Re: Ben Stein’s The Truth About DeLay:
Thank you for the fine article by Ben Stein in defense of Mr. Tom DeLay. Please see to it that more articles are published in this fine man’s defense. THANK YOU!!!
— Robert Davis
Ben Stein, as usual, nails it in his April 12 missive “The Truth About DeLay.” We now learn that certain “Republicans” are tempering their support of DeLay as the media-created firestorm surrounding him starts to give off heat. Shays (predictably) and Santorum (less predictably) have made public comments in the last few days distancing themselves from DeLay. As one very angry supporter of the Republican Party, who has already seen our “leadership” cave on Specter’s chairmanship and apparently on judicial filibusters as well, I’ve got a real simple message: If the Republican Party does not start hammering back at the Democrat hacks and leftist media and “save” DeLay, it will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If it makes no difference electing a
Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress, then I’ve got better things to do on election day!
— Dave Mills
I just read the article written by Ben Stein about supporting DeLay, and I have to say that I’m finally going to let you guys know how much I enjoy reading him. He’s great, and I hope to read more by him.
While reading Ben Stein these past few months, I keep hoping to find a temporary glitch in my sarcasm meter… but it is not meant to be. Mr. Stein sounds like the demon spawn of Doug and Wendy Whiner (of SNL fame). It seems as though he was traumatized by his run in with Johnny Law a while back. Mr. Stein, up your dosage of Prozac and find someone or something worthy of defending… DeLay does not qualify!
— Ben Berry
There’s a quick way to stop Demos from attempting to take down top Republicans: When they succeed, put forward an even more conservative candidate. They’ll get the message soon enough.
— David Govett
Excellent article. I think Ben Stein has been reading my email.
— Mark Landrum
THE FRUITS OF CHURCH LIBERALISM
Re: George Neumayr’s Protection Racketeers:
The advocacy media being inconsistent and morally relativistic? Please, say it ain’t so. Next you’ll be saying that they’re liberally biased and mostly secular — and even fabricating stories out of whole cloth. Oh, dear.
— C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia
I just read your article on Cardinal Mahony. Finally, I understand why, in 1986, I could not get the Los Angeles Times to touch anything to do with the lawsuit I filed against the Archdiocese for five years of priest abuse that happened to me as a child (the priest is still a priest and a psychiatrist in the Bay Area). The local TV stations had some stories on the lawsuit, but not one peep from the L.A. Times. I always thought it was because the publisher of the Times was a Catholic, but it makes much more sense to me that the L.A. Times would protect Mahony because of his liberal stances. And it’s disgusting to me that reporters at the Times are still sucking up to that horse’s ass. Thanks for that enlightening article!
— Joan Mounteer
Unaccustomed as I am to defending Cardinal Mahony, first class air-fare is probably justified. He is 6′ 4″, and on a previous return from Rome in coach developed a blood clot that ended up in his lung.
— Ed Alhsen-Girard
Eglin AFB, Florida
Once again, George Neumayr has done an outstanding job at pointing out something largely missed or worse, malevolently ignored, by members of the liberal elite media and dissenters within the Roman Catholic Church. The telling line in Mr. Neumayr’s analysis in his article, “Protection Racketeers” is: “Unlike Law who had serious reporters on his heels, Mahony has long benefited from the somnolent coverage of West Coast media liberals willing to excuse his protection of pedophiles in gratitude for his political and doctrinal liberalism.”
The tragic and dirty truth in this point is something that I know Mr. Neumayr knows — that there is a deep philosophical and moral connection between the libertine secular humanism and morality promulgated and practiced by the secular liberal elite, and the “Catholic lite” teaching (a term coined by Papal biographer, George Weigel) of dissident “Catholics.” Catholic lite is really only libertine secular humanism dressed up in sacred vestments.
The total embrace of the most morally libertine aspects of the sexual revolution of secular liberals really paints them in a moral corner on the question of child sexual abuse. Secular liberals have pushed for a variety of cultural, legal, and legislative issues that pretty much allow for sexual stimulation and sex itself on demand. All that is required is consent — and many members of the secular liberal camp have worked tirelessly, in one form or another, to lower the age of consent. This has occurred through the constant promotion of contraceptives in schools — which assumes that those below the age of 18 are consenting to sexual activity with one another — why else would they need contraceptives? What about sex education? It is usually really nothing more than sex promotion, dressed up with a smattering of medical facts, but never moral reflection, concerning sexual activity. The list goes on and on.
Doctrinal liberalism is really nothing more than an attempt to theologically justify the sexual revolution in Catholic circles. Thus the secular liberal media has to give even a protector of pedophiles a break, because their libertine sexual ethic ultimately has no sound reason to reject even predatory sexual behavior–other than a generic appeal to some sort of psychological pragmatism. Unless, of course, there is consent. To attack Catholic dissidents who allow even pedophilia, a horrendous sin and crime, to occur would be to imply that there are some limits to the libertine ethic embodied in the sexual revolution. Revolutions and revolutionaries don’t like to be limited and the sexual revolution is no different. Secular liberals defend even the worst excesses (if you can get them to call it that) to preserve the core program –sexual freedom without limit. In a system where potentially everything is permitted in the name of choice and consent, how can they, or we, be surprised that everything has been committed and enabled? Add a little disingenuous “Christian compassion” to the mix and you’ve got a kinder, gentler sexual revolution with a “Christian” stamp of approval.
Secular liberalism and doctrinal liberalism — these two dogs always hunt together. So we should never be surprised to see their various advocates covering for and enabling each other. Such is the corruption of our present age. May God deliver us from evil in all its forms.
— Fr. Phillip W. De Vous
Blessed Sacrament Church
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
Thank you for that fine, “forensic” analysis of the person that is (we don’t want him, but we’re stuck with him) the Prince Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony or, as some of us like to call him, Roger Maphony; but then, you see, I don’t like RM very much.
I am but one of thousands of the lost generations of the Roman Catholic Church. I was a Child of GOD when I was taken to a, “Secret Place” within my home town church and there, at the hands of my Parish Priest, subjected to such perverse and painful sexual tortures, that, even now as I approach my 60th birthday, I still wonder how any human being could inflict such horrors on another living thing (animal or human). It was not simply the Sexual Violation of my body, mind and Spirit that separated me forever from the Life of Faith I once held so dear. It was the ensuing cover-up of this priest’s “Dirty Deeds” and the protection of his person that drove me from the Roman Catholic Church. I have come to realize that, what I once thought was a small conspiracy of those I trusted to keep silent the horrors that had been done to me by this anointed, yet tarnished, “Representative of Christ On Earth,” was in actuality, a World Wide Conspiracy of Silence, set up to protect, fund, shuffle and hide thousands upon thousands of Roman Catholic pedophile priests, brothers, deacons and nuns.
Don’t look for or expect much from the next pope. There is a now famous quote from Report of the National Review Board, “The smoke of Satan was allowed to enter the church.” Roger Mahony is but one small part of the evil that is the Church of Rome. If the “People In The Pews” want to salvage what is left of this once Ancient and Honorable Religion, they must take it back from a Hierarchy who have no intentions of losing their places at the “Golden Trough” and every intention of riding the Roman Catholic Church right down into oblivion.
— Victoria Martin
Santa Monica, California
FLORIDA BILL’S TORT RACKET
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Don’t Sit on Defense:
I found Mr. Homnick’s article very interesting. The foundations of modern jurisprudence in the Judeo-Christian tradition are always revealing. This is pragmatic, secular law, however, and your readers may be interested in its high points. To read the text, it can be found on the State of Florida legislative website. It is titled, “The Protection Of Persons and Property Act.” The highlights follow:
This bill is very straightforward. It removes the “duty to retreat” principle that has been developed through case law and grants a “presumption of innocence” to the wielder of deadly force used in alleged self defense, until determined by adequate investigation that a violation of law has occurred. It further limits the use of deadly force and establishes the relationship allowing the use of this force by statutory definitions. These parts of the bill are, in fact, nothing more than legal housekeeping, as they standardize the circumstances in which force may be used by the ordinary citizen.
Now the truly remarkable part of this bill is the immunity clause. This grants immunity from criminal and civil action to any person who utilizes force, deadly or otherwise, which is found to be in compliance with the tenets of this act. In fact, a plaintiff and his attorney who files a lawsuit against any person who is later found to have been in compliance with the provisions of this bill will be required to reimburse the defendant for all out of pocket expenses, legal fees and loss of time from work. The same applies to law enforcement agencies and the State Attorney’s office if they bring criminal charges against anyone found to be in compliance with this act. This strips the legal community (lawyers and state attorneys) of their accustomed immunity for illegitimate legal processes.
When you read the bill, it is not really much of a change from existing self defense decisions, unless you are an attorney, that is.
Which parties are the most vocal in opposition to this bill? Can we say special interests?
