Reprinted from Pravda
27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Empathy v. Impartiality
Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why make this complicated?
President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Contrast that with Obama's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."
Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases." But in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn't everything, but it's nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.
So, what's wrong with empathy?
Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.
But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice's oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.
I don't think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.
The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How's that working out for liberals?
Of course, liberals say that if you don't agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it's because you don't care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they've demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren't supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that the courts are "where policy is made."
More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I'm for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that's now out of fashion in the age of Obama.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why make this complicated?
President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Contrast that with Obama's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."
Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases." But in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn't everything, but it's nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.
So, what's wrong with empathy?
Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.
But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice's oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.
I don't think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.
The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How's that working out for liberals?
Of course, liberals say that if you don't agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it's because you don't care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they've demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren't supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that the courts are "where policy is made."
More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I'm for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that's now out of fashion in the age of Obama.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Ridge and Powell: The "Phonebooth GOP"
John Fielding
"I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there’s another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again,” Powell told the crowd."
Yes, Powell's version holds its convention in a phone booth.
Then, of course, Tom Ridge had to get into the act, calling Limbaugh "shrill," and telling him not to attack individuals, but ideas.
Rush does not attack individuals, but the views that those individuals represent. Because the liberals in the party can't defend themselves, they say he is being personal. At the risk of quoting a Democrat, Harry Truman once said, "They say I give them hell; I don't give them hell, I give them the truth. They just think it's hell."
The fact that McCain was a moderate did not lose him the election. If the only thing that had happened in the campaign was McCain as a moderate, he would have lost. However, two things happened. One, Palin joined the ticket and there was instantly new life. Then Wall Street and the banks crashed, and it was too much for McCain to overcome. That was why McCain lost.
But, barring those two events, McCain would have lost anyway. Is there anything in the campaign that caused the polls to spike upward as Palin joining the ticket? And is there any doubt that Powell would have endorsed Obama even without Palin on the ticket?
We were told that we needed a "moderate" to appeal to the "middle." I don't know where this "middle" exists. The only thing I know is this: even though the murder of unborn children is a primary issue to me (frankly, it seems to be the only thing the fascist left seems to be pro-choice about), it is not to many, who prefer to think with their stomachs. People don't vote for people who are moderate; they vote for those who are fiscally sane.
And that is why the GOP cannot support the crack-brained economic schemes of the left. Being conservative/libertarian on economic issues wins elections. The "many" who think with their stomachs tolerate the pro-life views of the GOP in order to elect its fiscal sanity. Listening to the nostrums of a liberal governor who raised taxes and had blow-out budgets, and a general who voted for JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and endorsed Obama, is not the way forward for the GOP.
They can continue to meet with all of their compadres, in the phone booth.
"I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there’s another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again,” Powell told the crowd."
Yes, Powell's version holds its convention in a phone booth.
Then, of course, Tom Ridge had to get into the act, calling Limbaugh "shrill," and telling him not to attack individuals, but ideas.
Rush does not attack individuals, but the views that those individuals represent. Because the liberals in the party can't defend themselves, they say he is being personal. At the risk of quoting a Democrat, Harry Truman once said, "They say I give them hell; I don't give them hell, I give them the truth. They just think it's hell."
The fact that McCain was a moderate did not lose him the election. If the only thing that had happened in the campaign was McCain as a moderate, he would have lost. However, two things happened. One, Palin joined the ticket and there was instantly new life. Then Wall Street and the banks crashed, and it was too much for McCain to overcome. That was why McCain lost.
But, barring those two events, McCain would have lost anyway. Is there anything in the campaign that caused the polls to spike upward as Palin joining the ticket? And is there any doubt that Powell would have endorsed Obama even without Palin on the ticket?
We were told that we needed a "moderate" to appeal to the "middle." I don't know where this "middle" exists. The only thing I know is this: even though the murder of unborn children is a primary issue to me (frankly, it seems to be the only thing the fascist left seems to be pro-choice about), it is not to many, who prefer to think with their stomachs. People don't vote for people who are moderate; they vote for those who are fiscally sane.
And that is why the GOP cannot support the crack-brained economic schemes of the left. Being conservative/libertarian on economic issues wins elections. The "many" who think with their stomachs tolerate the pro-life views of the GOP in order to elect its fiscal sanity. Listening to the nostrums of a liberal governor who raised taxes and had blow-out budgets, and a general who voted for JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and endorsed Obama, is not the way forward for the GOP.
They can continue to meet with all of their compadres, in the phone booth.
Pardon, Your Slip Is Showing: Sotomayor on Judicial Activism
Why, that witty raconteur:
And more from the good judge as she grazes on shoe leather:
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud…Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.
…
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.
…
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
…
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. (emphasis added)
…
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We…must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
All quotations: Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. 87 (2002), “A Latina Judge’s Voice”, S. Sotomayor
(Republished from Verum Serum, May 3 and May 5, 2009)
And more from the good judge as she grazes on shoe leather:
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud…Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.
…
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.
…
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
…
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. (emphasis added)
…
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We…must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
All quotations: Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. 87 (2002), “A Latina Judge’s Voice”, S. Sotomayor
(Republished from Verum Serum, May 3 and May 5, 2009)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
And The Paper Wonders Why It Is Going Down The Tube...
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:12 PM
To: 'news@readingeagle.com'
Subject: Attn: Mr. Flippin (on Specter)
To:
William S. Flippin
I forwarded the series of email conversations i had with Mr. Homan to a few of my friends. I just thought you might want to see their perspective of your paper and, in particular, the editorial department. I included their random replies at the bottom.
Rod Miller
*********************
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:08 PM
To: 'Jim Homan'
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Homan,
Forget it.
My letter has just as much and more substance than the one or two recent ones I read about Senator Specter and is very much relevant. And my letter was sent in first. It’s been said that the letters have more readers than the prominent editorialists or your unsigned editorials. I’ve been a scriber to the Reading Times/ Eagle since 1960 (49 years)and have frequently considered discontinuing my subscription. You’re making my decision easier. As your circulation is dying, a letter such as mine (or any previous one) can only, in some small way, help you to survive. My letter stands as is. If that doesn’t suit your immediate interest, consider this dialog a dead issue.
Sincerely
Rod Miller
From: Jim Homan [mailto:jhoman@readingeagle.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:10 PM
To: Rod Miller
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Miller,
Try rewriting your letter and tying it to one of the more recent stories about Specter (losing seniority, etc) rather than one that was published more than two weeks ago.
Jim Homan
Reading Eagle Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Jim Homan
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Homan,
The letter to which you refer was published on April 5th. I sent it in the previous week. Today is six weeks from the date I submitted it. I didn’t know of the 5 week requirement; however, may I again submit my Specter letter for publication?
Rod Miller
From: Jim Homan [mailto:jhoman@readingeagle.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:37 AM
To: Rod Miller
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Miller,
Each letter writer is permitted on letter every five weeks. Your five weeks had not expired.
Jim Homan
Reading Eagle Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Posted At: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:00 AM
Posted To: Letters to the Editor
Conversation: Specter
Subject: Specter
Dear editor,
As noted, the below letter to the editor was mailed to you on April 30, 2009. I received no acknowledgement, nor was it printed. I did notice a political sensitive letter regarding the senator published on 5/7/09. Please advise why my letter was not suitable for publication.
Rod Miller
Letter to the editor:
Senator Arlen Specter said he changed parties because the Republican party is moving too far to the right. What! Our last Republican president, signed deficit budgets, couldn’t find his veto pen until he was a lame duck president, appropriated 700 billion dollar bailout package and gave half of it to President Obama as spending money, and finally, wouldn’t secure our borders. It would appear the Republican party has moved from the Reagan conservative posture to a more centrist position. Certainly, not to the right.
I suggest the problem Senator Specter is having is that he’s continually moved further to the left and his myopic vision is failing him. However, he has now joined his peer group, the Democrat party, and will be more comfortable in his extreme left political surroundings.
To quote Norman Thomas, six time socialist candidate for president. “I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform”.
The Senator is not driven by political ideology, but he is in survival mode. i.e. Whatever it takes to get re-elected. He sees the title of Senator affixed to his name ‘till death do us part.
Rodney E. Miller
530 Raymond St
Reading PA
Muhlenberg Twp
610-929-5476
Random comments
Unbelievable! No wonder newspapers are dying on the vine. They are making themselves irrelevant in this age of electronic communication.
I thought your letter was good. I think Specter is WAY out of line thinking that, once elected, being a Senator is a lifetime job - but they all do. We should go back to term limits - the sooner the better
I GUESS YOU NOW KNOW WHAT SHOES HOMAN WEARS!
Now that is a liberal brick wall.
Who will drop the Eagle first? I have also been contemplating it for some time.
