When the attempt to deliberately destroy the United States by the would-be dictator in the White House is finally thwarted, and the long painful effort to rebuild our country begins, we should all remember that the old media (the so-called journalists), were the primary supporters of the destructive effort of this regime. Without the print and television journalists, that excuse for a man pretending to be president would never have been elected to anything outside of Chicago. Journalism is dead. Journalists and the MSM are at best worthless, and at worst dangerous. May they suffer the most from the consequences of their stupidity, foolishness, and evil.

Many thanks to Miss Lopez and AF_retiree_2001 for the information. While I've had extensive experience with the Boy Scouts (from many perspectives), I have no daughters and only one niece who (thankfully) is not a Girl Scout.

I am appalled by the goings-on cited in this article. Because of my personal experience with scouting (some of my most fond memories), I've always been a big supporter of the organizations, especially considering the PC police attacks on the B.S.A. I will look into this further, but if I find that even a small fraction of what you write is prevalent within the Girl Scouts of America, I intend to immediately and forevermore cease contributing even a penny to the outfit.

I realize if everyone...

If you want any of your conservative readers to take you seriously, then you had better stop leading your articles with silly and vapid lines like the following:

"... Obama has refuted critics who call him a radical. He has shown himself to be a timid progressive."

This is like saying Hitler has refuted critics who call him a world-dominating tyrant. He has shown himself to be a bumbling and superstitions leader and commander.

Just because the Obama has failed to realize his radical vision for America does not mean he isn't a radical. Any honest journalist (an increasingly endangered species) who has studied the Obama knows in his heart of hearts that the Obama is as radical as they come. Given the proper...

I have been mystified by all the press coverage concerning whether or not (to put it rather sloppily) the 2nd Amendment applies to the the states.

I actually was taught about the 14th Amendment in High School (the cat is now out of the bag -- I'm an old fart). But I must not have been paying close enough attention because during the course of this debate, I have been unable to understand why that amendment didn't automatically force the states to abide by all 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. I was unaware of the intellectual applesauce precedent. Thank you much, Mr. Will, for clearing that up.

Now, if you could help me understand: Why is it "too late to repudiate 137 years of the stuff" (the intellectual...

... food for thought. Appreciated.

I do not recall, however, any such debate or argumentative technique being applied in very many (if any) opposition political opinion columns written about Ronald Reagan (may God rest and bless his soul), either at the time he was running for president or after he was elected.

Even moderate to conservative columnists often underestimated Mr. Reagan and were at times bitingly offensive. I even recall my dear father (a dyed-in-the-wool anti-FDR-New-Deal traditional conservative if ever there was one) denigrating the good man's patently obvious rhetorical gifts and good sense. This even after he had proven his leadership and intellectual abilities as governor of California (though he...

I am sick & tired of reading the articles of one quasi-intellectual after another who refer to Obama as "elegant and intelligent" or "articulate" or who write other some such fawning nonsense.

Obama is a stuffed shirt and a fraud. He makes no real analytic sense on any topic he is foolish enough to address. And if he doesn't have his teleprompter handy, even his objective sentence structure is chaotically juvenile.

Mr. Will and all the other pundits out there: cease and desist with the stupendously inaccurate characterizations of Obama's intelligence, speaking ability, and integrity. The man-child is a petty political Chicago thug-puppet and nothing more.

Mr. Will & others - stop it ... just stop it!

... for getting the truth out.

My great grandfather was born and raised in pre-Castro Cuba. He died before I was born, but I've often wondered what he would have thought about Kennedy and The Bay of Pigs shame.

I was a child when Kennedy was elected, but I was old enough to remember what it was like to live in a rabidly pro-Kennedy blue-collar neighborhood. The older I got, the more I simply could not understand why ordinary people regarded this personally brave but deeply flawed man of mediocre intelligence and little wisdom as some kind of saint.

It is getting harder and harder to get to the truth when it comes to the history of totalitarian regimes of the Communist or Socialist stripe. I am sure this sort of...

... you're a piece o' work.

I do not mean this as a pejorative. I deeply respect your forthrightness. Envy it, even. I've been figuratively tarred, feathered, and run out of town for saying less obvious truths about certain of my supervisors or bosses. No regrets though.

Keep up the good work, fighting the good fight. And remember those of us who have been wounded in the battle. You give us hope.

... who was obviously asleep during the campaign and election of 2008.

Mr. Greenberg, I thoroughly enjoy your columns (especially the ones not covering Washington politics), but you are an utter and complete fool if you ever thought that the fraud and Chicago thug-puppet Obama could ever (ever!) bring anybody together on any subject.

There was ample evidence against the notion that this man-child should ever be elected or appointed to any position requiring a modicum of intelligence or integrity. Unfortunately the truth of this was apparent only to people who were wise enough to ignore the lying and sycophantic main-stream broadcast and print media. Obviously, neither you nor the voters who are now suffering from...

I've heard of Liberals who view the Constitution as a "Living Document" (whatever the heck that is) so they can construe it to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given time. And in doing so I understand they want to use that august document to remake the country by finding "rights" that are nowhere present in it. But this is the first time I've heard of any of these pinheads denying the existence of Constitutional protections.

The Constitution incorporates and assumes Natural Law, like the right to survive and prosper within the bounds of the Written Law.

Like it or not, the Constitution's Bill of Rights, in the main, was written to establish what governments (Federal, State, Local) may NOT do: like abridge free...