GOOD HAIR DAY
Re: Andrew Cline's John Edwards: They Want to Shave My Head:
Andrew Cline's article on John Edwards hair was pure gold. Good job.
-- Bill G
READY FOR A MORMON PRESIDENT
Re: Jennifer Rubin's Judging Mitt:
Ms. Long has it exactly right. Mitt Romney has a more profound commitment to appointing conservative justices than any other candidate. Interestingly, the reason is because of his Mormon faith. Mormonism holds the U.S. Constitution, with its separation of powers, and its basis, as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in Natural rights granted by the Creator, existing before, outside of and above government power, as sacrosanct. He believes to the bone in the American founding. There is no group that holds the U.S. Constitution in greater esteem than Mormons. They assign it a theological role, as necessary to the Divine plan for humankind. Mormons believe that the freedoms granted by the Constitution are necessary to the "Trial by Existence" (to use Robert Frost's phrase), whereby men are free to chose for themselves who they will worship, what course they will follow, in the mortal coil. And they will be judged, Mormons believe, by a just God for their choices. They reject any coercion to belief, any establishment by the government of religion, and any suppression of legitimate religious expression by government (suicide bombing for religious domination is beyond the pale).
Vigorous Religious pluralism is bedrock Mormon doctrine. In contrast to Progressives, who reject traditional religion and the role the Founders found necessary for religion, and reject the very idea of Natural rights, a Creator, or rights granted by a Creator, and believe that rights are granted by (and hence can be removed by) government itself, Mormons do not put their confidence in the "arm of flesh" to grant rights, that by definition are alienable, but continue to champion the inalienable rights granted by Nature and Nature's God, as the founders intended. Mormons understand well that the U.S. Constitution was necessary for the origin of their religion, and is necessary to the preservation of not only their religion, but of all religion. Progressives hold the opposite. They reject the principles of the American Founding and the Constitution.
Ms. Long thus understands very well the fact that the "activist" judges that Hillary would appoint would undermine and destroy the Constitution from within, which is her intent. The limited government, hence limited power, granted under the U.S. Constitution, with the Natural rights residing in the people, rather than the government, is inimical to the agenda of Progressives, which is socialist, Marxist, even Stalinist. Remember that one of the major initiatives of the Progressive movement was Eugenics, with forced sterilization for those deemed unfit in a Darwinian sense -- recall Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous pronouncement in Buck v. Bell, as he ordered the forced sterilization of a normal young girl, presumed to be mentally retarded simply because her mother and grandmother were institutionalized, that, "Three generations of Imbeciles are enough!" Government was presumed fit to adjudge her unfit for reproduction, and to deny the right to life of her children, but erred egregiously, as government is wont to do. That Eugenics movement was avidly employed and extended by the Nazis in the Holocaust. Stalin had no compunction against starving millions of Ukrainians to preserve his control over them. While "modern" Progressives such as Hillary abjure of course Eugenics and the Holocaust, they continue their infringement on individual liberty (Hillary is in favor of a "collective" approach -- "we are all in this together" -- coerced, of course, by centralized government power) in favor of collective power with proposals for mandatory preschool (anything to separate the children from the parents and place them under he control of the state), no limits on, and promotion of, abortion, nationalized (government controlled) healthcare, higher taxes, expanded eminent domain and vitiation of property rights, suppression of religious expression, etc., etc. Appointing SCJ's that will rubberstamp such an agenda is paramount to Hillary. She and Bill know all too well, better than anyone, the importance of controlling the courts and the judiciary -- it is essential to amassing federal power and wealth, while avoiding accountability for illegal and corrupt activity.
It is telling that we are barraged by claims that America is now ready for a woman or an African-American President, but, amazingly, that the country is not ready for a Mormon president. Actually, a Mormon president, with profound respect for the Constitution, would be, as Ms. Long has correctly concluded, the best thing possible for America.
-- Kent J. Lyon
College Station, Texas
JOHN KERRY JOE WILSON BEAUCHAMP
Re: John Tabin's The Peculiar Private:
How soon can we expect to see the good private testifying before a Congressional committee? Oh, and will he be running for national political office in the 2008 cycle, or will he wait until the 2010 cycle? Does he have any medals that he can publicly throw away, or does he have an military friends that will let him throw theirs away? He surely does seem to be this generation's John Kerry. Do you suppose that Kerry might take him on as a staffer/trainee in his Senatorial office?