I stopped subscribing to the Eagle over a year ago and just read what I can get online. Between the Reading Eagle site, the WFMZ channel 69 site and sites like CNN and FoxNews, I get all the info I would if I got that rag in my home. The only thing I miss is the TV Guide that came in the Sunday paper and now I found a free link to our channels on the TV Guide website.
As always, Rod, they print what they want to print - good, bad or indifferent!!!
If we only had another newspaper in this sad town.
They are contemptible.
What's this guys problem? What do you think his real reason is for not printing your letter?
Does the Eagle have a word limit on letters to the editor? I sent one in two weeks ago and it wasn't published either
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:12 PM
To: 'news@readingeagle.com'
Subject: Attn: Mr. Flippin (on Specter)
To:
William S. Flippin
I forwarded the series of email conversations i had with Mr. Homan to a few of my friends. I just thought you might want to see their perspective of your paper and, in particular, the editorial department. I included their random replies at the bottom.
Rod Miller
*********************
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:08 PM
To: 'Jim Homan'
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Homan,
Forget it.
My letter has just as much and more substance than the one or two recent ones I read about Senator Specter and is very much relevant. And my letter was sent in first. It’s been said that the letters have more readers than the prominent editorialists or your unsigned editorials. I’ve been a scriber to the Reading Times/ Eagle since 1960 (49 years)and have frequently considered discontinuing my subscription. You’re making my decision easier. As your circulation is dying, a letter such as mine (or any previous one) can only, in some small way, help you to survive. My letter stands as is. If that doesn’t suit your immediate interest, consider this dialog a dead issue.
Sincerely
Rod Miller
From: Jim Homan [mailto:jhoman@readingeagle.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:10 PM
To: Rod Miller
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Miller,
Try rewriting your letter and tying it to one of the more recent stories about Specter (losing seniority, etc) rather than one that was published more than two weeks ago.
Jim Homan
Reading Eagle Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Jim Homan
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Homan,
The letter to which you refer was published on April 5th. I sent it in the previous week. Today is six weeks from the date I submitted it. I didn’t know of the 5 week requirement; however, may I again submit my Specter letter for publication?
Rod Miller
From: Jim Homan [mailto:jhoman@readingeagle.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:37 AM
To: Rod Miller
Subject: RE: Specter
Mr. Miller,
Each letter writer is permitted on letter every five weeks. Your five weeks had not expired.
Jim Homan
Reading Eagle Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rod Miller [mailto:remogmiller@verizon.net]
Posted At: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:00 AM
Posted To: Letters to the Editor
Conversation: Specter
Subject: Specter
Dear editor,
As noted, the below letter to the editor was mailed to you on April 30, 2009. I received no acknowledgement, nor was it printed. I did notice a political sensitive letter regarding the senator published on 5/7/09. Please advise why my letter was not suitable for publication.
Rod Miller
Letter to the editor:
Senator Arlen Specter said he changed parties because the Republican party is moving too far to the right. What! Our last Republican president, signed deficit budgets, couldn’t find his veto pen until he was a lame duck president, appropriated 700 billion dollar bailout package and gave half of it to President Obama as spending money, and finally, wouldn’t secure our borders. It would appear the Republican party has moved from the Reagan conservative posture to a more centrist position. Certainly, not to the right.
I suggest the problem Senator Specter is having is that he’s continually moved further to the left and his myopic vision is failing him. However, he has now joined his peer group, the Democrat party, and will be more comfortable in his extreme left political surroundings.
To quote Norman Thomas, six time socialist candidate for president. “I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform”.
The Senator is not driven by political ideology, but he is in survival mode. i.e. Whatever it takes to get re-elected. He sees the title of Senator affixed to his name ‘till death do us part.
Rodney E. Miller
530 Raymond St
Reading PA
Muhlenberg Twp
610-929-5476
Random comments
Unbelievable! No wonder newspapers are dying on the vine. They are making themselves irrelevant in this age of electronic communication.
I thought your letter was good. I think Specter is WAY out of line thinking that, once elected, being a Senator is a lifetime job - but they all do. We should go back to term limits - the sooner the better
I GUESS YOU NOW KNOW WHAT SHOES HOMAN WEARS!
Now that is a liberal brick wall.
Who will drop the Eagle first? I have also been contemplating it for some time.
I stopped subscribing to the Eagle over a year ago and just read what I can get online. Between the Reading Eagle site, the WFMZ channel 69 site and sites like CNN and FoxNews, I get all the info I would if I got that rag in my home. The only thing I miss is the TV Guide that came in the Sunday paper and now I found a free link to our channels on the TV Guide website.
As always, Rod, they print what they want to print - good, bad or indifferent!!!
If we only had another newspaper in this sad town.
They are contemptible.
What's this guys problem? What do you think his real reason is for not printing your letter?
Does the Eagle have a word limit on letters to the editor? I sent one in two weeks ago and it wasn't published either
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Another Reason Not to Contribute to National Republican Committees
Richard Viguerie
Written by CHQ Staff on May 15, 2009, 08:35 AM
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which normally doesn’t endorse candidates in Republican primaries, this week announced it is supporting Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, whom we call the “Arnold Schwarzenegger of the Southeast.” As governor, Crist vetoed budget cuts, and welcomed Barack Obama to Florida. He was a strong advocate for the $787 billion federal Stimulus Spending Bill earlier this year.
Who’s running against Crist, and whom did the NRSC dis? Marco Rubio, the young conservative success story, whose Wikipedia bio says, “championed a major overhaul of the Florida tax system. He wanted to reduce property taxes and decrease the size of government.”
We think Rubio’s first campaign video says it all:
(this video can also be found at http://marcorubio.com/)
The NRSC and other national Republican committees seem to want more Arlen Specters in the Senate.
Written by CHQ Staff on May 15, 2009, 08:35 AM
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which normally doesn’t endorse candidates in Republican primaries, this week announced it is supporting Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, whom we call the “Arnold Schwarzenegger of the Southeast.” As governor, Crist vetoed budget cuts, and welcomed Barack Obama to Florida. He was a strong advocate for the $787 billion federal Stimulus Spending Bill earlier this year.
Who’s running against Crist, and whom did the NRSC dis? Marco Rubio, the young conservative success story, whose Wikipedia bio says, “championed a major overhaul of the Florida tax system. He wanted to reduce property taxes and decrease the size of government.”
We think Rubio’s first campaign video says it all:
(this video can also be found at http://marcorubio.com/)
The NRSC and other national Republican committees seem to want more Arlen Specters in the Senate.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Stief and O'Boyle for Antietam School Board
John Fielding
It is once again time for the school board elections in Antietam. We have five candidates running for four seats.
I endorse Roger Stief and Larry O'Boyle.
I've known Roger Stief for a while while involved in the Antietam Youth Baseball Association. He is a young man with a family in the district, who will bring that perspective to the Board. While by no means poor, Roger is a man of modest means who can be expected to bring a dose of financial common sense to the board of the district with the highest tax millage in the county. The Antietam School Board seems determined to raise taxes at every opportunity. The administration's policy is to raise taxes to statutory limit every year whether it needs to or not. This year seems to be the only exception; after all the administration has to do what it can to make the election of its liberal-spending allies on the board more certain. Roger is not one of them. Vote for Roger Stief.
My other recommendation is Larry O'Boyle. Larry and I don't agree on everything and that's okay. But Larry has shown to me in two years that he has the taxpayers of the district at heart (even if he is a Democrat!) and, even when we don't agree, Larry is always looking for the cheapest way of getting the job done.
Of the remaining three, two (Ann Sellers and Dave Stauffer) are liberal spenders and toadies of the administration. I would not endorse them if they were the only ones running.
The remaining candidate, Beth Calabria, is a newcomer, taking the place of that other unreconstructed liberal, Joanne Just. I had great hopes for her, but then she justified a vote by speaking of "the children," as if every expenditure we don't make will vitally endanger our programs.
It used to be said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel; no, it isn't, it is children, animals, and trees. They are the only three unfortunates that cannot successfully fend off the liberals and all the "good things" liberals want to do for, and to, them.
Vote for Stief and O'Boyle for Antietam School Board on May 19th.
It is once again time for the school board elections in Antietam. We have five candidates running for four seats.
I endorse Roger Stief and Larry O'Boyle.
I've known Roger Stief for a while while involved in the Antietam Youth Baseball Association. He is a young man with a family in the district, who will bring that perspective to the Board. While by no means poor, Roger is a man of modest means who can be expected to bring a dose of financial common sense to the board of the district with the highest tax millage in the county. The Antietam School Board seems determined to raise taxes at every opportunity. The administration's policy is to raise taxes to statutory limit every year whether it needs to or not. This year seems to be the only exception; after all the administration has to do what it can to make the election of its liberal-spending allies on the board more certain. Roger is not one of them. Vote for Roger Stief.
