Note: Send Email to the Editor to [email protected].
Dear Mr Farah,
It is only a few weeks since the fall of Afghanistan, yet as I listen to TV and the press it is as if the conflict in Afghanistan never happened. Thousands of Americans dead and grievously wounded, and for what?
I hope that WND will continue to hold O’Biden responsible for overthrowing the government of Afghanistan. WND and the rest of the press need to provide us with daily reports of O’Biden’s incompetency and the suffering that has resulted.
Thirteen Americans died in the suicide bombing at Kabul airport; however, many more were injured, and many of those Americans were grievously injured. Most likely, many of those American soldiers have life-changing injuries such as lost limbs, blindness, etc. Why has the press never interviewed any of the injured soldiers?
The midterm elections are only 13 months away. America needs to experience 13 months of daily reminders of the Americans left behind in Afghanistan, of the soldiers murdered or injured, of the millions of Afghans who will die or suffer as a result of Taliban torture.
Thanks much for your excellent news coverage. Please keep up the good work.
Richard Flippo
Treason. Period.
[Regarding “Milley, Blinken and Biden would make good cellmates”] Sorry. What Gen. Milley did was nothing less than treason. It doesn’t “border on treason.” It is right there – a bull’s-eye on treason.
Leah
Justin Bieber for veep? No!
[Regarding “Why should Charlie Kirk be ineligible to run for president?”] “Retrograde reasoning”? You state that the Constitution’s age restrictions, which you claim to be a violation of civil liberties, are “based upon an erroneous assumption about a generalization that then became the basis for faulty reasoning.” I find your column and its very idea to be based on all three points: an erroneous assumption, a generalization and faulty reasoning! Not to mention your lack of any evidence to the age restrictions being based merely on the idea that a numerical age conferred “maturity.”
Your assertion in using the example of William Pitt [as a competent young leader] completely ignores the fact that in his time and culture, he was ahead of his peers in many ways. Today, there are many millions of “William Spit,” for any one William Pitt. Times, cultures, ethics and morality have changed!
We currently have an occupant of the Oval Office who is chronically immature and put there by a public composed of even less mature people, many who had no right to vote to begin with. Your lack of even a basic insight into the problem you are saying needs constitutional correction, ignores the very fact that your argument’s logical conclusion would be to have a 6-year-old gun-toting wife pick up a six-pack of suds, then drive her disabled 35-year-old husband to the polling place on Election Day … to vote in Sadie Sink for president and her veep, Justin Bieber!
There are many reasons for restrictions, especially age restrictions. The 26th Amendment happened for reasons that those trying to lower the age of voting to 16 will never understand. Using your argument, why stop at 16?
In all that you have written, I kept hoping I would get to the part where you gave at least an acknowledgment of what is in fact the best reason for age restrictions. Wisdom! However, either your own youth or blissful ignorance is incapable of understanding it. I say that because I believe you to be intellectually honest enough to have brought it up, though it does make your argument moot.
Maturity is guaranteed to no one. Age does not confer maturity. Wisdom is a sign of true maturity. Wisdom is achieved only by those who live long enough to realize how truly ignorant they are. However, it doesn’t stop there. True wisdom is in part a product of personal experience. Wisdom.
In 20 years, you’ll thank me.
Steve
Justified age discrimination
About Michael Nedderman’s column, “Why should Charlie Kirk be ineligible to run for president?”: I found it interesting because I saw loopholes he failed to patch. Whether I understood him before criticizing his points is knowable to him and readers.
The first thing I found amusing was that he categorized the Constitution’s age limit for president as a discrimination based on age.
Then I hoped to understand why he thought so, and I found the following to be shortcoming.
In the article he says: “Those age restrictions are based upon an erroneous assumption about a generalization that then became the basis for faulty reasoning,” and then lists three bulleted points.
In them he appears to have skipped the basic assumption, or a conclusion reached by their own experiences and knowledge, the authors of the Constitution had in assigning the age limit.
He did not say that people in earlier age, for example, age 24, are less experienced and understand less about the world, people, human nature, etc. than the people in older age groups, for example, of age 35.
He and I agree that there are exceptions, for example, being old does not always mean sound judgment and an upright moral compass. And there are exceptional 25-year-olds who are wise “beyond their years,” as people used to say.
What the founders and I agree on, however, and which the writer of article may disagree, is that the decision to count on those exceptions is a foolish way to form a lasting government and society. It opens the door to the non-exceptional young person taking over presidential power and being crushed by the ambitions and poor decisions he has no knowledge, habit, nor ability to withstand.
Is this age discrimination? Sure it is. But some such discriminations are accepted by most people, including the writer himself.
A mentally unstable person with tendency to shoot and kill innocent people should be prohibited from having possession of a loaded firearm.
Is this discrimination against the mentally unstable?
Nedderman calls it “paternalistic age restrictions” and appears to imply that what is old (like 18th century) by default does not apply to us, but he had better not forget that although our knowledge of the sun, moon, stars and atoms has increases much since the 17th century, those items themselves stayed true to their nature both in the 17th century and 21st century.
Jason Lee
