight. The exception is when the perps are repelled at their point of entry.

Also the typical “High Capacity Magazine” holds 17 rounds or less and is the standard magazine for the pistol it fits. The 10 round magazines sold to civilians during the ten years of the federal ban had limiting devices to fix their capacity to 10 rounds. Why should well trained civilians be less prepared than the professionals?
Steve Cushman
Brentwood, California

This latest shooting is yet another tragic example of what we are hearing more often nowadays, and maybe that’s a good sign, that we’re hearing it finally – that government is broken.

Why does Washington invent systems that don’t work? Maybe it’s that: 1) These people don’t live in the real world and therefore don’t understand the real world. 2) They really don’t care about results as long as they have pandered successfully to their constituency. 3) They deliberately design failure in so that they can come back again with another fix knowing that they won’t be held responsible for the previous failure. How can the public continue to cling to the illusion that government is the answer to every need?
Richard Parr

Re: J. Peter Freire’s The Sources of Our Discontent:

This article perfectly nails the dilemma of John McCain. He played with snakes until one of them bit him. He thought the mainstream media “liked” him. No, Johnny, my boy, they don’t like you. You are a Republican and they hate you. The pushed your nomination. They lulled you into a false sense of security — even endorsed you — but, my friend, they don’t like you in the least.

However, John, these are your chosen people. I hope all of you get along nicely together. I can hardly wait until Tim Russert and Chris Matthews turn their big guns on our nominee.
Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

I doubt that the N.Y. Times unloading 2nd party sourced slams against McCain will really “rally conservatives to McCain.” It’s more likely to produce this sentiment: “If you chum up with the mainstream media, don’t complain to us about that itching-burning sensation that appears days later.”
P. Aaron Jones
Gaza, Michigan

McCain is disappointed in the NY Times, not angry, just disappointed. Amusing. McCain gets angry with Conservatives and the Religious Right and condescendingly disappointed with the Times. Maybe he should demand a timeout and have the paper reconsider its naughty behavior!

Me, I’m glad. The NY Times attempted a bite out of his behind in a way no Conservatives could or would. Though this Conservative Republican is not responsible for the bite it has set my taste buds to salivating with glee. Who knows, perhaps this will deflate some of that liberal, self-righteous, holier-than-thou McCain flatulence. I Hope for Change (my snarky).
Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

Freire’s article is as lacking as that of the Times. Republicans who seem to take joy in knocking McCain ought to get on board or they will soon be enjoying eight years of the very far left Obama.
Dan Mittelman
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Conservatives will not rally to McCain and he is going to lose the November election, barring some unforeseen skeleton in Obama’s closet. He has undermined the conservative cause and stabbed conservatives in the back one time to many. I held my nose and voted for Bush I, Bob Dole and Bush II. I will not hold my nose and vote for John McCain, the stench of his betrayals are to overpowering.
Paul Martell

The New York Times article on John McCain hardly falls in the category of a cautionary tale, let alone being a valid story. It’s a hit piece compiled by at least one reporter who’s leftward tilt was clearly demonstrated about five years ago.

On March 31, 2003 the Times reported that Peter Arnett, NBC correspondent, was being fired for appearing on Iraqi state television. In his appearance, Arnett stated that his reporting about Iraqi civilian casualties “helps those who oppose the war.” Arnett further stated “The allied war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance.” In an early version of the Times’ account, deep in the article — paragraph nine — there was critical comment about Arnett’s appearance attributed to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). Overall, the article seemed to be straight reporting by Times reporter Jim Rutenberg.

In a later version that day, March 31, essentially the same story plus political spin, Rutenberg stated in paragraph three: “The comments were likely to make Mr. Arnett a renewed target of Republican lawmakers, many of whom already contend that his reporting is slanted in favor of the Iraqis.” In this version the comments of Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen had vaulted all the way from paragraph nine to being nearly the lead.

Then there is the article by Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post. It’s also dated March 31, 2003. His piece showed that there were two members of Congress who criticized Peter Arnett and one of them was a Democrat. Apparently, Mr. Rutenberg and the Times editors missed the comments by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).

Some have said “But these (Times staff) are good reporters.” They have to be. It takes more talent to manufacture a scandal than simply report valid information — sometimes referred to as “facts.”
Stan Welli
Aurora, Illinois

Anyone still wondering why most Americans view the media with contempt need only look at two sentences from J. Peter Freire’s column regarding the N.Y. Times‘ report on John McCain’s alleged affair with a female lobbyist: “This is not a story about what happened. It’s a story about what could have happened.”

Any questions?
Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

With respect to Sen. McCain’s alleged affair, I agreed with everything Mr. Freire said up to the point where he claimed that “Conservatives will likely rally for McCain.”

We conservatives will hold our nose and vote for McCain but to say we would “rally” for him is optimistic. What is it about “holding one’s nose” that Freire doesn’t understand? It means we’re voting against the Democrat candidate, not for the Republican candidate.

Frankly, I was momentarily happy to hear about the alleged affair. It allowed me to indulge briefly in a fantasy about back-room deals and brokered conventions, resulting in a strong conservative emerging as the new candidate of the Republican Party.

Speaking of the Democrat candidate, I believe I’ve found Obama’s greatest weakness — the man is boring. The explanation as to why seems simple enough. As George Neumayr points out, “The only variation in his speeches comes from the slight rearrangement of cliches.”

More than five minutes of an Obama speech and I’m tempted to rally for McCain.
C. V. Crisler
Gilbert, Arizona

Re: George Neumayr’s If It Feels Good, Say It:

Mr. Neumayr has caught the essence of the Obama campaign. Indeed, the entire liberal movement is here in a nutshell. The platitudes uttered by Obama and also by Hillary Clinton are verbal placebos for the multitudes who believe that good intentions are the most important things politicians can provide. The Democratic Party, a party to which I belonged for more than half my life, has descended into morass of unclear intentions and vague solutions. This is the ultimate triumph of style over substance and Obama is the high priest of the Democratic Party church. The credo is the buzz word “change,” the catechism is public policy, the tithe is the over taxation, and the sacrament is the redistribution of wealth via the government.

Obama is a textbook socialist who no longer even tries to hide it. He is so confident that the American voter is both too stupid to see the dangers of his vague proposals, and/or too busy to care. If History has shown us anything, it has shown us that demagogues make very poor leaders after they have been empowered. The lesson for the multitudes will come too late if Obama is allowed to make a Jonestown out of the USA.
Joseph Baum
Garrettsville, Ohio

It’s good to see George Neumayr back in The American Spectator.

As for Obamamania, it is but one of the prices that we are now paying for allowing the Left to have a near monopoly in the running of the public schools. Today’s public schooling involves more than just dumbing down traditional subjects like reading & writing, American history, math & science, etc. It also includes substituting emotion and feelings for the ability to think and reason as well as indoctrinating the kiddies in the comfort of the collective.

Given the state of public education, a phenomenon like Obama was due to happen sooner or later. Let’s hope that the attraction for Obama’s sugary emptiness is confined to the Democratic Party.
Peter Skurkiss
Stow, Ohio

My own generation of Baby Boomers was taught that thinking and feeling are interchangeable. They passed that pernicious nonsense on to their kids. Liberalism exploits this terminal adolescence, but Obama has apparently mastered the nuances better than Clinton.

Here’s hoping the majority of American elect an adult — warts and all — in November.
Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Rock Star Clinton Takes a Nosedive:

Once again, the most perceptive of the conservative writers, Mr. Tyrrell, has hit the nail on the head. I do believe that most Republicans cheer on Mr. Obama in his race against Hillary because if a Democrat was to win in the fall campaign, it would be so much better to have Mr. Obama than the closet World Wide Socialist member, in the White House. Despite the disagreements that Republicans have in a political and social sense with liberal Democrats, at the end, they are still just Americans with liberal perspectives. This is not the case with the evil demon, who doesn’t want to just tinker around the edges with this political/economic system: she wants to upend the entire cart and make it impossible to ever go back. I think on a subconscious level that this is what many people see in her; she is not really a true blue American that cares about this country, its citizens and its traditions. She has had an agenda from her college days that is opposite what most Americans want: to be free. In her heart of hearts, she wants to push us around and tell us what to do. And she must be stopped no matter what. So dig into those wallets and give till it hurts: Obama for the Democratic nominee and McCain for the Republican nominee. Then let the better man win.
Steve Heafey
Alamo, California

