Reader Comments

Editor: Great article on 'Reagan's Fusionism Failing?' !! Randall Teague, Chairman, Fund for American Studies, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

Editor: Thanks for another great column. Very timely, very valuable insights in “Reagan's Fusionism Failing?” Bill Sizemore

Editor: I just wanted to tell you I thought your piece on "Fusionism" was excellent! Now let's get to the founding fathers vision of truly limited government by telling the truth about the fact there is NO LAW requiring the average American Citizen to file a 1040! The law that does NOT create an income tax liability for the average American! Please do us all a favor and do the research, study the law and get the truth out! Thank you! Michael J Badagliacco

Editor: It's a real pleasure to connect with the other living fusionist. Best, as ever, Neal Freeman

Editor: Regarding your “Reagan’s Fusionism Failing?,” hey, I'm still a fusionist. And that is important, since I have always offered myself as The Standard Conservative. To the extent anyone disagrees with me, they are less conservative. We could even measure the difference in units of "wright". Richard O. Wright

Editor: Daniel Pipes’ “US Friendship With Islam?” failed to mention that Thomas Jefferson as president went to war with the Barbary pirates. Regards, Conrad Pogorzelski

Editor: I read and enjoy Daniel Pipes’ work on a regular basis, and I certainly agreewith the “tone” of his article on the US's relationship with Islam. There's one subtlety that he may want to point out; it's not exactly a "correction" per se, but his wording in one spot will lead to a misunderstanding by most readers. He wrote: “For 210 long years, the American government has bound itself to a friendly attitude toward Islam, without Muslims having signed on to reciprocate, or without their even being aware of this promise. The seeming agreement by both parties not to let any "pretext arising from religious opinions" to interrupt harmonious relations, it turns out, is a purely unilateral American commitment. And this one-sided legacy continues to the present.” The implication from the "210 long years" and "bound itself" and "continues to the present" all suggest that the treaty is still inforce. But as he knows, it was broken not long after being written; and by 1801 was considered by both sides to be defunct. It's also worth noting that in the 1790s,we perceived ourselves over a barrel; this was an agreement to pay a bribe to keep from being attacked (asEuropean nations had long been doing). Moreover, when a replacement treaty was drawn up in 1815, even the English version had no such religious references. It makes you wonder what Joel Barlow had in his mind when he wrote Article 11. I don't know much about him, but he was playing -- it seems-- a little bit of a game between his own people and the Dey. I'd guess that then, as now, most legislators didn't actually read all the details. This may be true of President Adams himself. Best wishes for Mr. Pipes’ inceasing success, and keep up the excellent work, sir. D. Keith Howington

Editor: I agree in part with Daniel Pipes’ “US Friendship With Islam?” comment: "This antique treaty implicitly supports my argument that the United States is not fighting Islam the religion but radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology that did not even exist in 1796." First, he is correct--we can't fight a religion ... any religion, but we can fight those who try to force that religion on us. Second, there is a very large number of Muslims and/or followers of Islam that seem to believe it is acceptable to spread their form of "religion" through violence. This "totalitarian ideology" as he calls it, has been around since the beginning of Islam. I saw the program "Sahara" on the Discovery Channel a night or two ago and it went into detail how the "peace loving" Muslims slaughtered their way across North Africa "spreading the word of Islam. "This happened well before 1796. Forcing one's will on another under the guise of a "religion" leads me to believe this "religion" is nothing more than a fanatical cult. The question I have is this, "Where are the leaders of the "peaceful" side of this "religion"'? Where is the outrage? If they are afraid to speak-up, who is to say they won't bow to the demands of the "radicals" to follow them in creating anarchy at a predetermined time? Charles Wilson

Editor: Thank you for Vincent Fiore’s great piece, “Super Bowl: Race or Talent!” It's about time! I had a great time watching Super Bowl XLI. The two coaches were remarkable not because of their skin color, but by the calm way, a la Tom Landry, of running the game.Coach Dungy's acknowledgement of the Christian faith of both men, made that understandable. He told us, that that, not race, was what was more important to them, their faith.The media should pay attention and stop propping up the same old race story. Nancy Gail Smith

Editor: Alan Caruba’s “Strangling Energy” is right on. His ideas and facts square with my beliefs. Energy is here if the objectors and dumb politicians would stop objecting and let the people with the know-how bring it tous. Warren R. Musch

Editor: Thanks for David Pyne’s "2008 Preview" but, at this time, I can not think of any reasons to support John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudoph Guliani for president. I do not think that, in terms of actual Executive policies and priorities, they would be any different than Hillary Clinton or other Democrats if elected. Conservatives need to focus upon taking back control of the U.S. House and Senate. With no candidates worth supporting, the 2008 presidential race is looking like a pointless lost cause. Controlling the Congress from 1994 – 2000 allowed conservatives to drive the agenda (forcing Clinton to reluctantly adopt toned-down Reaganomics as his core economic policy, for example). Any Democrat or liberal Republican elected president should know they must face a very strong, united, conservative legislative branch, and adjust budget, policy, program & other priorities accordingly. Brian Lynch

Editor: I truly appreciate you printing my letter in your last edition. I didn't mention I'm also an ex-Marine and can't believe what President Bush is doing. I'll admit I was a huge supporter of us going to Iraq, but will admit now I was wrong. I wish Bush would admit it as well, pull our troops, and cut our losses short. He has recently acted like a dictator and not listening to Congress or the people he represents.I'm also from Del Rio, TX (on the border) and can't believe he wants to build a wall to stop illegals. The Border Patrol has a 6 month training that could be cut to 3 months, plus it is very difficult to get in the BP. Make it easier to get in, cut basic training, and put a system in place to allow people from Mexico to become citizens legally. Also help Mexico become better financially so they don't want to clme over here. Mexicocould be a giant in oil production but the politics there won't allow it. The US needs to put pressure on their government to serve the people and get rid of the corruption. Har Arl