The American Spectator

IRISH EYES AREN’T SMILING
Re: James M. Thunder’s The Destruction of Notre Dame:

Absolutely correct!  A sellout, and for what?
— Tom Vandenberg
Class of ‘76.

Except for the headline, this article has it all right. 100%. This should never have happened and it should be canceled.
— Patricia Kennedy
Poughkeepsie, New York

NO ALTERNATIVE
Re: Roger Scruton’s The New Humanism:

Roger Scruton is of course right about the humanism he knew from his parents, that sought to raise man rather than denigrate God, but that was in a different England. Now it faces the levelling of socialist education, the stridency of Islamists and Christian evangelists and the ghetto-making dogma of Multi-Culturalism, all directly attacking Englishness: if it remained quiet and decent, humanism might simply evaporate (like queuing and politeness have). Its fight might be badly phrased at times, like the bus slogan about enjoying life (instead of perhaps “be good for the sake of goodness”), but the fight was brought to us.

Yours faithfully,
— Mark Baillie
London, UK

WITH GRATITUDE
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Monstrously Anti-Life:

Thanks for publishing this very thoughtful article. It is well written to represent all the issues between the mother’s moral judgments and the law’s duty to the baby. Thank you.
— Dina Luke
San Clemente, California

Thank you so much for your article. My thoughts about President Obama are that when he spoke about abortion he wouldn’t want his daughters to have to “suffer” through an unwanted pregnancy. He would allow them to abort his own grandchildren. There is definitely death in the White House not only for unborn but for the country.
— C. Handley
Richmond, Illinois

I have nothing but respect and praise for the author of article. It takes such courage to speak out in these times. May God Bless You and may The Holy Spirit inspire you always.
— Alice Stackpole

AIG ON THEIR FACE
Re: The Prowler’s Plenty of Rahm at the AIG Table:

Excellent article. Here is a proposed solution to the problem…

The AIG news stream has been flowing with the force of a fire hydrant, and it’s becoming difficult to drink it all in.  We are now even hearing about how TARP funds are being recycled into campaign contributions for members of Congress — perhaps someone should send the CWFP a map to the capitol building instead.  Amidst all of the rhetorical fanfare, it should be noted that there is a crucial standard of justice that is being ignored in all of this. In fact I would submit that this legal standard would accomplish much, not only in terms of eliminating the feigned AIG-outrage in Congress, but it would stifle a host of other corrupt pursuits in our nation’s capitol. The legal standard of which I speak is actually one which formulates the basis of the “presumption of innocence” standard native to our modern legal system. It is a standard that is frequently quoted in the N.T., and is offered here as “the solution to the AIG debacle:”

Step 1 — The Pursuit of Proof: Deuteronomy 19:15: 15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”

Our legal system is based upon the principle of a “presumption of innocence” when dealing with an accused party. Therefore accusations must not be assumed to be true, but must be substantiated on the bases of witnesses who can confirm or deny the veracity of an accusation. But what is rarely acknowledged concerning this ancient standard of the law is this fact: the requirement for multiple witnesses was also established in order to deal with false accusers. Thus, the confirmation of the innocence/guilt of the accused is only half of the judicial equation in Deuteronomy 19 — what is often ignored in this legal standard is the matter of judging those who dole out accusations without sufficient warrant: