Regarding singer Rene Marie, who sang the "Black National Anthem" instead of "The Star Spangled Banner" at Denver's State of the City event, she has now put herself in the growing group of "artists" and entertainment people who, after becoming successful in the U.S., then badmouth the country where their success became possible. Perhaps she'd like to try pursuing her singing career in the Middle East, Eritrea or North Korea. Let's see how far she gets and how welcome she feels there.

We live in a diverse country where expression of opinion is allowed and even welcomed. It's sad that Marie abused the privilege of singing the National Anthem. If she can't follow through on what she's asked to do, she should just politely decline the invitation to sing.

Denise S.

Harriet said [E-mail to the Editor, July 3], "We do need him [John McCain] there to appoint true conservative, constitutional judges to the Supreme Court. I know he will do that."

How do you know McCain will do that? Two weeks ago, week he told a group of Democrats he was addressing, that he voted for the confirmation of Ginsburg. That is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court.

I do not think he will appoint "true conservative judges." He will "cross the aisle (AGAIN)" and nominate moderates. I fear he will spend more time on the Democrats side of the aisle.

Steve

[To Joseph Farah:] We license drivers, weddings, etc. – why not voters?

Testing and licensing voters could be a source of tax revenue for the government, but we will never see it because the fail rate would be higher among the Democratic Party.

It is a privilege to vote, and it should be protected (like driving an automobile).

Dennis McCutcheon

[To Joseph Farah:] A voter test? Hell yes! We think alike! The test should be comprehensive, including sections on history, economics, the Constitution, moral character and even physical fitness. Letting these public-school educated, videogame playing, "American Idol" worshipping goobers vote is like letting blind people fly jet fighters.

Mark

Mr Kupelian,

Your arguments for voting for John McCain cannot be quibbled with.

I cannot fathom the era of darkness that an Obama presidency would bring.

I am changing my mind and changing my protest vote to a vote for McCain.

Joe

Mr. Farah, with your "none of the above" campaign, are you going to be the Ross Perot of this election? Had it not been for his interference, Bill Clinton wouldn't have won the presidency! Those who refused to vote for either major party candidate, in essence, elected Bill Clinton … and we thought that was bad. But it was nothing, compared to what an Obama win would bring down upon us now.

You're totally correct in your description of the two major parties, of course. But with all of McCain's faults and bad policies, neither he nor anyone else can come close to the damage Obama would do if he should win. He's anti-America in so many ways. In all of American history, to my knowledge, there has never been another candidate for the U.S. presidency, who was anti-America! Obama has admitted that before the election, so what would he do with the power of the presidency?

McCain, on the other hand, would not bring our troops home in defeat or the war to our streets … or transfer our troops to Africa. He would not force a disastrous socialized health care plan upon us. And during a McCain presidency, I don't believe we would lose our national sovereignty; whereas, all of the above and much, much more anti-American disasters would happen with Obama at the helm.

I have always been a big fan of yours, Mr. Farah. WND is almost my sole news source. I purchase books and bumper stickers from your website and have been reading and sharing Whistleblower for years. So you can imagine my shock at reading about your encouraging Americans to vote for candidates, or to write in the names of others, who couldn't possibly win, but would assure Obama the presidency.

If Obama wins and we lose our national sovereignty, what good would a "statement" made by us conservatives in this election be, if it's the last free election in our nation as we know it, if we become an NAU, or lost in globalism, taxed beyond our ability to pay and maybe even living in bondage? And, short of intervention by God, Himself, it most definitely will be our last free election if Obama does actually win!

Please, Mr. Farah, reconsider your recommendation for voters in this election. You carry a lot of influence!

Nancy

Columnist Dennis Prager is casting his hopes on John McCain in vain.

These arguments were barely valid when we were faced with a choice between G.W. Bush and John Kerry or Al Gore. They are not valid when faced with a choice between McCain and Obama. By Dennis' logic, we should vote for John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid if they had been chosen as the Republican nominee – they are all less liberal than Obama.

John McCain will provide the coup de grace to the conservative movement in the GOP if elected president.

If you want to see the Republican Party complete its transformation into the globalist, big-government, capitalist party, vote for McCain. Why would the GOP need conservatives after that? The Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party has been looking for a way to disentangle itself from social conservatives for years. They have found the way in John McCain.

Search the Web and you will find Republicans cheering the marginalization of conservatives and evangelicals. The aftermath of a John McCain presidency holds only irrelevancy for conservatives. In the short-term view Obama is a dire choice. In the long-term view, he may be the last feeble hope for conservatism in the GOP.

It is unreasonable to hold conservatives "morally complicit" for not supporting a man that they opposed in the primary. If we are already going to start assessing blame for Obama's victory, let's look to a GOP primary system that allows independents and Democrats to influence the voting; let's look to those that gave conservatives a candidate that we cannot support. What possible motivation will there be to address these problems if conservatives vote for John McCain in spite of them?

If Obama should win the presidency, Dennis Prager chooses to place blame at the feet of the conservatives that never supported John McCain. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold accountable the system and the voters that chose an unelectable candidate?

Brent

[To David Kupelian:] I won't bore you with all of the bad things McCain has done. I will say that the heartwarming story you told was about Cindy McCain, not John. The only good thing you could come up with about John was more than 30 years old. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.

My missive is about the Supreme Court. McCain may promise to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito, but that won't matter if the Senate won't confirm them. He'll come back and tell us he has to work with the Senate and so he must appoint "moderate" justices, like Anthony Kennedy. Another argument we're bound to hear is that he will have to maintain the balance on the court. Since the most likely retirees are liberals, he will be expected to nominate a liberal to replace a liberal and, if it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg who steps down, a woman so that there will be at least one woman on the court. The Gang of 14 is no more. In any case, if they hold a majority, Democrats don't need to filibuster. All they need do is vote the nominee down.

There's only one reason to vote for John McCain: trust. If you trust him, vote for him. If not, don't.

Pat Kunz

[To David Kupelian:] I just wanted to write to tell you that your column today on the three reasons to elect John McCain as the next president is probably the best column that I have ever read. I am one of those conservative Republicans who has a hard time swallowing John McCain as our candidate, but your reasoning is why I will support him for the presidency.

Integrity and character mean more than anything to me, and McCain has those.

We do need him there to appoint true conservative, constitutional judges to the Supreme Court. I know he will do that. Maybe our present economy will bring him around to changing his mind about ANWR. We can hope.

Thank you for the column. I will share it with as many people as I possibly can.

Harriet

S--- you, stupid a-- developers – this happens to me all the time!

Your broken poll sucks! Get someone who knows how to code, d----t. I HATE your freaking bugs!!!!! Your site sucks.

I'm getting so tired of this s---, will never freaking come back ever – d--- you p--- off people.

I will never buy from WND. I hate you. I hate you. I am so madddddddddddd.

John Dieter

Let me add another point to Joseph Farah's opposition to President Bush's "faith based initiatives."

From an evangelical perspective, faith-based initiatives co-opt and secularize the church. Christ's stated purposes for the church are two and only two: preaching the Gospel of salvation from eternal damnation through Christ to all the world and building up believers in the faith through instruction in the Scriptures. As a result of the church doing its proper work, individual members may be motivated to organize efforts for other worthy purposes. But when the church itself does so, those efforts become the focus and the church quickly goes off-mission, off-message, and on the shelf as far as God's eternal purposes are concerned. And when government money is involved, the church inevitably becomes the tool of government's secular agenda. That may fit well with the "purpose-driven church" philosophy, but it does not fit with Scripture.

Paul M. Elliott

Let's see:

Plan A – Keep paying $4 a gallon for gas and let the thug terrorist nation of Iran develop nuclear weapons, or

Plan B – Destroy Iran's government, destroy their nuclear development and pay $20 a gallon.

I'll go with Plan B.

Chris

Sorry, Mr. Prager, but it is precisely this kind of thinking that has gotten our country to the point we are at now.

Voters who, for whatever reason, have failed to vote their conscience in favor of the lesser of two evils have molded the country in which we now live. Year after year, election after election, we are told that we should elect the carrot or else we'll get the stick.

I am sick to death of the carrot and stick game played by New World Order elites and international business interests. I am not going to vote in fear. Nor will I allow spineless pragmatists who are devoid of character to persuade me to ignore my conscience and vote for someone who will only repudiate his conservative rhetoric and stab me in the back once elected. My back bears many scars. Pundits like yourself said the exact same thing when G.W. Bush was running for election. We all know what kind of president he was. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. Only this time, due to your having won over foolish conservatives and ignoramus Christians in the past, we really are in trouble.

No, Mr. Prager, I will not be voting for Juan McCain under any circumstances, and I will persuade as many as I can to do likewise. What you interpret as foolish utopianism, many of us call principle – something our politicians and their media lackeys seem to have forgotten.

I urge every thinking American who values this nation and wants to see it restored to its former greatness to think for themselves this time around. Don't listen to the gutless pen pushers who insist that our cause is lost. If the actions of our Founding Fathers were influenced by spineless pragmatists, America itself would not exist.

I would rather be one of 300 Spartans who died standing up than live on my knees in a socialist world that, through lack of character, you helped to create. I will not accept any blame for America's decline for voting my conscience in November. On the other hand, you and those you persuade to support Juan McCain will have actively participated in the destruction of America. No matter who wins in November, McCain or Obama, you will be to blame, not us.

Ken De Vries

Like the rotten tater at the bottom of the bin, Wesley Clark has turned up again, sucking up to B. Hussein Obama and bad-mouthing John McCain. He says that getting shot down does not qualify a man to become president. So what military qualifications does Obama have? Could he be less qualified as commander in chief? The man couldn't drive a toy tank across a sandbox. And speaking of tanks, what Democratski political hack violated the Posse Comitatus Act to send flame-throwing tanks into Waco to slaughter innocent American citizens? Wesley Clark should be sitting in Leavenworth instead of by the Obama-nation's side. I'm sure Clark will get some juicy plum of a job if B. Hussein Obama gets elected. Now, America, is your church BATF-approved?

Caleb Blackthorn

Polygamy is indeed a wicked sin. However, shouldn't we admit that the Mormon version of it appears a bit better than the compromised-evangelical version, which just changes spouses every so often (usually without proper grounds) and leaves scattered, broken families behind in the wake? Also, if this is "polygamist" clothing (it looks rather like pre-1950s, modest clothing that polygamists have adopted), it also is an improvement over the "harlot" clothing (Britney Spears look-a-likes) adopted by the daughters and wives of too many Christian churches today.

The Bible doctrine of this Mormon cult is damnable. However, we (as Christians) should also hang our heads in shame at the immodesty in our churches.

Joey Faust

In answering the question about who is Jesus, Obama struck me by what he didn't say: "God." "Christ." "Savior." "Lord." Troubling, isn't it, for one who claims to be a Christian?

Arleen McCoy

Obama is a well-trained Marxist in his ability to speak in doublespeak.

I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

On its face, this all could be true in a sense that you and I could accept:

There are indeed many paths to the hot place.

There is a God and He of higher caliber than we.

And we are connected with each other each bearing the image of our creator.

But, of course, that isn't really what he meant, as we know by his clarifications elsewhere. This is the language of the serpent. Has God said ...?

Insidious.

Lawrence

Why is everyone so upset that 20 girls in Gloucester, Mass., got pregnant in the same school year? They did exactly what teenage girls are going to do anyway. It is a beautiful thing, is it not, when a teenage girl gets her baby bump? Look at the Spears sisters. We all know that teenagers have sex, and they are going to have sex all the more if we tell them not to do it. Imagine how many would have gotten pregnant if they were taught abstinence. We can tell them not to drink alcohol and not to do drugs, but we cannot tell them not to have sex. I think the real reason people are upset is because they all kept their babies and did not abort them.

Why is there no national celebration over the San Francisco school district discontinuing P.E. credits for JROTC. After all, children are way too young to be taught discipline and standards of behavior while in high school. They are way too immature at that age to handle such a strict regimen. They can handle being taught how to be a homosexual and how to properly don a condom. They are mature enough to make the decision whether or not to abort a child, but to polish their shoes? Forget it. That's going to far. And being on time for events, maintaining a sharp appearance, walking as if you have a purpose, respecting authority, etc. – they cannot handle that.

Lastly, according to one reader of WND, we are to feel compassion for all of these women teachers who had sex with their students because women approach sex differently from men. So just how do grown men approach sex with young school girls that is different from how grown women approach sex with young school boys? Why aren't the feminists in an uproar that these women are getting such light sentences? I thought women were capable of doing everything a man could do – doesn't that include hard time?

Jeffrey Greeson

As a father who committed no crime but has not been "allowed" to contact his son for nearly seven years, it's very refreshing to hear common sense advice about fatherhood ["It takes a dad to raise a man"] instead of the typical "her choice, his fault" rhetoric coming from government. The first step in solving the fatherhood crisis in America is to stop pretending fathers are walking out on their children when the truth is government is bribing mothers to make that choice. Unfortunately, Obama wants to continue blaming dads and McCain thinks the issue is too sticky to discuss, so the future for boys especially continues to look grim.

Thomas Simon

To the group of Obama supporters who have adopted the name Hussein as a sign of love for his holiness Barack from Chicago:

First, thanks for reminding everyone that Obama's middle name is Hussein. I had almost forgotten because I have been busy trying to understand if he will or will not meet with Ahmadinejad with or without preconditions, if he is for or against NAFTA, if he favors James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's take on Christianity, and if his typical white racist grandmother is out from under the bus because she is now starring in his feel-good campaign commercials.

Frankly, I don't care if Obama is a Christian, a Muslim or an atheist because Barack Hussein Obama by any other name is still a left-wing, tax-raising, gun-grabbing, government-expanding, wealth-redistributing, abortion-loving, socialized-medicine advocating, flip-flopping socialist.

Call him what you want. It makes no more difference to me than his race does.

But if you guys really loved Barack Hussein Obama, you'd do more than just use his name on your e-mail accounts and Internet sites, you'd do something really special for your leader.

Have you considered getting his name tattooed on your foreheads or on your right hand?

Tom Quigley

Quite frankly, I'd rather have my daughters dress like a modest "polygamist" than a slut, as advertised by practically every other clothing company out there. But hey, it's not my job to rush judgment and take cheap jabs at groups I don't like. I'll leave that up to WND.

David S. Paradise

With so many Americans unhappy with both Obama and McCain, polls indicating many Republicans and Democrats may not bother to vote in November, and other polls that indicate many Americans are ready to consider a third-party candidate, you folks are missing the opportunity to put Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party candidate for president, into the limelight. In my opinion, he should be featured on page one daily. With the hits your website receives and the loyal readers you have who log on daily, you giving equal coverage to Chuck Baldwin would help get his name, face and position out there.

The Constitution Party is the third-largest political party in the U.S.

Bob Perron

While I have to commend the Supreme Court for at least acknowledging that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, it should be thoroughly castigated for failing to acknowledge what the Founding Fathers went to great pains to clarify: that the right to keep and bear arms was primarily designed to acknowledge the right of the people to arm themselves (with military weapons) against a repressive, out-of-control government.

It is ludicrous for the supremes to say the term "keep and bear arms" was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

Don't those morons read history? The very concept of a citizen militia was that the citizens were armed with weapons that were suitable for warfare. In the French and Indian war, the king's government did not provide arms to the participating militia; the citizens brought their own. In the Revolutionary war, the citizens brought their own weapons. In fact, prior to the 1930s, American citizens were able to purchase, own and possess military weaponry that included pistols, rifles, machine guns, grenades, cannons and all the other paraphernalia of warfare. In addition, they didn't have to register it or ask the government for permission to buy it.

When the "shots heard round the world" were fired, most people are not aware that the British were coming to seize arms and ammunition from the citizens. Also, I can guarantee you that the weapons that the Minutemen fired at the British were their own personal weapons and that those weapons were suitable for use in warfare.

What the Supreme Court has done is set the stage for the continued restriction of weaponry which is the foundational purpose for the Second Amendment. The term "military assault weapon" has become a catch-all for any weapon that the government wants to restrict from the common folk. The government has to protect the serfs from being injured, it has a bad effect on corporate profit margins and, after all, they might use those weapons to throw them out of office.

David Redmond

I am following your most prudent advice by buying a new Leupold rifle scope and a Marlin rifle. I had resolved to follow this course of action immediately upon learning of the president's stimulus tax rebate. The timing is such that I can send two pro-gun messages at once. Actually, the stimulus won't quite pay for both items because we had a good year in 2007 and had to pay a penalty because we made too much to enjoy the maximum rebate. A penalty on a rebate? "Curioser and curioser, said Alice."

Bill Lose

You're an idiot. You did all you could do to sabotage the only Republican candidate who supported the Constitution, Ron Paul, and now you're telling people to "Vote none of the above." Again, you are an idiot.

This Nov. 7, you will get the president you deserve.

Lee Brewer

I am a Texas attorney who has handled several cases just like the one reported in the article entitled, "Police to parents: We're taking your son."

This is not at all an unusual occurrence. Child Protective Services is often run like a secret police unit of the former USSR. All CPS needs is a suspicion that a child is in "imminent danger of physical harm" (a phrase the meaning of which appears clear to a rational person but which is interpreted by very irrational CPS employees to justify whatever they do), and they can summarily take a child without even telling the parents.

The world saw what CPS did in Texas recently, just down the road from Abilene where I practice law. Once authorities take a child, they typically isolate the child from the parents, not allowing any contact between child and parent for long periods of time. Within 10 days, CPS is required to take the child before a judge who must determine if there is just cause for them to continue to have custody of the child. Of course, after 10 days of questioning and threats, the child has been traumatized and may, depending how badly CPS threatens the child, even be afraid of his or her parents.

This is just the beginning of how corrupt CPS has become, not just in Texas, as your article demonstrates, but all across the country. If parents don't wake up to this huge problem, one day they will find they no longer have their children – the state will have them – for good!

Bill Fisher

Mr. DuBois,

If your e-mail to the editor has any truth to it, why didn't you also provide translations in Ojibwa or Abenaki? How do you say "inconsistent hypocrite" in Farsi?

J.D. Ellis

I was really impressed at how much Bill Press reveres the Constitution in his column "You Can't Legislate the Bible." Now I'll be anxiously waiting for his editorials in defense of gun rights, against so-called hate speech and against magical abortion rights that the Constitution supposedly provides.

I'll also be really excited to read as he opines on how the Constitution is only applicable to U.S. citizens in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning enemy combatants. Just to give a jump start, here's the opening phrase, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Waiting with bated breath.

Oh, and Bill – I do love the Constitution but I only worship God.

Frank Garner

I have a lot of respect for WND, but this "allowance" of this patently false diatribe by Bill Press takes the cake. Just take his last statement: "We are not a Christian nation: never have been, never will be. Therefore, in making the laws that govern our nation, we don't turn to the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Quran. We turn to the only sacred text that all Americans worship(?): the U.S. Constitution." There is so much error here that I don't know where to begin. I guess he knows more than previous Supreme Court justices.

Give this turkey the book "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States" By the Rev. Benjamin F. Morris as well as other books on the same topic that completely refute this ignorance.

I was thinking about getting a subscription recently to WND's Whistleblower, and now I am glad I did not. Bill Press is just another slick Willy, and I for one will not be financing his subversive ignorance.

Anthony

Stop fooling yourselves. As long as you walk into a gun store and have to fill out paperwork that is sent to the DOJ, you are asking the government for the privilege and permission to bear arms. You right is being infringed. When you have to go to a gun store to transfer a handgun or rifle to a friend or family member by filling out paperwork that goes to the DOJ, you right to bear arms are infringed. And nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that you only have the right to bear arms in your home as long as said arms are dismantled or secured with a trigger lock.

I have the right to bear arms without governmental permission, and I have the right to bear arms on my person ... without governmental permission. As long as you have to ask the government for permission to bear arms, or carry arms, your right to bear arms is infringed. The Supreme Morons did nothing but play games with you. And unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid to realize it. You have the right to bear arms ... but!

C. Cope

Tim Hirota wrote that the latest outrage by the Supremes regarding child rape and capital punishment shows we need to vote in McCain [E-mail to the Editor, June 26]. This just a paragraph after he listed Justice Ginsburg as one who voted to strike down that very law. Come on, Tim, it was McCain who voted to confirm the lovely Ginsburg to the Court, and you want us to elect this Manchurian candidate. Pardon me while I go and upchuck my lunch.

Nino

Are you kidding me?! A perverse threesome involving teenage boys and an adult woman is a serious cultural problem, but NOT the most important thing WND readers need to address.

Are you, yourself, allowing some perverse part of your flesh to give these stories (women having sex with boys) more prominence than is their due? These stories are much more tragic than criminal. Women use sex for a far different purpose than men, and these women are suffering.

Tragically, they are stealing the innocence of boys in the process, but in today's porn-ridden culture that's already done for so many young men. ATTACK THAT.

You need to reorder your priorities and approach this subject with the circumspection that it is due.

John

I'm puzzled by your "This is America, Speak English" bumper sticker. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "This is America, Speak Ojibwa"? Or "This is America, Speak Abenaki," etc. English speakers are only one of many groups of immigrants to come to these shores. Our pride as Americans should be in our democracy and the rights it accords its citizens, not in one of the many languages our peoples happen to speak.

Guillaume Du Bois