I have a question regarding hypocritical ideas promoted on WorldNetDaily.

It appears as if the site aims to promote ideas pertaining to the Constitution such as religious freedom, liberty, etc. And yet, as I search through the bumper-sticker section, I find that those extremely annoying ones telling people, "Say Merry Christmas." Doesn't that propose the intent that despite the mass variety of cultures and religions within the U.S., everyone during the holidays should identify with a single uniform religion?

I celebrate Christmas every year, and always have, but I know that when I see something telling me what I should identify with, or telling anyone what they should say, it is a direct attack on the principles our nation was founded upon.

Please, I would really like a someone from your website to thoroughly explain why it represents this position.

Brittnie Anderson

Reader Bill Wirt [E-mail to the Editor, Nov. 19] is perhaps new to WorldNetDaily. I doubt WND will leap to its own defense, but I've been an avid reader of the site for years, and I want to assure him that nobody gets a pass on corruption here. WND has built up a wide audience of readers who must have the fresh oxygen of truth without favoritism, regardless of the consequences. 

Whether it's Bush, Palin, Kennedy or any congressman, or CAIR or ACLA, or whatever – if they're doing something newsworthy, it gets reported, without bias and especially without fear of reprisal. If the news site seems to focus on one group rather than another at times, it's purely because of the actions of that group.

This is not a conservative or a liberal or an anything political site – it's an honest journalist's site.

Look up any story in the archives, and see for yourself.

Tony

I am a veteran and I am an avid online reader of WND. I visit your site almost daily. I find it appalling that the news media, including WND, continue to show pictures of Nidal Hasan in military uniform. I would venture to say that I'm not alone on this opinion.

I would also like to say that I find your news site to be very informative, and I suggest your site to all my friends.

Leon E. Simpson

To Bill Wirt [E-mail to the Editor, Nov. 19]:

First of all this is not your America, this is our America. It belongs to all of its citizens, not just you.

Secondly, CAIR is not a religious organization; it is a political organization that has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator with terrorist organizations.  CAIR does not fall into the same category as a religious organization, so your defense of them on grounds of freedom of religion fails – you should be defending them under freedom of speech.

Last, but not least, the anti-Muslim sentiment you talk about has been around since 9/11. The Fort Hood massacre has not created a new anti-Muslim attitude; it has perpetuated an attitude that has been around for the better part of a decade. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but since 9/11 it would appear that the vast majority, if not all, terrorists are Muslim.

That being said, I do not agree with what you say in your letter, but I defend your right, to the death, to say it. Why can't you show the same respect for WND?

Russell Chambers

Our first line of defense against tyranny should be the press, but 90 percent of the media have failed us. Our second line of defense is the voting booth, but my vote is canceled out by stupidity that continues to allow tyranny's march. The third, perhaps the last until the above two regain their potency, is the states. We need Fortress-Mid America where 20-30 states create a division within their attorneys general or governors' offices – a 10th Amendment Protection Office. Imagine 20 to 30 states creating a division to specifically fight back against D.C. … Wow!

R. Cox

Most doctors won't even look at a minor without parental or guardian consent. So, a teenage girl without a parent can get an abortion but not a normal gyn exam, unless performed by an abortionist (I would presume) – go figure.

Amazing how people in government think they are ever so much wiser than the people who are forced to obey their dictates. And uninformed voters keep electing these nitwits who take it upon themselves to usurp individual and parental rights.

In my experience as a parent in wonderful Montgomery County, Md., public schools, these administrators are very poorly qualified, and at times dangerous. It wouldn't surprise me if they are doing this type of thing here. They do the PC idiocy concepts well, but don't do well for parents and children.

Steve Brown

Pat Buchanan asks: "Are we at war – or not?" Absent a congressional declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution, we are not.  Any actions taken by the U.S. government that resemble a war are therefore illegal.

There haven't been any letters of marque issued, either.

D.A.

Your pink slip campaign is a wild success. Why not expand it to "Send Obama a Pink Slip"?

Do you not think that 10 million would be sent much faster than the campaign to Congress?!

Tom Eads

Rhetoric should have meaning. Language should have value.

What, then, is meant by the phrase we are now hearing so often from the politico, "We have a moral obligation to pass this legislation"?