I know that Tyrrell suffers from a form of hatefulness known for those on the political extremes, but his utter joy regarding the downfall of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s White House campaign is typically childish of him. Firstly his dislike of Hillary and Bubba may pale when confronted by President Obama who is remarkably to the left of the Clinton’s. Obama will be the most liberal, left-wing President ever. Secondly, and this may be at the core of Hillary’s problems, Clinton started with 39-40% and will end with 42-43%. She didn’t go backwards. She didn’t run a campaign as horrific as Giuliani. She had high negatives and was just beaten by a better politician in a “change” election. Tyrrell can like or dislike anyone he likes, god bless America, but Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to be re-elected since FDR and his economic legacy was the strongest of any President since Eisenhower and us economic hawks are lamenting that the so-called “Conservatives,” Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have 4 recessions, 15 deficit years out of 16 and both grew spending at a much faster rate than Bill Clinton ever did. Be careful what you wish for Bob, you just might get it.
Nathan Maskiell
Melbourne, Australia

Re: Michael Brendan Dougherty’s What a Drag:

Lafayette, Louisiana had a street racing incident about a year ago. There were no “spectators.” In their moment of adrenaline high, the street racers smashed into vehicles, killing four people. The deceased were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just folks minding their own business going from point A to point B. The incident took months of investigation. It was an ugly, horrific accident caused by selfish, moronic street racers. Selfish because in order to satisfy their manliness four people were needlessly killed. It happens anywhere and much too often. The unintended consequences of street racing on highway 210 in Maryland must be devastating to the families of those who died.

Bet they never thought this could happen to them. Foolish people.
Clasina J. Segura
New Iberia, Louisiana

What can you say about a car plowing into a crowd at a drag race? Speed kills. As long as there are cars there will be men to race them against each other. Most things that look dangerous are dangerous — and if you must go and watch, try to stand where the cars aren’t going to go.
Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

Re: Philip Klein’s Michelle My Belle and Betsy Podlach’s letter (under “Belle of the Ball”) in Reader Mail’s Dropping an Obama:

A word of advice to Betsy Podlach: See your doctor soon… you need your Prozac dosage increased.
Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee

The problem that I see with any criticisms of Michelle Obama’s statement that she was not proud of her country until very recently (which I don’t believe was a slip of the tongue — from what I understand, she said the same thing twice that day) is that the only people who might care about such a thing are, for the most part, conservatives. I find it hard to believe that there are a whole lot of people who are likely to vote for Senator Obama who would really care whether his wife — or him, for that matter — had any pride in their country. In fact, a lot of liberal Democrats would probably regard it as some kind of badge of honor for them not to have pride in the imperialist, sexist, racist, oppressive United States of America. In other words, I feel that the only people who would care about Mrs. Obama’s sudden realization that she lives in a great nation are people who wouldn’t be attending one of her rallies or voting for her husband in the first place. I certainly don’t think it will be enough to topple the Senator from his media-anointed position as being our nation’s potential new savior. I think the criticism of her remarks is a valid one, but that it will fall on the deaf ears of Obama supporters.
Sheryl DeMille
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Ms. Podlach: Nothing to be proud of as an American since WWII? Amazing. Let’s see, I can think of a few: the Marshall Plan for Europe in 1947; creating democracy in Japan in 1948; supporting the creation of the State of Israel in 1948; the defense of the Republic of Korea in 1950; Civil Rights act of 1964; defense of Europe from 1947 to the fall of the USSR; the fall of Communism and the spread of democracy across eastern Europe in the 1990s (Poland, Czech Republic, etc), and democratic stability and the rule of law through three Constitutional Crisis here in the USA (Nixon’s resignation; impeachment of BJ Clinton, and the 2000 election resolution). I know you think the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraqi is a mistake–I don’t. I know you think it is much better to let tyrants rule and to threaten us and all free nations, after all, they are so much better than us.

Finally, as one European acquaintance noted, when you ask a person what their country stands for most Europeans have a hard time answering the question. Most say something about history or culture. My acquaintance said that he has observed that Americans answer the question immediately: Freedom. I guess you are the exception; you and, well, all left wing Democrats.
Paul Melody

Ms. Podlach’s response is infuriating on so many levels. It is very sad that Ms. Podlach is so self-disparaging that she is not proud of the United States or anything any American has done in the last 40 years. I was born and raised overseas and have traveled extensively. I can unequivocally say that the United States is special. Living and traveling abroad is enriching and enlightening because one realizes how fortunate we are to be Americans — for now.

Her statement, “Scratch the surface of our military industrial economy and how it affects the world, ourselves and the next generation, and ask, does this make you proud?” Military industrial economy? What the heck is she talking about? She is either misinformed, ignorant or repeating the same anti-defense drivel I have heard for 30 years. Defense spending is the least of our worries. Federal budget outlays as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2006 for defense was 3.1% and Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 11.9%. GDP in 2006 was $13,194.7 billion. (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.) Defense spending has been less than 10% of GDP for the last 40 years. Ms. Podlach should be more concerned about entitlements spending. David Walker, former Comptroller General of United States, recently told Glenn Beck that “our unfunded promises for Social Security and Medicare have risen dramatically. In our total fiscal hole it is $53 trillion. That’s $440,000 per household. So the problem’s not where we are, it’s not where we’ve been. It’s where we’re headed unless we end up making dramatic and fundamental reforms.” Walker goes on to say “Well, to put it a different way, the $53 trillion is 90% of the estimated total net worth of every American, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and every billionaire.” (Transcript from Glenn Beck�s interview of David Walker on January 18, 2008.) Got that Ms. Podlach? Our unfunded promises for Social Security and Medicare today are $53,000,000,000,000. In contrast, we pay our defense bill every year. Your current (and past) Representative, Senators and President have signed you up for a $440,000 mortgage (with more to be financed later). Current politicians are in denial about this and promises of more largesse from the federal government (college education, universal medical care, etc.) will only make things worse. Does this give you enormous hope Ms. Podlach?
David A. Olson
Fort Worth, Texas
P.S. I proudly served in the US Air Force and US Air Force Reserve.

Re: Quin Hillyer’s Veep, Veep!:

Forgive me, gentlemen, but Mr. Hillyer’s description of several states as either “Deep South” or “border states” is deeply flawed. The South is a very large place, and more complex than his terms reflect.

Just as Big Apple mayor Ed Koch denied his support for a Southerner upon his endorsement of Tennessean Al Gore in 1988 (“Tennessee didn’t even secede!” Wrong.), Mr. Hillyer falls for the “small South” fallacy. While correct enough in modern terms to describe Virginia and Kentucky as border states, they are better called the Upper South. Tennessee, my home state, is considered by her citizens to be the Mid-south, with Alabama below and Kentucky above her.

Just try going to Memphis, essentially a Deep South city bordering Mississippi, and telling its people they are in a border state! You will be refused both barbecue and cornbread, and given unsweet tea for your trouble.

The term “border state” has historically been applied to those states which had divided loyalties between the United and Confederate States, and the institution of slavery at the initiation of the Civil War. They are: Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

Neogeologisms such as “Mid-Atlantic states” (not used by Mr. Hillyer in his article) to describe southern territory such as North Carolina and Virginia are symptomatic of the rush by modern, “progressive” Southerners, to deny their history and any personal association with the truths and the fictions, not to mention the prejudices, about Southern culture and history. These are the same people who blush should anyone detect a trace of Southern speech falling from their lips.

However, most Southerners not in the Florida panhandle (derisively called “Lower Alabama” by some) would likely agree that, though the Deepest Southern state of all, Florida is no longer Southern.

Otherwise an excellent article and those of us who know Marsha Blackburn are glad to see her getting national recognition.

Bless her, and your, heart, Mr. Hillyer.
David B. Allison, Sr.
Queen Creek, Arizona

Quin Hillyer replies:
In response to Mr. Allison’s friendly lesson on the geography of the South, let me say that as a multi-generational son of the South (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, with ancestors from Georgia and Virginia), I absolutely concur with his historical descriptions. I should have made clear that I was referring to current political “borders” between being firmly GOP states and being states in a geographical swath that leans GOP but is not a sure thing. Lord forbid that anybody think I don’t know what’s southern and what isn’t, though!

