CLEARING THE AIR
Re: Florence King’s Cesspool in the City:

OK, aside from causing me to shave/pull all the offending hairs from my body, rinse my mouth out with carbolic acid, and cleanse my putrid flesh with fire, what was the purpose of this review? Is the book recommended? I hope not. If I get wind (sorry about that) of another noxious bodily function (sorry again) I’m not sure what recourse I have left to overcome it.

Crap, but the power of suggestion sure is strong.
— Karl F. Auerbach
Eden, Utah

Gee, if our grey water again backs up into our basement because of an offending tree root blocking the sewer line, I could consider myself lucky considering what my English ancestors experienced as a part of daily life.

Or not.

I actually read this book review while eating breakfast.
— Evelyn Leinbach
Colorado

SEVEN AND COUNTING
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Their Seven Deadly Sins:

Is it any wonder conservative columnists don’t speak out more? In the real world the Clintons would be in jail. I roll my eyes when more crimes are reported I know nothing is going to be done. Is it possible the anti-Christ could be two people?
— Larry Hicks

For all the highbrow drama and the righteous indignation given by the press regarding the Watergate break-ins during Nixon’s administration (resulting in Nixon doing the dignified thing and resigning for the good of the country and the good of the office of the presidency) they have demonstrated time and again that it was all about taking down a Republican president and not about any moral imperatives as evidenced by the disgusting and despicable behavior by the Clintons who ran the White House like an organized crime family (and I do mean that quite literally) with nary a peep from our “watchdog” news media. That’s why for me, all their ranting and raving over George W. Bush (who seemingly can do absolutely nothing right and everything wrong) falls on deaf ears. In fact I no longer buy the local newspaper or watch any of the liberal biased TV news outlets.

I worry about this country. This mindset of personal gain and gratification by leading figures at the cost of destroying our institutions and changing traditions practiced by American families for generations in an attempt to pander to a perceived “voting block” with a pocket-full of campaign donations is not “the land that I loved.”
— John Nelson
Hebron, Connecticut

Looking at the Clinton’s messianic hold that it has on the Democratic Party, it is not surprising that they are allowed to do anything pretty much as will without any fear or retribution. Does this behavior that Bill and Hillary exhibit include corruption, intimidation, destroying careers, philandering and or rape?

Yes to all of the above.

The one single collective question, that always arises is, how, can Bill and Hillary Clinton get away with breaking the laws that would put a mere mortal in prison for years? It is amazingly simple. The Clinton’s have perfected what the Soviet Union KGB had done for years. Bribery, intimidation, intelligence gathering, the ability to destroy political careers with a mere nod of their heads, and having underlings who would sacrifice their own careers do to the Clinton’s dirty work without any ties back to them. Does Sandy Berger come to mind?

George Soros is correct when his organization MoveOn.org said, “We own the Democratic Party.” Every Democratic candidate who is running for political office from dog catcher to Congressman has to be approved by George Soros and the Clinton’s. Even the electoral process as we know it will be destroyed and Hillary, Bill, and George will change or flout the laws and install a political process that will virtually guarantee that they’re man will get elected each and every time, and for the first time in American history a Marxist and Communist indoctrinated Presidential candidate will be sworn in as the next President of the United States and that person will be Hillary Clinton. So former Soviet Premier Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev’s prophecy rings true, “The United States will not fall from the outside, but will fall from the inside.”
— Melvin L. Leppla
Jacksonville, North Carolina

I am the attorney who handled the Vince Foster FOIA case that went to the Supreme Court. I just read your article on the Clintons’ sins. As you probably know, there is much to say about Foster that could have been in your article. The Foster page of my website is here. My response to the Supreme Court is on the site as well.

Notice that I posted the preceding in anticipation of Sean Hannity’s promised “part 2” on the Foster case. I also e-mailed Hannity a copy of my FreeRepublic post. His “part 2” of Foster was never aired, for reasons unknown to me.

Thanks for the great work you have done over the years in trying to get the truth out.
— Allan Favish

I think, RET, that if HRC is indeed elected with anything close to a legitimate victory (i.e., no dead people voting, or tires slashed on buses sent to help elderly Republicans to the polls, etc.) it will simply symbolize the end of this country. That, as a nation, we no longer understand or care to understand the meaning of freedom, especially as embodied in the American Revolution, and most especially as embodied in the Christian faith heritage. That we are little more than animals with an opposing thumb and a capacity for speech. That even an attack on our own soil by enraged fanatics from an historically violent non-western religion is nothing more than a random act perpetrated by some mutated protoplasm, the fault of a chance strike of lightening, from somewhere in a country we didn’t know about or care about in a part of the world where they don’t wear Gucci, have gay pride parades, or Halloween street parties. I wonder what our epitaph will be.
— Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

Mr. Tyrrell might find it interesting to read in the Bible about King and Queen Ahab and Jezebel. The character parallels between them and their modern versions are remarkable. The bulk of the passages related to them can be found in 1 Kings 16 — 22, 2 Kings 1, 3, 8 — 10, and 2 Chronicles 18 — 22.

Separately, on an unrelated note, I am still laughing at Mr. Tyrrell’s speculation that Dom Imus might wear a toy revolver to match his cowboy boots and hat. This type of dry, biting humor, perfectly delivered when least expected, is part of what makes his articles such a joy to read.
— R. Trotter

The 6th deadly sin…I think it was Hamilton Jordan of the Carter administration who, shortly after the Clinton’s left the White House, called them grifters. I think that is the best description of them. Of course, it only tells part of the story.
— Scott Perkins
Jackson, Ohio

Wow. Please get this article on the op-ed page of every newspaper possible in this country.
— Richard Geddes
Colorado

$40 WELL SPENT
Re: Ben Stein’s I Had No Alternative:

Thank you for this beautiful tribute from one of my favorite columnists to my all-time favorite editor and writer. Bob Tyrrell, along with Rush Limbaugh, were my teachers as I traveled the road from Republican to Conservative.

Thank you, American Spectator, you serve us all wonderfully every day.
— Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

Hooray for you and for Ben Stein. What a beautiful tribute to the Spectator, and to his parents and to his life. Wow.
— Dan Smith
Tabor, South Dakota

DIME A DOZEN
Re: Russell Seitz’s letter (under “Rich Man, Poor Men”) in Reader Mail’s Back to the Future:

“A dime per man-page…” Thank you Mr. Seitz for helping me feel better about the award going to the Climate Change Panel, finally, a true reflection on “pay for performance.” I guess it is still possible to get what you pay for, although 40 cents a word for their drivel starts to make it seem like a bad deal all over again.
— Roger Ross

I am writing this letter in response to Russell Seitz’s who states: “There is no Nobel Prize for ‘Science,’ or in mathematics for that matter, a mathematician having run off with Nobel’s significant other.”

Nobel prizes are awarded for Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry. These are all sciences. A Nobel Prize is awarded for Economics, which is a type of Mathematics. So, yes, there are Prizes for Science and Mathematics.

The real question is: Why did Al and the IPCC receive a Nobel Prize for Peace? The prize committee states that this prize was awarded for “informing the world of the dangers posed by climate change.” I would like to know just how much peace this ‘revelation’ has actually produced. Has any government, faction, group, or individual given up on mayhem and destruction because of the possible threat of global warming? I would like to have just ONE example of Al Gore and the IPCC actually resolving a conflict peacefully. I don’t think any example exists.
— Raymond Swanson
Minneapolis, Minnesota

ROUND-UP, LEFT AND RIGHT
Re: “Out of the Woodwork” in Reader Mail’s Back to the Future:

Is it me or are left-wing kooks, like those that write to The American Spectator, just total idiots? The things they believe to be true are just amazing.

Kuni Leml wrote, “I don’t recall the Democrats making any noise when Bush replaced, with the possible exception of one, every U.S. Attorney during his first half year in office.” You know why they didn’t Mr. Leml? Because IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. Where do these morons get this crap? And by the way Kuni, it’s precedent, not president.

Bush and DoJ fired EIGHT, not all, and it wasn’t until AFTER his first term and it WASN’T for “bogus charges” if they were Democrats. All eight were not doing their jobs in regards to enforcing immigration laws regardless of Bush’s position on illegals. One woman’s firing in California was after even Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to DoJ about her dismal performance.

That crap was followed up with a letter by Steve of Rancine, Wisconsin that was so full of “conventional wisdom truths” that aren’t true as to be laughable. More jobs lost in his first term since Hoover? Ridiculous. Again, where do these intellectual midgets get this stuff?

It always makes me wonder just how these type of people earn a living being so stupid and gullible.
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee

I have read Jeffrey Lord’s article and the numerous responses to it with great interest. However, I am puzzled by one overriding question: Why are we (conservatives and libertarians) so despondent and apparently resigned to Democrat victories in the ’08 election?

Consider just a few things that conservatives have been able to accomplish recently: Defeat of the immigration/amnesty farce, not once but twice; the selection of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court; the successful defeat of numerous left wing Iraq surrender resolutions; successfully exposing John Murtha, moron.org, and other left-wing efforts to smear the outstanding character of United States military officers and enlisted men and women; a Democrat-led congress with an approval rating of 11%; fighting back on SCHIP; the no longer monolithic MSM — just ask Rush, Shawn, Mark, Fox News, Fox Business, The American Spectator and National Review, just to name a few.

My point is this: A Republican CAN win the White House in ’08 — Hillary has enough baggage to sink an oil tanker. Republicans CAN retake the Senate in ’08. Republicans CAN take back the House of Representatives in ’08. Republicans CAN win governorships and state legislatures in ’08. Does anyone remember 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2004? Disappointed with some of W’s policies? So am I. I’m also happy with others. I’m on the train for the long haul. As a conservative Catholic I am entirely pro-life. So what if Rudy is the nominee? If we elect a conservative Congress we can stop pro-abortion legislation that might tempt him; the second amendment — a conservative congress can protect it. There are three branches of government, not one. For God and the Country’s sake people, let’s take our collective thumb out of our collective mouth, stop whining, and get to work. Republican backbone does exist if WE force the leadership to use it. Politics is hard, dirty and necessary business. We can defeat the left. We cannot survive suicide.
— Mike
Delaware, Ohio

WIN SOME, LOSE SOME
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s The Nanny State Loses One:

I think the title and article by Hal G.P. Colebatch are at odds. The title tells us that the nanny state has lost, but in reading his article, it appears that they actually won. Every requirement had to be met in order for these old sailors to have their parade, and a private benefactor had to pay the nanny state for the privilege. For the nanny state to have truly lost, the excessive regulations would have been done away with.
— Jack A. Summers