My other recommendation is Larry O'Boyle. Larry and I don't agree on everything and that's okay. But Larry has shown to me in two years that he has the taxpayers of the district at heart (even if he is a Democrat!) and, even when we don't agree, Larry is always looking for the cheapest way of getting the job done.
Of the remaining three, two (Ann Sellers and Dave Stauffer) are liberal spenders and toadies of the administration. I would not endorse them if they were the only ones running.
The remaining candidate, Beth Calabria, is a newcomer, taking the place of that other unreconstructed liberal, Joanne Just. I had great hopes for her, but then she justified a vote by speaking of "the children," as if every expenditure we don't make will vitally endanger our programs.
It used to be said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel; no, it isn't, it is children, animals, and trees. They are the only three unfortunates that cannot successfully fend off the liberals and all the "good things" liberals want to do for, and to, them.
Vote for Stief and O'Boyle for Antietam School Board on May 19th.
Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California
by Ann Coulter
Posted 05/13/2009 ET
Updated 05/14/2009 ET
Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.
Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching "The West Wing" and all movies starring Julia Roberts.)
But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.
This apparent contradiction incites violent anger in liberals, triggering their famous "fight or flight" response. So liberal masturbators are, once again, launching furious attacks on a beautiful Christian in a fit of pique similar to the one directed at Joan of Arc.
First, the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants. Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news.
Next, a photographer released a single cheesecake photo of Prejean. This prompted liberal reporters who have never met a Christian to proclaim that Christians were outraged by the photo. Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)
Then on Monday some genuine "semi-nude" photos were released. These were not what we'd call appropriate for a Christian. In a curiously similar attack, the left's final attempt to destroy Paula Jones was to lure her into appearing naked in Penthouse magazine. Oh well.
Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.
This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.
Finally (so far, anyway), reporters gleefully released the divorce records of Prejean's parents. Because when you want the truth, what is more reliable than angry accusations traded in the middle of an acrimonious divorce?
Liberals used the divorce papers to argue that Prejean had some deep-seated psychological disturbance causing her to oppose gay marriage. Symptoms of this debilitating illness include a belief in some sort of "god" and a reverence for the Bible.
It's not as if Prejean's special talent in the Miss USA contest was to perform an opposite-sex marriage. (Or, as the president and I call it, "marriage.") She didn't even volunteer her "controversial" views on marriage. Rather, she was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and gave it -- in an answer wrapped in so many layers of sugar it took 10 minutes to get to the point.
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."
What a vicious hate-monger! Any second there I was expecting her to bust out a "by golly!" or an "oh my gosh!" Angry gay-marriage supporters should be happy they didn't get my version of that answer. It contains some terms you won't find in your Bible.
Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate.
From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.
You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.
I'm not sure we needed a psychological profile of Prejean to figure out why she holds the same position on gay marriage as: the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and his mistress, and the vast majority of the American people.
But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx.
From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It's the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision.
The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male's bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity.
Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn't care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted 05/13/2009 ET
Updated 05/14/2009 ET
Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.
Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching "The West Wing" and all movies starring Julia Roberts.)
But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.
This apparent contradiction incites violent anger in liberals, triggering their famous "fight or flight" response. So liberal masturbators are, once again, launching furious attacks on a beautiful Christian in a fit of pique similar to the one directed at Joan of Arc.
First, the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants. Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news.
Next, a photographer released a single cheesecake photo of Prejean. This prompted liberal reporters who have never met a Christian to proclaim that Christians were outraged by the photo. Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)
Then on Monday some genuine "semi-nude" photos were released. These were not what we'd call appropriate for a Christian. In a curiously similar attack, the left's final attempt to destroy Paula Jones was to lure her into appearing naked in Penthouse magazine. Oh well.
Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.
This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.
Finally (so far, anyway), reporters gleefully released the divorce records of Prejean's parents. Because when you want the truth, what is more reliable than angry accusations traded in the middle of an acrimonious divorce?
Liberals used the divorce papers to argue that Prejean had some deep-seated psychological disturbance causing her to oppose gay marriage. Symptoms of this debilitating illness include a belief in some sort of "god" and a reverence for the Bible.
It's not as if Prejean's special talent in the Miss USA contest was to perform an opposite-sex marriage. (Or, as the president and I call it, "marriage.") She didn't even volunteer her "controversial" views on marriage. Rather, she was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and gave it -- in an answer wrapped in so many layers of sugar it took 10 minutes to get to the point.
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."
What a vicious hate-monger! Any second there I was expecting her to bust out a "by golly!" or an "oh my gosh!" Angry gay-marriage supporters should be happy they didn't get my version of that answer. It contains some terms you won't find in your Bible.
Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate.
From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.
You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.
I'm not sure we needed a psychological profile of Prejean to figure out why she holds the same position on gay marriage as: the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and his mistress, and the vast majority of the American people.
But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx.
From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It's the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision.
The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male's bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity.
Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn't care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Prayer Indeed
John Fielding
The Huffington Post reports that the Obama Administration, while issuing a proclamation regarding the National Day of Prayer, has not planned much participation in it. Even this participation has somewhat embarrassed the Obama Administration's allies such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
I say that the Obama Administration may do more for prayer than any other administration in history. What with massive majorities in both houses and left wing loonies in the White House, and massive spending and deficits as far as the eye can see, Americans would do well to pray.
Ultimately, Obama's policies may do more for the frequency and fervency of prayer in the United States than anything else.
The Huffington Post reports that the Obama Administration, while issuing a proclamation regarding the National Day of Prayer, has not planned much participation in it. Even this participation has somewhat embarrassed the Obama Administration's allies such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
I say that the Obama Administration may do more for prayer than any other administration in history. What with massive majorities in both houses and left wing loonies in the White House, and massive spending and deficits as far as the eye can see, Americans would do well to pray.
Ultimately, Obama's policies may do more for the frequency and fervency of prayer in the United States than anything else.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
And From the Fever Swamps of the Left Wing Crazies....
John Fielding
I decided to look in on my favorite left wing blog, The Pennsylvania Progressive, and there is a post there entitled "Specter's Strategy is Perfect," written by a regular contributor, Jamoca.
Jamoca poses the theory that Specter switched and then equivocated with respect to being a "real" Democrat (whatever that is) to create a split in the Democratic ranks between alleged establishment types who want to give Specter a free ride in the Democratic promary on the theory that Specter's victory is inevitable and those who want a "real" Democrat to run against him because Specter won't hop to their tune on a progressive platform. Jamoca posits that Specter did this on purpose to split the Dems and guarantee a GOP win in the race.
Frankly, from the standpoint of an outside observer, the Democrats generally don't need any help when it comes to splits in their ranks, and Jamoca and his/her ilk are largely responsible for them. He/She should like them; his/her prescription for getting "rid" of political parties (as if one could have Congress repeal human nature) is a recipe for chaos and disaster if ever there were one.
Later, John Morgan published an article that has Sestak contemplating a run against Specter because Sestak is alleged to be a "real" Democrat, and Specter is still a Republican in philosophy. One can only hope.
Sestak will not beat Specter, but he will be required, as a practical matter, to give up what used to be Curt Weldon's seat to run, thus affording the GOP a double chance to beat the Democrats in Fall 2010: both Specter and Sestak.
And, after eight years of "compassionate conservativism" and whatever vile slurry of fascism/national socialism Obama has served up for two years, we will finally get a chance to see someone with real conservative cred run in a statewide race. And beat two Democrats; always a good thing.
I decided to look in on my favorite left wing blog, The Pennsylvania Progressive, and there is a post there entitled "Specter's Strategy is Perfect," written by a regular contributor, Jamoca.
Jamoca poses the theory that Specter switched and then equivocated with respect to being a "real" Democrat (whatever that is) to create a split in the Democratic ranks between alleged establishment types who want to give Specter a free ride in the Democratic promary on the theory that Specter's victory is inevitable and those who want a "real" Democrat to run against him because Specter won't hop to their tune on a progressive platform. Jamoca posits that Specter did this on purpose to split the Dems and guarantee a GOP win in the race.
Frankly, from the standpoint of an outside observer, the Democrats generally don't need any help when it comes to splits in their ranks, and Jamoca and his/her ilk are largely responsible for them. He/She should like them; his/her prescription for getting "rid" of political parties (as if one could have Congress repeal human nature) is a recipe for chaos and disaster if ever there were one.
Later, John Morgan published an article that has Sestak contemplating a run against Specter because Sestak is alleged to be a "real" Democrat, and Specter is still a Republican in philosophy. One can only hope.
Sestak will not beat Specter, but he will be required, as a practical matter, to give up what used to be Curt Weldon's seat to run, thus affording the GOP a double chance to beat the Democrats in Fall 2010: both Specter and Sestak.
And, after eight years of "compassionate conservativism" and whatever vile slurry of fascism/national socialism Obama has served up for two years, we will finally get a chance to see someone with real conservative cred run in a statewide race. And beat two Democrats; always a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