Re: Tom Bethell’s No Intelligence Allowed and David Dawson’s letter (under “Faulty Intelligence”) in Reader Mail’s Why Not Goldwater:

It is easy for us to get caught up in discussions about Darwin’s theory of evolution vs. intelligent design in public schools; but, as with many arguments with “Progressives,” the subject isn’t the real subject.

Most of us work under the mistaken assumption that the primary purpose of education during the K-12 years is education. It is not. The primary purpose of education K-12 is socialization and acculturation. We are nourishing our children in the ways, beliefs and heritage of our culture anticipating the day they will take up the reins and guide our country themselves. In no way am I suggesting there is anything sinister or erroneous in putting socialization and acculturation ahead of “education.” Every culture finds it good and necessary to teach its youth who they are and what is expected of them. What is sinister is when educating our young is used subversively by turning “nurturing” against the culture itself.

The whole evolution/creationist/intelligent design conflict is just one battle in an ongoing war about who gets to assign meanings to the world around us. Who gets to set the cultural assumptions we will all end up taking for granted? The left knows this — which is why they fight so hard to run education. What is surprising it that conservatives should instinctively know this but instead engage educational disputes at their face value.

It is not about academic freedom. It is not about free inquiry and open minds. It is neither about the paleontology, molecular biology nor the overall putative “sacred cow” of science. As far as the left is concerned, if grownups continue to believe in “superstitions” they are all too happy to leave it at that as long as they get to set what our children are taught.

Whether you accept evolution, creationism, and intelligent design or not is really beside the point. The real question is whether we are beings created by a holy and loving God or are we simply products of necessity and chance. A loving, omnipotent God is owed our hearts, minds and souls. This God is the highest authority. It is by this God we take our measure of what we are, what is truly good, and how we should live our lives. But if a Supreme Being is ruled beyond the pale or at least irrelevant in our discussions in how we order our lives together, we are free to make our own values or (more accurately) the “sensible” and “enlightened” will decide those values for us.

There are many who demand that we rid ourselves of all “superstitions” and live by the rule of reason. While these have made significant advances in changing Western civilization, we still have not seen the full consequences in living in such a world. Nonetheless, the real fight is for the hearts and minds of our children and grandchildren. Who or what will assign meaning to the things of the world, our lives, and our behaviors?

It is the conservative insight that tells us the supposed peace and wellbeing for mankind promised by our enlightened advocates of “radical materialism” will prove to be mere dreams. Absent touchstones greater and outside ourselves — without the recognition there are truths which are true whether we experience them or not — “reason alone” will turn into a jealous and blood thirsty idol. The horrifying dogs of unquenchable war will be freed.
Mike Dooley

I am a physician in the New Orleans Metro Area. It has come to my attention that your magazine has received a letter giving the opinion that “all” physicians are Darwinists.

I will not speak for my physician colleagues and friends but I can assure you that “all” physicians do not fall in that category of “Darwinists.” For myself, I have a deep and abiding faith in a creator-God. I find that human bodies are beautifully and fascinatingly made and that the human spirit (soul if you will) is dynamic and capable of such amazing spiritual depth and growth that I see no explanation that satisfies me in the theories of evolution. I am surrounded by the world of medicine where we have the explainable and the unexplainable and I am confident in my belief that Creator-God is wiser and more knowledgeable than all of us.
Cynthia L Swart MD FAAFP
Medical Director Tulane-Lakeside Hospital Emergency Department

Re: Jeff Emanuel’s Unfree to Choose:

Jeff Emanuel finds one reason for objecting to HillaryCare II in its scheme to garnish our wages. What the heck! It’s happening already! The last time I checked, my paycheck is already being garnished for federal income tax, Social Security tax and Medicare tax and some other niggling taxes I don’t remember right now. What’s all this fuss about one more garnishment? Bring ’em on! I love being garnished! (Well, actually I don’t, but what choice do I have?) So we all better just get used to it because whether Hillary or Obama is elected some flavor of HillaryCare is what Americans are going to get. And that means garnishment, folks!
Douglas Skinner
Alexandria, Virginia

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!