Morals must be based on some standard. Among the most frequent standards used as a basis for moral values are Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Most of our government officials have totally rejected Scripture. They have also rejected traditional values. When scrutinized, the legislation they are trying to pass does not hold to sound reason. And, when you compare the policies being put forth by those in power to the experience of history, you find that experience teaches that big government and total government control don't produce anything good.

So, other than just being persuasive words, what value, what basis, do these so-called "moral obligations" have?

In recent decades, contrary to traditional values, we have been taught that when it comes to morals there are no absolutes. So why is the government that has propagated the educational system that teaches no absolutes telling us that we absolutely have a moral obligation to do what they are demanding?

Added to this reasoning without rationalization coming from our government is the "duty" on our part to pay the bill for all their dictated moral obligations!

I guess my point is simple: Listening to our present leadership talk about moral obligations is about as logical as listening to Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner talk about chastity!

Steve Casey

Right-wing, conservative, elected representatives in the House and the Senate and the major conservative mouthpieces in the media have been assiduously silent regarding the constitutional qualifications of B. Hussein O. to serve as POTUS.

They squawked about the $700 trillion "stimulus" package. They whined as Obama's regime gobbled up GM. They wailed about Obama's "dithering" in Afghanistan. And they have had an aneurysm over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid DeathCare plan. But when it comes to Obama's constitutional credentials to serve as president, they are ominously silent.

With the impending "show trial" of 9/11 terrorists, though, one has to wonder if the vaunted Republican attack machine will finally swing into action against Team Obama/Holder. Will the heretofore silent Republican pols and conservative talking heads and editorialists suddenly wake up and comprehend that the trial of the 9/11 terrorists in NYC is going to be used to attack all things Bush and Cheney? Will the day come when Coulter, Hannity, Rush, Savage and maybe even Medved demand, like the rest of us, that Obama produce his birth certificate and other pertinent documents?

Sooner or later, one can only hope, someone in the vast right-wing world will realize that it is time to use the nuclear option to stop the Obama Express and that is to demand that Obama prove that he is who he says he is.

Where's the Birth Certificate?

Tom Quigley

While you're bashing CAIR for its alleged "illegal" lobbying activities, why don't you do some investigative reporting of the ACLA, the American Christian Lobbyist Association? Or AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee?

I am a Christian, born and raised in the United States of America. My country was founded by people seeking religious freedom and to be free of discriminatory religious persecution. If CAIR has violated any part of the Internal Revenue Code as it applies to nonprofits, then they should be held accountable. When the proof is there and your organization has been appointed to act as prosecutor, then you can begin your case against them. Your continued inflammatory rhetoric only serves to divide our country and create unnecessary and unneeded fear. CAIR is only one organization; for you to infer guilt by association against all Muslims is patently false and insults most Americans' intelligence, mine in particular.

Since the massacre at Fort Hood, there has been a tide of anti-Muslim sentiment in my country. From my research, CAIR doesn't speak for the Muslim population as a whole in this country just like the ACLA, noted above, doesn't speak for all Christians in this country. ACLA doesn't speak for me, in no way, shape or form. And from some of my Jewish friends, AIPAC doesn't speak for them.

It only takes one person in dissent to kill a consensus. But I do understand, in my middle-aged mind, that sensationalism sells, whether there is any truth to the reporting or not.

Only in America? Probably not.

Bill Wirt

[To Joseph Farah:] Oh, how right you are. The protesters have the whole death-penalty argument upside-down. But what else can you expect from a generation of people schooled in the modern school systems? The biblical principles are banned, while evolution – as one pundit put it, "From goo to you by way of the zoo" – reigns supreme.

Betcha those same protesters who are against the death penalty for mass and exceptionally brutal murderers would also be for the slaughter of babies in the womb. Slaughter of the unborn is OK, so it seems that slaughter of the living doesn't warrant the death penalty.

Where did I miss the bus?

Al

The problem with the country-club Republicans and the elite conservatives is you can't trust them anymore; they are useless.

Give us Sarah!

Steve Rosenberger

In the article regarding states facing bankruptcy, there were 10 states listed in the article: California, Arizona, Rhode Island, Michigan, Oregon, Nevada, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois and Wisconsin.

I did a quick check of the presidential election map, and nine out of these 10 states went with Obama. Only Arizona went with McCain. Just thought that was an interesting piece of information. The bailout express should be coming down the tracks to these states, except Arizona, any day now. All aboard ...

Frank Niezgoda

Mr. Farah,

I agree with you 100 percent. It is time to bring these American heroes home. They are waging a fight they are not allowed to win (shades of Vietnam), and their lives are being wasted in trying to bring a freedom and a democratic style of government to peoples who are too barbaric, due to their religion and its enveloping culture, to appreciate it.

As for defeating the enemies of America, we're going to need those heroes at home real soon. Our enemies are on our own soil. One of them sits in the White House.

God bless America.

Dale Howell

Dear Pat Buchanan,

Your column on the KSM trial was so dead-on perfect that I had to write. Mr. Obama himself has claimed that KSM and two other defendants were "tortured." Should he or his AG, Eric Holder, who agrees with him, be compelled to testify by the defense? On what grounds can other less culpable terrorists possibly face military tribunals? Last, the 9/11 terrorists were being tried by military tribunals nine months ago when halted by Mr. Obama. It now seems their trials will take years before they even commence. Is not justice delayed justice denied for the families of the victims of that heinous attack?

Please keep up the good fight as only you can.

Timothy O'Neill

The difference between the Muslims and the Mafia is that it's OK to profile Italians and Italian-Americans when you go after the Mafia.

Patrick Gigliotti

Mr. Farah,

I just wanted to pass on encouragement to you. I almost spit out my coffee this morning when I read your commentary! The very verse you started with is one God gave our pastor only a few days ago concerning the current administration. He has also been given a word about a revolution in 2010 and has been preaching the 2 Chronicles 7:14 message all year. He was encouraged to read your commentary and get the confirmation that God is giving other believers the same message. I hope this will encourage you as well. Thank you for listening to our Father and spreading His truth!

Kimberly Penn

[To Drew Zahn:] Your movie reviews are the best I have ever read. They are far beyond the typical pap l read or hear. Those reviews are written to impress other critics with their word wizardry, while yours are spot on, inform the reader, and excel in insight and understanding. Superior communication, indeed.

Gary

What should President Obama do about Afghanistan? He should recognize that the United States as a country is not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq. The president is.

When President Bush decided to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, he used a November 2002 pre-election ploy to get Congress to give him their authority to commit our troops in lieu of a declaration of war. Now it is Obama's war.

Obama is a constitutional scholar and knows that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to take the United States to war. That authority resides with the Congress.

If and when the United States goes to war, the people should have their voices heard through their elected representatives. Only Congress can declare war. Obama should now ask Congress for an official, constitutional declaration of war in Afghanistan. If Congress does not do so, then Obama should immediately bring all the troops home to U.S. soil.

John Quincy Adams said America wishes freedom for other countries but does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. If the American people are to have their sons and daughters sent off to die in a foreign land, then they should have a voice in that decision.

Larry Schanz

Joseph Farah:

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your editorial. We are suffering under the leadership of the community organizer in chief.

The troops can't be expected to fight under this dithering dimwit.

Barry Caulfield

Letter writer Dr. Franklin Kameny calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment [Nov. 16, 2009]. What he does not address is how criminals (who don't obey the law anyway) will really care about this. Gun-control laws only take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The crime rate of places with gun-control laws is always higher than places without such laws. It's actually safer in Baghdad than Washington, D.C., because the good guys are armed in Baghdad. We already have lots of laws about gun ownership and use, yet people committing criminal acts still use guns.

Sarcasm: How dare they use illegal means to do something illegal! Why, that's just criminal!

No sarcasm: Hey, genius, that's why they are called criminals.

Darin

The First Amendment should be repealed entirely, and all books, pens, newspapers, computers, microphones, radios, TVs, etc. should be contraband and confiscated, except only for the church and heterosexuals and (perhaps) a very few other tightly monitored contexts.

The manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition and possession of any of the above should be criminalized (except, again, with regard only to the church and heterosexuals).

Once repeal occurs, it will probably take a few decades until the present plethora of homosexual free speech is tamed and reduced, and we will have to ride that out, but ultimately that First Amendment repeal, if we can bring it to pass, should resolve our current national political-correctness insanity.

I am very much a political realist, and I am well aware of the minuscule probability that this will ever actually come to pass, but it represents a utopian vision for a better future in this respect. We can hope – at least I do.

Repeal the First Amendment!!

(Sounds rather ominous, doesn't it, Mr. Kameny? [E-mail to the Editor, Nov. 16])

Arthur Burns

The latest on the Shroud is interesting to read about. Years ago I noticed that the hair of the individual is long and untangled with a light coming from above! There are no indentations on the back of the head or hips or heels, which would have to be there if the body were lying down. That was the meaning of His statement "I will be lifted up." Yes, the Founder of Christianity was suspended in midair over the slab when the miracle occurred. He disappeared and the Shroud simply fell back downward!

Nino

What has happened to Pat Boone? Has he listened to his "Wang Dang Taffy Apple Tango" song one too many times? How could he possibly write, "Let's bring the boys home now"?

Now, this is not to say that America has not made mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have made boatloads of them. Anytime you have politicians involved who only care about their next elections, you will have problems.

But here's a question for Mr. Boone: What happened to the Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian people when the Americans broke every promise to these Southeastern Asian governments and pulled out? Millions of innocent people were slaughtered by the enemies we were once fighting.

So, Pat Boone, are you willing to have the blood on your hands of some more killing fields, like what happened in Cambodia, but only this time, in the Middle East?

Not me!

I say, "America keep your promises. Then bring the boys home."

Larry Nevenhoven

The Second Amendment should be repealed entirely, and all guns should be contraband and confiscated, except only for the military and the police and (perhaps) a very few other, tightly monitored contexts.

The manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition and possession of guns should be criminalized (except, again, with regard only to the military and the police).

Once repeal occurs, it will probably take a few decades until the present plethora of guns is tamed and reduced, and we will have to ride that out, but ultimately that Second Amendment repeal, if we can bring it to pass, should resolve our current national gun insanity.

I am very much a political realist, and I am well aware of the minuscule probability that this will ever actually come to pass, but it represents a utopian vision for a better future in this respect. We can hope – at least I do.

Repeal the Second Amendment!!

Franklin E. Kameny, Ph.D.

I read your piece on AARP. Fabulous! You lay it out in lavender.

I am leaving AARP tomorrow.

It is so nice to have someone tell the truth for a change!

Now, if you will go after the ACLU since they are working hand in glove with the leftists and CAIR. I mean to go after them also. It is way beyond time that they got theirs.

Persia Gran-Freeland

The U.S. or any other country does not have to ignore a Constitution for any treaty signed by anyone. The reason your Second Amendment exists is to stop this sort of nonsense. Obama can sign anything he wants, but the people of the U.S. do not have to accept or honor it.

J. Morrison

Re: "Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control"

Please expand your investigative reporting by looking at what the Constitution, the courts and legislative history say about the supremacy of the Constitution over any treaty.

Anyone, president or otherwise, who tries to claim a treaty overrides the guarantees of right proclaimed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a criminal, yet all I ever hear is how such things undermine our rights. Rather, you should report how such things underline the criminality of the government / official in question.

Here's a summary, courtesy of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter:

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution."

The second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside." Here are the clear, irrefutable facts: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution. Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last, a treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign state or states if Congress refuses to do so), when the state deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.

When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone – anyone – claims that treaties supersede the Constitution. Help to dispel this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

– Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at Page 17

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (a treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in its opinion that, "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

"Article VI, the supremacy clause of the Constitution, declares:

"'This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; ...'

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggests such a result. ... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions (See ... Elliot's Debates 1836 ed. Pages 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No executive order, presidential directive, executive agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by anyone can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question! At this point, the court paused to quote from another opinion, Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at Page 267, where the court held at that time that "the treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or (a change in the character) of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent." Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.

The Reid Court continues with its opinion: "This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty ... the (subsequent) statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

The U.S. Supreme Court could not have made it clearer: Treaties do not override the Constitution and cannot, in any fashion, amend it!

Carl Sires

For those unaware, the EPA has shut off the water supply to a valley in California that provides a great deal of the produce consumed in this country. This was done because some bureaucrat wants to prevent a small fish (smelt) from being caught in the irrigation systems used by the farmers.

As a result, the farmers are going out of business. There is a 40 percent unemployment rate in the valley, and our produce costs will rise dramatically this winter. This is typically how our freedoms are lost. Technically, any bureaucratic edict is NOT a federal law, even though it is enforced as such. The U.S. Constitution is clear. Any federal law must pass through three steps: 1) a majority vote in the House of Representatives, 2) A majority vote in the Senate, and 3) signed into law by the president.

Congress has developed a habit of creating bureaucracies to enforce vaguely written or open-ended laws. This allows them to pass laws and leave the real work to someone else. It buffers them from laws that anger the citizens. It also enables them to meddle in our daily lives on a vastly larger scale.

To slow down the out-of-control federal spending and intrusion in our lives, the states must start to ignore (nullify) any federal regulation that has not gone through the full legislative process. In other words, we must STOP letting the bureaucrats write new regulations. The Congress has no right to delegate lawmaking.

I'm not suggesting that all regulations be dumped in the trash heap. I'm merely pointing out that states have the right (and duty) to ignore intrusive or unconstitutional regulations that have not been passed according to the Constitution.

States must begin to identify any regulations with penalties or enforcement clauses for what they are. Since they were created by administrative bodies such as the EPA or IRS without due process, they are merely bureaucratic opinions. They are not federal laws, and must not be treated as such.

This is one of the few ways we have to keep Congress from passing complex and sweeping legislation to micromanage our lives. The House, Senate, and the president would have to approve each and every minute intrusion, which makes huge government unworkable.

Fred Bunn

I about died laughing Friday morning watching the local NBC news. They ran a piece about our "Dear Leader"'s upcoming visit to China. These Chinese folks were gushing about the visit and how his policies reminded them of Chairman Mao. They then showed some T-shirts and other merchandise for sale. It had Obuma's face with the traditional party worker's cap and shirt with red collar tabs. I thought: The rest of the world gets the real scoop on this guy that we can't get here!

Ken Lowder

Mr. Buchanan,  

That was a great piece on President Polk! I am always looking for bits and pieces of our American history that are virtually unknown. I collect these for my kids and grandkids to be able to use in the future since I know we will never find them in our history books the way things are going now. There are just too many socialist views, and they eliminate anything that might show a past that showed a lesser government.

Keep up this work. I drink it in.

Kathleen B.

I was surprised to read the article, "The Congress of Catholic Bishops?" by Bill Press in WND in something other than the "Out of Left Field" section. Not knowing anything about the author, I read the rant, expecting one of the thoughtful, informed editorials that usually grace WND's commentary page. Instead, I was treated to a call for torches and pitchforks.

The fact that pro-life activists, including "lobbyists for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops," dared to ask for real protection against federal funding for abortion seems to infuriate the man. If the protection already in the Pelosicare bill were adequate, then the Stupak amendment would only be the legislative equivalent of having both a seat belt and airbag in your car. As it was, Press acknowledged that the "segregated funding" provision is easily worked around.

Though he claims to be a Catholic, he finds it "distressing" that the Church teaches against abortion, trotting out the old, tired trope of "male celibate Catholic bishops" concerning themselves with "reproductive rights for women." Further, he apparently wants his Church to be a democracy, advocating that the bishops preach according to the poll results from a group called "Catholics for Choice," which sounds as credible as one called "Vegans for Veal."

Press portrays lobbying by pro-lifers as the First Amendment being "trashed," presumably referring to the "establishment of religion" clause. The fact that the pro-life community includes people from many different religions and some people of no religion seems to escape him. The fact that the Catholic Church is in no way trying to establish their religious practices as the state religion also puts the lie to his claim.

Mr. Farah, I don't know how much you pay Bill Press for his articles. Whatever it is, it's too much. Likewise, I don't know how much he pays you to put them on your site. Whatever it is, it's not enough. If you continue to publish this columnist, it should be in a new category similar to "Out of Left Field." Perhaps you could name it "Beyond the Left-Field Bleachers and Out Past the Parking Lot."

Chris Pousset