Happy Honda Day - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Happy Honda Day

Re: Patrick Hynes’s Keeping the Christ in Christ:

Most of the questions Mr. Hynes posed in the above referenced article also were treated by Mr. Mark P. Shea in his wonderful book By What Authority? He continues the wonderful apologetics work continued by our dear friend C.S. Lewis.
Andy Fuller

Thanks to Patrick Hynes for a thoughtful article on the trivialization of Christ and Christmas in our increasingly materialistic world. Interesting that retail stores who depend most heavily on the celebration (read gift-giving) of Christmas for revenue, refuse to honor it with the salutation “Merry Christmas.”

One trivial correction. Unless my hearing is going bad, in our area the silly song in the Honda commercial is “We wish you a Happy Honda Day” and that wording is flashed across the screen at the close of the commercial.

I have solved the whole problem of secular brain washing of school children. Have already taught my three (well, almost four) year-old grandson to sing “Joy To The World,” “We Three Kings,” and “Noel.” I discovered this lack with my (then) eight-year-old grandson when I asked him if they were singing carols in their Christmas Pageant. First I learned it was not called a Christmas Pageant (it’s a Holiday Program) and the only “carols” were Frosty the Snowman and Jingle Bells. I told him “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus” does not exactly celebrate the birth of Christ and set about teaching him all the carols, too. I see nothing amiss in telling a child his whole school is loony if they ignore the beauty of lovely hymns celebrating the birth of Christ. They are too busy making sure the tykes learn to respect every religion but their own.
Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California

Mr. Hynes’s article is well reasoned, but he does leave out the role of the Apostle Paul in early Christianity. Paul never met Christ, nor heard him speak (not on this earth, anyway) but was clearly the most important of all the apostles. Paul brilliantly adapted one of many competing eastern “mystery” religions to be acceptable to the most educated and cultured people of the world of the First Century AD: the Greeks. In doing so, it is certainly possible to contend that Paul changed the nature of Christ and that other apostles, seeing how well Paul’s tactic was working, modified their own recollections of Christ. I don’t know how such a debate can be resolved, but the role of Paul ought to be more seriously considered.
Dennis B. Wilson

Patrick Hynes’s piece, “Keep the Christ in Christ” is terrific!

One small quibble, though — the Honda commercial actually says “We wish you a happy Honda day,” which is even worse than the “happy holiday” Mr. Hynes (mis)quotes.

Merry Christmas!
Gretchen L. Chellson
Alexandria, Virginia

I believe that in the Honda commercial you are referring to the situation is even worse than you state. When I first heard the commercial I thought they were singing “We wish you a happy holiday.” When I listened closely I realized they were singing “We wish you a happy Hondaday,” and why not? Hondas come from Japan. I don’t believe Japan is overloaded with Christians so why would that company have any hesitation to mock a Christian Holiday?
Andy Grego
Richland, Washington

A fantastic article by Patrick Hynes. However, upon further review, there is one minor quibble. I too thought initially that the carolers in the Honda commercial were saying “we wish you happy holidays”. Upon further review, what they were actually singing is “we wish you happy HONDA days.” Something more insidious than mere happy holidays.
Michael Palmer

The same Honda commercial which provoked Patrick Hynes’s ire inspired me to poorly rewrite an old Negro spiritual. Its new lyrics, I hope, avoid the spirit of
irreverent relevance which Hynes so justly attacks:

Were you there when they marketed my Lord?
Were you there when they marketed my Lord?
Oh sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble,
Were you there when they marketed my Lord?

Were you there when they focus-grouped His Word?
Were you there when they focus-grouped His Word?
Oh sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble,
Were you there when they focus-grouped His Word?

Were you there when they rewrote His True Life?
Were you there when they rewrote His True Life?
Oh sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble,
Were you there when they rewrote His True Life?

Were you there when they mammonized His Birth?
Were you there when they mammonized His Birth?
Oh sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble,
Were you there when they mammonized His Birth?

