The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Burden of Proof

6.17.08 @ 12:01AM

FOR THE KIDS
Re: W. James Antle III's Marital Discord:

W. James Antle writes, "ideally children should be cared for by both biological parents and abandoned by neither." It might also be noted that this ideal not only proscribes same-sex couples but also single parent households, so it is manifestly not an idea reverse-engineered simply to deny "rights" to same-sex couples.

The difficulty in making the case that Mr. Antle suggests be done is that most Americans have been inculcated to deny the above-mentioned ideal. I haven't seen a formal poll of it, but I suspect that a minority of Americans would subscribe to it, and an even smaller minority would agree that government should favor it, e.g., grant tax breaks to the ideal and not others, or grant privileges (adoption) to the ideal and not others.

A not insignificant element in this denial of the ideal is the mass "day caring" of children whose career mother isn't home in the first place. Since we've already rationalized away the need for even one parent to be home for a young child, and accepted as gospel that anybody can serve the role of parent of a young child, what's so special about a natural father and mother unit?

In the name of "live and let live," we have denied and destroyed our ideals, and with that the ability to do what is best.
-- Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey

The California decision clearly illustrates the danger in electing democrats. The radical Left has controlled that pitiful party since the time of George McGovern and never has been able to significantly advance its anti-Christian, anti-American agenda through the legislative process, because Americans won't vote them back in.

So they appoint far-Left, activist judges, to whom nothing is repugnant, to accomplish their goals by judicial fiat. Within a year after Mr. Obama is elected there will be two and perhaps three resignations from the Supreme Court so that he may appoint the new majority. They, unelected, unrestrained, and unfettered by principles of law, will control the country for the next 30 years and we, the people, have no recourse save revolution.
-- Jay Molyneaux
North Carolina

PREACHER MAN
Re: Ralph R. Reiland's Obama's Gospel of Envy:

Ralph Reiland is right; the Democrats are indeed the party of envy.

And the Democrats get a double hit by playing the envy card. The first and most obvious is envy's appeal to those who feel slighted by society or nature. The liberal message to these people is: "Envy the rich, envy the successful, envy the middle class, envy men, envy white skin."

But what makes this deadly sin such an effective political force is that joined with the above mentioned group is another distinct group that, too, is motivated by envy... or more specifically, motivated by the fear of envy.

These are the liberals and many well-to-dos. They don't envy others as much as they are responding to the deep primordial human fear of being envied. And it is this fear that compels liberals to denigrate their race, the success of their forefathers, their civilization, their nation, and even religion.

The liberals will grovel in the gutter to say to the politically correct approved underprivileged groups that, "Hey. Look at me. I'm okay. Please... don't envy me. I'll darn near commit suicide to appease you."

Yes, this is white guilt, but what's behind it is the psychological and often subconscious fear of being envy.
-- Peter Skurkiss
Stow, Ohio

Obama's useful idiots are the same type of people who consider advice from celebrities as intellectual thinking. Image, style, and propaganda win over truth and facts. Thanks to our Democrat controlled public education propaganda service, we increasingly have a nation of useful idiots who follow Obama like lemmings. Obama is the Joel Osteen of politics.
-- Howard Lee
Bogalusa, Louisiana

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Television, Religion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO