- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Daniel Petry: Didn’t Obama Take an Oath to Defend the Constitution?
To correctly understand President Barack Obama’s objectives, you need only filter everything he says through his goal of “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” And to best understand this fact, one must first ignore the things he says, and pay very close attention to the things he actually does. Think of it as if you are watching a sidewalk scam artist play Three-card Monte.
“The fundamental transformation of the United States of America” is a line President Obama got from one of the architects of his agenda, Robert Creamer, who proclaimed, “If Barack Obama is elected president, we then have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy.” Creamer is a member of Obama’s Chicago mob, a fellow community organizer, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and a convicted felon.
President Obama is a man who with the full support of a complicit media was able to hide who he truly is and convince a number of malleable and entitlement-driven citizens that he was not a threat to their freedom and that his election would be the Second Coming.
When he is not scripted, Obama tends to reveal his true identity with comments such as, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Or, “… the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and ... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the federal government can’t do to you ... .”
Scary stuff when uttered by the president of the United States. So let’s take a look at how much of a threat this man and his cabal are to our freedom.
Keep in mind that our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.”
But that has not stopped Obama. The stark reality is that his agenda has been totally repudiated by the public, and as a result of the Massachusetts special election, he no longer has any direct path to implement his radical transformation through a legitimate legislative process. So he has begun the process of nullifying the legislature — the Supreme Court — and going around the Constitution.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for President Obama to further regulate the economy through Soviet-style central planning, completely regulate our national health-care system, and use the Environmental Protection Agency to decree that he has the power to regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Growing up on the south side of Chicago, I experienced the kind of political bullies Chicago has a penchant in producing. Prime examples of this now inhabit our White House. From Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emmanuel to David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Obama.
In modern definitions, the term generally used to describe a leader who holds or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, or makes laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly, is a dictator. Tyranny can be soft or hard and is often characterized by proclamations of national emergencies, ruling by decree, repression or intimidation of political opponents, and a cult of personality.
First, let’s look at this issue through the eyes of one of the Senate’s most respected Democrats, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V.
I feel dirty agreeing — on any issue — with a man who used to be a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. But Byrd is a constitutional scholar and has a long history of jealously defending the constitutional prerogatives of the U.S. Senate.
Byrd informed Obama that the sheer number of his czar appointments was a direct threat to our Constitution, and that his decrees are an attack on the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Obama has decreed that he will now control the census. This is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the House controls the census. But he wasn’t finished in ripping up the Constitution. Why stop there? He then decreed he would include sampling in the census. This violates the same article, which calls for an “actual” enumeration.
Obama did it again when the unconstitutional Conrad-Gregg amendment, to create an independent budget-cutting panel, came to the floor. It was soundly defeated in a cloture vote. Obama then announced he would go around Congress and do it by decree.
Now that his campaign to emasculate the legislative branch is well on its way, he could begin to concentrate on the remaining branch. So, during his recent State of the Union address, Obama formally accused the U.S. Supreme Court of being a threat to national security, saying its actions allow “foreign enemies” to corrupt the election process.
What’s alarming about this attack upon the Supreme Court is that even though Obama no longer has a super majority in the Senate, he is ready and willing to undertake extremely abusive interpretations of existing law and procedural rules to ram his agenda down our nation’s throat. He knows that if he goes that route, it ultimately would be the Supreme Court that would rule on the constitutionality of such actions. The underlying context of Obama’s attack is that he is trying to demonize the Supreme Court and say that the justices are basically subversive criminals.
Tactics such as these are to be expected from petty dictators such as Hugo Chavez — not the president of the United States. To our detriment, it’s obvious he has more in common with Chavez than he does with our founding fathers.
President Obama is in the midst of a power grab, the likes of which we have never seen before. He is a clear and present danger to our nation and our constitution and is pushing this country into truly uncharted waters. His arrogance leads him to believe that the Constitution doesn’t apply to him and should only be considered an inconvenient document that is out of sync with his world view. At best, it is to be used piecemeal as long as it advances his radical agenda.
Understanding this premise, it is then somewhat alarming to view the things that Obama is actually doing within this context.
In summary, Obama, when confronted with the reality that he has no public support for his agenda and no legal means to implement it, simply announced “I do not quit” and will ignore the Constitution and implement his decrees “by any means necessary.” The only two possible obstacles that stand between Obama and his brand of soft tyranny are the Supreme Court — which, according to Obama, is enabling “foreign enemies” and thus is a threat to national security — and the American people.
God help us.
— Santa Barbara resident Daniel Petry is the CEO and founding partner of Petry Direct Inc., a 20-year-old management firm that specializes in content production and marketing management. He attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, class of 1976, and received a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Colorado.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 02.15.10 @ 07:27 PM
I dont feel safe with Obama—He never had a real job, and has never run a business—-Why is he our president?
Vote the union & trial lawyer puppets out—Boxer Capps-Pelosi Reid-Fienstein-Obama..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.10 @ 08:56 PM
Where did Petry come from!? Certainly not a product of the California educational system. Another great article. I have enjoyed every one of them. Please keep writing.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.10 @ 10:26 PM
This guy is truly a threat to my family. The sooner we clip his wings the better.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.10 @ 10:39 PM
Dictatorial ideologues to the right of him,
Dictatorial ideologues to left of him,
Dictatorial ideologues in front of him
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
Boldly he rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the mighty Daniel Petry
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.10 @ 10:43 PM
This writer is spewing the baseless “talking points” and codewords written by Karl Rove and his ilk. We must start debating as intelligent Americans and not go off on hate mongering fear tactics such as these. They are cheap high-school mentality shots that have no place in honest reality based discourse.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.10 @ 11:18 PM
Jillian so you are saying that those decrees have not been initiated? Those people do not work with Obama? He did not lose his super majority, etc? Please inform us lowly cheap high-school mentality citizens what has a place in honest reality uber left based discourse. Address the issues. But then you can’t can you?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.10 @ 11:22 PM
It’s great to see that Petry got ya right between the eyes as often as you posted your dribble. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Folks, Petry easily cuts McDermutt down to size with ease. Address the articles points rather than standard lib attack tactics. Getting old dude.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:02 AM
So like Jillian why don’t you lay the rules down for us like lowly high schoolers. Like do you think debate is not without opposing positions and like if that is so are you like telling us that you can’t handle contrary and forceful dialog. I mean can’t we all like be one with the chosen one.
Jillian we don’t want to be hateful and disagreeable. Like that is so like not like one with nature. Please tell us what we are supposed to believe. I’d be excited to be another lemming and not spew the baseless “talking points” and codewords written by Karl Rove and his ilk. I mean who would ever want to debate with them. Like come on.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:15 AM
Are you trying to tell us that he did not say he wants to fundamentally transform the United States of America? Are you saying that none of what Petry wrote is true: “The fundamental transformation of the United States of America” is a line President Obama got from one of the architects of his agenda, Robert Creamer, who proclaimed, “If Barack Obama is elected president, we then have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy?”
Are you saying that is not a community organizer, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and a convicted felon?
What exactly is not true? Please we want to have a discourse. Or are you just someone that attacks the messenger and ignores the facts?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 07:34 AM
you better watch out Petry (or is that really Gina Perry in drag??),Obama’s gonna come after your big green Hummer next!
Brian Ehler
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:00 AM
I hope you are talking about Obama.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:03 AM
Bleepp…Hmm.. guy has some good points… must attack messenger… must attack messenger…bleep bleep.. must invoke Karl Rove, Bush, Cheney, Sarah Palin, Glennn Beck…Fox News…racism…bleep.. bleep
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:26 AM
Dan.
What kind of drugs are you smoking?
Would you share some of this powerful and amazing mind altering substance?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:28 AM
Ok Jills. Let’s start the debate as “intelligent Americans”. First, you must refute the facts that Petry’s presents, not just get down on whoever challenges your position as “haters”. Very intelligent.
The problem with that is that most liberals will just walk away when challenged to a debate, because for them when things are going their way - “the debate is over” (Al Gore as the supreme leader of non-debate team).
We are ready for the debate. You’re up. Unless of course, you are too intelligent for the rest of us.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:29 AM
He offers a poem! How sweet, thank you Don. Next? Who else wants intelligent debate?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:32 AM
“Wow dude what kind of drugs are you smoking?”
Very intelligent. Next high-schooler please?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:43 AM
Let’s see where is my Liberal debate cookbook? Oh here it is, let’s see:
Step 1) Degrade, insult, intimidate followers of opponent
Step 2) Make an association with Beck-Limbaugh, Bush/Rove/Cheney, Fox News
Step 3) associate opponent with greedy corporate interests (Halliburton is always a good word)
Step 4) viciously attack opponent for making vicious attacks.
Step 5) attack opponent for not saying anything good about our fearless leader - call them uncivil, hate monger, fear monger, other names -
Step 6) If challenged by opponent, walk away as too elite of a snob and too intelligent for such lowly things as debates with lower life forms.
Extra credit points: Find a way to make opponent appear as wealthy, white, male or a racist, stupid (based on nothing but association or implication) or any other way to complete the character assassination.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:46 AM
“Obama’s gonna come after your big green Hummer next!”
Very good, Don! Painting the author as wealthy and anti-environment works every time!
Which high-schooler wants to debate next?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 08:55 AM
Mr. Petry,
Would you be willing to state the conditions under which the Supreme Court ruling actually will allow foreign interests to contribute to American election campaigns?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:01 AM
Look, it’s part of a process where the government confiscates private property and uses it to secure their own power. It’s not about fairness. They buy votes with the money they confiscate.
Redistribution is the least frightening part of Obama’s agenda. What comes after is what is mind boggeling.
In other words, Obama sees our money, and freedoms, as belonging to the government. He wants to take our money and he will decide how to spend it, then decide what freedoms we have. It is like the old Russian curse; What’s mine is mine, your’s is negotiable.
But that’s OK. We have begun the process of destroying Obama, and that is what have to focus on.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:06 AM
With every passing Barack Obama sermon, I become more and more convinced that the country made an enormous mistake electing a man who is on a permanent campaign. Or maybe just permanently community organizing, who misunderstands the constitution and the role of the president, and who has no conception that other people’s money is other people’s money.
I think Daniel said it best in a past article. He is a man-child who thinks he can run with the adults.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:09 AM
Let’sTalk. Petry didn’t say that the Supreme Court ruling actually will allow foreign interests to contribute to American election campaigns. Obama and his minions did.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:16 AM
You mean Obama has begun the process of destroying himself. I think he mis-underestimated the ferocity of the freedom loving Americans he has woken up.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:17 AM
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:28 AM
how can you “debate” a bunch of GOP cattle, guys? I already know what you’re going to say before you say it..remember,false patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel..Mr.Petry sounds more like “Mr. Petrified” of that black guy in the White House…
Brian Ehler
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:42 AM
Have all of the righties conveniently forgotten that their darling, King George, the W, created the Imperial Presidency, with Dick the Joker sneering behind the throne, and set the all-time record of Presidential “signing statements”? This one Imperial act set back the separation of powers far more than Obama or any other Dem would ever do. But what’s amusing, is that the Repubs set the tone and now the once-silent minority are squealing like stuck pigs when the Dems emulate them to the slightest degree.
And do these same righties believe that the increasing earnings gap between middle and upper income Americans is a GOOD thing? And do they support the explosion of executive compensation over the past 20 years? If so, do they also believe that it is the “God-given right” of corporate executives to sack and pillage earnings that once were more broadly shared with workers and shareholders?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 09:50 AM
I am outraged that Obama is doing what Bush did with Executive Orders. The Democrats should just give up and bend over to the tender mercies of Boner and Cantor.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 10:14 AM
So Brian Ehler what specific items described in the article do you not agree with and dispute? Speak up.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 10:20 AM
So Nextus what specific items described in the article do you not agree with and dispute? Speak up.
Plus it is nice to see that when you work for the government the average salary is $70,000 yet the average for us poor slobs is $40,000. But we gotta concentrate on those evil capitalists. As somone said earlier: It’s really getting old and predictable and nobody falls for this B.S. anymore. It’s like watching Wayne Newton sing “Donkeyshane” for the 5000th time in Vegas. Get a new act.
What is the “one Imperial act?” Please enlighten us jokers. Can you? Huh. Pretty please?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 10:53 AM
RT…
MOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! MOOOOOO!
Brian Ehler
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 10:59 AM
OK class time is up, have all the junior liberals had a chance to intelligently debate?
Alright, let’s grade and review.
Jillian
- associate author with Karl Rove, (Step 2 LDC) 1 point
- baselessly accusing opponents of hate and fear mongering - (Step 4 LDC) 2 points
- baselessly accuse opponents of being dishonest and having “highschool mentality” (step 1 and 4 LDC) - 1 point
- offering nothing of substance to debate or walking away from challenge to debate (Step 6 LDC) - 2 points
Don McDermott - evading debate by writing an insulting poem about the opponent (Step 4,5 Liberal Debate Cookbook) - 2 points
- offering nothing of substance to debate or walking away from challenge to debate (Step 6, LDC) - 2 points
Rob Egenolf -
character assassination - implying that author is a drug user(Step 4, LDC) - 2 points
Brian Ehler -
“Obama’s gonna come after your big green Hummer next!”
Nice Brian! (Step 3, Step 4 LDC) - association with wealthy corporate interests, while making the opponent appear as wealthy and anti-global warming all in one sentence! Did everyone see how he did that? - 3 points
2nd attempt, “how can you “debate” a bunch of GOP cattle, guys?” Nice use of Step 1 (Degrade, insult, intimidate followers of opponent) AND step 6 of LDC (If challenged by opponent, walk away as too elite of a snob and too intelligent for such lowly things as debates with lower life forms.) all in one sentence! - 4 points!
“Mr.Petry sounds more like “Mr. Petrified” of that black guy in the White House…” (Step 4 and 5) with a touch of liberal humor! ha ha! Good, Brian! 4 points!
Plus extra credit for making Petry appear racist and black-phobic!!!
Extra credit! Find a way to make opponent appear as wealthy, white, male or a racist, stupid (based on nothing but association or implication) or any other way to complete the character assassination.
BRIAN WINS A+++++++ 11 points plus 2 points extra credit
only one step of the Liberal Debate Cookbook missed - no associations with a right wing extremist celebrity.
Wait Nextus -
Nice use of step 2!
Make an association with Beck-Limbaugh, Bush/Rove/Cheney, Fox News
Thanks for stepping up to help Brian! You get 4 points.
plus a little of step 3, a little of step 1 - not bad, but Brian is still way out there as future lib of the month..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:01 AM
Mooing will get you nowhere.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:12 AM
I think you’re right, the GOP usually are the cattle - producing all the milk for the government to hand out to you lazy liberal socialist losers.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:27 AM
What facts? Congress (read Senate)will not allow a majority vote on anything. Do NONE of you understand majority rule in a democracy? 51 votes is the rule (remember elementary and high school student body elections?...same deal, same rule, same idea)
I am appalled by people like Petry who construct entire arguments by demeaning the electoral process. Perhaps it is time for him to move to a country with laws better suited to his idea of government…try Argentina.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:34 AM
hey..Goppers..any associations you make are your own, but thanks for all your help!
Brian Ehler
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:39 AM
If you just look at them you would know they would never pick up a gun and fight our enemy—They would be hiding behing the rest of us even if our shores where attacked.
These liberals are taking heads—thats it—most are lazy.
Their leaders are union & trial lawyer puppets—
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:56 AM
Brian,Nextus,Jillian, Don, Rob, your posts have nothing to do with Obamas attack on the Constitution. Do you have a position on the matter? Or do you want to continue showing how clueless you are. Come on people grow a set, and step up and comment about the article. This is getting old with you folks.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:57 AM
So Nextus what specific items described in the article do you not agree with and dispute? Speak up. What are you afraid of?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:14 PM
Well for those of you who criticize my post you need to realize that the real author or original plagiarist is West Point Grad Daniel Petry himself. Perhaps it is original prose. You can find one example of it here >http://www.independent.com/news/2009/nov/12/103-year-old-woman-mystery/#c25802<
And if you wish to read more of the great master of distraction Daniel Petry just click on “jrcdan” for 17 pages of loopy comments. I presume this is the same Daniel Petry due the ‘signature’ matching and similarly crazier than Sarah Palin category content of the ramblings. Regardless I can only take credit for removing my name and inserting Daniel Petry at the end.
I really do feel for the pain of the conservatives for having screwed up and squandered the entire 8 year Bush-Cheney administration as well as the previous 30 years of generally conservative rule; but still this is no reason for liberals and progressives to join up forces with tea bag types or the narrow right wing with selective sensibilities.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:16 PM
Change the world? Transform this nation? Who is this guy? The role of the president is not to do these things, not to spend speech after speech, TV appearance after TV appearance, day after day, trying to foment a gentle version of a revolution. The role of the president is to live up to his oath of office “to protect and defend the Constitution” , not to treat the oath as a small stumbling block on his race down the road to serfdom.
Maybe I should cut Obama a break here. After all, the oath requires that the president protect and defend the Constitution “to the best of (his) ability”. If his ability is almost none, then maybe we can’t blame him for attacking the Constitution rather than defending it. But that doesn’t mean we need to support him or avoid criticizing him for such behavior.
And it doesn’t mean that his history is a fair defense against his anti-capitalist, anti-American rhetoric and ideas. Americans should learn from their mistakes and elect as strong a counter-balance as possible, as soon as possible, to this Manchurian Candidate.
To me, Obama’s actions and positions are the same ones that a Soviet agent during the Cold War would take, and the same ones that enemies of our nation would take today – particularly economic enemies.
We’re not talking about killing the US with nuclear weapons. We’re talking about killing it with a government takeover of…well, everything, if the Democrats were to get their way with health care “reform”, cap-and-trade, and card check. (For the record, I think the last two are dead, and I think health care “reform” may be dead as well. I certainly hope so.)
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:18 PM
sb native what does your post have to do with Obamas assault on the Constitution?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:18 PM
Keep it up! “any associations you make are your own”. Wow give Brian a hand! You’re knocking ‘em out of the intellectual ballpark. Next intelligent comment?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:44 PM
Wow Don he does seem to often nail you. It seems that you do have one theme and one theme only. And it doesn’t matter what the original article is about. You remind me of a trained pet that can only do one thing. They only can hear their codewords. Like bla, bla, bla, evil republicans, bla, bla, bla.
Looking at your posts. They are definitely not A.D.D. but seem rather O.C.D. If the original article is about sexy women; your brain stem would take this tack: women are sexy = they wear nice clothes = tend to assemble in groups = groups are evil = republicans are responsible for bad weather. Huh? You are a very strange person.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 12:54 PM
I was sent the link for this article from a friend in Santa Barbara. So I had to comment.
The Obama administration may need a bit of a refresher on the Constitution. In a peculiar move, the administration recently announced that its incentive based education strategy is now going to extend to its dealings with Congress.
If Congress behaves and reauthorizes No Child Left Behind this year. A feat that seems highly unlikely at this point, and does so consistent with the president’s plan, the administration announced this week that it is going to make an extra $1 billion available for educational spending.
The problem with this clever carrot?
If you’ll recall your high school civics, it’s the legislative branch that writes the federal budget. The administration can propose whatever it likes, but Congress is free to disregard that figure and spend another $1 billion, $5 billion, or $50 billion whenever it darn well pleases.
Andy Rotherham has a good take on this asking, “So have we repealed parts of the Constitution, in particular Article I lately? Otherwise it’s a little unclear how this proposed $1 billion incentive fund for ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) reauthorization works since Congress, you know, controls the purse strings? They call it a budget ‘request’ for a reason.
For an administration that has sometimes seemed overly taken with its own virtue, the result looks both confused and high-handed. That’s never a great combination.
BTW Daniel, great article. There are more conservatives in your town than you may sometimes think. Keep up the good fight.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 01:07 PM
The debate is over. And the subject was not Mr. Petry, it was on the President taking an oath to follow the Constitution.
I love how liberals, rather than actually “intelligently debating” the topic, or making any contribution whatsoever, become obsessed with the authors to the point of stalking them on line though, and nothing like holding a grudge for three months waiting for the opportunity to “get back” lol.
Nice work on Liberal Debate Cookbook (LDC) Step 2 thought - associations with your most hated “right wing extremist” in your case at least it is a recent one - Sarah Palin.
Oops! There’s the Bush/Cheney reference and blame. Nice work Don.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 01:12 PM
More fear tactics…yawn. And yes there are facts in this OPINION, but they are all wrapped nicely with a little bow of spin. Every time a read Petry I am reminded of why I voted conservatives out. And I will continue to vote against conservatives until they can stop with the mind numbing “real” Americans banter.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 01:20 PM
Palin in 2013! Palin in 2013!..oh wait, let me read my hand..correction: Palin in 2012! Palin in 2012!
Brian Ehler
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 01:34 PM
You didn’t tell us you wanted to add to the debate. Nice rebuttal about the subject of defending the Constitution!
Would just one, just one, liberal care to take on the debate instead of the author or Sarah Palin (Bush/Cheney/Rove/Beck.. insert most hated right wing celeb )?
How about you Jillian - you were the one who suggested “debating as intelligent Americans”? Where did you go?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 01:54 PM
Putting all of the rhetoric aside, this article does not state what Obama has done that is unconstitutional. Certainly nothing is addressed that is more eggregious than the constitutional “liberties” taken by past presidents in waging wars and invading countries without adhering to the congressional power to declare war.
Moreover, it does not state one thing that we were free to do before Obama and not free to do now. The only direct reference to the constitution in this article is regarding the census. Does anyone truly believe that Obama is “controlling” the census?
These kind of inflamatory articles do little for intelligent discourse.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 01:57 PM
Where does Petry employ fear tactics and “real” Americans banter?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 02:00 PM
Fear tactics? Everything he said is true. It’s high time we DO have fear.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 02:08 PM
Please keep posting.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 02:36 PM
Scroll up a bit to Colonel Walsh’s tribute, and see the difference between a true patriot
and military gentleman, and a puffed up Fox-News windbag.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 02:38 PM
I think he is quite clear. Obama sees the American Constitution as an obstacle rather than a guiding document. Let that sink in for a moment. Ponder what that really means and rationalize how a man with such disdain for the Constitution - your Constitution, our Constitution - can possibly in good faith take the oath of office and swear to protect and defend our Founding Document.
Legislative application sought by Obama and a Pelosi-Reid Congress is a circumvention of the Constitution. Because, short of a infinitely more difficult Constitutional amendment process or even a new Constitutional convention, so significantly un-Constitutional are the envisioned fundamental changes desired that such changes and expansion of the federal government and the required accompanying conscription of individual liberties are patently unlawful. How’s that for clarity.
But let’s stick to the one item you waver on. “The census. This is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the House controls the census.”
You see he IS the Executive Branch. Are you saying that he does not even control his own branch? (although that may be true looking at how well they are doing).
Now bear with me here. This is were it gets extremely convuluted. The Constitution says that the House will control the census. Obama decrees that it will be moved over to his branch. Alright now can you tell us when the House became part of the Executive Branch? This is very important since we must have missed one of the most transformative changes in American history when the House became merged with the Executive Branch and that portion of checks and balances disappeared.
Waiting for an answer. Hello? Anyone there? OK I know you are pondering this. In the mean time your guy doesn’t stop there does he?
Petry is right. BHO then decrees he would include sampling in the census. This violates the same article, which calls for an “actual” enumeration.
Waiting for an answer. Hello? Anyone there? NT Lowery? You there?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 02:42 PM
LOL@Charlene = Don = Baghdad Bob = Long Time Resident. Broken records. So what specific points described in the article do you not agree with or dispute? Speak up.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 03:02 PM
My daughter pointed out Mr. Petry’s article the other day and I have read them all. The one thing that stands out is that there are some people that actually, when they disagree with him, engage with a thoughtful rebuttal. Unfortunately a significant portion of those that disagree refuse to attempt to refute his writings, with cogent liberal points, and immediately attack him personally.
My god people can’t you discuss things? Shame on you all if this is what you think passes for intelligent debate. It’s like you are a bunch of mindless liberal thugs running around with baseball bats beating up anyone that would dare to contradict you. Few of you show any capacity for leadership.
Eventhough I may disagree with some of his positions, guns for instance, I really enjoy his perspective. And he has openned my eyes on a number of issues and caused me to think. Thanks Mr. Petry.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 05:01 PM
The Cheney gang and The Project for a New American Century was a plan that changed America more than Obama could ever do. Remember the “unitary executive? The wars, the dept, the torture, the assault on American liberties, the dumbing of Americans, the war profiteering, the bank failures and all the great things that Cheney and his puppet brought us?
Google “Project for a New American Century” for an education. The Iraq war was planned before Cheney took power. 9-11 was the excuse, “A new Pearl Harbor”.
Remember the 6 day, 6 week, 6 month at the most war?
Remember that Iraq oil would pay for the war?
Remember the George Washington of Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi?
Remember the un-armored Humvees? Blackwater, Halliburton buddies of Cheney and Bush.
And tell me again why we attacked Iraq and didn’t catch Osama at Tora Bora? Had we caught Osama, we couldn’t have blamed and attacked Iraq.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 05:21 PM
Uh Ron - hey Ron over here, the topic is Obama and the Constitution, not Cheney and the war. Try to focus.
NT Lowery actually is the only lib that made a comment about the topic.
Karen’s Mom you are right they are like a bunch of mindless 6th graders in a gang running around with baseball bats bullying everyone at the school, including the teachers. Then when you confront them about just what their problem is they scatter like cockroaches. Congratulations on raising such a thoughtful daughter (who can focus actually on the topic).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 05:36 PM
Don and Ron have the same Cheney/Bush Derangement Syndrome.
You’re right Charlene, if the original article is about sexy women - it goes like this:
bla bla bla BUSH! grrr bla, bla, Cheney!! grrr bla bla and his CRONIEES arrrr bla bla Halliburton!! rrr rrrr Sarah Palin rrrr bla bla KARL ROVE RRrrrrr Fox News arrrr
Kind of like a demented rabid dog with a chew toy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 05:48 PM
Ron Dexter prove to these people that you are not just another shill. What do you disagree with, point by point, with Petry’s article?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 06:40 PM
Boy , Petry and his hyperbole are like flypaper for the right wing crazies on this site . Why is it that you righties are so lathered up about abuse of power only now that you are out of power? Where was the outrage when Bush said ” the Constitution is only a goddamn piece of paper ” and proceeded to disregard it at every turn ?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 07:26 PM
GeeWillikersWally = SezMe = Baghdad Bob. Do you have anything to dispute with the article?
I agree with Karen’s Mom; “My god people can’t you discuss things? Shame on you all if this is what you think passes for intelligent debate. It’s like you are a bunch of mindless liberal thugs running around with baseball bats beating up anyone that would dare to contradict you. Few of you show any capacity for leadership.”
Man up GeeWillikersWally. Show us what ya got.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 07:35 PM
That’s hilarious!! A perfect name for this guy GeeWillikersWally - Baghdad Bob. I love it. He is redundant isn’t he? I can just see him hunched over his keyboard furiously typing away expressing his frustrated anger at all the evils that have been visited upon his soul by those “they should be in concentration camps conservatives”. Maybe mommy didn’t feed him naturally or give him the 24/7 love he obviously needed. Put up or shut up dude. One or the other.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 10:02 PM
Bush isn’t president anymore.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.16.10 @ 11:50 PM
Ross,
Actually Petry called Obama a “man-boy” not a “man-child”. I don’t see any reason to misquote him, do you?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 12:23 AM
Amend17th I totally agree. Man-boy it is. Thanks.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 05:38 AM
O.K. , I’m a tofu eating , Birkenstocck wearing , lice infested Jerry Garcia lookalike . There .... you righties feel better now ? Keep it coming cause I wear your insults as a badge of honor considering the source . Now my turn . The dimwit you put in office says ” the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper ” and not a peep out you Einsteins . Now the inexorable Petry serves up a plate full of platitudes and you fools get all frothy at the mouth. Where were you guys ?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 07:05 AM
If we lose our freedom in America, there will be no other place to go. Ronald Reagan.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 09:12 AM
I don’t know about you but I ceertainly didn’t put him in office. And please don’t insult Jerry Garcia lookalikes. Those that are conservative are not lice infested.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 09:23 AM
Thanks Ron Dexter for the summary. We must endure to keep these publications honest. I’d add to your list the current world wide economic downturn that conservatives and neo-conservatives Bush-Cheney orchestrated.
At the end of the Bush Cheney administration job losses were at over 700 thousand for the last 3 months! This graph http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/recoveryanniversary/
indicates a recovery due to the Obama win and administration actions. Many Americans are probably unaware of this due to the “Conservative” Press/Media. The Noozhawk is a participant in promoting ignorance by seeking profit and publishing these easily refutable paranoid Petry opinion pieces. The Noozhawk is hindering PROGRESS! I believe that Al Gore had it correct when he stated “we are entertained to death.” And that is what this “media” is. Entertainment rather than genuine, thoughtful, deep and considerate comments.
Again, Daniel Petry’s ‘opinons’ are nothing more than subversive rhetoric, perhaps even incorporating a subtle racist comment such as the Man-“Boy” description of Obama. Anyway, it seems to opportunistically play to Petry’s base of followers exampled with at least a couple of comments.
And I agree with GeeWillikersWally’s “flypaper” comment. The Noozhawk has provided an abundance of rotten and smelly electronic paper, attracting the right wing flies to post and it is too bad that the Noozhawk would sell out our country by publishing these well written yet error filled Petry type ramblings.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 10:06 AM
Obama is a liar. He didn’t inherit anything approaching what he asserts. The original TARP money that temporarily inflated the deficit, has been repaid w/hefty returns to the treasury. In his infinite wisdom, he “invested” that money in Government Motors and, AIG and Freddie and Fannie. These will all undoubtedly result in hefty losses to the treasury. The new spending, some 1 trillion per year over and above the immediately preceding budget year is all his and the democrat majority in both houses. To be fair, the President does not pass budgets, Congress does. Which if one fairly reviews outlays under republican controlled houses versus democrat controlled houses, one will see who the drunken sailors are.
Presidents do however have the power of the veto. When confronted w/minor add-ons to the budget, which he promised to veto, he failed to act. He is not a leader. His cronies have indicated that these piddly billions are a drop in the bucket. But if Obama can’t veto a budget based on campaign promises, do you believe that he will scale back government expenditures that he has also campigned to increase?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 10:14 AM
Do you guys realize that people like McDermott never have any solutions, always whining.
I think Sharon said it best, “He is redundant isn’t he? I can just see him hunched over his keyboard furiously typing away expressing his frustrated anger at all the evils that have been visited upon his soul by those “they should be in concentration camps conservatives”. Maybe mommy didn’t feed him naturally or give him the 24/7 love he obviously needed. Put up or shut up dude. One or the other” So donny boy what specific item do you disagree with and why. Facts son not yelling.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 10:54 AM
Do any of you have jobs or even work?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 10:59 AM
Bush isn’t president anymore. It doesn’t matter. What do you want us to do about it? Bush did something you dont like so it is ok if Obama does it times 4? Is that the relevance of your irrelevant posts? We are living in the present and talking about the present president. What is your beef? Get over it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 11:00 AM
Long Time Resident. I took your hint and read the tribute to colonel Ben. Nice. He was a real hero. I especially liked Mr. Petry’s tribute to him. What I’d expect from Daniel. You on the other hand took a nice article and made it slightly tainted, you stand out like a sore thumb. Classless for sure.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 11:05 AM
“easily refutable paranoid Petry opinion pieces”
How many challenges have there been in these comments to refute just ONE of his points? All I hear is crickets and all I see is tumbleweeds, while all these childish libs see is red..
Start the refutin’ big man-boy! (not racist because I don’t know your race, but you are acting like a boy).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 11:11 AM
“The NOOZHAWK is hindering progress!”
PROGRESS = advance toward loss of freedom from government control, advance toward elimination of private sector and socialism, next to communism.
Progressive = one who “saves the world” for Marxist socialism.
Noozhawk then, should get the patriot’s award for hindering the march toward unsustainable third world tyranny and eventually the destruction of liberty.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 11:14 AM
Let’s hear your “genuine, thoughtful, deep and considerate comments.” Show us how it’s done, because yours have been none of the above, and nobody is trying to suppress yours - as you are to Petry. How many challenges do you need? Put up or shutup.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 11:59 AM
I wonder how long it will take Don and Wally to realize they ARE the flies ...boowhaaa ha haaa
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 12:09 PM
Don, your graph from barrackobama.com (now there’s an objective source) merely shows that job loss reached a peak (coincidentally when Barrack was elected) and in natural bell curve style, tapered off as there were no more jobs left to be lost. Of course, the intention is to make it appear that Barrack saved the day and reversed the trend. No, he just got lucky with the timing, starting office at the peak. This would have been the shape of the curve no matter who was in office. Of course even the curve can be manipulated (how do they measure job loss? How do they define it?) Is it determined by unemployment claims? What about when they give up looking and retire or go back to school?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 12:20 PM
Yes Richard. I have a job and I used to trust politics to the politicians. That’s when the progressives took over and started stealing and giving away our money, coddling criminals, opening the borders for a free for all, selling out the country, friends leaving the state as businesses are chased out by gangs, taxes and regulations.
