Reader Comments

Editor: Regarding “Hillary Saving the American Dream?” I am a New Yorker, a red guy in a blue state. Hillary Clinton is a Senator here. I loved Ronald Reagan and support the Ranch and the Library. Please, please do not quote that professional liar in the same article in which you revere my all time greatest President--especially since she was the brains behind the WORST one. AD

Editor: I thought your column “Hillary Saving the American Dream?” was one of your best this year. J. William Lauderback

Editor: Hillary Saving the American Dream? It is the Republicans who create more Republicans-in-name-only or RINOs every day in their party. Where are the strong conservative leaders in the Republican Party? The conservatives need to continue to battle within our political parties daily—and please keep up your good work. Rudy Guilliani proved the problem of RINOs by opening his mouth and sticking his foot in by defending Bill Clinton. We have known that Rudy was not a conservative, but to defend a Clinton--poor Rudy! Mbslate

Editor: I forwarded your excellent Hillary piece to two people who were very close to Frank Meyer, and each responded with thanks and praise. Ditto praise from me--good to see we are thinking about going back to the future. Jameson Campaign

Editor: Regarding “Hillary Saving the American Dream?” we don't need another Clinton in the White House, that’s for sure! Waveslider

Editor: I have only one question about “Hillary Saving the American Dream?” Can she do a better job of building a fence on the border? Obviously, Republicans cannot. Lamar Johnson

Editor: While Ryan Sager does raise some interesting points in his article “Can Conservatism Be Saved?” he is flat out wrong to suggest that Karl Rove is entirely listening to the social/religious conservatives at the expense of the libertarians. Instead, it seems that Mr. Rove is cherry picking "the worst of both worlds". For example, Mr. Rove is engaging in open borders and cheap labor uber alles, to the utter dismay of social conservatives for whom national security and national sovereignty, and cultural unity are paramount. He is trying to "His-pander" to people who, when they become U.S. citizens, will for the most part turn around and vote for Democrats anyway, even far-left Democrats because they will always His-pander even more. The Mexican anti-American demonstrations, on Communist May Day no less, clearly were a wake up call to the "libertarian" immigration romantics. Mr. Sager is just plain wrong in some of his attacks on social conservatives, although his criticism of big government programs like a new Medicare entitlement and "No Child Left Behind" are spot-on. For example, when he asserts that "The Bush administration... (has) a philosophy that has led the president to support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would override the decisions of several state governments on a matter that has traditionally been left to the states," he utterly ignores the fact that every state that has the choice has soundly rejected homosexual marriage. Massachusetts only has homosexual marriage because of leftist nanny-state judges--the very tyrants in black robes that Frank Meyer warned about. Libertarians and social conservatives could find common ground in opposing such judicial tyrants. The same goes for government funding of stem cell research; why should libertarians want to support what is blatantly corporate welfare for the biotech industry? In short, while Mr. Sager is right to sound the alarm about the errors and pitfalls of "big government conservatism", all is not lost in terms of cooperation between libertarian and social conservatives. Both could find a common enemy in the Left's "multicultural" poison, which is anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-Western civilization. Moreover, the Islamic radicals might serve to be the threat that the Communists were, with the Crescent becoming the 21st century Hammer and Sickle uniting libertarians and social conservatives the way the Red Menace did. Nicholas Byram

Editor: Thanks for Michael Fumento’s clarification on this topic, in his article “Embrio-Safe Is Not!” WT, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland

Editor: Regarding Stephen Silvinski’s article “Is Divided Government Better,” as a conservative I have voted for Republicans as they have best supported my goals in the past. Unfortunately Nancy Pelosi is not Tip O'Neill. Should the Democrats provide someone capable of adult supervision, I would probably stay home. But I'm not holding my breath. Ron Markiewicz

Editor: Thank you for Frank Joseph’s article on “Abortion Myths.” I have always attributed the birth of my 28 week old son to the fact that I had an abortion 13 years prior. It infuriates me that they refuse to see what we've reaped from contraception, abortion and hormone replacement therapy. We have broken, wounded women, suffering not only mentally, emotionally and spiritually, but also battling infertility, premature birth and cancers. When will they (the pro-choice elite) wake up and see the beauty of a woman’s delicate balance that God created for us? Our endocrine system rules our bodies and when you mess with that delicate balance through contraception, abortion and HRT, problems ensue. Even a pure Darwinist must admit that childbirth is a natural need in women from a purely evolutionary stance. Childbearing is HEALTHY for women not a medical disease. I am so sick of women being robbed of the unplanned joy of motherhood, and suffering the consequences for the rest of their lives because of one uniformed choice. Muriel Ramos, Sebastian, FL

Editor: However right Dr. Frank Joseph was in his “Abortion Myths?” it is my firm belief that the true forerunner of despicable abortion is nothing but the ever increasing garbage on the market to avoid pregnancy, for a sex act to last for hours, where a man must have an erection for hours, etc., etc. In essence, women are becoming worse than a prostitute, who may serve men by the dozens a night. Conversely men are more and more scared of women and hence, ending up impotent or shacking up with another man. In reality if animals could see how humans behave, they would conclude that humans are behaving below their levels. Animals still behave in natures way, whereas humans in reality are more and more becoming their greatest enemies so to speak. I am sure America is not far behind the good doctor’s United Kingdom, or may even be worse. H. D. Schmidt, Loma Linda, Ca.

Editor: You know, after reading Dennis Avery’s article “Is Montana Collapsing?” the more I read about these people, the clearer it becomes. The root of much of our problem in modern America lies in giving half-wits like Jared Diamond the time of day. Back when grown-ups ruled the roost, nonsense spewed out by [fill in the blank] evangelicals and narcissistic know-it-alls would have been completely ignored. Above all, they never would have merited a review. Why do we have to be subjected to it now? Is this some great punishment brought on by our selfish behavior of the sixties? I just don’t understand why idiots are given the same respectful platform as actual thinkers. Lordie, it’s frustrating! Alex Pinsdorf, MSW Research, Lake Success, N.Y.

Editor: I love your ConservativeBattleline.com site and just added it to my favorites list. I also wanted to let you know about our latest venture. "This is DNN" was released last week. It is a satirical parody that demonstrates what it might look like if today's mainstream media were to cover an epic event like World War Two. You can go to clearglassproductions.com for a free preview. We think it is a newsworthy film. Thanks and God bless, Aaron Regan clearglass@earthlink.net.