Reader Comments

Editor: I thought your commentary, “Democracy To The World”, on the spread of democracy as well as what restrains it was excellent. We are seeing evidence that it has not taken hold in Afghanistan where a man is on trial for his life because he converted to Christianity and the delay in forming a government in Iraq is yet another example. Last year I warned that Arabs are highly resistant to democracy and I will be revisiting this topic again in a week or so. Meanwhile, I enjoyed your thoughts on the subject and wish more people could read them. Regards, Alan Caruba

Editor: As I received your editorial, “Democracy To The World?”, I was listening to President Bush talk about freedom in Afghanistan and what really disturbs me is the recent news of a man in Afghanistan, who has been a Christian for 16 years, being prosecuted and under threat of ‘death’ for carrying a bible! I can’t believe that there hasn’t been more of an outcry about this travesty, especially after young people gave their lives for ‘freedom?’ Something is terribly wrong. Your comments on this would be appreciated. George Hoey, Edmond, OK

Editor: In the Pledge of Allegiance we pledge to our Republic, not to a Democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "Democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction. The distinction between our Republic is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. The Constitution guarantees to every State a Republic form of government (Art 4. Sec 4). No State may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are protected by the Bill Of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights, this would not be so if the United States were a Democracy see People's rights Vs Citizens rights. Only five of the Us Constitution first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. Visit www.wallbuilders.com. Richard Ahern-Vice President, Waste Watchers Inc., P.O.BOX 3535, Fremont, California 94539

Editor: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin. Freedom is not democracy, democracy is not freedom. Democracy does not lead to freedom, nor does the rule of law lead to democracy or freedom. Freedom does not lead to democracy. Democracy can only be tyranny of the 51% upon the 49%. It is the 49% that are not free. Sure, in the words of Winston Churchill democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, but in saying that it is still the worst form of government, and spreading it by force is only going to show how much worse it can get. Now if their attempt is to spread freedom, then spreading freedom by force is like curing a man of nearsightedness by gouging his eyes out. Freedom can only be defended by letting people go free; it is not created, defended, or spread with the barrel of a gun. I used to think conservatives were about limited government and little or no taxation. Then I realized that government cannot be limited, shrunk, nor can its power be undone. It is a scourge not unlike the mafia except for size. Once a conservative is in power, his principles are left behind in the wake of the corruption of power. Not even Ron Paul, who has definitely been an exception to this rule, can escape the corruptive grasp of power. Nathan McKaskle, Houston, TX

Editor: Regarding “Democracy To The World?” the fundamentals of 'rule of law' and 'individual human rights-liberty' seem to be overlooked by our Policy Makers. Democracy can only exist with this base. All we have to look at is our 'Democracy' and the slipping away of our "rights" to recognize this. The guerrilla warfare/terrorists tactics in Iraq should have been anticipated if they understood history, especially the "religious wars" of the past 1000 years, which is just what we are involved in Iraq. Thanks, Paul Elder, Grafton, WV

Editor: Regarding Bill Sizemore’s “Pro Gun Liberals,” it is a great piece. Keep up the good work. Think I will send it to Senator Dirkson (IL)---HA, bet he won't answer! Dale Bennett

Editor: Thanks for sending George Will’s “A Limited Conservative Agenda.” I am forwarding it to several people. It is a great speech! Edward Shea, Santa Barbara, CA

Editor: The piece by George Will, which I understand is a transcript of his speech at CPAC, is brilliant, perhaps the best statement of where we are and why we are there and what we ought to do about it than anything I have heard or read. Thanks for sharing it. Bill Sizemore

Editor: Where can I get a copy of the Will speech? Truly yours, Ed. S. Young [Editor: One may order a video tape at: http://www.lifetimecassettes.com/how-to-order ]

Editor: As is George Will, I am worried about the conservative agenda. I think the Republicans should stick to their guns. I think they should hold to their agenda. I have noticed that things seem to be swinging to the left a bit since the Dems are putting so much pressure on them. If we hold true to our beliefs, and don't waver, we will prevail. When we change, to please the liberals, we will fail. I challenge the Republican Party to stand up and be counted for what they believe in. If they believe the Dems are right, let them become Dems. Our Party is a good party when our Representatives and Senators stick to their belief system. When I said that we shouldn't compromise, I meant that we shouldn't compromise our principals. That we shouldn't give up on what we believe. Compromise in other areas can be effective, if we don't compromise our core beliefs. Thank you for your time. Madlyn Cole, Lewiston, ID

Editor: In regards to the Supreme Court ruling on the Solomon Amendment, Elaine Donnelly stated in her article in your last edition: "Colleges are free to deny access to military recruiters, but they cannot do so while simultaneously accepting federal money." In fact, the Court made clear in its ruling that it is constitutional under any circumstances. To quote: "Under [the] principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Solomon Amendment would be unconstitutional if Congress could not directly require universities to provide military recruiters equal access to their students. This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the ‘reasonable’ choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958). Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds." David Wiesner

Editor: I just read the "McCain on Top?" article by Tom Pauken and based on it and other stories, columns and analysis I've seen, I take it that many conservatives and other Republicans would like to nominate a hardcore conservative in 2008. I am a conservative myself -- favoring small government, low taxes and reduced spending -- but I would like to warn fellow conservatives and Republicans about throwing the baby out with the bath water. If McCain is nominated in 2008, he will easily win the presidency. He has support from many Republicans, some Democrats and most Independents. He would have easily defeated Al Gore in 2000 thereby preventing the recount nightmare and the allegations -- that are still repeated today by many Democrats and liberal activists -- that Bush was "selected" president by the Supreme Court. His "maverick" label is a huge benefit when it comes to garnering support from independents and from Democratic voters who see him as someone who will do the right thing and who will work with members of the opposite party. But despite the label and the liberal media's affection for him, McCain has backed the Republican party platform and President Bush most of the time. And McCain is a conservative. He's led the fight against pork barrel spending since he's been in Congress but run into flak from career politicians on both sides of the aisle. He supported Bush's tax cuts, although he called for slightly lower cuts than the president proposed, and he is perhaps the Hill's leading advocate for a strong national defense. And McCain is pro-life. So GOP loyalists face a choice: back McCain and coast to victory in 2008 with someone who you agree with on 80 percent of the issues; or support someone like Bill Frist or George Allen and face certain defeat. Ardent conservatives can reject McCain again and make a statement by backing a candidate with better conservative credentials, but they risk losing the White House and having it occupied again by a Clinton, something that should send chills down the spine of any conservative. Andrew Viccora, Burke, Virginia

Editor: John McCain is dead in the South. We have seen too many times when John McCain submits a plan and the Republicans reject it, he goes running to the Democrats and jumps into some agreement with them. This is not Presidential material and I as a Republican will do all I can to defeat him. Bill Baker

Editor: Tom Pauken’s piece on McCain is just one of dozens of reasons voters cannot trust McCain. He cannot be trusted to secure our freedoms or safety. McCain is NOT now NOR HAS HE ever BEEN anything but a RINO! In God we trust. Arlene G Kruse, Ontario, CA

Editor: McCain is not my choice. Allen, Romney or Frist I like better. Little ole lady veteran in Va. Agnes Bolcer

Editor: Mr. Paul Weyrich's review of David Horowitz's book is great. I'm buying it!! Clel & Stella Harr