Reader Comments
Issue 94 - October 24, 2007

Editor: You hit the nail on the head in “Coulter’s Law”. Trial lawyers are often not so much concerned for the people they represent but for the financial gains they will make through representing disgruntled people. Attacking people who produce makes them more circumspect and thereby limits their creative ability. All of us pay. Thank you for your article. Blessings to you, Jakob Heckert

Editor: Excellent article, “Coulter’s Law”. Hopefully I can print this out and circulate among friends and associates. I am a widowed senior and volunteer daily at our local hospital, many doctors and medical field folks may bad mouth Ms Coulter not realizing she is a true friend to them and all those who profess to be conservative. In this same light, I often inquire as to where are the "Thursday" Christians! Thanks again for the extremely informative article! Regards, Guy Gardner, TN

Editor: In regard to “Coulter’s Law,” how about mentioning the bankruptcy laws? I sold a business that had been in my family for 80 years to a group that mismanaged it and took it right into bankruptcy. You have no idea the money, time, heartache (and did I mention money?) it took to fend off the trustee who tried to prove we had sold the business for too much to the group. The laws allow such a ridiculous charge. Since when in this country cannot we sell a business for the most we can get for it? Especially considering this transaction was totally arms length because I never knew the people I sold it to before the offer. In fact, they hounded me for months before I agreed to sell. I also got hit from another angle when I was also made to give back cash paid to me for goods I sold them after the sale but before the bankruptcy. It was determined that others who had extended them credit should come first in line even though they knew there was trouble, but extended them credit anyway. I thought I was covering myself by only allowing them to get goods from me by paying cash. What a joke. There was lots more that I found out during this ordeal that shocked me about how the laws leans very heavily in favor of the inept businessman who chooses to go bankrupt when he cannot make it. This is another example of the way we are messing up the small businessman in this country who is the lifeblood of our economy. Sincerely, Bonnie Jones

Editor: Great article on “Coulter’s Law. Is there any chance that you have read Ayn Rand? John Bubblo, Dalas, PA

Editor: Interesting article on “Coulter's Law.” In my opinion, Ann is right on the mark with most of her commentary--and I agree with the general tone of this article although I strongly disagree with her surface commentary on the prosecution of America's new-age crop of greedy, border-line corrupt CEO's who at every opportunity run rampant over the concept of 'justice' today. They do so in the name of 'more profit and growth' in an environment that only Hillary Clinton could appreciate; i.e., 'the end justifies the means' in a business world today that has lost it's conscience and turned to a global focus that believes that our American Nation State is out of date and obsolete. They believe that a 'one world order' is a better answer than a Free and Sovereign America. Ann is very correct that America is the most sue-happy, overlawyered nation on the face of the earth, and in my humble opinion, nothing short of a 2nd American Revolution achieved by mobilizing 'the little people' who have built America will ever clean up the mess. In case you don't know, we are living with "rule by lawyers" with 236 currently entrenched in our 110th Congress. That's 43%, and according to my calculations, their fair share of representation in our government should be about 2 based on one million lawyers in our 300 million American citizenry. Their gross mismanagement of our government along with that handed down by all the over-egoed ambulance chasers to come before them, should be enough to wake up the 'victims' of their corruption sometime soon. Who ever said America should be run by lawyers? Lawyer jokes didn't just happen - they are well earned. The answer then is to 'remove the lawyers' and 'remove the hate'! My belief, Dr. Devine, is that for any one of a thousand good and well earned reasons, most Americans either hate or strongly dislike lawyers, and the time has surely come to mobilize this 'hate' into a force that will remove them from public office once and for all everywhere in America, and put 'the real rule of law', i.e., 'the common law' (the law of common sense) back to work replacing the current 'lawyer law or codified law' that has all but destroyed the conscience of our Land. Ann's only problem is that down deep, she is still a lawyer and needs to tear up her certificate and renounce her lawyer interests once and for all. And by the way Dr. Devine, have you ever heard of The Missing Original 13th Amendment? Check it out and you'll understand how our Founding Fathers intended to protect our nation against future encroachment by lawyers! Best, Ralph Harrison, Chairman, American Society For The Prevention Of Lawyers, Inc. Denver, CO

Editor: An excellent, really excellent, commentary by Spencer Warren on the PBS Series “The War” by Ken Burns. I was most impressed by Mr. Warren's clear insight into the real meaning of The War, and those trying times during WW II. Having grown up during WW II, but not old enough to serve, I have vivid memories of that period in my young life. I had dreams of the enlistment age being lowered to a point where I could volunteer. (Later, however, I got my opportunity, and served with the 3rd Infantry Division during the Korean War), I recall going over to my future in-laws house every Sunday night in the fall/winter of 1952-53 and watching Victory at Sea. The entire family gathered there -- It was a program not to be missed. I commend The War, and Mr. Warren's commentary on the series, to all -- especially those who were not alive during that time. It was truly the era of the greatest generation. There are lessons there than can help our country in its present crisis. Again - a well done to Mr. Warren. William M Rosensteel Jr., Pismo Beach CA

Editor: Regarding Spencer Warren’s “Ken Burns’ War,” Burns covered the great defeat at Pearl Harbor, devoted a few minutes to the Battle of Midway, a simple aside to the Battle of the Philippine Sea (mostly about air action--the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot), but he stiffed the Navy at the Battle for Leyte Gulf. --three Japanese battleships were sunk, four IJN carriers, and a half dozen cruisers. We lost a few jeep carriers and destroyers. The action in the battle off Samar was the stuff of heroes, and he ignored the hundreds of destroyer sailors wallowing in shark-infested seas for four days. And nothing was said about US submarines during the entire war, sinking much of Japan's merchant marine. Larry Cott, Sausalito, California.

Editor: For the most part, there's very little for me to disagree with in Spencer Warren's critique of Ken Burns' PBS documentary miniseries about World War II, “The War.” I would caution Mr. Warren, however, not to judge President George W. Bush so harshly for his conduct of our current war against Islamofascist terrorism. A comparison of President Bush with Franklin Roosevelt is unfair for the simple reason that Roosevelt did not have to deal with the kind of organized domestic resistance to the American war effort that President Bush has had to deal with. America fought World War II as a much more unified nation than she has fought the current conflict. Roosevelt did not have to deal with an organized and well-financed civilian lunatic fringe element that publicly and stridently challenged his every move in conducting and coordinating America's war effort, both domestically and militarily--protesting his actions before the fact, second-guessing them after the fact and even accusing him of actions he did not take and policies he did not institute. If any such movement had reared its head during World War II, its perpetrators would have quickly found themselves jailed for sedition. No court would have ordered them released, and there would have been no calls for clemency from the general public. Roosevelt did not have to deal with a news media that kept the public ignorant of the true scope of positive American progress in fighting the war, encouraged and even joined civilian resistance to the American war effort and lent aid and comfort to our enemies, as President Bush has. Rather, the reverse was true. The American news media during World War II actually took on the role of unofficial propaganda agency for the American war effort. During World War II, movies and radio serials portrayed our men in uniform in the best possible light, and Hollywood performers from John Wayne to Bugs Bunny literally acted as cheerleaders for American victory in Europe and the Pacific. Roosevelt also did not have to deal with shrill, demagogic and seditious political enemies in Congress attempting to score political points from our occasional failures on the battlefield. In his critique, Mr. Warren rightly takes Burns to task for applying contemporary standards of conduct to the events of World War II. Unfortunately, Mr. Warren does the same in reverse. He applies World War II standards of conduct to the present conflict. Even Mr. Warren would be forced to concede that if President Bush had employed profiling techniques against Americans of Arab descent at airports or interned them in detention camps, as Mr. Warren believes he should have, such actions would likely have been stopped by court action, and articles of impeachment would have likely have been brought out against the President, alleging that he abused his power and denied American citizens their constitutional rights. One can, of course, take issue with certain elements of President Bush's conduct of the war against Islamofascist terrorism. There is always room for "Monday morning quarterbacking", after all. But on balance, I am inclined to cut President Bush some slack, unlike Spencer Warren. Given the sociopolitical context in which he has had to operate, I believe that President Bush has done the best job that could reasonably have been expected of him. And I am confident that this will be history's judgment, as well. James Meyer, Overland Park, KS

Editor: One of the Ken Burns series' more interesting minor events was that the war the left now calls the last "good war" and lauds the now-dying service personnel as the "greatest generation" also produced significant anti-war and anti-draft protest. One N.Y. Times headline has Charles Lindbergh proclaim we should never fight in Europe as Hitler is too strong for us. Many Quakers and other conscientious objectors not-so-enthusiastically became medics and non-combatant support. A recent quote has circulated on the internet that says “newspapers find fault with all the generals, yet the editorial writers seem perfectly equipped to criticize and lead armies, except they are busy writing ‘news.’" The quote comes from Robert E. Lee during the Civil War. The more things change the more they are ever the same. Renny Hartmann

Editor: Your article by John Goodman, "Stossel v Hillary on Health" ought to be pressed on the Republican candidates with renewed focus. For example, this approach to health care would fit in with Rudi's heath care ideas in his 12 points. Rudi has yet to refine his medical plan and will need to do so in light of Hillary's onslaught. This plan if energetically pressed on Rudi, would give him not only details of a good plan, but would also serve to separate him from the "Hillary Lite" crowd. Best regards. John L. Runft, Boise, ID

Editor: Thank you so much for this article, "Stossel v Hillary on Health" by John Goodman. I work with someone who thinks "Sicko" is 100% accurate and everyone has a better health care system than the U.S. I have been looking for some evidence to be able to debate him on this and now I have that information. Once again I would like to thank you and keep up the good work on exposing inaccuracies in our media!! Sincerely, David Sengstock

Editor: I couldn't believe that Ashley Emans is a student, for she seems to have a very coherent view of what conservatism is like today. I wanted to amend her article “What Is Conservatism” by adding some comments from my perspective, which is that of a humanist. It seems that in order to be a conservative today, you have to fit a definite template. You must be pro-life, for the death penalty, be against euthanasia, against gun control, and above all, be a Christian. Of course, if you're Jew, they'll let you in as long as you "act" Christian. Atheists, agnostics, humanists and probably even deists need not apply. As a long-time Goldwater Conservative, I abhor the takeover of the conservative movement by both neo-cons and theo-cons. The basic principles of conservatism, as Ashley points out, have nothing to do with either of those other two. Where does it say that in order to believe in individual responsibility, less government control, lower taxes, and a secure border, you also have to be a war hawk and a Christian? These issues were well articulated in the book by Victor Gold, "The Invasion of the Party Snatchers." I suggest that you and Ashley Emans read it if you haven't done so already. Regards, Dick Seaholm, Costa Mesa, CA

Editor: Regarding “Disillusion on the Right” by one of your readers, isn’t the push to liberalism during George W. Bush's watch due to our Congress, not Bush? Tim & Cindy Chambers