Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

Posted: May 07, 2011 12:01 AM
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

This  was a big news week that I think tired us all out- readers and writers alike- like dogs gone camping.

Hopefully everyone will have some fun with their moms this weekend, rest, relax and hold family just a little closer.

But first, read and then re-read Email, Hate Mail and comments from Readers.

Then call your mom and read it to her too.

My mom would appreciate it.   

Rich Grise wrote: By the way, when do the neocons plan to start protecting us from the invasion from Mexico? – in response to my column Holder's Lame Victory

Dear Rich,

Are there any neocons left? I’m mean besides the ones Holder’s trying to indict for war crimes?

I never got the sense that neo-conservatives had any objection to enforcing immigration laws. I think George Bush as president wanted to try to appeal to Hispanic voters, but I wouldn’t really consider Bush a neocon, anyway.

But don’t talk about invading Mexico too loud.

We’ve had more wars with Mexico than any other country. Someone might think it’s a good idea.

Especially a Texan.    

In Vito veritas wrote: When the last film version decided to mock "truth, justice and the American Way", they lost my money. The current version of Superman is too small to be an American.- in response to my column Supermen Step on Obama Cape

Dear Vito,

You know how some books, like Brothers Karamazov, you can’t make into a good movie? I feel that way about the Superman series.

Great comic books, but terrible movies. I never thought the Superman movies had even the campy “so-bad-it’s-good” quality.

You’re right about this part though: Brandon Routh seems more suited to a role like Spiderman where you have to be sinewy. He doesn’t have the bulk to be the Man of Steel.

Perhaps the Euro-Man of Steel, if he had a little man-purse.

Raymond, (Ret) wrote: The principled decision as to whether or not to release the photos of Osama Bin Laden taken after he was killed surely should have been made at least as early as was the decision to have the photo's taken in the first place. Waiting as he did Obama clearly demonstrated that it was not a principled decision but was, instead, a political decision that needed first to test the winds of public opinion.- in response to my column Scary Pictures

Dear Raymond,

Can you imagine the cluster that would have taken place if the mission failed?

Obama couldn’t stand up to the scrutiny of the mission being a success. Goodness knows what might have happened if things went bad. 

My understanding is that one of the choppers couldn’t make it out because the air temperature was warmer than anticipated.

“A United Technologies Corp. (UTX) Black Hawk helicopter carrying U.S. Navy SEALs to Osama Bin Laden’s hideout was downed by an air vortex caused by unexpectedly warm air,” reports Bloomberg “and the effect of a high wall surrounding the compound, not mechanical failure or gunfire, according to U.S. officials and a lawmaker.”

Didn’t know that could happen. Apparently some other folks didn’t account for it either.

If both helicopters had problems, that would have been strangely reminiscent of the botched raid into Iran during the hostage crisis.  

They should have thought out much of how they were going to announce the bin Laden raid, not just the photo portion. I mentioned in the column that they changed their story on the raid 26 times. Since the column ran, there have been a few more revisions.

Can’t wait for Hillary to write her book.

They seemed to have messed up the announcement and follow up pretty badly.  Who knows what else we’ll find out?

None wrote: Was John Ransom in favor of this war, when it started, or has he always been against this war? – in response to my column O’s Surge a Giant Sucking Sound

Dear None,

I’m in favor of the mission. The mission, as I understand it, is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as an operational base for Al Qaeda.

I’m on record as being against the idea of nation-building in Afghanistan. And I was definitely against the surge that Obama began in 2009, which most Congressional Republicans support.

In February of 2009 I wrote: “We invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy operationally the Al Qaeda bases from which they planned the attacks of 9/11. We stay there today, all chest thumping and rhetoric aside, in order to keep the pressure on the Al Qaeda leadership and prevent them from operating. In this we have been very successful. However, the Obama administration has taken the same attitude towards a troop surge as they have toward stimulus packages. More troop surge, like more stimulus, is obviously better, no matter what the cost or the likeliness to succeed.”

I think history has shown that I was right then.

And shame on the president who would use our troops politically as Obama has done in Afghanistan.   

Charlotte wrote: I agree with the burial at sea, because the Muslims will have a hard time building a shrine over his body to inspire future terrorists, but this President has LIED to the people so many times and over so many items that it is no wonder the people don't trust him and CONGRESS IS NO BETTER. – in response to my column Osama’s Teachable Moment

Dear Charlotte,

On issue after issue, Americans are fed up with the fact that they feel they can’t trust Washington. It doesn’t matter what new laws they pass; they either pass the wrong ones or won’t enforce the ones they do pass.

I always use illegal immigration and the tax code as twin examples of what’s wrong.

These two areas of the law present the gravest threat to our liberty.

And here’s why:

The easiest way to create a dictatorship is to pass laws that you don’t enforce. That way, everyone becomes a criminal and the government gets to decide who get prosecuted and who gets to skate.

We are at a point in our history where the government will not enforce immigration laws and has made the tax code so complex that it’s impossible to follow.

We’ve created a permanent under-class of criminals in this country, completely at the leave of the federal government.

And that same government then passes more complex laws- like Real ID- in order to combat problems related to them not enforcing laws in the first place.

The result is that out liberties are eroded further.

We’ve reached a point where we have a crisis of confidence in our leaders and the next few years are critical.      

Luny Tune: All these secrets from a man who promised transparency. I think you are right. He doesn't even know himself, much less know how to let us know who he is. – in response to my column Obama’s Super-Secret Presidency

Dear Luny,

That’s Obama’s biggest problem. He doesn’t believe in American Exceptionalism, he believes in Obama’s Exceptionalism. That why he can convince himself that anything he does is good as long as it benefits himself.

Morgan wrote: Americans don't like secretive Presidents. We at least like to feel that when the President speaks we are hearing truth. I still think that Obama's watershed moment came at the end of 2010 when he ripped Republicans as "hostage takers" on the "tax deal", then agreed to it, then left it to Clinton to justify it. – in response to my column Obama’s Super-Secret Presidency

Dear Morgan,

That’s a great example. One which I had not thought of and was likely lost on readers too.

Thanks for reminding us.

Have a great weekend.


PS- Happy Mother’s Day to the girls I love. And to the rest of you too ;-)

See also:

Kathy Fettke: Blame the Fed 
Mike Shedlock: More Slow Growth Signs
Bob Goldman: What's Eating You? 
Michelle Singletary: Claim Denied? File an Appeal 
Larry Kudlow: Are We Done in Afghanistan?
John Ransom: Holder's Lame Victory  

You can email John Ransom at 

You can follow him on Twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

 Get John Ransom's daily market commentary at: