Re: George Neumary's Wrighting Dirty:
Let's have President Obama with his spiritual mentor, Mr. Wright in the White House. Sure would be a change from Billy Graham.
-- Marlene Buchhalter
Well said, Mr. Neumayr.
I concluded a decades long correspondence and a life long friendship recently over this issue of the racist, hate mongering "pastor" and his affirmative action protege Mr. Obama. This supposed intellectual has spent a life time decrying the influence of the Christian Right emoting the standard polemics and painting anyone (on the right) who associated with or promulgated Christian values as theocrats out to hijack the constitution for their evil Christian ends. In fact, in a correspondence last year this pseudo intellectual admitted what I had observed for some time, he had more fear of the so called Christian Right than the Islamofascists who have openly declared war on our society, way of life, and oh yes our faith.
I nearly ended our give and take at that time but held out hope that I could convince him otherwise. And now this same liberal-fascist has the temerity to tell me it's "No big deal" and throws Parsley or Hagee at me (note: I have expressed the same revulsion at their inflammatory rhetoric as I have Uncle Jeremiah's) as some sort of "gotcha"; after all the mighty agent of change Barack said so! Well it must be true! It must be the right wing noise machine at the behest of VRWC attempting to smear he who must not be criticized.
What a stinking pile of gooey hypocritical, intellectual dishonesty! It's difficult, nay impossible to carry on a substantive discussion of ideas with individual or groups who, at their basest, are unwilling and apparently unable to be honest even with themselves. Why am I surprised and so disappointed with this life long friend's hypocrisy? After all, isn't this the modus operandi of the left?
-- Stuart Reed
Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan
When pastor Fr. Davey of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Newton, New Jersey, followed the gospel on Judgment Day with a sermon suggesting that Republicans of the Gingrich Congress, who sought to privatize some functions of government, might find themselves on the left side of God on Judgment Day, I sent Fr. Davey a letter, suggesting that his comments were mistaken. When I did not receive an acknowledgement or reply, I sent next month's donation envelopes back to him, empty, with a copy of my original letter. I then received an "everyone is entitled to his own opinion" letter.
When Fr. Davey's successor as pastor, Fr. Filipkowski, preached that the Church had "always referred to the Holy Spirit in the female gender," I sent Fr. Filipkowski a letter, asking for one example of a papal encyclical, a Vatican council, or a Biblical verse, that even once, never mind "always," referred to the Holy Spirit in the female gender. Fr. Filipkowski's reply was "point taken."
After additional examples of homilies that appeared to have nothing to do with Catholicism, I stopped attending St. Joseph's.
One year later, I began attending Mass at Our Lady Queen of Peace Church in Branchville, New Jersey. Pastor Fr. Stober was a straight shooter, but pinch hitter Fr. O'Rourke followed the same gospel as Davey and Filipkowski. When Fr. O'Rourke identified a list of left-wing radicals as "latter day John the Baptists," I sent Fr. Stober a letter, indicating that Fr. O'Rourke's comments were intolerable. I received no acknowledgement or reply, and stopped attending Our Lady Queen of Peace.
The above incidents, together with comments in the Diocese of Paterson's "Beacon" newspaper, approved by Bishop Rodimer and later Bishop Serratelli, condemning Wal-Mart and actions of the U.S. military, are "small potatoes" compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's tirades. Nevertheless, where are the letters from Senator Obama to Reverend Wright? Where is the evidence that Senator Obama concluded that continued attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ was fundamentally incompatible with his own conscience? There are no letters. There is no evidence. For countless centuries, common law has held that silence implies consent.
Senator Obama's silence speaks consent to Reverend Wright's homilies.
-- Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
Several things come to mind about Obama's pastor disaster.
One, anyone of any skin pigmentation who belongs to or leads a so-called Christian church in which racist and/or anti-Semitic views or ideologies issue even once from the pulpit -- or who supports those views inside or outside any such church -- has no understanding of Him for whom Christianity is named.
Two, opportunistic Obama and honesty appear to have little association, if any at all.
Three, any challenge to or remark about narcissistic Obama or his campaign likely will be evaded, dismissed and/or painted as a racist by him, his team, his devotees and the liberal MSM.
Four, Obama increasingly reveals himself as a divisive whiner-in-chief.
