The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

THE CLERK STANDARD
Re: George Neumayr's Kagan's Telepathy Standard:

"So the criterion of judgment for justices is not even 'empathy,' as Obama asserts, but more like telepathy: What would Thurgood Marshall do?"

He would order a clerk to write his opinion, kick off his shoes, watch some soap operas, then take a nap.
-- Dan Martin

AN EXCUSE
Re: John Tabin's Do Ask, Do Tell:

I suspect that had Don't Ask, Don't Tell not existed, Ms. Kagan would have found another rationale for keeping the recruiters away from Harvard. The policy was an excuse, not a cause. I would like to point out that Ms. Kagan had no problem serving in the administration that wrote the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, nor has she had a problem with those Democrats who voted for the policy in the House and Senate. She had a problem with military recruiters, and it isn't hard to figure out why.

Whether it's the late Jack Murtha calling us "cold blooded killers," Dick Durbin comparing US military police at Guantanamo Bay to Hitler's SS and Stalin's gulag guards, Ted Kennedy claiming that "Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management," or John Kerry stating in a moment of rare candor, "Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," the pattern is clear. Our elites loathe us; they think that we are, at best, dupes, suckers or losers, and at worst, murderous thugs, and they are shocked whenever we take exception to being characterized as something our society scrapes from the bottom of the barrel. They are always amazed to find that we know what they think of us, but the only way that we could not know would be if we were as stupid as they think we are.

Ms. Kagan will no doubt be confirmed, because the ambitious elites know that there are no consequences to shunning us.
--Mike Harris
MAJ, United States Army

Amid all the accelerating discussion of Ms Kagan's view and stances while at Harvard regarding the military and its role in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it should be remembered that the military and the Pentagon are only following the law of the land. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a product of the Democratic Clinton administration and a Democratic Congress in the early 1990s. If the policy is changed today, it must ultimately be changed by the lawmakers in Congress. Until that is done, the Pentagon will continue to obey the law of the land.

For then Dean Kagan to resist allowing military recruiters access to potential candidates on the Harvard campus in protest of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law put military officials in an untenable position. They were just obeying the law. Would it have been too much to ask of Dean Kagan to understand that fundamental point as a lawyer? I'm not a lawyer, but it is very clear to me.
-- Chris J. Krisinger
Colonel, USAF (Retired)

TAKE NO STANCE
Re: Philip Klein's Obama Nominates Himself:

So the template for Marxist/socialists/progressives seeking high office is, among other things, to take no controversial stance on anything? Given her career, we should not have to speculate what she is or thinks. Nor should we be asked to endure yet another bobbing-and-weaving round of confirmation hearings.
-- C. Kenna Amos Jr.

WHO BENEFITS?
Re: Eric Peters's MADD Gets Madder:

Thank you Mr. Peters, for your excellent article deconstructing Meanies Attacking Delightful Drams. I agree with every word you wrote. For years I've damned MADD as a fraudulent organization that exists to aid insurers and big government.

May I suggest: MADD does not operate alone. Other agencies enable them to achieve their intimidation. And always with angles relating to power and money. As I tell my college students: AFTM: "Always Follow The Money!" The old Romans used to ask: "Cui bono?," "Who benefits?"

1) AUTOMOBILE INSURERS provide funding for MADD. Check Part 1, Line 1a of MADD's Form 990 Federal Exempt Organization tax return. http://www.madd.org/getdoc/0c239167-c391-4da0-ac40-53aa360c35a1/IRS-Forms.aspx "Direct Public Support" of $31+ million dollars for 2005 (last year I can find) -- plus a further $10+ million from "government." Most of that goes out to salaries and wages (see part II Lines 25 and 26). As Mr. Peters notes, MADD runs a significant corporate operation. The $$ must come from somewhere. MADD fails to list any donors in its 990 form. It left Schedule B Part 1 blank. How interesting. Just think about this fact: One OWI charge parks a driver, for three years, in "SR-22" status -- "High-Risk" and *high premiums*. Cui bono?