One day I woke up to a gang member scrawling on the stop sign outside my house, and realized the world outside my job was going to hell, I looked around and didn’t recognize my city or country anymore it had become a third world replica. I started paying attention to who is running this place. More and more are waking up to the liberal progressive takeover that has been occurring while we were busy at work, trusting the politicians we elected. Never again.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 01:03 PM
Well said Realist. A majority of the causal factors for these collapses has been because we have allowed our politicians and the small percentage of republican and democrat progressives (who BTW are well represented in the above posts) guide this nation. Even if it is too late for the national unity we still have very strong state entities. I think that you will start to see the states begin to pull power back from the feds. Regardless of the caterwalling that will ensue from the likes of Don, SezMe, long time resident, et. al., their voices are now beginning to sound like the noseeum bugs that buzz around. Easily ignored.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 02:50 PM
“President Obama is in the midst of a power grab, the likes of which we have never seen before. He is a clear and present danger to our nation and our constitution and is pushing this country into truly uncharted waters.”
Dan - I had forgotten you were in a coma from 2000-2008. We’ll have to get coffee and I’ll fill you in on what you missed…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 04:14 PM
If you can read this thank a teacher. If you can write this thank Mark Alexander.
“Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for President Obama to further regulate the economy through Soviet-style central planning, completely regulate our national health-care system, and use the Environmental Protection Agency to decree that he has the power to regulate and tax the production of CO2.”
Daniel Petry
“Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama’s SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.”
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.”
Words by Mark Alexander at: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/01/28/state-of-the-union-obama-v-constitution/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 04:24 PM
Reality Sets In. You mean from 2006 onwards when the dems controlled Congress or the number of times both parties voted for massive spending and the war. What time was Daniel in a coma? Could it be about the same time your head was in the sand?
So the article is about Obama and the Constitution, do you have a specific point to add to the discussion?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 05:01 PM
OMG Croninger you are really scratching for traction. Actually a number of these concepts have been expressed, in one form or another by a number of scholars. I myself have asked my lib friends where it says that he can regulate CO2 use. I guess I have to thank Alexander also. Next time I frame a sentence I will have to spend a great deal of time researching the syntax, context, content. Petry really threatens your paradigm doesn’t he?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 05:57 PM
Sorry we missed your last birthday Charles. You’re 73 now right? What’s it feel like to safely watch and take pictures as the world your generation created begins to really crumble? What is it now 3 of us youngsters have to pay into the system you designed just to support your lifestyle? Nice job with that, we’ll be dealing with it long after your gone. Thanks.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 05:59 PM
What’s yer point Charles? Don’t pay attention to ranting Daniel because really Obama is not allowed to do what he says he wants too? That didn’t stop any of the world’s worst tyrants ya know? The only thing evil needs to succeed are for good men to do nothing. The real evil of Barack Obama is he is too naïve to know what he wants is evil.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 07:02 PM
Petry must be hard of hearing . Nowhere in Obamas State of the Union rebuke of the 5 activist judges did he say ” foreign enemies” . That little oversight is forgiveable as ” enemies” is probably a more common word in Petry vernacular . What Obama did say , verbatim , was ” I dont think American elections should be bankrolled by Americas most powerful interests or worse by foreign entities.” Apparently a huge majority of Americans of every stripe agree with Obama on this issue , Petry notwithstanding . Polls show that 85% of Dems , 76% of Repubs , and 81% of Indies think that the Citizens United vs. F.E.C. ruling is a threat to the integrity of elections . Also Petry’s stated revulsion with Sen. Byrds past affiliatin with the KKK contrasts sharply with his own reference to Obama as ” Boy” , which is a term most overt racists are smart enough not to put in print .
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 09:39 PM
GeeWillikersWally? Or whatever inane camouflage name you are using to hide under. I just read your posts and I’m not even disgusted. I’m ashamed. Ashamed that since I also voted for Obama I could easily get lumped into the same dark room as you. I read your comments and somehow feel pain. There is something sad about you and your posts. A deep anger that has probably been there for decades and you can only try to tape it over with the comments you make from behind a wall called GeeWillikersWally. A man that I would not be surprised is fairly lonely in life. And heaven help you if you have children, such anger doesn’t need to be passed on. You have intelligence but it seems to be wasted because you can’t let the world heal. To do so would close the door to one of the only communication avenues open to you. A pity. Just drop the insults and state your case you would get so much more respect.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.17.10 @ 10:41 PM
GeeWillikers…Mr. Petry never called Obama “Boy”. He referred to him as a man-boy, clearly as a commentary on his childish rants and sophomoric approach to his esteemed position. The fact that you are attempting to “stretch” a political designation like that into an overt racial epithet says far more about you and other like-minded liberals than it does about Mr. Petry.
On the up-side, you do seem to be slightly less vitriolic than your far-left counterparts who have commented…which is tantamount to being the most reasonable psychopath in the mental hospital.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.10 @ 05:14 AM
Kevin M , Petry did call Obama ” boy ” in a comment he made on Mona Charen’s Noozhawk article titled “Has Obama moved center on nuclear power?”. Use the NOOZHAWK SEARCH tool box at the top of the page and you will find the article in the archive . Unlike the duplicity Petry employed in the opinion piece re/ Obama’s State of the Union , where he refers to the President as ” man-boy” , in his comment on Charens’ article Obama is just a “boy” . Fortunately by this point in American race relation history , most people realize putting the term “boy ” near any reference to a black man is a bad thing to do . Any refutation re/ the author’s misquote on enemies/entities and how polls show the vast majority of American’s agree with Obama on the atrocious ruling in Cit. U. vs. F.E.C. ? Gotta go now , so I can wipe the smile I prefer to wear ,everyday , off and start practicing the frown that Shiela expects from me .
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.10 @ 07:08 AM
It would be nice if you stated which poll you are talking about (did you find this on barrackobama.com?), however, it doesn’t really matter what polls say about a Supreme Court Decision. - the job of the court is to interpret the Constitution, and they have done just that, and are a lot more qualified to do it than you, Obama, or the average Joe that is polled.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.10 @ 07:21 AM
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.10 @ 08:58 AM
Rather than try to make someone a racist for calling someone that acts like a boy, A BOY. Why don’t you take your spare tire, twist it in a knot and tell us it’s a pretzel? The only one in the room dumb enough to believe it would be you. Keep stretching though, maybe the tire can be shaped into a pop tart for breakfast. Grow up, you’re a BOY.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.10 @ 03:16 PM
Damn Willie yer gettin pounded here! Jeeze, I’d tell my conservative colleagues to let up some but it’s to fun to read and, well crap, they’re right. And then to get reamed by someone’s mom, well dude that just plain hurts. But cheer up. I mean after all you only have to deal with the “we told you so” crap from the right. Meanwhile everyone has to get slammed by the ultimate mistake of Karen’s mom and the rest of you voting for the “O” in the first place.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.10 @ 06:27 PM
Petry aka GeeWally sides with the 5 activist judges in the Citizens United case and I agree with the 4 dissenting judges and Obama . I’m stupid , he’s smart . I think it is improper ( worse actually ) to put the word ” boy” anywhere near a reference to a black man and Petry thinks it’s a good idea . Again , I’m stupid , he’s smart . I’ll just keep on being stupid if you think that makes him smarter .
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.19.10 @ 08:34 AM
Stupid is as stupid does. Even I know that’s not a pretzel.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.19.10 @ 09:00 AM
Obama has learned by example that if Congress won’t do as they’re told, he will simply do it through the gargantuan administrative state. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances are mere afterthoughts.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.19.10 @ 07:10 PM
Jillian: Instead of saying “these are cheap high-school mentality shots that have no place in honest reality based discourse” why don’t you prove that Petry is wrong?
I hear that this is what goes on in the universities: if a teacher doesn’t like what a student says they simply shout them down and tell them to shut up.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.20.10 @ 08:21 AM
Wow, Daniel, that is an over-the-top rant. Yes, there were similar over-the-top rants against George W. Bush. Neither yours nor the anti George W Bush screeds solves a damned thing.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.20.10 @ 09:41 AM
An article for the Washington Times assailed Obama for his “betrayal with the imperial powers of his office, which he inherited from the Bush-Cheney duumvirate. He has either embraced or acquiesced in every one of their usurpations or abuses.” The reporter reminds readers about how Senator Obama criticized numerous Bush administration methods but has now adopted all of them. One of these methods was the use of the “state secrets” legal defense to prevent trials against those who may have participated in torture. Now Obama has asserted that very same defense. “In other words, individual constitutional rights of the highest order should be sacrificed on the altar of national security.” Obama also used the state-secrets defense to stop challenges to the Bush “Terrorist Surveillance Program” (TSP) that he had attacked as a senator. Perhaps having the ability to now control the massive wire-tapping program has lessened the president’s disdain for its violations of privacy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.20.10 @ 02:06 PM
hey dan didn’t you take an oath which included obeying your commander in chief? were you so insubodinate of your superiors when in the military? maybe you still are dealing with autority issues. good luck resolving them.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.20.10 @ 04:12 PM
Richard Foster - I think that the spirited back and forth, even some of the flaming that goes on, is a healthy discourse and helps people to think and perhaps offers additional avenues of thought for the issues that face our nation and community. And I generally submit my opinion and then stay out of the discussion. But anyone who questions my honor deserves a response.
Unfortunately it has to be online since you are not standing in front of me.
First off, have you ever sworn an oath? To anything. If so, have you honored that oath? I would hope that you would be a man enough to live up to any oath or promise that you have made. As for me, here is the oath I took as an officer:
“I, Daniel Petry, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Now since it is obvious that you have not served in the military, let me clue you in on something. I swore and oath (and it still stands) to the Constitution of the United States. Not the Commander in Chief. That is an entirely different issue under the UCMJ.
I still follow and honor my oath. I will to the day I die. Can you say the same? I hope you can. But if you want to question my honor again, I’m more than willing to buy you a beer so we can discuss it. Have a great life. Daniel Petry
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.20.10 @ 06:21 PM
Foster, you are showing your ignorance. The oath Petry took is not an oath to defend any specific persons or property. It is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no duration defined in the Oath. Once taken, it is a lifetime obligation. Something you would obviously have a hard time doing.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.21.10 @ 11:55 AM
Do you know the code that these West Pointers live by? Duty, Honor, Country. Not Duty, Honor Obama. I’m beginning to think that the army is the last bastion of true support for the Constitution. Heaven help us if they decide that our leaders have become enemies of the Constitution. Foster you don’t hold a candle to them.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Ric Oberlink: Attrition Through Enforcement, Not Amnesty
The worst response to illegal immigration would be to counteract the message we are already starting to send
Susan Deacon: School Funding the State Can’t Take Away
Parcel-tax Measures W and X on June 5 ballot would ensure revenue stays local
Lou Segal: Parcel-Tax Measures W and X Won’t Improve Our Schools
Without fundamental reform, no amount of money will fix long-standing problems
Jack Friedlander: SBCC, School Districts Collaborate to Promote Academic, Career Success
Get Focused, Stay Focused! Initiative aims to help all students find a clear educational pathway
George Runner: Proposition 29 Another Grab for Dollars with No Accountability to Taxpayers
The measure would raise nearly $1 billion in taxes each year, but would do nothing to solve the budget deficit or control spending
Weather: Partly Cloudy 51.0º
Search Noozhawk »
