Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Obama the Problem Creator

John C6 Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 10:36 AM
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Limbaugh, May I add: Pres. Obama got the Obamacare legislations ( The Democrats always refer to the ACA but that's only one law: Obamacare is a series of laws, executive orders and acts. ) he wanted, and the implementation has been a destructive fiasco that has harmed our ability to provide Americans quality medical care and the economy to boot. Why should Republicans or Americans accept his demands for changes to immigration policies? Would ' Obama-gration ' be better, or better implemented, than ' Obama-care '? This man has a solid 6 year track record of screwing up foreign policy, economic policy, trade policy, etc. This is due to his flawed world-view. This is a guy who doesn't understand how the world that has sustained him for his entire life actually works. Rather than change his views and learn from experience, he blames anyone who disagrees. He's somewhat akin to Hitler in his bunker in 1945 blaming his Generals for losing the war. Obama isn't Hitler by a long shot, but it's the same mentality. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Buchanan, Excellent column, Sir, but must disagree with your analysis about contemporary American society. Americans want jobs, not welfare, the arts are conservative when supported by the marketplace rather than government handouts, the conflicts in the Mideast far predate Pres. GW Bush and Americans want victory, not the ignominious and harmful surrender policies of the far left and Pres. Obama's Democrats. All Republicans have to do to win elections is be Republican. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO ps: It's important for Republicans today to recognize that while Libertarians USED TO BE their philosophical allies 20 years ago, today the Libertarian movement is the ' right wing ' of the Progressive political alliance. They are not the friends of Conservatives or Republicans. They use a Conservative lexicon to propogate the Progressive agenda. - John
Dear TOWNHALL editors: You misspelled incompetent. Mr. Lambro deserves better!
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Nantz, Thank you, Sir. May I add: Prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the American Colonies were self- governing and maintained their own Defense. Each had an elected legislature, governor and a well-regulated Militia that maintained good order and discipline. The British Army had no right to operate in any colony without the consent of the duly constituted colonial government. During the 7 years war, what is referred to here as the French & Indian War, the United Colonies defended themselves, allowing the British Army to fight elsewhere. When King George sent British Soldiers to invade the Colonies, he violated the Colonial Charters granted by his own Crown. George Washington was the duly constituted commander of a well-regulated military force created by the Colonial governments for their mutual self-defense. He acted in accordance with the rules of war at that time, in stark contrast to the British, who did not. George Washington obeyed the law and followed the rules of war. He was no terrorist. King George violated the law and failed to discipline commanders who deliberately violated the rules of war. King George was the terrorist, not Gen. Washington. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Dear Mr. Sullum, The NSA had a warrant and foreign nationals may be legal residents but they are still, in fact, foreign nationals. Are online ' chat rooms ' substantively different from a conference call? Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Out of the hundreds of millions of people and animals that have consumed GM food there is not a single case of illness or a single death attributable.
No such authority exists. Violence is the very last resort for self defense. It's not enough to say, by your definition ( perhaps not as defined by others ) that a government is either corrupt or, as you put it, treasonous.
In response to:

Holding Greenpeace Accountable

John C6 Wrote: Jul 05, 2014 11:06 AM
Gentle Readers, I wasn't aware that Greenpeace, the WWF, et. al, had such large investment portfolios. While I'm sorry to hear about their loss in the currency trading markets, it's curious that they get any tax-exempt status. How are they different than any hedge-fund or individual investing capital in markets? They should get the same treatment. It's also curious that no one is investigating to see if their ' advocacy ' campaigns aren't being used to manipulate markets to their, and their contributors, economic advantage. If they're threatening energy and insurance companies with legal actions, while seeking economic advantage in the markets, that would appear to be a huge conflict of interest.. No non-NGO or non- ' non profit ' hedge fund or investor would be allowed to do that. Why are these guys allowed to do it? Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Bowyers, You're incorrect, Sir. Please re-read the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states; " “…when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” . Each of the colonies already had a government, recognized by the Crown of England, In fact, the colonial charters were granted by that very Crown. The colonists were simply defending the rights which had already been established and written into laws. The signers of the Declaration of Independence weren't breaking any laws, it was the King of England who was violating the colonial charters which the Crown of England had granted. The Signers of the Declaration of Independence were compelled to act in self-defense against a hostile power- the King of England. This was only done after the colonists had gone to very great lengths to find a peaceful solution. Ben Franklin risked his life to travel to London to seek a peaceful solution, and was entirely rebuffed. You can't justify any use of force at this time as there are ample means by which you and I and any other American may seek a peaceful redress of any grievance without resorting to violence, and any such act would not be self-defense. You would be committing an act of treason against your own government, as opposed to our Founding Fathers who were defending their colonial governments. I would add that having the Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievance doesn't mean that every grievance is redressed, or that you will get the redress that you prefer. Even at the time the Constitution was being written, in the United States of 1787 people frequently were compelled to pay taxes they didn't want to pay or to abide by laws they didn't think beneficial or needed. That will happen in any social order. The Founding Fathers established a system of LIMITED GOVERNMENT with a political system with CHECKS AND BALANCES and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. This allows people to live their lives with minimal interference from government and establishes political processes that allow for peaceful, evolutionary change rather than violent, radical changes. If you advocate for a violent change in our political system, the end result would most likely be the destruction of the system which allows for peaceful change. This would lead to an endless cycle of tyranny and civil war. That's what destroyed Rome. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Dear Mr. Shedlock, GM food has been consumed by hundreds of millions of people and hundreds of millions of livestock for decades without a single case of illness or death attributed to it's use or consumption. None of the negative consequences that have been claimed by hysterical, anti-science advocacy groups have occurred anywhere. If El Salvador imports 85% of their food, why should the U.S. taxpayers subsidize their inefficient and ineffective agricultural sector while they refuse to utilize a perfectly safe, proven technology that will help them reduce their need for imports? That's the reason the aid is being withheld. This isn't even food- it's only seed. People don't eat seed, seed is used to plant the crop, which is then harvested and processed into edible food. Logic should be used as well as common sense. If you eat fish, you won't grow scales. If you eat chicken, you won't grow feathers. If you eat a turnip, you won't turn into a vegetable. Eating food grown from GM seed will do no one any harm whatsoever. GM seed will allow for the production of more food with fewer inputs. This allows farmers to earn more for their effort, reduces costs, increases supply, which by \the Law of Supply & Demand will reduce prices for consumers, and is ecologically beneficial as reduced inputs will reduce the ecological footprint required for food production. In the case of El Salvador, it will improve their balance of trade accounts. GM seed and GM food are beneficial to consumers & farmers and have social utility as they reduce inputs required for food production, thus allowing for increased food supply without ecological harm and freeing resources for other socially useful endeavors . Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Previous 31 - 40 Next