Talking Back to Old Europe - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Talking Back to Old Europe

Re: Jed Babbin’s Are You Nuts? (No, but thanks for asking.)

Well, there you have it. The package is nearly complete. Having already defined conservative principles as hate crimes, liberals have now shown, with charts and graphs and footnotes, that conservative philosophy is mental illness. All that’s left is to show that we shouldn’t be allowed to run around loose, let alone vote and have families.
Larry Thornberry
Tampa, FL

At some point, when I was still very young (mid-40’s), I observed that there are two kinds of people in the world: 1. Those who will admit that they are insane and, 2. Those who will not admit that they are insane.

True to form, the “Berserkely Study” (without its authors having the faintest idea) looks like a self study. Additionally, its points apply to two groups of people who are of the second kind (above): Illiberals in general, and Democrats in particular.

Carl Gordon Pyper
Monett, Missouri

Lemmesee —

* The State of California has a 38 BILLION dollar deficit

* more than the total of the other 49 states combined

* Our state bond rating is just above junk status

* California Universities will SURCHARGE (over and above tuition) students $3,000 if their parents earn $91,000+

* An illegal alien can attend a CAL University cheaper than a Medal of Honor winner from Tulsa

* Our 4th graders test scores are above those of Guam (one up from the bottom)

* The “car tax” triples October 1st

* Sales tax goes to 8 3/4% in some counties

* Our interstates are the longest parking lots in the world

* We are trying to recall the finest governor money can buy…

* And the nuts at Berkeley call me delusional?

Hey, Jed — I’m going to take a pass on the whiskey; pass me the Prozac…
Mike Horn
Tracy, CA

Re: David A. Curtin’s Promise Keepers — Remember Them?

Please tell David A. Curtin that his PK article was nicely done. I am not a PK’er myself, probably never will be, but with David, I too find something reassuring in a group of men promoting fidelity, honesty, and hard work.

Thank you.
Jerry Levy

Re: George Neumayr’s Bringing Up the Riordan:

George Neumayr sees no point in a Riordan candidacy for California governor, posing the question ,”What is the point of a recall that would replace a tax-and-spend Democrat with a tax-and-spend Republican?” Let us not forget that Gray Davis is a corrupt hack who is only using the governorship to build a war chest for his presidential ambitions. None of those things are true about Riordan, who will use his office to improve conditions within the state.

To folks like Neumayr who prefer a more dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Tom McClintock, I would like to pose some questions of my own: how is McClintock different than 2002 GOP nominee Bill Simon? Or 1998 nominee Dan Lungren? Why do you expect that the outcome at the polls will be different this time?

Maybe the reason that a feckless stiff like Davis keeps getting elected is that being able to paint the conservative GOP nominee as an anti-choice right-wing extremist is truly a winning strategy in California today. A more moderate candidate like Riordan robs Davis of his only argument, and broadens the fraction of the electorate inclined to vote “yes” to a recall. It appears that Schwarzenegger isn’t going to run; I predict that if Riordan also stays out that Davis will beat the recall.
Tim Bacon
Wrightwood, CA

Re: Roel Slachmuylders’ letter (“The View From Old Europe”) in Reader Mail’s Making Sense of It All:

Roel Slachmuylders is right, after the planes hit the towers on 9-11 we should have all gone to that hill in Italy from that ’70s Coca-Cola commercial and begged forgiveness from our moral betters.
Jennifer Corbeil

Roel Slachmuylders, who speaks for all Europeans, needs to vacate whatever property that he occupies and tender it to whatever population owned the land prior to his conquering tribe.

As usual, Jews, who have lived thousands of years where the state of Israel is today, deserve no permanent state while Palestinians terrorists (who have refused to accept their own state) do.

Israel represents a large, permanently anchored, unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East and acts as a minder and reminder of America’s power.

Israel also reminds me of the Mel Gibson character in the Lethal Weapon series. America is Danny Glover.

Every once in a while Mel “goes off” and Danny can do nothing about it (bombing Iraq’s nuke plant, for example) and that is good enough to keep plenty of those Arab states in line, unless we have a president like Clinton, whose weakness even a bonehead like Uday Hussein understood.

And… take back what you said about Mr. Rumsfeld because with words alone, inside two minutes he would have you crying like the Euro-girly you are; Roel Slachmuylders!
John Carrigg
Downers Grove, USA

I can’t wait to see the responses to Mr. Slachmuylders’ futile attempt at revising history. Regardless. He obviously doesn’t understand that in spite of our policies, perceived or real, Americans will defend and strike out against those who choose to bring harm or threaten our citizens. Furthermore, the fact that we uprooted the Taliban and removed Saddam and his cronies from power without the U.N. is proof enough that we could care less about what wimpy Europeans think of us.
A. Diaz

And the point of publishing Roel Slachmuylders’s hate filled screed
would be, what?
W. B. Heffernan, Jr.

Reader Rolf Schlachmuylders should have included his address. He might miss out on the notice of the next SS reunion.
Chas Dana

In his recent letter regarding the Lawrence Henry article “We Used to Have a Deal,” Mr. Slachmuylders spouts many of the same tired misconceptions, misrepresentations and outright fabrications trotted out by the pro-Arab/anti-Israeli faction for many years now. A need for brevity precludes a full history lesson at this time, but some the letter writer’s more grievous assertions should, in the interest of honest debate, be exposed.

Mr. Slachmuylders states that “both the U.S. and Europe, after WWII, took sides … favoring Israel.” That statement could be interpreted as truthful only if one accepts completely the Arab claim to all of the Middle East. As should be well known by now, both sides (the Arabs and Jews) had conflicting claims to the Holy Land. Only after coming to the obvious conclusion that these competing claims could not be adjudicated did the world community (through the UN) reach the difficult-but necessary-decision to partition what was left of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. Although less than what they wanted (and significantly less than what had been promised them by the world community in the past), the Jews accepted this compromise as being a fair and just solution; essentially, the best deal they could strike. The Arabs, of course, would accept nothing less than everything, and chose war instead. So yes, by choosing the side of compromise, the U.S. did, in a sense “take sides,” in the same manner in which our government “took sides” in World Wars I and II by backing the democracies over the totalitarians.

Continuing, Mr. Slachmuylders states that the land was “someone else’s: the Palestinians.” Is the writer aware that a significant portion of the Arabs living in Palestine at the time of the proposed partition were, in fact, immigrants from other Arab lands? That these Arabs, just like the Jews, had moved to Palestine to forge a better life for themselves and their families? Why is it that Arab immigration to Palestine (which was never restricted, or even accurately accounted for by the British during the mandatory period) is considered natural and entirely appropriate, whereas Jewish immigration is seen as some dark, evil force?

Mr. Slachmuylders is likewise blatantly incorrect in several of his assertions. For example, the notion that the Palestinians “lost 78% of their country to Israel” is so ludicrously false that the writer is either blissfully ignorant of the facts, or is willingly espousing Arab propaganda. Even a casual reading of history would inform him that 76% of Palestine was barred to Jewish immigration entirely when the British, in a completely arbitrary and capricious move, created the province of Trans-Jordan (later to become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) from all of the land of Palestine east of the Jordan River. In other words, although the British government (and the world community itself) was committed to the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine (boundaries to be determined), 3/4 of Palestine was removed from the equation simply to reward an Arab emir from the Arabian peninsula, Abdullah, who had the misfortune of losing a civil war to the Al Saud clan. Likewise, the assertion that only massive “military support from western countries, mainly the U.S.” led to the Palestinians losing their land turns history on its head. In fact, the U.S. took an even-handed approach to the arming of the parties in the coming war of 1948, barring arms sales to both parties. Of course, this put the Israelis at a tremendous disadvantage, since the many Arab states had plenty of suppliers willing to sell them arms. In fact, if it weren’t for the Czechoslovakians selling them weapons, the Israelis might well have lost their first (and only) war. If they had, it is certain there would have been no other
Arab-Israeli wars, since the stated aim of the Arabs at that time (and, to be perfectly frank, ever since) has been the total destruction of the Jewish state, and most of the Jews themselves. As for the claim that Israel was not granted the right to “keep its new conquered lands” — it is not for Europe or the U.S. (or Mr. Slachmuylders, for that matter) to tell the Israelis, alone among all people that, having been the victim of unprovoked aggression, and having successfully resisted this aggression, they must now give back unconditionally all of the land they won. It is a well-established rule of war that a defender who repels an invasion, and thereafter takes the war to his enemies, is not required to return any land to the enemy until the aggressor signs a treaty of peace.

Since all of the Arab governments after their wars with Israel refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist (and, indeed, always acted as if their defeats were glorious victories), Israel is under no obligation to give away any advantage won through the blood and suffering of their armed forces and citizens.

This brings us to the “We in Europe are so much more sophisticated and nuanced than you uncouth Americans” portion of Mr. Slachmuylders’ letter. Incredibly, while Mr. Slachmuylders admits that Europe and the US both were subject to Arab blackmail starting in 1973 (“the Arabs closed off the oil taps”), he actually would have us believe that the Europeans’ caving in to this intimidation was a “more equitable” change in politics. Almost comically, Mr. Slachmuylders misses the true meaning of his point that “there was a well-established and very influential Muslim minority in Europe” namely, that the Europeans are now captive to their fear of this “very influential” (read: very intimidating and fear-inducing) Muslim immigrant minority.

In a bit of self-parody which was apparently unavoidable, Mr. Slachmuylders even throws in the obligatory, thinly-veiled anti-Semitic slur: “Henry Kissinger — not coincidentally a Jewish American..” He would have us “soften” our approach to the Muslim world, like our intellectual superiors, the Europeans. Yes, by all means, let us turn a blind eye to rape, destruction, a culture of death, gassing of women and children, torture chambers, a national press that would do Der Sturmer proud-all of this we should be willing to accept “as the Europeans had done,” because we should “do the math-4,000,000 (Israel) vs. 120,000,000 (the Arabs)?” Perhaps Europeans like Mr. Slachmuylders are sanguine in their complicity to atrocities, just so long as the Arabs keep the taps open. And if a few (million?) Jews die in the process (not to mention the many tens or hundreds of thousands of Arabs and other Muslims, victims of Islamo-fascism), well what is a sophisticated and nuanced European to do?
Mark W. Tinder
Bridgewater, New Jersey USA

I wish to compliment your good work! Keep it up and call me a fan!
Mary Manion
Ottawa, Ontario

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!

Black Friday Special

The American Spectator

One Month for Only $2.99

The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $10.99 monthly.