TYRANTS IN ROBES
Re: George Neumayr’s Lawless Judges:

Simply — bull’s-eye!
— John McGinnis

This was an excellent and insightful column and I just wanted to let you know from the outback that Americans who believe in the rule of law, and believe there is right and wrong, are at their limit with what both the courts and the politicians are cramming down our throats. We have silently taken it for a long time but have now drawn a line in the sand.

The courts and the political power structure in this country are just a step or two from reaping the blazing absolute wrath of the majority. We will no longer look with a blind eye at this insanity. We know the emperor has no clothes.

I do not know what form it will take, but it is coming and it won’t be pretty.
— Kelso Sturgeon
Henderson, Nevada

This article is a great beginning of truth telling. But Mr. Neumayr hasn’t completed the thought process. Judges, who remove God from the people, remove justice from government as well. It is the concept of a supreme justice (heavenly) that both limits judicial tyranny and illuminates the dispensing of real justice by governments.
— Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

Iran has its mullahs, China has its party bosses and we have our courts. They are the REAL rulers in this so-called democratic republic. If the Supreme Court ruled that elections or a particular candidate was unconstitutional the only way we could correct it would be to amend the constitution and even then they could rule that amendment unconstitutional.

Since the courts now do all the “heavy lifting” Congress is happy with the way it is.
— Bruce

The libs’ approach is to impose something on society and then “debate” it, after most people see that exercise as useless. This is a very effective political cheat. My idea is that a large amount of people have to see that we have recourse. Obviously there’s not much point in debating once something is imposed on you. The libs don’t want debate so we need law to protect society from them. That has proven to be the biggest reason for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment.

A pretense that the sleazy San Francisco lawyer used was Article 1, Sec. 7, of the California Constitution, which reads “a citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”

Prostitutes are also “a class of citizens” not granted social privileges that others are. They are not allowed to have sex for money, in contrast to people who have sex for no money and all things being equal, have legal immunity for their behavior.

Like prostitutes, homosexuals are free to make any arrangements of privilege with each other. Redefining “marriage” is not allowed to any “class” of individuals; that is up to society as a whole.

Most people in Blue states do not realize that they brought this kind of thing on themselves by supporting LIEberals. This will change because as the lib media monopoly crumbled, so too will the extremist propaganda machine that was once our education system.

In essence the sleazy lawyer equated religion to racism.

Theft, murder, and fraud are sins. Because they are sins should not disqualify them from law. This is only common sense. The Bible is the best guide that any society can have to establish law. Moral relativism doesn’t cut it, so society and law may affirm some values over others.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in accordance with Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution by a very wide margin. Society tolerates but does not accept homosexuality; the Judge says that society accepts homosexuality — when clearly the people have expressed that it does not.

The ACLU trying to remove the Cross in San Diego; the handful of degenerates removing the cross from the Seal of “Los Angeles”; the 9th Circuit trying to remove God from the Pledge — and now this. These attacks are concerted, and American citizens don’t have to accept this crap. The libs hold their power in “Blue” blotted areas by maintaining the illusion that we do. My idea is that we improve our communications campaign to reach into these areas. This judge wants to condone Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender nonsense and he may, but he crossed the line by perverting the law to impose his honor of barbarism on our society. Dennis Prager pointed out that homosexual prostitution was practiced in temples in antiquity. These were the days when oligarchy reigned supreme, rule by the pagan view “even when I’m wrong I’m right.” Back to the cave, if we allow the trousered ape to take over our country and don’t wake up to the corruption of academia that this corrupt judge is a product of.

American law is under girded by Judeo-Christian values. More people must realize this before it’s too late. These are the values that are the bulwark of the institutions of marriage, of capitalism and the American government. Law is not made in an amoral vacuum. To imply the contrary, as this judge has done, is immoral. That is the corruption of American law and to subject humanity to the whims of oligarchs.
— Chris
Lynwood, California

There is a wonderful story by Kurt Vonnegut called “Harrison Bergeron,” which begins with the statement that the year is 2081, and with the passing of the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution, everyone is finally equal. The story tells the tale of a graceful ballerina who is forced to tie sandbags to her legs, an intelligent man who is required to wear a transmitter that buzzes in his head every eight seconds, and handsome man forced to wear a grotesque mask. I use this story to teach the difference between equal and the same. I also like to bring up the two methods of making everyone in a given society the same: lifting all to the highest level, or lowering all to the lowest level. Usually by the end of the lesson, the students see that Communism and Socialism attempt to do the latter, and that the former is outside man’s ability. This comparison and its attendant conclusion give rise to the realization that the only fair way to make a society work is to give all of its members freedom and thereby allow each of them to rise to that level commensurate with their efforts and abilities. Voila! We have the America of the founders, the America that was spelled out in the Constitution.

