Reader Comments

Editor: I've got a great idea to deal with the growing deficit mentioned in your editorial and keep us conservative Republicans happy: only tax people who voted against Bush. I never said it was nice, but it would work. Joshua Stone

Editor: I certainly cannot claim the intellect that your authors have, but I enjoy their articles immensely. I am writing in reference to the article, "Which Way for Bush?" It discussed the likely nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. While I, as a social (and fiscal) conservative am distressed about his ruling on parental notification, I don't get the impression that he is a liberal in his overall view. If that is the case, I'm wondering if his appointment would be any different from having Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench. We can never really be certain that she would vote "with" us. It seems like Gonzales would be much the same way. Not that I approve of that, mind you. But perhaps it won't really change the dynamic of the Court that much particularly if O'Connor is replaced by a true conservative. (I'm assuming that Rhenquist will be the first to go.) One aspect of the Supreme Court that I'm interested in...and am becoming irritated with... is the naming of the Chief Justice. Why would Bush pick Clarence Thomas over Antonin Scalia???? I think that points to the President wanting to avoid the appearance of making the court truly conservative. I know the left hates Thomas, but the true conservative on the court is Scalia. And he has the incredible mind and background to be Chief Justice. Plus, he's been on the court longer. I just think it's a slap in his face to not be named as Chief. Thanks for listening, and keep up the outstanding work. Denise Scott from Ohio (A red voter, in a red county in a red state!)

Editor: Daniel Pipes' article on airport profiling is excellent. One thing I've noticed from flying and it surprises me. I buy tickets like most people, using a credit card. This isn't much of a security check, is it? I've read its easy to get fraudulent cards in many ways. The credit card companies catch up with these people fast enough to limit the economic damage, but this won't help with a terrorist. Then I show my driver's license before I board a plane. But don't underage kids buy driver's licenses all the time, to get into bars? We need a national security card with a fingerprint, retina picture, or some other type of built-in verification. Mark Iskovitz

Editor: Profiling is a big step for airport security but arming the pilots or even the flight attendants is a bigger step. Congress passed laws to arm pilots then made it so difficult it is almost impossible to give the pilot his method of defending his passengers as well as himself. Then too, over years of brainwashing, Americans are afraid to defend themselves, not from fear of the perpetrators of the crimes, but from shyster attorneys and American laws. Finally, men have become feminized due to legislative actions by law-makers and terrorist groups here in America such as the ACLU and judges legislating from the bench and mad dog police. All of us must be alert to terrorism. The authorities, because of their ego, do not want the average Americans to be involved, just to be killed. Then they will try to find out who killed us. Sincerely, Melvin E. Tracy, Chula Vista, CA

Editor: In regards to your conservative debate on Iraq, on 9-11 the Bin Laden brought the battlefield to downtown Manhattan. The rules we live by were suddenly changed and are changing at a rapid pace each and every day. When Bush took down Saddam it was announced before hand, networks were notified and the battlefield was shifted from Manhattan to the Middle East where it belongs since that is where the grievances are. In WWII FDR looked at the world and asked where are the dangers to our country coming from? Three were identified, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia. The wise men of that era saw the future and decided to create one worth creating. They bought off the first two (decapitate and rebuild) and waited out the third (cold war and Russia). We then had three countries that functioned well and did not pose a threat to us. Funny how we forget our own past and the good we did for the world back then. We have been putting out fires in that area of the world for 30 years we were a reactionary force. All the wars, genocide and disease are in that area. When their pain started vectoring out towards the functioning countries changing our way of life Bush knew he must make a decision. We either hope they quit, hope they don't get WMD's or we try to bring them into the functioning world. It is a race against Bin Laden and the fanatical Muslims taking their people back back in time to pre-stone age. Bin Laden wants to disconnect them from the world we are trying to connect them. Like it or not we are the worlds police force. We have steadily moved our military bases from the functioning world to the countries that are not functioning and those nations that ring it. It is as simple as that. We export security to the world and have since WWII. Some say this is bad, I would argue: "We have walked away from more world power than any nation in human history". We can either try to wall ourselves off from the rest of the world distorting our society big time or we can address this problem as we did in WWII. We need to remember who we are and the future we created back then. We need to create a future worth creating for our children and grandchildren at this very important point in history. Diane Clark

Editor: Those who favor abortion "rights" claim to be pro-choice, but this is
merely a semantic ploy intended to dupe the unwary. For what the pro-abortion movement calls "reproductive freedom" in fact means forcing people and private institutions to fund and perform abortions. This is why, in a country where abortion is legal up to the point of birth, the abortionists at NARAL grudgingly give America a "D" grade. The mind balks at what it would take to earn an "A": Child sacrifice? Steven W. Mosher, President, PRI Weekly Briefing

Editor: "You know, absolute power corrupts absolutely," Hillary Clinton said the other day. She was referring to the fact that Republicans control both Congress and the White House. This is a woman who would know. She tried fostering a government takeover of medicine a decade ago -- one of the ultimate power grabs. For those of you who don't remember, her health care plan was actually communist in nature. It outlawed private economic transactions between doctors and patients as "bribery" and therefore illegal. It wasn't merely about government subsidizing medicine; it was about government controlling every last aspect of medical practice.

