- The Washington Times - Wednesday, June 4, 2008


Don’t sit out

It really annoys me when I read that some Republican voters might not vote this year because they are “disgusted with President Bush and the Republicans in Congress” (November sit-out threats worry GOP,” Plugged in, Tuesday).

If enough Republican voters spitefully sit out this next election, they will be responsible for the presidency of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama and all the far-reaching leftist policies that will come with a Democratic administration: higher taxes, gay marriage, government-run health care and socialized medicine, green legislation that will put an end to our present lifestyles, less available gas and steeper gas prices, and higher and more burdensome taxes, to mention just a few.

Probably the most damaging and long-term outcome of a Clinton or Obama administration would be the selection of leftist judges to sit on the Supreme, federal and circuit courts.

Because of the way our governing system was designed by the Founding Fathers, within a four- or eight-year term, it would be difficult for any president to effect irreversible and enduring harm to our country.

However, a judge’s life term on the court would have real consequences on the moral direction of our country, especially with regard to abortion and the fate of the unborn.

It is very likely that the next president will select several judges to sit on the Supreme Court. For this reason alone, it would behoove all conservatives, independents and others who defend life to vote for Sen. John McCain.


Berwyn Heights

Questionable housing bailout

Deroy Murdock raises a very important question about the housing bailout plan being considered by Congress: Why should the taxpayer bail out someone whose house is “under water” even if he or she is able to continue to make the mortgage payments? (“Housing bailout binge,” Commentary, Sunday.)

Has it become the government’s obligation to bail out anyone whose investment has lost value? Should you be entitled to a bailout if your 401(k) loses money this year? Or the value of your coin collection declines?

Putting aside the question of whether a taxpayer-funded bailout is warranted, there also are questions of fairness and efficiency that must be addressed. If you and your neighbor buy identical houses and you pay a $50,000 down payment while he pays nothing down, and the value of both houses falls by $40,000, he qualifies for a bailout but you don’t even though you’re the one who did the economically sensible thing.

In fact, all homeowners who paid little or no money down would find it economically beneficial to go into foreclosure, even if they have enough money to keep their mortgages current, just to get their loan amount reduced under the bailout program.

This perverse incentive could well induce far more people to avail themselves of the bailout than policy-makers contemplate and increase the cost accordingly. The more ill-considered the original loan, the more generous the bailout.

Another problem arises because we don’t know how far the market will fall. What if we reduce a homeowner’s loan amount to the current market value of the house and the market falls further, putting his house yet again “under water”? Does he get another bailout? Where does it end?

The obvious inequities, inefficiencies and perverse incentives inherent in the plan before Congress are so obvious, it leads one to wonder just what Congress is trying to accomplish: the stabilization of the housing market or a massive income redistribution?



Communism’s new name

Czech President Vaclav Klaus thinks environmentalism is the new communism (“Climate concern ripped as ‘religion,´” Page 1, Friday). The late expert on Soviet disinformation, Natalie Grant Wraga, would agree.

She wrote in 1998 (in “Green Cross, Gorbachev and Global Enviro-Communism,” the Resister, Spring 1998, Vol. IV, No. 3): “rotection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist ‘values’” (Page 58).

Even the ubiquitous goal “sustainability” (living within the biosphere´s ecological limits, determined by zealots) has roots in the Kremlin.


Leesburg, Va.

Social acceptance

Jay Ambrose has it right in his Saturday Commentary column, “Overreach from the bench,” in which he quotes the opinion of the California Supreme Court in emphasizing the position of the ruling judges. “Marriage,” we are told, “was crucial because, otherwise, gays could not feel themselves in ‘a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community.’”

Indeed, succinctly put. Marriage is not the ultimate goal of the gay activists; it is merely a steppingstone to total social acceptance of such a relationship, as the court implied, and evidently the courts will spare no ends to jam such acceptance down our throats.

Marriage equality under the law will not be the end of their efforts. Passage of hate-crime laws to make it illegal to object in any way to such relationships, be it ridicule, scorn or simply the ignoring of such, is their ultimate goal, and it will be achieved only under a form of totalitarianism.

Such events and parallel thought-control events are already happening in Europe. Speech is being suppressed in such democracies as Britain, the Netherlands, France and Germany, to mention a few. To believe it can’t happen here is to be completely oblivious to reality. Totalitarianism is, unfortunately, on the march again. “Long may our land be bright/With freedom’s holy light.”





Click to Read More

Click to Hide