— Michael Tobias
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
“Somehow the very act of retaining property is thought to feed a warrior spirit that threatens to destroy the comity of the American landscape.”
Well, that’s so, ain’t it? If I were to forbid you to fish in “my” pond that is in itself an act of violence. Likewise if I forbid you to crap on “my” coffee table. “Property” IS the crime. I just wish this crowd (is it a leap to conflate the ideological pacifists with Levelers/Fabians/Socialists? Well, leap along) would more often demonstrate candor in their expositions.
— Ken Watson
Re: Ralph R. Reiland’s Bush, Reconsidered:
Some presidents grow into office, while others shrink the office to their scale. Which president is which is left as an exercise for the student.
— David Govett
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Deconstructing Time:
Whether you believe Jews have a right to populate all of the promised Land of Israel or not, you best believe that Gaza will be another terrorist territory. But that’s OK, Shawn. They’ll only be killing us Jews (keep your wife away, Shawn!). And Americans. And Westerners. And anyone not Moslem. The majority of Israelis who currently favor a pullout suffer from a crisis of faith. In themselves. In their God. In their destiny. But that’s because their parents raised them with a ghetto mentality. Buy the enemy off and maybe they’ll leave us alone. Till the next time, that is. Religious Jews and settlers have no such crisis of faith. Despite two millennia of persecution, uncounted millions of murdered ancestors, Jews still believe. It’s called the promised land for a reason. It is the only piece of land on God’s green and not so green earth that was promised to a people. All other lands are held by force of arms. Claims are nixed once a land is conquered. Not this piece of land. Though it has no towering mountains, no mighty rivers, no grand vistas, no rolling plains, no magnificent forests, and no great mineral wealth, it is the inheritance of the Jewish people. For 1900 years this land languished. It produced nothing for any of its conquerors or squatters. Even the Arab-held parts of the ancient homeland produce nothing. Except rocks, stones and sand. The biblical story of Joshua and the spies are being replayed today. Tens spies cried that the inhabitants are many and we are few. They are mighty and we are weak. They related this on the Jewish calendar day of Tisha B’Av. Their crisis of faith became a day of mourning for all Jews, for all time. Both Temples were destroyed on the same calendar date. The Jews were exile from Spain on that calendar date. The Wansee conference for the final solution took place on that calendar date. No more. Now let the Arabs weep their way back to Arabia, their inheritance. Let them enjoy their oil wealth or not. No more Tisha B’Avs for us Jews. No more wandering Jews. Not now. Not ever.
— Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Very insightful article on a tough subject.
— David H. McClain
THE BUCK STOPS?
Re: The Prowler’s Memo Matters:
For Senator Martinez to give a copy of this memo to Tom Harkin, reveals how really stupid some Republicans are. Rather that firing some hapless staffer, Senator Martinez should have fired himself. But such is the state of justice in Washington.
— Steve Goth
Seems to me that Mr. Schumer is becoming one of Hillary’s puppets, eh? Guess he’s not as smart as he thinks he is.
— Sue Ellen Hirtle
Re: Paul Beston’s The Fonda Syndrome:
— Michael Tittle
I’m kind of fond of the idea that Jane Fonda continues to exist merely so that we can keep kicking her ‘CAN’ on down the road. Consider her the anti-Nixon. We, happily and luckily, still have her to KICK AROUND!
— James Crystal
As usual, The American Spectator is filled with good articles on various topics. I especially enjoyed the one on Hanoi Jane. The author was right. Fonda is still trying to whitewash her treason. “Poor” Jane, who has gotten rich off really clueless people, in a system she disses, just can’t understand why we Vietnam Veterans should be so disgruntled with her. Why you silly thing, it is because of people like us why you were able to make so much money with an exercise tape for overweight, dippy people. If our forefathers hadn’t beaten the British, Germans, Japanese (not to mentioned some other nationalities), who knows where you would be today. Just because you thought you had a conscience back in those drug induced halcyon days when you were denouncing your citizenship and being “Better Red than Dead” over in France, you believe we should feel sorry for you. Well, that’s too bad (I would like to add a word here but in good taste, I can’t). Tell you what. You go to the Wall in Washington and apologized to each and everyone of those 58,000 names on it, personally, then seek out their families and ask their forgiveness, one by one, and this guy here will consider whether or not you deserve to be pitied ( by me anyway). I can’t speak for the million or so other vets. Maybe you ought to seek them out and apologize to them too. Until then, I will keep my bumper sticker that says “Jane, call home, 1-800-HANOI.”
— Pete Chagnon
Without reading the book, my impression of Jane Fonda’s life so far is garbage in…garbage out. What a waste!
I don’t watch Letterman so I’m taking Fox’s word for this (last paragraph).
Fonda told Letterman her image as Hanoi Jane is a creation of ideologues to “promulgate their right wing, narrow world view. It really doesn’t have anything to do with me and it’s kind of sick.”
Yes Jane you are sick, very sick.
— Dwight L. Ludwig
Martinsburg, West Virginia
MAJORITY POWER UP
Re: Jed Babbin’s Big Bad John:
I’m not sure what it takes for the Republicans in the Senate to begin to act like the majority party. With the passing of two election cycles that have seen the Republicans go from 49 Senators to 55, one would think the process of getting just a few big name nominations fairly easy. Since Boy Clinton has vacated the White House, we have witnessed Senators Lugar, McCain, Hagel, and Campbell “grow” in office. If you factor in the “moderates” of Chafee, Snow, Collins, and Specter you can obviously see the split in the Senate is not Democrat vs. Republican, but Conservative vs. Liberal.
Hagel, who I hear has presidential ambitions in 2008, appears to be under the assumption that the best way to prepare campaigning for the GOP primaries is to run as a liberal. Maybe someone should remind Hagel that the Republican base is to the right of the party, and not its left. Perhaps someone should also tell him Bolton is one of our guys.
— J.P. Koch
BEWARE THE PINK DRINK
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell’s The Mystic Pope:
Jim Jones et al. were still concocting their cruel Guyanese refreshment when RET was visiting Rome in the spring ’78. Their thirst for the enlightenment was not quenched by the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid until the fall of ’78, Nov. 18 to be precise.
— J. Scott Hamilton
THE OTHER HOLY FATHER
Re: Clif Briner’s letter (under “Rereformation”) in Reader Mail’s Talk Back Live:
Thanks to Clif Briner for writing the letter that I attempted to write no less than three or four times, but refrained from doing so out of respect for the world losing what was truly an outstanding man and leader. And I wasn’t sure if I comprehended appropriately Wlady’s comment — “Among Christian religions, only one is the genuine article, and it’s known as Roman Catholicism.” — as to whether that was what HE was actually saying or if it was the impression one would have implied while viewing the particular movie scene he was describing in his column. While I appreciate the wonderful columns written and shared about Pope John Paul II and his accomplishments; I would just add this one other comment to my missive: When I speak of the “Holy Father,” I am referring to God.
— Cathy Thorpe
“[U]nsigned” did not mention that Carter contemplated an arms deal with Iran right before the election. One author’s article on former presidents some years ago revealed that Carter’s basic attitude was resentment over being beaten by Reagan. It was unchristian, unpatriotic, and classless of Carter to accept his undeserved Nobel Peace Prize ( the deeds for which fell apart in North Korea right after the prize was awarded) once a member of the committee said it was being given to kick Bush in the shins (he likely wanted to use a stronger and even more insulting word).
— R.L.A. Schaefer
CALLING ALL COWARDS
Re: TAS‘s Reader Mail:
I’ve been a reader of the Spectator site for years and I can’t say enough good things about the charges, counter-charges and exchanges in your Reader’s Mail section. Makes for great reading and, even better, for solid thinking.
However, I’ll never understand why you run comments by people who don’t have the balls to sign their name.
I was in the publishing business for over 50 years and in all that time I probably published two or three letters unsigned. (There can be occasions where privacy must be respected.) All the rest, unsigned, went straight to the trash, many times unread!
Why publish comments from wimps?
Just some thoughts from a retired publisher.
— Jim Berreth
INJUNS FOR BUSH
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Restless Natives:
I guess I can’t be a Conservative AND a Native American, eh? That was quite a diatribe you wrote against MY Tribe, my Caucasian friend. The fact of the matter, as I see it, is: all you whites living in the Northeast think we Abenaki should just “get over it,” hmmmm? Maybe join the Irish-American Nation? Perhaps it might be a different story, if your family lived here for at least nine thousand years, and somebody came over and pissed all over your parade. I AM a Conservative… voted for Bush, think Wesley Clark was equally clueless as John ‘I love the Viet Cong’ Kerry, am a member of the NRA, pro-life, etc. But I also vote common-sense, and try to exercise that philosophy in my daily life. Being Abenaki Indian does not make me a Democrat and a Fool… just pissed off when louts like you piss all over my People for a sound-byte. Why don’t you go and jerk yourself a soda?
— James Mehigan (Abenaki Nation)
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.