Five, hyphenated America needs to assume its place in history's dustbin.
Six, those who hate America yet live within her freedoms should make immediate plans to change their residency and citizenry.
Finally, though they may sully the name of Jesus and the meaning of His life, death and resurrection, racially separatist churches such as Trinity United Church of Christ or any such churches that have their own versions of the Gospel do not have the power the destroy Christianity -- only themselves.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
Obama is not qualified to be POTUS for a very simple reason: A wise man would have stated that he, like most men, simply fall asleep during Church sermons and never heard racist Wright's diatribes. A stupid man dissembles the way Barack did!
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
FIRST LADIES FIRST?
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III's A Pyrrhic Victory for Hillary:
G. Tracy Mehan, III thinks the Democratic Party can't afford to alienate blacks? Try this, Mr. Mehan. Despite all the hype about the popular vote, and the shenanigans surrounding Michigan and Florida, the only thing that will matter in the end is the vote of the super-delegates, and their most important consideration: which constituency do we alienate, blacks or women?
No other voting bloc has been more loyal to the Democratic Party than blacks -- which makes them much more expendable than women, who are numerically superior and have a better track record of showing up on election day.
Also, blacks are now the "bridesmaid" ethnic voting bloc. Hispanics are the new "bride," and who did better with them in huge states like California and Texas? It wasn't "Mr. Change."
Super-delegate "strategy?" Go with women and Hispanics, and toss blacks under the proverbial bus. Assuage them with the notion that Obama's time is in the future while Hillary's time is right now. All for the "greater good" of beating John McCain, of course.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
No one, Mr. Mehan, OK maybe someone, is enjoying the Democrats little fracas over Michigan and Florida, and the whole internecine Democrat Party war as much as I am. A self-immolating Democrat is a good Democrat as far as I'm concerned. So, is there anything we can do to pour some gasoline on the fire of this political daftness, or do we leave them to their own devices, which seem to have worked pretty well so far? Personally, I'd like to offer some words of advice to the comrades at this decisive moment in their party's history. Whenever the audacity of hope begins to seem more like throwing up their hands in total despair, and the press is around, a prerequisite, just invoke Dr. Dean's therapeutic remedy!
-- Mike Showalter
The Democrats have maneuvered themselves into a tight spot this time around. They have two candidates, both still trying to corral enough delegates to secure the nomination.
The main strength of one Democrat candidate would seem to be, "Vote for me -- or you'll be labeled a racist." And the main strength of the other candidate appears to be, "Vote for me -- or you'll be labeled a sexist."
Either approach might be viable in the fall campaign -- but it's March, and the two Democrats are still running against each other, not a Republican. Right now, they can please one group of supporters -- but not the other. And the un-pleased group could pick up their marbles, and votes, and go home, and sit out the election in November.
The "chickens coming home to roost" phrase has been overworked, but this seems a clear case of it. After years of pandering to both special-interest groups, the Democrats have now had the matter blow up in their face.
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
G. Tracy Mehan, III repeats the leftist twaddle that "the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000," a calumny which cannot be permitted to stand, particularly in your journal.
The Supreme Court required that the election be called upon the rules in place before everyone voted, not as the Gore campaign, the Democrat party and their minions would have had them changed in order to defeat the result under the original rules (some might say "attempted to steal the election"). If I recall correctly, the vote on that particular point was 7-2, another fact the twaddlers wish to bury.
-- Reid Bogie
CRACK A SMILE IN CONNECTICUT
Re: Andrew Cline's Nutmeg Repression:
From a serious side I'm glad Connecticut hasn't gone down that road yet, however, from a humor side, Mr. Cline will have to do better, sorry.
-- John Nelson
SLOW THE VEEP DOWN
Re: James P. Lucier's How McCain Can Win the Base:
I wish everyone would slow down on the VP pick. I don't want McCain making a hasty choice. He can be comfortable for months before he has to announce his choice. Why give the democrats another candidate to shoot at when they are doing so well shooting each right now. Please, everyone, slow down.
We are all tired of the pseudo-conservatives in the administration and in congress. I sincerely believe that what is happening in the democrat party is a great opportunity for our side. If McCain wants to win the election, he will need to pick a VP that completely satisfies conservatives.