-- Ken Shreve
If ever the media should investigate allegations of misconduct it is this case. The tragic truth is Beauchamp, like liar extraordinaire Joe Wilson, is probably an illustration of 21st century American cowardice and willingness to appease terrorism. The good news for him and other erstwhile "journalists" is soon they'll be able to report on Islam's jihad against the U.S. from the new front -- New York City.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
FEARLESS IN SERVICE
Re: Robert Stacy McCain's Retreat, Hell!:
Today's military is made up of men and women of character and courage unlike a large number of their civilian counterparts. While the military is telling the public "retreat hell" and "we can win this" the typical "war fatigued" (what a crock) appeaser is running up the white flag of surrender, because they are bored with the war. The concern over troop deaths is quite frankly BS and an excuse for the gutless in America to do what they do best quiver and quit in the face of real evil.
Based on total military deaths those serving in the military are safer now in a time of war than during Democrat administrations in times of peace. In 1980 during the Carter administration 2,392 service members died. That's only one year of America's worst President's tenure in the White House. The U.S. was waging no war under the midwife of Islamic extremism's presidency when more U.S. troops died in 1 year than the first 3 years of OEF & OIF (2,343). During the 8 years of the Clinton administration and peace dividend 8,391 military men and women died. Since 2001, during a time of war, approximately 7,000 troops have died.
For all those using troops deaths as an excuse to lose a war please quit hiding your cowardice behind our sacrifice. As for those who say they "support the troops, but not the mission," this active duty military member I can only say, "I don't want your support and you can go to hell!"
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
In the debate over whether or not it is in our interest to remain in Iraq, I found Robert McCain's article to be of no use. His attempt to draw analogies between World War I and Iraq was ridiculous. I suspect he recognizes as much and attempts to preempt criticism by impugning anyone who might "protest this comparison between World War I to the war in Iraq."
Aside from being a paean to the bravery and service of our armed forces past and present, this article is nothing more than another in a long series of articles and broadcasts aimed at stifling debate on the efficacy of the current administration's vision, strategy and tactics in the war against Islamic terrorism.
-- Mike Roush
Re: Quin Hillyer's Refueling a Political Fire:
In his call to "Divide Air Force Tanker Contract" Mr. Hillyer says:
"In this case, frankly, Boeing's 'Buy American' scare tactics are nothing but tommyrot. After all, the Northrop Grumman/EADS plane would be assembled entirely in coastal Alabama, providing jobs for people in Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle as well. And Northrop Grumman is, of course, an American company through and through."
I was just curious where EADS has ever said anything remotely like "the plane would be assembled entirely in AL"? I think that is completely mistaken. I think the plane is being built in Europe, in France more specifically, and FLOWN over to Alabama, where military modifications, including the addition of the air refueling boom, would be conducted. There would be some small number of jobs, but nothing like the number of jobs it takes to actually build an airplane. The bottom line, the plane will be built in France, not Alabama, and a lot of folks are trying to mislead the public into thinking that we should go with the Northrop Grumman/EADS deal, because the plane would be built in Alabama, when that is simply not true at all.
-- Joe Michell
Re: George H. Wittman's Cold War Comforts:
The challenge to Russia comes not from the West but from the East. With ten times the population of Russia, China longs to -- and possibly plans to -- expand into the Lebensraum of Siberia. Russian paranoia is well-founded, but misdirected.
-- David Govett
CARTER NOT AS ANTI-SEMITIC AS HITLER
Re: Philip Klein's The Protocols of the Elder Carter:
Either you are misinforming the public or Israel is such a "holy cow" or "white elephant" that cannot be criticized, you seem to ignore this fact: Israel, while I have no animosity toward Israelis and Jews in general, has acted brutally against Palestinian Arabs. Even the press in Israel, ironically of all places, admit this fact. But here you want to fool the American public by telling any criticism toward Israel is "anti-semitism." You can't fool me in this one. That is why Mr. James Carter, alias "Jimmy," wrote this book: "Peace, Not Apartheid." I have read it and I don't see anything "anti-semitic" like, let's say, "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. If is for you anti-semitic, that's your problem. Continue misinforming the American public. You are doing "fine." But remember, the real truth will come out sooner or later. And I hope your magazine is around to see it. Thanks, I think?
-- Jose Ortiz