You can be sure that Hillary Clinton's concern with Republican rule is not about improper government control over individuals. Her concern is that it's not her power. She views -- to some degree correctly -- the Republicans as the party of less government control over people (e.g. lower taxes) and greater determination to use military force against enemies of our country. She doesn't like this. She wants more power over people; not less. And she wants to be the Power Broker in Chief more than she can begin to express. Her husband's Presidency was a means to this ultimate end. When and if she manages to get the power we all know she wants, you can better believe she will not be afraid to use it. Sincerely, Michael J. Hurd, Author, GROW UP AMERICA! and EFFECTIVE THERAPY, psychologist and psychotherapist, President of Living Resources Inc., Chevy Chase MD.

Editor: Since the war between conservatism and liberalism continues to grow, why can't Democrat and Republican conservatives, and all conservatives that want a sensible and moral nation, just form a "Conservative" political party and run against the great "two-party" system? What would it take to make that happen or am I just expecting too much of this great nation? Would that weed out all the liberals and discontents and make this a more divided nation? Perhaps a nation divided will not stand. I shall continue to pray for our nation to do what is right. Concerned Citizen

Editor: Why do the Republican Party and conservatives seem to shy away from illegal immigration like it was the POX? Illegal immigration is one of, if not the major problem, facing our nation. You can bet the Democrats will grab hold of this issue and beat the Republicans to death with it. I am one Republican that will support the party that deals with this for I think the future of our nation depends on closing our borders to illegal immigrants if not all immigrants. Ray Madden

Editor: President Bush is on the wrong side of illegal immigration and his "guest worker" program rewards criminals who have entered this country against the law. The ongoing flood of illegal immigrants to California is killing our economy and causing hospital closures and raising state deficits. R. Dunn

Editor: It is up to the conservatives to put pressure on President Bush to seal the borders and stop allowing millions of illegal Mexicans into the USA. It is an insult to the millions of legal immigrants that came here legally to become Americans and help build America. Within a decade America will become a 2-language nation with 2 cultures. Great harm is being done to the USA. President Eisenhower was very fearful of this and in the 50's deported over 1,000,000 illegal Mexicans. President Bush needs to do the same. It is President Fox's responsibility to develop the economy of his nation for his people. He should not be allowed to export his poor to the USA. They are bankrupting our Social Security System with billions of Medicaid payment being made to illegals. One simple way to stop the flood is to star fining business owners and managers who hire illegals. Stop the jobs they will stop coming. Marc Antkowiak, Annapolis, Md.

Editor: Why are our public schools using a program promoted by, of all people, Mikhail Gorbachev? This program includes the following: earth worship, (pantheism), evolution, socialized medicine, world government, animal rights (animals seen as brothers and sisters of humans), redistributing American wealth to other nations, contraception and "reproductive health" (legal abortion), debt forgiveness for third-world nations, adoption of the gay rights agenda, elimination of the right to bear arms and setting aside massive amounts of private land where no human presence is allowed. This program, supported by the United Nations, is known as GLOBE. These letters stand for "Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the Environment. This is in partnership with the U.N. program (UNESCO). They teach our children that the love of our sovereign country is wrong or evil and that they are citizens of the world! This program is meant to brainwash our children who don't understand that it is a sneak attack on America. We need to check with our schools to see if they are indeed teaching this garbage and demand that they teach our constitution instead. Norman L Onstad, New London, Mn.

Editor: Jesse Jackson was in Ohio doing his best to raise doubts about the election in Ohio -- that fraud was involved, that people were disenfranchised, that every vote isn't being counted, that President Bush's victory should be set aside until all the "stuff" he's raising is investigated. Perhaps I'm being too reactionary, but it sure seems like we should be aggressively and relentlessly speaking out on his outrageous activities and assertions. Rather than helping people come together and move past the election, he's creating more polarization, division, and partisanship. He's hurting everyone -- forcing people into camps. Sincerely, Steve Auvil

Last Saturday, the Ohio State Buckeyes (from a Red State) took on the Michigan Wolverines (from a Blue State) in a heated rivalry. Michael Moore decided to add his “wisdom” to the match. According to Moore: "Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut--a poisonous nut." Still, "the poisonous nut" defeated Michigan 37 to 21. But wait, it gets even more absurd. According to Michael Moore's Website, a New York City restaurant refused to serve the Bush twins because of politics. They were told by the maitre'd that the restaurant was full and would be for the next four years. After the rude remark was made, the people in the restaurant cheered and did a round of shots. How childish and ignorant can the left get? Richard Mullenax

Email the Editor