The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Giuliani Jeering Section

5.15.07 @ 12:01AM

KILLING RUDY'S CHANCES?
Re: Philip Klein's The Eye of the Rudy:

There are words to describe what enabled the authors of the subject articles to write them: delusional, crazy, insane, mad, demented, or, perhaps, infatuated with the Rooty. I think all apply, summed up by infatuated dementia.

If the authors think that I am a one-issue kind of guy, namely abortion, think again. How about his weakness regards Second Amendment rights; his twisted ideas about the constitututionality of public funded abortions (according to Rooty, it's in there); that leads to his definition of "strict construction" in defining the judges he would appoint to all levels of the Judiciary; and, his support for gay rights. And, that's just off the top of my head. With a little refreshment of the Rooty's record, I could come up with more.

For Chris'sakes folks, the Rooty is a New York liberal, there's nothing there for conservatives.
-- Wade White
Franklin, New York

I just finished reading "The Eye of the Rudy" by one of you anti-child loving writers, Philip Klein. These radical neoconservatives you have writing for your publication continue to bother me. Even though I no longer purchase your magazine I still check into your webpage to see if you have changed your evil ways. When is your publication going to realize that anyone who promotes the willful slaughter of the unborn is not a Godly man, much less a presidential man? I can think of nothing more sinful and evil than the murder of a child. I believe that God will hold every man/woman who supports abortion responsible for promoting the slaughter of over 30 million Americans since 1973. I also believe that if I were to vote for a baby killing Democrat in Republican clothing I would also be held responsible when I face God's judgment. No thank you! I refuse to put politics above the love of God and children. I'm also willing to state that most conservatives that have a God fearing heart view the situation the same way as I do.

Your magazine was once a bastion of anti-abortion views. Today it has turned into just another mindless publication following the herd of American's anti-child mentality. Shame on you, shame on Philip Klein!
-- Gary Martin
Eden Prairie, Minnesota

A MORMON IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Catching Mitt on TV:

Apparently, in his 60 Minutes interview, Mitt Romney said the following: "I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't image anything more awful than polygamy."

If this is true, then Romney is one of two things: an idiot, or a liar. It's possible that he is both. For a man who grew up in the Mormon Church to not understand a pivotal point of doctrine such as polygamy, is idiotic. The Mormons did not practice polygamy to "build a generation out there in the desert." The practice of polygamy was begun by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, when Nauvoo was the largest city in Illinois, surpassing Chicago (which was a small trading post in the mid-nineteenth century). It was not done because Mormons were dying by the truckloads. The church was winning converts by the thousands. Romney must sleep through Sunday school and Priesthood classes on the Sabbath day, or he would have known that it is church doctrine that polygamy will be practiced in the eternities, that God the Father is a polygamist, and that even Jesus is said to have been married to both Mary and Martha. Call this disgusting if you will. Call it incorrect, fabricated, blasphemous, sexist, or any other negative connotation you may, but this is something all Mormons who grow up in the church learn. Do we really need another idiot in the White House?

But I fear it is not idiocy that prompted Romney to say these things. Anyone who changes his mind so readily on abortion, then tries to play down the change, is more likely to be lying. I do not know what is in this man's heart (and I don't care to), but I suspect that a lie to appease the horrified Evangelicals (who will never vote for an "unChristian" Mormon regardless) is much more in line with this man's modus operandi. Another establishment Republican with a penchant for power, like his good buddy Senator Hatch.

If Mr. Homnick cares where Romney stands on the issues, rather than what his religion is, look no further than the above pusillanimous statement from this 60 Minutes interview.
-- Brendan R. Merrick
Budd Lake, New Jersey

I am afraid that Jay D. Homnick does not seem to get it when it comes to Romney's Mormonism. Many Christians consider Mormonism to be little more than a cult, especially conservative Christians. It is lumped into the same category as Jehovah's Witnesses. For that matter, many conservative Christians view Seventh Day Adventists with suspicion. Not quite a cult, but not quite Christian either. Hatch and Reid are being elected by regional constituencies. There is a categorical difference in power wielded between a Governorship or the U.S. Senate and the Presidency. Given the power of the Vatican in world affairs, people were right to worry about the influence the Pope might wield over a U.S. president. Just the same, people are justified in worrying about the influence a cult could wield over the president. The fact that his stand on abortion or gay rights is the same as many Christians has nothing to do with it. The point is how much power will a cult wield over our president? You may not like people thinking these thoughts or asking these questions. It may be horribly politically incorrect to do so. But longstanding and ingrained teachings about Mormonism will not be overcome because Romney is telegenic and has the right stand on social issues.
-- Steve Baarda
London, Ontario

LIFE IS UNFAIR
Re: The Washington Prowler's Here Royal Fairness:

The radical left typified by Ms. Pelosi and her ilk will ALWAYS be for freedom of expression and castigate and vilify republicans as being opposed to it. However, I am unable to find a single instance going back To Mrs. Gore's attempt to regulate lyrics in music in the 70's, where Republicans advocated against freedom of speech. (You may remember this was Mr. Gore's first foray into the limitation of speech far beyond what The Supreme Court says is permissible. Mr. Gore hadn't the courage to undertake this himself, lest the possible backlash cause him to be "un-elected.") So he dispatched the simpering Mr.s Gore, then an attractive blonde woman who based her objections to Christian theology.

The party of socialism in America liked this so much -- very little backlash because the media was in favor then and now of anything proposed by democrats. You will note that any speech by any conservative at any leftist institution, such as a university, is usually attacked as impermissible by students and faculty; and the speaker is always heckled and ridiculed unmercifully while he or she is trying to speak. This is because democrat radicals cannot be exposed to other points of view. Theirs are so shallowly understood that they may easily be taken away by another philosophy. We have progressed to the point where any Judeo-Christian message is a "violation of Church and state" separation; any public mention of those attributes that make a female a female is verboten; and as we all know we can no longer use the phrase "global war against terror" because the radical left controlled Congress doesn't like it. It conveys too much truth.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Nancy Pelosi, Religion, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Books, Law, Supreme Court, NATO, Africa, Socialism, Energy, Oil