A response to a letter from Dennis DeCuir

At last! A worthy liberal opponent enters the fray. Thank you Dennis for breaking the bonds of Stroh-like banality. I had no idea that all of this time you were lying in wait atop that hill for the perfect moment to strike. I can sense the satisfaction involved in composing your letter. You have loosed the puppies of petulance with flair, even literary promise, though I cringe at your use of a phrase from the greatest genius who ever lived. Your 29 years in law enforcement and my 25 years in publishing newspapers provide an interesting contrast of opinion. I’m wondering when you first discovered you were a liberal; unusual for a lawman. I think I’m a congenital conservative. Were you a closet liberal all of those years?

I was elated to receive your letter because it so perfectly exemplifies the quintessential liberal. Over the years I have received a number of these disparagements. Some, such as the one I received after my short eulogy for the late, great, William F. Buckley, Jr., are so carefully crafted that they have earned a place in my archive. They would make exciting material for a first year final exam in psychology. You’re not there yet, but I see promise.

I’m not exaggerating, Dennis. I still have volume one, issue five of “fact:” magazine- from (September-October) of 1964! The “Editor and Publisher” was Ralph Ginsburg. Why did I save it? I saved it because it (also) clearly illustrates a glaring problem with the liberal mindset. On the cover, in a one-point box, are the words: “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater Is Psychologically Unfit To Be President!” The subtitle is “The Unconscious of a Conservative [a nifty take-off on Goldwater’s book]: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater”.

The most revealing thing about this magazine is that many M.D.s and Psychiatrists actually contributed damning psychological conclusions, and signed them. One example: Alan M. Levy, M.D. (New York) “I think Goldwater has a paranoid personality which shows itself by marked rigidity, a tendency to project blame, fear of internal impulses breaking out and inherent contradictions in almost all of his statements…” All this, and the doctor had never met Senator Goldwater. Ah, savor the fruit of liberal intellect. Incidentally, in my opinion Republicans are not much better due to weak leadership and murky fundamentals.

The 64 pages were replete with outrageous pen and ink cartoons. This treatment was consistent with Democrat Party campaign tactics, then and today. I guess lies work. Kennedy won – as did Obama.

Like you, Dennis, I have neither medical nor psychiatric letters, but I know enough not to practice without a license. And, I wouldn’t practice English literature without a license either. I think it follows that the sort of pseudo-professional criticism you practice here indicates you have a “projection” issue to deal with. You need to sort-out the Stroh-like conflict you appear to have in facing the world of facts, that thorny old reality thing.

Some facts: By any meaningful standard or definition, the U.S. is bankrupt. Printing more money out of thin air only makes matters worse, unless the science of mathematics and economics no longer applies. Or, maybe we’ve entered that state that liberals love to fantasize about, some sort of parallel reality? Typical of liberal letter-writers, you have only the vaguest criticisms to offer, and zero solutions. Most of your concerns could take a book to answer; and many books have already answered them.

Left wing conspiracy? It doesn’t take much to create a conspiracy, Dennis. Only criminal and unethical conspiracies are bad. I’m not even sure that Obama and his Chicago cabal rate that sort of label, without a deliberately hidden agenda. Maybe he just heads-up a group of really bad guys with really bad ideas and an energetic agenda. It all depends upon any intent to deceive. Among the issues here: his true intent regarding abortion, national defense, the economy, government growth, socialized medical care, increased taxation, religious influence in schools and government, free enterprise, constitutional integrity, political and judicial appointments (if there’s a difference), national sovereignty, etc. Liberals see it one way, conservatives another, but all CPAs with integrity agree. Characterizing Obama is less important than understanding the long-term, detrimental consequences of his actions. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a national disaster; he’s focusing a perfect storm.

My characterizing Sotomayor as a racist “a bit Shakespearian”? Dennis, you could have Googled a better line from the Bard. I will just say that no aspirant to this nation’s highest judicial post, since Reconstruction, could ever have dreamed of approval after making the repeated, blatant, sexist-racist statements this woman has made. Considering the unconscionable personal excoriation Democrats inflicted upon Judge Bork, and every Republican nominee for the high court in the past 40 years (each superbly qualified), the cakewalk this mediocre nominee participated in is a scandalous charade. Again, her appointment is to be expected because liberal Democrats operate in that emotionally irrational, intellectually barren other-reality, and they’re in control. And, Republican Senators are, for the most part, obsequious toadies. Republicans have no guts, Democrats no soul. There are a number of Latino judges who could better fill the bill – but we aren’t looking to appoint by ethnicity, are we?

Sotomayor’s Senate interview was a shameful farce. Her testimony was completely disingenuous, and her answers contradictory. She fully intends to make policy from the bench, as she has in the past. Her support for abortion is absolute under any and all circumstances. She wants tax money to pay for all abortions. She will use foreign law in her decisions. And, she could not answer this simple (paraphrased) question: “Does a person have the right to defend himself?” She will, as in the past, attempt to diminish the Second Amendment by finding it is not an individual constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. Her presence on the Supreme Court will be like storing a bottle of Ripple with eight bottles of 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild Jeroboam tucked into the world’s most exclusive wine cellar. She is an important part of Obama’s ethnic revenge.

Most of the esteemed justices of the court must be shuddering at the prospect of having to deal with such a flaming mediocrity, in for life. Our heritage, Christian or otherwise, “cannot be destroyed?” I don’t have the time to school you in world history, Dennis. You, and liberals like you, are causing our heritage to “morph” alright. You folks, through appointments like Sotomayor, are morphing our rights right out of our Constitution, and accelerating America’s moral degeneration. This is a continuation of that 1960s liberal mantra “If it feels good, do it.” You remember those days, don’t you? After 40 years of that, the hangover commeth. But, again, as you say, “…so be it.” In my best liberal Ebonics I say, it be.

What really concerns me, Dennis, are those radical liberals exercising government power who look down on tradition, especially conservative Christian tradition, with condescension at best, and rapacious officiousness at worst, while deliberating the fate of the citizen thought to be too religious, or too republican (small “r”), and just what should be done to impress conformity on them. In this setting, I’m sure the Founding Fathers would look pretty paranoid to you as well.

My sincere thanks for the concern you express over “…all that [I’ve] been through in the last year…” I hope the opportunity I have provided to air your grievances helps to ease your anxiety. Next time make an effort to bring some solutions along with your complaints.