Were you there when they marketed my Lord?
Were you there when they marketed my Lord?
Oh sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble,
Were you there when they marketed my Lord?
Kevin Jones
Arvada, Colorado

I’m sure you’ll get a million of this, Patrick, but the revised ditty goes “We wish you a Happy Honda Day…” Even worse, obviously.
Erik Litvinchuk
Sacramento, California

Re: George Neumayr’s Kennedy Republicans:

Thanks so much for “Kennedy Republicans.” Understanding that he was not a conservative, especially on the issue of abortion, it was upsetting to watch how Schwarzenegger was received with such giddiness in the recall. Even many so-called conservatives supported him just to chalk up a win. (I fear we are being set up for someone like him for ’08.) Now this. Some people never learn.
Mark Moretti

I hate to come to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s defense over the stunning appointment of Democrat activist Susan Kennedy as his new chief of staff, but George Neumayr’s article is way off base and deserves some comment.

The real thrust of Mr. Neumayr’s article is not really to attack Schwarzenegger, but those “big tent” conservatives who supported Schwarzenegger instead of the brash conservative (almost libertarian on economic matters) state legislator, Tom McClintock, in the recall election. Neumayr laments this supposed lost opportunity. But anyone who thinks that in what was essentially a three-way race between a liberal Democrat, a “centrist” Republican, and a conservative Republican, that the conservative had any chance of winning, simply does not understand California politics. Even in Neumayr’s fanciful hypothetical world, Governor McClintock, facing a legislature that is two-thirds Democrat and wouldn’t have given him an inch, would not have been able to achieve the conservative accomplishments racked up by Schwarzenegger — from meaningful workers compensation reform to winning some early stunning budget victories. And the socially “moderate” Schwarzenegger has vetoed a gay marriage measure and bills to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens (twice). Indeed, up to this point, rather than being a “center-left” governor, as Neumayr claims, Schwarzenegger has in reality been center-right. (And does Neumayr really think that a governor who pushed measures to compel unions to get the consent of their members before taking their dues for political purposes, and to allow the governor more power to make budget cuts in order to balance the budget, has a “de facto Democratic ideology”?) Other than Schwarzenegger’s throwing his support to the stem cell research initiative in 2004 (which would have won easily even without his support), conservatives have had very little about which to complain.

The appointment of Susan Kennedy as chief of staff does raise a red flag. But Schwarzenegger has been quick to respond, claiming that it is a matter of personal rapport and does not indicate future liberal policy shifts, and given that Schwarzenegger is often unorthodox in the way he does things, maybe that’s true. So as much as Neumayr likes to excoriate Schwarzenegger and his “big tent” allies, he may have jumped the gun. Certainly, by going to war with the public employee unions, Schwarzenegger has no hope of ever again winning any significant Democratic support and if he does move to the left as a result of the failure of his ballot initiatives, he will have no political future.
Brandon Crocker
San Diego, California

A rousing “Hear! Hear!” to George Neumayr’s piece on Arnold’s “Last Action Hero” moment.

As a native Californian, I am disappointed, but not surprised by his naming a liberal lesbian activist as his chief of staff. Given that his spouse is a member of left-wing royalty (the Kennedy’s), and that his previous residence, Tinseltown, includes such notable pundits as Rob “Meathead” Reiner, Tim Robbins, Barbra Streisand, etc., it was only a matter of time before Schwarzenegger gave in to their “common sense” and moved even further left, following his poor showing last month. By their calculation, the Governator was behaving as a rabid, right-wing conservative up until now… even if he is pro-abortion.

I do, however, have to point out a flaw in Neumayr’s analysis: he does not acknowledge the good that Schwarzenegger accomplished. To wit, he successfully lowered the obscenely high employer payments on workman’s comp that was chasing so many businesses out of the state. I know some small business owners who were greatly helped by this move.

And lest we forget (as Neumayr already has), the Governor put his reputation on the line in support of proposals that conservatives have long touted, like paycheck protection for union members, and cutting back on tenure for public school teachers. He also endorsed (albeit rather tepidly) the parental notification proposal, and vetoed the homosexual “marriage” bill.

We can certainly question Arnold’s tactics in trying to pass these initiatives, as many have. Personally, I think he would have been better suited either to do so during his first months in office, when his approval ratings were still very high, or take on one initiative at a time. As he discovered, it’s quite a task taking on labor and teacher unions in the same, off-year election. But hindsight is 20-20.

Having said all of that, I agree with Neumayr’s thesis that Tom McClintock would have made a far superior governor to the man who currently holds that office. Let us pray that Governor Schwarzenegger seeks counsel outside of his liberal inner circle, and stops pacifying those who want to defeat him, as opposed to those who actually voted him into office.
Greg Hoadley
Boca Raton, Florida

I hereby terminate my support for Gov. Schwarzenegger. It is no wonder that his wife, a New England leftie, felt comfortable marrying him.
David Govett
Davis, California

Many of us said virtually the same thing back when the Terminator launched his bid for Sacramento. Alas, we were ridiculed in terms worthy of the best that the DU and Daily KOS web sites have to offer. The difference was that it was the GOP “moderate” RINOs telling us to get our minds right. I have gotten so sick of the expression that “elections matter” that I want to hurl every time some putative Republican proclaims it. Perhaps someone can name some Cal state judges that would not be on the bench except for a so-called Republican in the Governator chair. I bet that Ahhhnold’s choices make even the loony lefties on the Ninth Circuit Court proud.

Yes, elections matter, but so do principles. Michael Bloomberg has virtually wiped off the map all the good that Mayor Rudy had accomplished in New York, and Rudy is about as socially liberal as you can be and still be a Republican. It is only the blessing of a benevolent God that ordained that Rudy was running the show in the Big Apple on 9/11/2001. He and Bernie Kerik held the lines together that day. That dynamic duo gave us the ultimate definition of courage and leadership amidst chaos and tumult. I do not even want to contemplate what the result would have been if the faux Republican Bloomberg been in charge. Can you say New Orleans 2005?

But, hey, it is us red-necked, Bible-thumping, extreme right-wing conservatives that are ruining the GOP, right? Pifffffle!!!!!! You can take your country club, blue blood, limousine RINOs and stick ’em. It is cold in my part of the world in November and, often, snowy. From now on I will stay warm by the fire unless I have a true Conservative to vote for.
Ken Shreve
Deep behind enemy lines in New England

If Arnold’s hard left turn isn’t an indication of WHY Republicans need to stay to the right of center nothing is. With migraines like Snowe, Specter, Collins, Dewine, Voinovich and Chaffee the republican party continually plays Charlie Brown while Lucy yanking the “football” away are the “moderates”.

The only thing “moderate” Republicans are moderate about are their principles.
P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan

Re: P. David Hornik’s Sanely in Love:

There seems to be business opportunity on the Internet to sell nerve growth factor pills that guarantee to make another fall in love with one. I’m writing a business plan even now. Let’s see, a dozen or so pills to attract the superficially perfect wife and 30 or so to keep the marriage interesting. (Make that 60 since one would have to take them oneself, presumably while looking at one’s mate to avoid misdirected attraction.)
David Govett
Davis, California

Re: Lawrence Henry’s 1948 Ford:

Regarding the article on the 1948 Ford, I drove a lot of ’48 Fords as company cars for a power company in Illinois. I owned a used 1946 Ford with a V8 engine. This car would do 100 miles an hour on the roads of that time. For what it was, it was certainly not underpowered or junk. The six-cylinder engines were a little bit underpowered but the V8 would make a good showing against any car in its class and price range in the world at the time. Your author must have a bad memory, or Grandpa was driving on a gravel road — but a ’48 Ford V8 would do 80-100 mph depending on the condition of the road (like gravel roads) and the nerve of the driver. Have you ever driven on a one-lane gravel road full of potholes with a ridge with grass and weeds in the center? Maybe grandpa was doing this at the time. Loved that ’46 Ford! ’46, ’47, ’48 Fords looked and ran about the same. I wish I could buy a new one today.
Frank Dollinger
Channahon, Illinois

Whether or not Lawrence Henry’s grandpa got a post-war lemon as he suspects, his recollections of a 1948 Ford brought some memories of mine streaming back.

As a 16-year-old high school student in 1954, I used $150 earned from an earlier paper route to purchase from a friend of my father his 1947 Ford two-door sedan, my first automobile and a memorable one for all of that. Like that of Mr. Henry’s grandpa the color of MY Ford was also “Colony Blue,” an almost navy blue, albeit a bit skinned and, in some places, a hint of future rust out beginning to show.

With a bit more than 95,000 miles on the odometer, my “new” car had a fully developed personality all its own.

The drum brakes gave off a fine shrill squeal that could be heard blocks away when applied, but they worked … and friends were always aware of my impending arrival well before the fact.

There was a de facto speed governor: whenever the car was driven above 55 miles per hour, the rear engine seal would give way enough for most of the 30 weight motor oil to be blown out in a few minutes. Below 55, you could cruise all day and not lose a drop.

No matter how gradually the aging — no doubt heavily varnished — clutch plate was engaged in first gear, the car would shudder as if it might shake itself apart.

If you were out on a two lane highway in the rain and decided to pass a slower vehicle, you had to be ready to meet your maker. The vacuum driven windshield wipers would take second priority, as far as the throbbing V8 engine was concerned, to the need for vacuum to advance the spark during an agonizingly gradual process of acceleration … and falling rain combined with the wheel spray kicked up by the 18 wheeler you were trying to pass made the windshield all but opaque. That 1947 Ford did not do much to encourage atheism at such times.

Because my family lived in Denver, I would often take my beloved winged steed west into the Rockies for the sheer fun of it. On the first such adventure, sheer fun suddenly gave way to dismay as the fuel pump, located atop the engine, collected enough heat to vapor lock at altitude and allow the Ford to coast to a glum halt by the side of the road. By and by enough cooling took place for a successful restart, but long-term confidence was badly shaken. Later, on the advice of my father — an enthusiastic auto mechanic hobbyist from his earliest days who actually used horse manure to plug up the radiator in HIS Ford model T a generation earlier — I jammed half a grapefruit onto the top of the fuel pump and, as long as sufficient juice remained to cool the pump through the process of evaporation, my vapor lock worries were over. Of course I DID have to remember to replace the grapefruit at frequent intervals and I DID draw more than a few snide snickers from gas station attendants who would raise the hood to check my oil in days long before self service, but on balance it was a small price to pay for the peace of mind that uninterrupted fuel system integrity brings.

Another of my mountain adventures almost ended in disaster in the days before modern cruise control when the cable that connected the constant speed knob on the dashboard to the carburetor stuck in the full throttle mode as I was making my descent back into Denver and I had to momentarily bend down and manually pull the accelerator pedal back, losing sight of the road and nearby traffic in the process.

In the summer between my junior and senior year of high school, a classmate and I drove that beauty from Denver to Wisconsin and back. On the way there, we camped out somewhere in Iowa and resumed driving at dawn. On the return trip we took turns and made the journey nonstop.

Four years after buying it, I put an ad in the paper and sold it for $75. Just getting to know my Guardian Angel was well worth the $75 loss I incurred … and at a rate of less than $20 a year.

To say my first car sparked a love affair might be something of an understatement. That 1947 Ford was to transport a lovely 14 year old girl and me to our first date, ice skating at Denver’s City Park, and the magic began. Lately we’ve been wondering how and where we’ll celebrate our 50th anniversary a few years from now.
Thomas E. Stuart
Kapa’au, Hawaii

Hey Mr. Henry, my uncle’s ’47 Ford 4 door could out run any Chevy or Plymouth/Dodge of its time; a little slow at takeoff but in second they would be getting smaller in the review mirror. With a Columbia rear end overdrive, the car would get 22 miles per gallon. My father’s ’37 and ’49 Ford pick-ups both went 200k miles without having the heads pulled. After I inherited the family Mercury 4-door, I souped it, and it took on Olds, 88s, etc. It was a remarkable engine that stood up to incredible abuse. But alas, the Chevy V8 came along, and I abandoned my faithful Ford flathead.
Ken Yamashiro
Alpine, California

True, there’s a Ford in my past, but not in my neighborhood.
David Govett
Davis, California

Re: Tom Bethell’s Politically Incorrect Science:

I enjoyed your recent article about conservatism and the current evolution debates, just as over the years I have appreciated your ability to distinguish science from scientific dogma on many fronts. If you have not already advanced beyond these points, you might find them worth some thought:

1 — One of the consequences of naturalism is the blurring of the lines between science and history. In all the arguments about science and religion, history seems to get a short shrift. During my education and early years of practice as a geologist, I found myself uncomfortable with the absence of any real distinction between the two. In 1988, I met Charles Thaxton and he described in some detail his scheme of “operations science” and “origins science” which I have since seen advocated by all manner of groups, from ID to six-day creationists. I found it unsatisfying, but could not put my finger on the solution until I read Adler’s The Conditions of Philosophy a couple of years later. Reflection on his explanation of the distinction between philosophy, science, and history convinced me that natural history was a subset of history, not of science. Furthermore, his explanation of mixed questions convinced me that science had a valid, albeit secondary role, in natural history.

2 — I reached the same conclusion that you did about the relationship between evolution and naturalism long ago, but was struck by a comment that I read in the ’80s that it is more interesting to explore the similarities between Christianity and naturalism than the differences. Once I began to do so, I found that naturalism uses a number of Christian doctrines at the axiomatic level, primarily because of its desire to elevate science to the level of theology. As a firm believer that contradiction is the hallmark of the lie, I have since found that to be a very helpful style of analysis, though one that I have a hard time convincing fellow scientists to pursue. If you are interested, I summarized what I had found in an article “Beyond Scientific Creationism” which is available here.

I look forward to reading your new book and continuing to see your work in TAS, etc.
John Reed

Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Our Immigration Imbroglio:

Among the notable problems contained in RET’s article is, despite the rhetoric, his apparent willingness to accept the rationale of those who seek “open borders” between the U.S. and Mexico: let the market have its way, don’t you see, and all will turn out just grand. That Mr. Tyrrell would, in the wake of 9/11, and nearly after two decades of decided indifference to our border security by Democrats and Republicans alike, applaud the efforts of any president who has done nothing to ease our vulnerability is beyond my ken. If memory serves, the first duty of a president is to “preserve and protect” these United States, not worry about the rise and fall of Dow Jones.

“The real problem is border security and an orderly society,” intones Mr. Tyrrell. And so it is: porous borders and effective national security enforcement are oxymoronic. Why, then, has it taken four years — after 9/11 — for this administration to get around to dealing with “the real problem?” Was it those Republican ladies who take phone calls at the White House informing their bosses that “doing something about stopping illegal immigration” is the most phoned in concern in these United States? During those four years, how many “orange” or “red” alerts have we had? During those same years, Rep. Tom Tancredo’s questions and doubts about the wisdom of doing precious little to secure the border made him — and other members of the House Immigration Caucus — “persona non grata” at this White House. And during these years, when a group of dedicated patriots sought to do what the federal government would not, they were branded “vigilantes” by this nation’s chief executive. Now that’s chutzpah!

But the myth of necessary illegal immigration and economic development dies hard. I challenge Mr. Tyrrell to cite one example where there has been marked societal economic improvement as a result of illegal immigration since Senator Simpson’s wonderful gift to the American people of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Ask the residents of California if I overstate my case — or Texas, or Florida, where a recent study by an academic estimated that each illegal immigrant family costs the Florida taxpayer about $2000 annually. Mr. Tyrrell knows — or should know — that it is the huge financial investment of the agricultural, construction, and restaurant enterprises that propels the need for cheap labor, while the Democratic Party, seeing its union base diminish, seeks potential new members.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower ordered the forceful deportation of illegal Mexican workers from these shores. Mr. Tyrrell believes the consequences of such action today would create a firestorm. Funny, I don’t recall Mr. Tyrrell, or other “fidei defensor” of this administration raising that issue when we went to war in Iraq in the interests of our national security. Mr. Tyrrell needs to get beyond the Beltway to judge how most Americans view illegal aliens as uninvited guests in their country.

Another amnesty, regardless of how it is presented, will not work. It is wrong — simply wrong — and un-American to reward law breaking.
Vincent Chiarello
Reston, Virginia

The issue of immigration is hot to say the least. Unfortunately, I have had enough experience with to know I strongly disagree with the President.

In southwest Oklahoma, there were people making two or three trips per week to the Mexican border and bringing illegals back, from three to five per trip, at about $500.00 per head! At that time, 62% of the children in the public school in that community were ethnic minorities! The illegals were filtered northeast through Oklahoma and perhaps to other states.

They were doing work other American citizens would not do?

Interesting. At that time, various agricultural enterprises and farmers were hiring the illegals at a pittance wage. In talking with a friend of mine who hired workers every year, he said, “I have no problem getting people to work, and I don’t use illegals. All you have to do is pay them a decent wage.”

A sure cure for the problem might be as follows:

1. Jail every illegal caught. Put them to work in the communities until they have earned an equivalent to the cost of returning them to their country of origin, then return them. One other possibility would be to simply turn them over to the nearest embassy of their country of origin and prohibit them returning to this country.

2. Every one caught employing an illegal be fined $10,000 on the first offense, $20,000 for each illegal after the first. If there is a second offense, an appropriate amount of jail time should serve as a deterrent.
Vernon Lawrence

You stated “Both sides in this debate fail to note the obvious. There is a market for immigrants in this country…” and “…than the ‘tough’ approaches now being bandied about. The market for immigrants is here and will not evaporate.” By the combination of observations I surmise that you conclude that getting a large bulk of the illegal aliens out of the country is not tactically possible. The irony, Sir, is that you state that which is the very solution to the problem. Yes, there is a market for immigrants. But markets can be used in many ways. Here is one way it could be used:

Create a market for apprehending illegal aliens by placing a $1,000 a head bounty for each one arrested. This would be perfectly legal under Art.1, Sec.8, Cl. 11 of the Constitution. The Congress merely needs to offer Letters of Marque. The Marquee applicant would have to show that they can pass a test of rudimentary constitutional law, arrest process, etc. Once issued the Marque that person may implement detention of a person given probable cause, ascertain valid papers, etc. If a valid apprehension is in the offing then that person may remand to the ICE and issued a voucher for the arrest and go to the DHS payment office and get a check cut.

Now let me tell you, if swooping down on illegals in the West Texas and New Mexico desert will garner someone $3-5k a day the desert will be crawling with Marquees in no time. Professional bounty hunters will have a field day. Within a year a natural balance will have been reached of the hunter and the hunted. Within 5, crossing the border will not be profitable for illegals as the apprehension rate would be extremely high. We have bounty hunters that are paid well to apprehend bail jumpers. Their skills can be applied to the illegal problem as well if the tools are put in place to let them.

Profit motive is a powerful thing. Such not-so-invisible hands can be used for either the aliens benefit or the country. I think Milton Freidman would wholeheartedly agree.
John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

Mr. Tyrrell’s statement, “Both sides in this debate fail to note the obvious. There is a market for immigrants in this country” is one of the dumbest I’ve ever heard. The restrictionist side has noted for years there is a market for illegal immigrants. We have repeatedly argued that those supplying the market need to be punished for aiding and abetting the illegal immigrant.

There is NO form of amnesty that will ever prevent the legals from being chumps. Alas, amnesty makes chumps of the entire country, except for those who use the new votes (the leftists) and their labor (the fat cats of both parties). The last amnesty gave us even more illegal immigration, and Bush’s proposed amnesty will simply give us more. Add “birthright’ citizenship, and you simply worsen the problems we have. Anyone watch what was happening in France, Germany, and Belgium a just short time ago? Anyone hear of La Raza, and MeCHA here in the U.S.?

There have been a number of studies that have shown, quite clearly, that immigration is having a very serious affect on U.S. employment. Immigrants are displacing the natives, and depressing all wages as a result. The studies have been repeated frequently over the last several years. The trend for all of us down – the situation is worsening, not improving.

This is not a matter of nativism, or racism, the common smears used against those who stand for the rule of law in immigration. It is a matter of being overwhelmed and destroying the culture that has given the world the highest form of civilization in history. Allowing the 3rd world unfettered immigration into the US is a very good way to destroy what we have. If it continues much longer California will be bankrupted and other states will follow soon after.

It’s time for Mr. Tyrrell to stop smoking wacky backy, sober up, and look at the world realistically. Either we return to a lawful and realistic immigration regime, or we can all pack it in.
Richard L. Hardison
Sylva, North Carolina

The only reason there is a “market” for illegal workers is that politicians of all stripes have for the past 30 or so years have winked at the problem and looked the other way. It is far better for their careers to help farmers and business leaders to get labor at next to nothing wages (and get a few votes and monetary contributions) than to actually enforce the existing immigration laws. Too bad none of these politicians are looking out for what is best for America, but are instead more worried about who is going to pick up their dry-cleaning.
Gerald Sorrentino
Enterprise, Alabama

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, http://spectator.org. 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!