Bobby Jindal is not that person -- now. He will be a great VP pick in 4 or 8 years, and then as president one day when he follows the person who selected him as his VP. As one writer said, let's think long-term.
As to Romney, it worries me that his name is being pushed to the front. I think he would be great on economics and national security, but I don't understand why anyone believes Romney will galvanize social conservatives when he didn't do so during the primary. Nothing I have seen indicates that the supporters of Huckabee will flock to McCain with Romney on the ticket; and whether we like it or not, his Mormonism is still a factor to many evangelicals and Christian conservatives.
The man for this hour is Christopher Cox. He is the current head of the Securities & Exchange Commission, and former elected representative to the U.S. House for 16 years. It also helps that he is from Southern California, which may already cause concern for democrats with McCain as the nominee. He has a lifetime rating from the ACU (American Conservative Union) of 98. Contrast that with McCain's lifetime rating of 82.5 or Fred Thompson's at 86.5. One has to be a solid conservative to get 90+ rating.
Thompson was the conservative choice for many of us. We let the media and political pundits get away with ignoring the conservatives (no airtime) in the primary, and we allowed them to select McCain for us. Please do not let them get away with picking McCain's VP for us too.
I strongly urge everyone who claims to be a conservative to check out Cox's resume, his accomplishments, and his social life. I believe he is one of the few politicians who personally addresses the annual "life" march in Washington. I know from his speeches on the floor of the House, he is in the mold of Henry Hyde on life issues. He is as strong if not stronger than Romney on economic/fiscal issues and national security. Romney may have a little more executive experience, but Cox's accomplishments also reflect that he is a problem solver just as Romney and Jindal are.
Cox was re-elected 8 or 9 times in California as a complete conservative. Romney was elected governor once and would have been destroyed had he run for re-election. We don't have to worry about Cox's recent conversion to any conservative issue, and again, Mormonism will be an issue to some significant number of voters - the very voters McCain needs to attract to win the election. Pick Christopher Cox John McCain! Then Cox picks Jindal as his VP, and so on - long term. Let's not blow this chance to get some solidly proven conservatives lined up for the presidency.
-- David Tomaselli
If Hillary can't win her party's nomination then she takes John McCain with her as well. Call it the Bear Stearns Effect, but on economic grounds alone, McCain now has as much chance of winning in November as Herbert Hoover. It was always going to be hard for a Republican, any Republican to win after eight years of George W Bush. A candidate as obnoxious to his own party as John McCain reduces his party's already faint prospects even more, but now that the whole financial edifice of Wall Street is seriously cracking, the prospects of a Republican win are virtually non-existent. McCain's only claim to fame is that he is less disagreeable than Hillary, but if she is no longer the competition then even that card no longer has any value. Advantage Obama -- game, set and match. The prospects for both Hillary and John McCain now have as much value as a Bear Stearns stock option -- save your money and spend it on Bobby Jindal 2012 bumper stickers, it will do a lot more good.
-- Christopher Holland
In the past few days, Drudge has linked to: a) a story of how the Royal College of Psychiatrists has found that abortion tends to cause mental illness, leading to a call for lowering the age at which a baby can be aborted for certain reasons; and a call for making it more informed consent (cf. Allott) by warning the client that mental illness might result from abortion (women as second victims, Allott); b) a Planned Parenthood fundraiser caught affirming the idea of aborting black babies (another way for liberals to keep blacks down).
1) An assistant to Surgeon General Koop put forth a preliminary draft on the health and mental health effects of abortion as if it were a report from Koop. Some still mistakenly think it was an official report. Virtually all of the sources cited were pro-abortion people. What the British scientists are recommending as procedures required in consultation before an abortion are similar to those for which Pro-Life people are attacked as being inhumane. Note that before Roe v Wade, some states had laws that allowed abortion if a psychiatrist certified that it was necessary for the client's mental health. Likewise, a person could avoid the draft if a psychiatrist certified that the person had a disqualifying mental illness. Human Life Review showed that in both cases of certification -- abortion and the draft -- psychiatrists were untrue to science and were lying. Without saying that the psychiatrists and doctors involved in abortions are lying now, the comments on the Royal College of Psychiatrists' new findings ask: how can a psychiatrist justify saying that an abortion is for the client's mental health when it is precisely often the abortion that causes mental health problems, rather than the birth?
