Reader Comments
Issue 125 - February 4, 2009

Editor: Regarding “Obama Last New Dealer?” I've got to tell you, I still believe in free market capitalism (I guess to a degree now - with as small a regulation as required?). What is Alan Greenspan saying with regard to the free market system? Do we as conservatives still preach free markets and globalism? I want to say yes, but I'm wondering if people (most people) would say I've lost my marbles. We know that over-regulation stifles growth. We know that people left to spend their own money will re-invest it to make more cool things (once their personal lifestyle needs are reached). But I feel like we've left the world economy in the hands of the socialists. Don't we dislike communism? Are we allowing the Dems to form into cells (community organizing) to take over the country like the Viet Minh did to the French? Where is our leadership? Who's standing up? Where is the re-tool, re-fit and re-building in the party taking place? Is it taking place? The Dems only got 53% of the vote, that's not 75%. So where is the fight in the party? We need to be organizing block by block (like the Dems did). We need a platform to preach. We need to bring in new people. We need to define Republican and Conservative in the new world we have found ourselves in. I'm very interested in who will lead this charge. Do you know of anyone standing up? Craig Snodgrass

Editor: Thanks for the fabulous article on the New Deal and Barack Hussein, “Obama Last New Dealer”. I lived through the last so-called Progressive and am dreading the newest version. God help our country under the present leftists. Dorothy O'Neal Sierra Vista, AZ.

Editor: Regarding “Obama Last New Dealer?” first of all, let’s dispense with the euphemisms. ‘Progressive’ means liberal and to more and more in America today, it represents socialism. Next, we must recognize one stark fact: Barack Hussein Obama and all but a couple of Democrats are interested in one thing and that’s putting their hands on as many levers of power as possible and ensuring their continued control over more and more aspects of our lives. Not for a moment can it be believed that these people have the best interests of the country in mind, otherwise they wouldn’t be inclined to pander for votes from the least productive sectors of society while looting from the most productive. FDR deliberately expanded the recession he inherited to become the Great Depression in order to make the people dependent on Democrat government. In the current crisis, that seems to be the aim. It’s interesting to note that the Great Panic in the 1890s was far more destructive than either of these crises, with massive unemployment and starvation. The federal government barely took notice and the country bounced back in a relatively short period of time. The difference between FDR’s plan and Obama’s is that the former relied solely on bribes to chosen sectors and the latter wants it all, including a seat at the table in telling business how it should be run. The frightening thing is that he may succeed but it is we who will suffer. The latest report is that $3-trillion in investment capital has already fled from America and that will double by June. A very sobering thought in a $14-trillion economy. James C. McAlister, Tampa, FL

Editor: Regarding “Obama Last New Dealer?” you must realize that I have worked for over 50 years and paid into the Social Security Program. Do you not think that I am entitled to my Social Security Checks each month? If the government would like to give me one check to buy me out of the Social Security Program, that would be one thing, but to cut my benefit's after all of the years I have paid into the system would surely result in a lot of law suits. Social Security was established to provide security for the aged in their retirement years. People are living longer now and the government has utilized the Social Security Funds for social programs, medical for illegal aliens (20 million +), wars and many other purposes. I hold the government accountable for my Social Security!!! Thanks you, Jake Nugent

Editor: Regarding “Obama Last New Dealer?” it is true that Obama has recommended many acceptable nominees in his administration. As a conservative and while I land right of center, I politically disagree with most of Obama's nominees. However, it appears America has spoken and most of Obama's nominees must go forward. One nominee, Eric Holder, however, should be rejected as Attorney General, based on his history of supporting political and financial cronyism, as well as those involved in terrorism, the same terrorism America is fighting around the world. He recommended a "pardon" to Marc Rich, the Financier, once on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list; Marc Rich, a billionaire who fled our country denouncing his citizenship, rather than face federal tax evasion charges. Eric Holder also says he does not regret Clinton's "pardon" of 16 FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation) Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999. The FALN members had, according to the FBI, been linked to "more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and injury to hundreds of others," reported The Baltimore Sun. Third, Eric Holder "represented" the AUC and FARC who are responsible for kidnapping and murdering thousands of Colombians and Americans alike. Finally, he calls waterboarding torture and wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Based on these issues, I humbly request each member of the US Senate; Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, to reject Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. Oscar Y. Harward

Editor: Brian S. Westbury and Robert Stein’s “More Fed Inflation?” is a useful discussion of Federal Reserve policy. But it repeats the mistaken view, that "mark-to-market accounting can undermine the value of assets." Mark-to-market accounting is the requirement that asset values reflect their market price (the markets view of their most likely value) on company balance sheets. Thus MTM accounting does nothing to asset values. It merely reflects them. Of course, the market's assessment can be and has often been wrong, but there is no more objective source of such information as long as God chooses not to discuss such things directly with most of us. Warren Coats

Editor: I just finished reading the article by Dennis Avery, “Real Climate History.” Can you direct me to websites where I will find other writers/articles that support the views of those of us who do not believe in the dire predictions of the "alarmists"? I have read a half a dozen books in the last two years that debunk their theories, including the Avery/Singer book, and am looking for more. Thanks for your help. Dick Hanson

Editor: Regarding Lisa Fabrizio’s “Social Issues Dead?” would it suffice to say that both China and India do not have a significant "teen pregnancy" rate. Also, they do not have "sex ed" in the schools, which, in America, is code for sexual indoctrination. This is actually the beginning of the debate. It is just getting started. Unfortunately, the kids being indoctrinated are our future leaders. Not to mention they are being told lies about the efficacy of "birth control and safe sex" while in fact this fallacious advice is a threat to their lives. Does anyone care about this issue? Ruth Kade

Editor: Regarding Daniel Pipes’ “Israel’s Strategic Blunder,” despite repeated promises to cut off funds for Hamas, international aid organizations and many countries kept on sending money to Gaza, purportedly for humanitarian aid. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, raises money for Gaza through its Web site, with payments going through WorldPay (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group), the Arab Bank PLC in Gaza and HSBC in Amman, Jordan. Those funds come in addition to UNRWA's annual budget of $400 million. Much is appropriated by Hamas for its radical and terrorist agenda. Roy Gillinson