Reader Mail

A Convenient Excuse

Asking and telling about Kagan. Getting MADDER. GLAAD about you. Mighty Quin. Ben Stein. Plus more.


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

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)

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.

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. "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?

2) FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY, specifically the Transportation Department, lusts to impose their notions of "uniformity" and "good government" upon all States in our Union. MADD offers a 'moral' cover for the centralizing socialists to do what they lust to do anyway: control people.

3) STATE TREASURIES seek 'revenue' from whatever sources they can derive. Everyone involved with them today knows that the criminal courts in general, and OWI cases in particular, have become little more than alternative tax collection systems. On the OWI issue, most States eagerly sign on to reduction of BAC because the lower the level the higher the prospect that "anyone and everyone" can get tabbed for drunkenness if stopped in public. Friends of mine who are policemen confirm the "revenue-generating" directives the government imposes upon them. All MADD does is provide feel-good political "cover" for the legislators to do what they want to do anyway.

Again, AFTM. Cui bono? For sure, not most of the 200 million drivers of America.
-- Dave Hanson
Fayette, Iowa

Re: Quin Hillyer's Obama's Hackneyed Hypocrisy:

This was absolutely great piece with great word-smithing to really bring the truth to the forefront. You-da-man!!
-- Donald Edwards

Re: Jeffrey Lord's GLAAD Strikes Out on Kagan:

Hi, I am writing on the following article.

I assume you acquired this information from the Politico article which quoted a "former spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation."

Any other mention of GLAAD is inaccurate and should be corrected.

Also, it's GLAAD not GLADD.

Thank you,
-- Rich Ferraro
Director of Public Relations, GLAAD

Jeffrey Lord replies:
Rich Ferraro is correct. Politico identified Cathy Renna as a "former" GLAAD spokesperson. Not current. I linked the article for accuracy and did so while seeing the pitch coming right over the plate. Alas, I took my eye off the ball and it was a broken bat single, not a homer. Suffice to say, I am not GLAAD.

Apologies for not playing ball. Hopefully Mr. Ferraro and GLAAD will be glad about the First Amendment and hit a grand slam by opposing Elena Kagan.

Re: Ben Stein's Why Do They Do It?:

My son 1LT HANS BEUTEL is fighting in the area of Kandahar so there you have one name among many thousands prepared to give their lives for us.

I appreciate your integrity and grit to needle the right people on these issues of greed and corruption, not that they are listening, at the moment.

I pray every day that God will clean up America and make it once again a place we can be proud of, show us the folly of trusting in anything but Him.
-- Nancy Beutel
Charlotte, North Carolina

Ben Stein wants to know why they do it? That's easy: the American left's fifty-year love affair with both moral relativism and  secularism has reached full flower. Religious advisors have been  supplanted by lawyers and therapists. As a result, "right and wrong"  have been replaced by either "legal and illegal," or "well and unwell." When a fundamental understanding of good and evil becomes "negotiable," all things are possible.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Re: James Bowman's review of The Cartel:

Since there exists a negative correlation between teach salary and student achievement, reduce teacher salaries incrementally until students perform at a high level.
-- David Govett
Davis, California

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article