2) Congress refused Koop money to study the question; the apparent reason was that it knew that if Koop came up with an official finding that abortion produces bad health and mental health results, there would be grounds for executive decrees, court findings, and new laws limiting abortions. Note that when Congress did find that there are no medical grounds for the procedure called partial-birth abortion, the Supreme Court used that finding to uphold the possibility of partial-birth abortion bans, whereas it had previously ruled versions of the laws unconstitutional. A panel of constitutional scholars on C-Span even said that the wording in that decision by the often ambivalent Justice Kennedy -- including focus on bad effects on the woman -- could be used to overthrow Roe v Wade, and they predicted that it will be overthrown. It did not seem that they meant one more Justice would be required, as some seem to think; just the right case and the right arguments.
3) Some mental illness reduces a person's freedom so much, that they are not making a human choice or at least a serious (mortal sin, if a sin) moral choice -- what is called reduced capacity. Note that there is some probability that if a woman has had an abortion, she now has mental health problems. So her capacity for future moral decisions is reduced. Thus a ban on allowing a human choice of abortion by a person who has had an abortion is reasonable, since the woman might not be capable of an informed, free choice. On the other hand, a ban on allowing a person a human choice of abortion by a person who has not had a previous abortion is also reasonable, since there is some significant probability that she will be reducing her capacity to fully act as a human being, since there is some significant probability that the choice to have an abortion will cause her to be a person with mental illness. The ban in this case would be similar to banning drugs on the grounds that they harm the person's mental health and capacity to fully act as a human being -- making her in some sense a victim.
4) Some predict that a key factor in reducing abortions will be lawsuits by women against the abortionists. The fact that abortion causes mental health problems could be grounds to sue the doctor and possibly any psychiatrist involved, either because the client had not been informed of such possible effects or because the client has been the victim of a procedure that causes such effects, even if she had been warned of such possible effects. In the latter case, it could be similar to a doctor being sued for doing a procedure that tends to harm the client -- I'm sure you can think of many examples; indeed, the possibility that a doctor might do such things is precisely why there are medical boards and certifications.
5) Regarding the desire to commit subtle genocide: About 30 years ago, the Los Angeles Times did a multi-part series on Hispanic immigrants. Included in their analysis was the writers' observation that one major reason for resistance to Hispanic immigration was that they are Catholics. There was fear the U.S. would be inundated with brown Catholics, who tend to have larger families besides. I doubt if even the authors of the series expected the numbers to become as large as they have. But the main point here is the disdain for certain kinds of people in principle, not just because and when they are here illegally. Similarly and worse, Planned Parenthood has been found to have favored the further method of dealing with the undesired (here meaning blacks and blacks on welfare): abort them.
6) I recall that before virtually all anti-abortion laws were overthrown by Roe v. Wade, the Republican Senator Jacob Javits was the first to shock the conscience by saying that abortion should be legalized in order to save the government welfare payments. For many, that idea is no longer shocking or unacceptable. If you look closely at the ads now showing on Iowa TV, they can certainly be interpreted as a subtle form of that killing approach: the ads call for funding institutions in the reproductive area on the grounds of reducing government expenditure for babies born; some of these institutions who request funding in the ads provide abortion either as a back-up method for the anti-people attitudes or as the first method in the case of pregnancy. I remind you: when Javits used the same basic approach about 40 years ago, it was considered shocking; now the same basic approach is shown on Iowa television as an ad during primetime. My, how the flighty have fallen!
7) I also recall a statement by a reporter named Tracy or Tracey in the liberal National Catholic Reporter newspaper about 30 years ago: he said that during the Carter administration, the government had sterilized one-third of all American Native American women as part of a deliberate government policy.
8) So the overall approach includes: prevent conception, sterilize the women, kill the unborn by abortion. This is what John Paul II meant by a culture of death.
-- Richard L.A. Schaefer
HAIL JULIUS CAESAR
Re: B. Gunn's letter (under "Baton Rouge Bobby") in Reader Mail's Jindal Bells:
I agree with B. Gunn about J.C. Watts. He has all of the qualities attributed to Obama -- engaging personality, great speaking style, and, if I may be so shallow, very good looks. And, he is an accomplished man of substance. A winning choice!
-- Carol Shannon