Where do I even start? I have seen and heard a lot in my day, so I'm pretty thick-skinned. But something about this article ["'You don't have the right to speak'"] and video just made my blood boil. Yes, in comparison to the vast problems facing us all in this world today, this is just a very minor and momentary aggravation, but this episode clearly points to the profound degree of lack of respect, or even simple tolerance, of another viewpoint. That situation is, unfortunately, so destructive and so prevalent among a large part of our society today.

This is not a question of free speech on Mr. King's part; this is simply an act of wanton and willful destruction of someone else's work. Will Mr. King next be allowed to destroy a student's literature research paper because he doesn't approve of the subject matter, or another student's history thesis because he doesn't like the end result?

Mr. King and the other destroyers may be wonderful citizens who just had a moment of collective poor judgment. But how much longer must our society be forced to tolerate these acts of violence with no consequences for the perpetrators?

If people will not take responsibility for their actions, then it is up to the authorities in place to force that responsibility upon them. In that light, here is a very easy solution I would like to offer to the dean at UWSP: Simply inform Mr. King, along with anyone else who can be identified as having taken part in the destruction of the exhibit, that they are no longer enrolled at this university.

There – problem solved. What's next on the list?

Brian Skinner

As a man who lived in a tent on the apron of Beirut International Airport, as a Marine, over the winter of '82-'83, I say that your reporter Aaron Klein is the most courageous reporter in the media today. I spent two decades looking across borders and contemplating the wars we have had and will have with these people, and Aaron is worth his weight in gold.

I don't always agree with you, but you always make your case, regardless of who it is who is featured, and provide the background information you constantly complain goes without exposition in the "establishment press."

I would suggest that the fact that you are ignored so openly is a sign of the volume of your work and the readership you carry – in short, a sign you are beating them.

John McClain

Surely you must be joking ["Corsi sees 'harder economic times' in '09"]. Things aren't roses all over, nor are they peachy, to use clichés. Honestly, I cannot believe that you would insult the readers of your web news in such a manner. Do you know how few people are able to jump up and take a cruise? I and 99 percent of my friends and acquaintances cannot begin to afford such a frivolous trip. Frankly, how will talking on a cruise ship do any good?

Once again, it will be you and the elite leaving out the rest of us middle-class people. Why not have a few free town hall type meetings? How much are you going to earn for your cruise speeches? I will not be paying much attention to WorldNetDaily in the future. You now have ranked with likes of CNN, Fox, Reuters and the rest.

Kenneth E. Trayer Jr.

I take exception to Bill Press' commentary "John Hagee's free ride in the media." He writes, "Like most evangelical Christians, [Hagee] only supports Israel in order to trigger another war that would bring about the end of the world." That is a LIE. Most evangelical Christians support Israel because God promised that land to them, and opposing God is a losing situation.

Mr. Press shows as much ignorance about conservative Christians as Obama did when he said Pennsylvania voters who supported the Second Amendment and went to church did so only because they were economically disenfranchised.

Mr. Press should apologize, just as Obama should apologize.

Richard Patton

Hamas needn't worry about destroying Israel, because Israel is doing quite a good job of doing that on its own.

Melvin Leppla

Why do you honor Nat Hentoff as "a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights" when he is a man who so glibly disparages the Constitution when its authority does not deliver his desired results? In his column demonizing the Supreme Court's decision on lethal injection, Hentoff says:

"Has Scalia – an 'originalist' to whom the Constitution's language, as written, is strictly determinative – forgotten that our founding document does not include Negro slaves as 'free Persons' with constitutional protections? That no longer being the case, the Constitution is not entirely frozen in time."

Hentoff is aware of Article V regarding the amendment process. He knows that slavery was abolished and all loose ends tied up with three constitutional amendments. Yet, he passes off the elimination of slavery as "That no longer being the case," as if a civil war, three constitutional amendments and endless legislation by the people's representatives, including two massive civil rights acts, never happened. He attempts to pass it all off as just happening magically through penumbras and emanations. Somehow, the living Constitution breathed and slavery ended in some kind of unseen, left-wing, evolutionary process.

Slavery was ended through the exact constitutional process that he mocks as "frozen in time."

But, Hentoff knows all this. He is just another demagogic, lying propagandist. He can't get his pet project – ending the death penalty – enacted through the established constitutional process that ended slavery, so he denigrates the very process that actually accomplished that noble goal and the people who, today, are guided by its wisdom.

He may have studied the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, but his deliberate, demonic, opportunistic twisting of the entire document for political purposes must surely disqualify him from "nationally renowned authority" status.

Doug Wakeman

I really like your website; however, this is a typical pants-on-fire WND article ["Is Wikipedia wicked porn?"]. This is a tempest in a teapot, and you are giving them lots of free publicity. This is the WND equivalent to Al Gore's global warming nonsense. The pictures are very tame compared to the stuff that regularly slips through filters.

Wikipedia is doing what they are supposed to do. They provide information on all subjects.

David Harrison

Rush Limbaugh created "Operation Chaos," which encouraged registered Republicans to register as Democrats so they could vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary. This has happened in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Indiana. There may be 300,000 fraudulent votes in each state that came from Republicans who crossed over and voted for Hillary Clinton. It is time for the secretaries of state in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Indiana to investigate voter fraud by Rush Limbaugh.

These Republicans will definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. They have created a string of fraudulent victories for Clinton. This is clearly voter fraud that should be investigated by the Justice Department, the FBI and the Federal Election Commission. The voters who crossed over to vote for Hillary Clinton will register again as Republicans for the general election. It is time to investigate Rush Limbaugh to see if he violated any existing laws.

Bron

This article ["Blame it on Big Oil!"] just goes to show how out of touch Jane Chastain and most people are about the oil industry and gas prices. The production shortages she describes are caused by self-limiting by the oil producers. Just last week, OPEC said they would INCREASE production to relieve the climbing costs. Why is production low? To keep the price inflated.

We can also ask, why is it the oil companies are realizing record profits with oil at $120 a barrel? You would surely think they would be feeling the pinch as well. It doesn't matter what the price of oil is – the oil companies will make record profits at $20 a barrel or $220 a barrel.

And finally, if the oil companies are making this much money in profits, this can only mean one thing. They are charging too much at the pump and can afford to lower it.

Yes, blame it on Big Oil. They are committing economic terrorism on the U.S.

Mark Nelson

This Mother's Day, please remember to give her a big hug and tell her thank you ... for being pro-life.

R. Robin

Since when is it the government's place to medicate the masses through the water supply using toxic chemicals while feeding us propaganda that this practice is good for us?

Since when is it the government's place to prevent me from getting good nutrition through the purchase of fresh food products from a local farmer?

How does that saying go? "When they came for the local farmer I did nothing, because I lived close to a Wal-Mart."

That's OK; they have a pharmacy right there with all kinds of drugs to treat the symptoms caused by all the non-nutritional GMO food from Third World counties. If all this makes you upset, they have drugs for that, too.

Larry

Mr. Larsen [Email to the Editor, May 7]: The CHOICE whether or not to have a baby isn't made after the child is conceived. The CHOICE is made when the male and female CHOOSE to have sex. Biologically speaking, sex is for reproduction, and it is in the male's explicit interest (again, biologically speaking) that his offspring survive to reproduce. That sex feels good is the incentive for us to participate, not the goal.

Abortion isn't about women's rights; it is about personal responsibility. They CHOSE to have sex and run the "risk" of pregnancy, so their RESPONSIBILITY is to bring that baby to term. Their next CHOICE (there is that funny word again) is to raise it, or to give it up for adoption, not have it killed.

It is interesting to me the number of females who once advocated for abortion rights that change their minds and advocate against them once they have had a child sucked into a sink.

wearetheonly2, plus our three and a half kids

Mr. Larsen has obviously never been to a pro-life meeting [Email to the Editor, May 7]. I have been doing pro-life work since I was a kid in various cities and states and have never run into a majority of men. It has always been around 90 percent women. When I was a president of a county pro-life organization the only man that participated was the husband of an older lady who didn't drive and needed a ride to the meeting.

Even though I am very anti-feminist, I agree: Keep the men out. My experience has been that pro-abortion men only care about getting themselves off the hook for 18-plus years of child support. Men don't have to suffer the emotional after effects or the increased chance of breast cancer. Women deserve better.

Christine Manning

Please consider this: My sons view the front page of World Net Daily on our computer screen several times daily. While we certainly agree with the inappropriateness of explicit definitions and pictures that Wikipedia has chosen to include in their information, we also feel that the depth you have taken to describe these inappropriate topics is "not so good either"! The headline gave us the idea; the details definitely were not necessary.

Fel Car

When sewer rats run and control a business, like an encyclopedia, what else can you expect but diseased filth?

JWB

[To Joseph Farah:] What a timely application of that ancient piece of wisdom! ("An unnoticed prophecy about dividing of Israel") . Thank you for it – but I have a question. Is not the true mother of the living baby even now negotiating with the false mother as to where the sword will fall on the living baby? What can our Elohim do if the true mother agrees to kill her only son?

I tremble for our nation and I pray daily that the One Who inhabits eternity will give us righteous leaders, leaders who will not be bought and sold and who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.

Shalom,

Doyle Stevenson

"Today, the American ideals we cherish, freedom and equal opportunity for all, were upheld by the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision. This single decision will help millions of Americans continue the path toward progress so that our institutions of higher learning, our government, military and our places of business large and small continue to reflect the diversity of our great nation."

With the above statement, made after the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the basic principles of affirmative action, Sen. Hillary Clinton signaled the end of her bid to become president of the United States of America. Certainly at the time she never imagined she would find herself in so close a race with another candidate for the job, or that the other candidate would be a minority.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, she of the eight years of U.S. Senate experience, the Yale Law degree, the numerous overseas trips as first lady and then as senator, the votes on difficult matters of national significance, the great understanding of the breadth of policy, she must lose. The decision does not come down to a question of delegates or popular votes as qualification; no, it comes down, as the Democratic Party believes it should in all hiring, to reversing many years of discrimination by forcing equality of outcome.

If the Democratic Party is to be consistent, it must nominate Barack Obama. The Democrats are inches away from the finish line in the long race to reach the ever-elusive goal of equality. If they turn back now, they are letting themselves down. For the Democratic Party has before it two candidates with similar credentials, but one has a history of discrimination in his race's past. The Democrats must choose the minority candidate in this instance regardless of perceived fitness for the job or electability. Otherwise, it risk reversing their half decade of racial progress.

This race for the nomination must not come down to a contested convention. If her own ideals are to ever be realized, Hillary Clinton must step aside before that happens. Also from the same 2003 statement: "When our public places are as diverse as our great nation, then our country grows stronger and we move closer to the America we dream about." What can be more of a public place than the "people's house"?

Pat Ertmann

I read your piece on fluoridation of drinking water. Those who oppose adding fluoride to drinking water routinely argue, as you pointed out, that it's dangerous to add chemical to our water, yet no valid research appears to show clearly that all of the horrible side effects and "diseases" claimed by opponents actually can be proven.

Every surgeon general since Adam has encouraged its addition to our water – and they are charged to improve the nation's health. Also, adding chlorine, which is a very potent chemical, much more so that fluoride, makes our drinking water safe and nobody wants to remove it. Fluoride opposition is for the "loonies" who don't know what a well-designed research project looks like!

Gordon Anderson D.D.S., M.S.D., F.A.C.D.

I worked in a municipal water plant for nearly 20 years, and I have always questioned the wisdom of fluoridating water supplies. As a plant operator, I was required to pour sacks of sodium fluoride, and later sodium silica fluoride, into feeders that then added it to the water. Each of these sacks of fluoride is marked with a skull and crossbones symbol of poisonous content, and operators are cautioned to wear masks or respirators when pouring the chemical.

If the general public knew what water plant operators know, they would insist that any fluoridation be stopped immediately. I can't imagine anyone being tolerant of adding arsenic to the water, but fluoride, like arsenic, accumulates in the body over time.

In studies, it has also been shown that there is no benefit to adult teeth with the addition of fluoride. Any parent who wants to have their children treated with fluoride has that option with fluoride mouthwashes and dental applications. There is no good reason to expose all water users to the risk and expense of the use of a chemical that is required to place on its label the skull and crossbones of death.

Darrel Mulloy

Don't these gun-clinging religious zealots from rural Pennsylvania know that it's progressive government's right to tell them what they can eat and drink? It's particularly upsetting that they've even started contaminating the thinking of people from Brooklyn. I hope Sen. Obama and his elite band of highly educated friends and advisers have come along in time to save urban AmeriiKKKa from these ignorant cavemen. It's too bad that they weren't from one of those backwater states Sen. Clinton says don't really count. Then we could send in a couple hundred ATF agents with tanks and Blackhawk helicopters to teach them a lesson.

Mike

Mr. Farah: Sen. Obama need not squirm over your irrelevant question. Yes, irrelevant because, as a male, you have no standing to comment on the issue. Abortion is strictly within the purview of women. To think otherwise implicitly suggests that women should have legal and moral domain over your reproductive equipment.

The "controversy" over when life begins is simply a red herring. As only a woman may bear children, abortion is a medical procedure that only the woman involved may decide. The only role government need play is to ensure the procedures are safe, just like any other medical procedure where training, competency and certification are required.

It's interesting to me that the vast majority of anti-abortion advocates are male. Most women understand that even if they would not have an abortion, it's a private decision that can only be made by a woman.

Jim Larsen

I am writing to ask if anyone knows who gave PETA the right to speak for any animals, or the right to demand anything? I know for a fact PETA's concerns are opportunistic, helping only those situations they feel will get them publicity, (read: MONEY).

I am from (gasp!) Canada, and a few years ago, contacted the organization about an animal-control person contracted to a rural county here who would take the dogs he picked up, chain them four-to-five at a time to a tree, then shoot them one by one, as the others screamed and struggled against their chains, seeing what was happening. Our animal-protection laws in Ontario are pathetic thanks to our weak premier, so I turned to PETA for some kind of help. Needless to say, they did squat. Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

I suggest that the next time someone reads the whimpering concerns of these nuts, disregard and consider the source. They are the most pathetic, ineffectual group, less than useless – they really accomplish nothing except self-promotion.

Am I angry? Yes! I have the screams of those poor dogs still ringing in my ears years later. To my knowledge, that callous "animal control" person is still doing it, thanks to PETA. Inaction is covert approval.

Angry in Ontario,

Dan Banks

The conclusion reached by David Kupelian is quite interesting when applied to our current president. He writes:

"Just reflect, for a moment, on the bizarre and seemingly inexplicable behaviors of young people we see right now – youths Tasering each other for fun on YouTube. Ubiquitous sexual debauchery at younger and younger ages. The mainstreaming of transgenderism. Body piercing and tattooing at an ever-more pathological level – tongues, lips, eyebrows, deep body parts. Pandemic gang activity and drug abuse. Witchcraft. Satanism. Suicide."

This after laying blame for the behavior of American citizens squarely on the shoulders of past presidents. I guess a born-again Christian like Bush is the worst presidential choice, according to Kupelian's doctrine. Or maybe a Republican president is the worst choice, since George W. Bush's presidency has brought such debauchery as laid out by Mr. Kupelian.

I would like to thank him for reminding me not to vote for a Republican this time around. I thought conservatism was about personal responsibility. Clearly, I was wrong.

Gabriel Clausen

It is high time the media inform the electorate that most of the promises made by the present crop of candidates for the presidency of the United States are not within their constitutional realm to make. They offer health care changes of different types, lowering or increasing taxes, additional social programs, illegal immigration amnesty and on and on.

All these promises can only be fulfilled by Congress and only be vetoed by the president if he does not like what comes to his desk for signature. However, Congress can still override his veto if they have the necessary votes. Therefore, let's not forget that they are all making promises they should not make, and they should be constantly reminded of that.

The congressional elections are at least if not more important with regard to legislation to be passed. Voters are too gullible and not sufficiently informed about our Constitution, and the majority falls for all these empty promises made by all the candidates running for office.

Jules Schwager

The quality of your product just took a plunge with the addition of Roger Hedgecock. He has been very vocal and negative regarding the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection specifically, while demeaning the firefighters in general. He has used the department as an attack point against the Sacramento leadership. I don't mind that, but he has tarnished our firefighters, who fight and die to save the lives and property of Californians. It is a shame that he is going to be given a greater nation forum in light of what he does back home.

Bill Peters
Fire Prevention Specialist

I suggest that we should vote for John McCain.

Here is why I think it is very important to vote for McCain: One of the most important things a president does is appoint Supreme Court judges. McCain is far more likely to, and probably will, appoint a conservative to that position. The makeup of the Court determines the course our country will take more than any other body. We must not hand over that appointment to a far-left socialistic person who has a different value system than most Americans.

Obama is a socialist, and if he has a Democratic Congress, he will change the USA. Once the changes are made, there is little if any chance of our ever being governed again by our Constitution. Some of this has already occurred with FDR's New Deal and the Civil Rights Acts that, while intended for good, changed the way we look at personal rights forever. I am not saying that I am against civil rights for minority citizens. I am simply saying due to racism laws were passed that somehow gave Americans the idea that we have a constitutional right to many things that are not stated in our Constitution.

Now we have reached the point of thinking we are owed many, many things that should be our personal responsibility. For example, while the pope was here, one newspaper carried a column where a man was quoted as saying the pope would deny citizens their right to birth control. Citizens now expect not only life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but most feel that the government should provide means for the happiness rather than the opportunity for pursuit thereof.

The only people who should vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are those who believe socialism is better than capitalism, and those who believe that government control is better than free enterprise. That is what is at stake here!

Socialism is one step away from communism, and we know that this has been tried and has not only failed miserably, but for it to continue it had to be enforced by dictators.

Anonymous

Many years ago I criticized WND for not being fair. Specifically about differing Christian views on eschatology in some articles presented on the website around 1999. I humbly ask for your forgiveness.

Although I disagree with some articles, WND presents many sides to many differing ideas. Politically, you guys are spot on, and I compare you to the free press that helped spark America's freedom from tyrannical England in 1776. I hope you will continue to be that same free press that preserves us from tyranny at our own front steps of an overbearing, tyrannical government that resides not only in Washington, D.C., but at the steps of many state capitols.

From an eschatology standpoint, I would associate myself with Gary Demar (American Vision). Politically, I believe I sit in the same seat as you. I am very concerned about what kind of country my children and grandchildren will have when my time on Earth is finished.

I know for a fact you do not remember me out of all the thousands, if not millions, of critics in the past. However, as one Christian man to another, I am sure you understand about making peace when God puts it in your heart. I am sorry. You and the whole staff at WND do a fine job. It is my express hope and prayer that you all keep up the good fight.

Jason

I just read an article about schools saying babies are born homosexual. I say this is not true. If God wanted gay and lesbians he would have put two men or two women in the Garden of Eden.

There should be an article about what is in the Bible about homosexuals. It is sin, and we are not born that way. We make ourselves homosexuals. I'm single, but God didn't make me single; I chose to be. I wish everyone would read what God has to say about this, and if they continue to live a lifestyle like that they are going to hell.

Just thought I would gave my opinion on the article, and I think it is a shame what they are teaching our children in school. If the born again Christians don't rise up and take their stand, the nation is going down.

Betty R. Grimm

Think about it. The pope was not included on Time magazine's 100 most influential people list. Why? Because he isn't controversial enough. While many admire the pope, myself included, traditional Roman Catholics should be upset – not at Time, but at the pope. Not that Benedict should be in-your-face regarding morality; he should at least parallel Jesus in rebuking evil – especially in his own church.

There was nothing milquetoast about Jesus. But recent popes, including John Paul II, have allowed heretical Catholics to run roughshod over the faith (Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc.).

Like me, hundreds of thousands of Catholics are in self-imposed exile. We simply cannot bring ourselves to participate in what has become an extremely compromised religion.

Peter Arnone

Uh-oh, I have a terrible problem, and I have no idea how to solve it.

I now have, not just two, but three excellent choices for my write-in presidential candidate: Ellis Washington, Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin. Things were so much simpler when it was just the three stooges. No, not Curly, Moe and Larry – but Surly, Slow and Scary (Juan McCain, Barack Osama, Shrillary Clinton, respectively).

Any of these constitutionally minded candidates could restore America as the land of the free. Between Ron Paul's unwavering allegiance to the Constitution, Chuck Baldwin's moral leadership and Ellis Washington's "Rocket Diplomacy" and straight talking, we would once again be a nation to be respected and admired.

Oh, what is a voter to do?

Ken De Vries