In the story, lawmakers and judges create a nightmare by denying the inherent differences between and among individuals. Here in the real world, lawmakers and judges, especially judges, are doing precisely the same thing. Tyranny is the same whether it comes in jack boots or black robes. A legislative branch without the courage to combat this coup of the courts deserves to be eliminated. If leaders refuse to lead, how can we blame followers who refuse to follow?
— Joseph Baum
Newton Falls, Ohio

Why should ANYONE be surprised?!? Now federal judges even consider foreign opinion when they decide that 17-year-old murderers are too young to follow their victims to the grave. Of course, they only consider foreign opinion of “enlightened” countries. Some other countries actually execute murderers. Judicial tyranny has happened since the Warren Court in the 1960’s. Roe v. Wade is the worst example: seven judges decide that the laws of 50 states are irrelevant and that they just “discovered” a new “right” in the Constitution that no one knew was there for almost 200 years. Amazing! That must be why they have lifetime tenure. They are THAT good. FYI, the Constitution says nothing at all about lifetime appointments of federal judges. Sorry, the term “justices” bothersome. In other words, Congress can pass a simple law that limits judges’ terms of service. It’s about time to do just that.
— David Shoup
Dublin, Georgia

I’m spending a lot of time chronicling all this at Vote for Judges. Working for change beats complaining, don’t you think? Sure would be nice to get a plug from someone at the mag.
— Karl Maher

I say, “Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”
— Ron Pettengill
London, United Kingdom

NUKING REID
Re: The Prowler’s Going Nuclear:

The Republicans just never seem to get it. Talk, talk, talk, and then cave. They seem to forget that there was a whole lot of no talking going on when they moved so fast on the Contract With America almost a dozen years ago. The time has long passed to be Mr. Nice Guy. They should get on with business and use what Senator McConnell refers to as the Constitutional solution. Enough already.
— Roger Ross
Tomahawk, Wisconsin

It kind of looks like it is time to call Mr. Reid’s bluff. Do you remember what happened when the Republicans shut down the government? Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, and Mr. Reid and his friends had better start packing their bags. If they lose this one, they will be put in the box of irrelevancy for the next year and a half, or quite possibly the next three and a half years.
— Sid Morris

One correction in this story. Sixty votes are not required for confirmation. Sixty votes are required for “cloture.” It seems to add legitimacy to a Democrat filibuster to forestall a “vote” on the candidate. Harry Reid is doing nothing less than fighting against taking a vote, either in the Senate, or in the committee. Incidentally, Rush had it right yesterday: It’s not a nuclear option; it’s a “constitutional” option for a simple majority to affirm.
— G.B. Hall
Marietta, Georgia

I find it extraordinary that the issue of judicial nomination confirmations is being reported completely incorrectly. Even you speak of the Republicans changing parliamentary procedure to require a simple majority instead of sixty votes to confirm a judge, but that is what the Constitution requires. It is the Democrats who introduced unconstitutional practices, with their so-called “filibusters,” not the Republicans, who should insist that the Constitution be followed. Furthermore, if the Democrats want to threaten a “filibuster,” then they should be forced to make good on their threat, or back down. That means that they really conduct a filibuster, with one of them speaking for hours and hours on end, as was done by such leading Democrats as the late Senator Gore of Tennessee in an attempt to kill off the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is about time that the Republican majority started conducting itself as the majority.
— W. B. Heffernan, Jr.

The Democrats need not worry about the Republicans exercising the nuclear option. Their clay feet, the half dozen “moderate” Republican Senators, and their liberal media masters will once again cower the Republican majority. I would happily be proven wrong on this prediction. Furthermore the topic of the luncheon was probably more to do with the publicity fallout aspect and not the principle for exercising the option. In the end a deal will probably be struck with the minority party to avoid using a sure fire strategy and once again the Republican Senate will resemble a box of frightened felines. Good grief Charley Brown!
— Diamon Sforza
San Diego, California

WAY OFF TRACK
Re: Andrew Seldon’s letter (under “Ride On”) in Reader Mail’s Not So Fast, Todd Stoffer’s letter under same, and William Tucker’s Rolling Disaster:

1. The “Vranich hypothesis” about trains never existed the way he describes it. While in the past I did promote TGV-style high-speed trains for the U.S., I did so under vastly different rules than we have with Amtrak. Moreover, I did that as the President of the High Speed Rail Association and as the author of “Supertrains” back in my waning liberal days. So the writer’s viewpoint is not only skewed, it’s about 13 years old. (An example of “living in the past,” a hallmark of railroad buffs.) About the only place I’d promote high-speed trains today is between New York and Washington, and even then only if the private sector had a major role and Amtrak was out of the picture.

2. The writer can reach his positive conclusions about long-distance trains only through contortions and by ignoring several decades’ worth of history as well as current reports. There is a railroad buff fringe movement that has convinced itself that it’s the long-distance trains that lose less money than the short-distance trains. This belief, quite conveniently, “justifies” their fight to keep trains running to their hometowns. But the theory is contrary to findings by the private railroad industry in the 1940s, the Interstate Commerce Commission throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and countless GAO reports through the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s (supported by recent reports from the DOT I.G. and Amtrak Reform Council).

People with strong emotional attachments to passenger trains will not even agree to basic facts about why Amtrak’s losses continue to increase.

What bothers me the most about railroad buffs is that they will defend Amtrak — an irresponsible, Enron-like public agency — just to keep their preferred trains running regardless of the drain on the public treasury. This “end justifies the means” philosophy spells a bleak future for our country.
— Joseph Vranich

Those empty trains you talk about in your article carry loads per mile nearly double that of the supposedly successful trains. And the load factors of the empty trains are in the range of 55-65 percent versus half that for other trains.

Do some checking with transport professionals and you will see such measures as load factors, passengers per mile, train miles, average trip lengths are necessary to make a valid judgment on a particular service. You won’t get these figures from Amtrak up front or of the Federal Transit Administration but they have them available and I have them myself.

If you are measuring transportation output using ridership only then you and Joe Vranich can’t give a well-balanced view of transportation outside of New York City.
— Dennis Larson
Coon Rapids, Minnesota

Regarding William Tucker’s piece on Amtrak: It seems to me that after all the money this company has received for bailouts, the government should own the tracks and stations by now. Didn’t the bailouts have any strings attached? If any other company received such large sums of money, they would most certainly forfeit their interests in the assets. Sheeesh… only in the government.
— Connie Peterson

Is it just me or are a lot of people sick and tired of hearing this stupid old argument when it comes to federal spending as posed by Todd Stoffer in Reader Mail concerning Amtrak; “Killing off Amtrak will make an inconsequentially tiny difference in the total federal government budget.”?

I pretty sure that if we added up all the “inconsequentially tiny differences” of every ridiculous spending Congress wastes money on it would easily add up to some major dollars.

I can tell you, as a private accountant for a large hotel, I don’t scoff at those “inconsequential” dollars and cents. For every dollar in extra revenue there are costs involved, but every dollar I can save in expenses goes straight to the bottom line.
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee

VICTORY FOR ALL
Re: Paul Melody’s letter (under “Atlantic Showdown Continues”) in Reader Mail’s Le Moyne Revisited:

In reply to Paul Melody’s comments concerning U.S. contributions to WW II in Europe, I wish to ask: What history books does he base his “facts”?

I to not wish to downplay anyone’s contribution to the destruction of Nazi Germany. Everyone during that era made a contribution. To say one party or another was more important than the others simply demeans the overall contribution to victory. It was an effort of broad proportions which crushed Nazism. Let us not forget that.

It must be understood by everyone that when Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, he was gambling his thousand-year Reich on a quick victory. But then he did the same when he invaded the Western countries and even Poland.

When it crossed the border with the Soviet Union in 1941, the Wehrmacht was the most powerful military force in the world at that time. What happened in the Soviet Union was that the German army, specifically the fighting infantry, was bled white. The panzer arm was worn to a shadow of itself and the Luftwaffe burdened with more tasks than its limited size could handle.

Hitler had not prepared Germany for a prolonged war. They neither had the depth of industry nor the necessary natural resources stockpiled for an extended war. The Wehrmacht was designed for short, decisive wars, not battles of attrition which was what the war on the eastern front became.

Hitler had overextended German resources when he could not knock out the Soviet Union in a short summer-fall campaign. Once this failed, Hitler resorted to stopgap measures to sustain his war making efforts.

The Soviet Union absorbed most of the German war effort. Even if Hitler had only to fight the Soviet Union, it is doubtful he could have won outright. Hence, the war on the eastern front significantly weakened the Wehrmacht so that the western allies could fight both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the same time.

This is not the forum in which to elaborate the critical effect that the eastern front had on Nazi Germany in weakening its overall war capacity. Yet it must be understood by all that the western allied war effort was also critical in the defeat of Hitler.

Mr. Melody’s assertions are generally baseless. Let us instead, give credit to everyone who participated in the crusade against Hitler and Imperial Japan. Is it not important that these plagues were removed?
— Keith A. Peregrine
Philo, Illinois