Thursday's Letters to the Editor

Dwight K Snider wrote:

Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – General Welfare
The Preamble to the United States Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles which the Constitution is meant to serve. It expresses in general terms the intentions of its authors, is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve…
(Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)

Judged:

2

2

2

Concerned American wrote:

I am in agreement with Ms. Mannion's comments regarding the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Unfortunately, the resolve that most Americans have as a citizenry to combat evil when it attacks us is not held by Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. His politically correct response to this obvious act of terrorism is an abomination and disrespectful to those servicemen and women that lost their lives on that day. We had 7-1/2 years free from attacks on our homeland after 9/11 due the seriousness placed on terrorism by George Bush. Obama takes office, eliminates the term "War on terror" from political vernacular, starts apologizing for America around the world, and within 10 months of his taking office we have another terrorist attack. This man and his comrades in the Democrat leadership are an embarrassment to proud Americans, and, by their pre-9/11 politically correct response to this attack, are only inviting more.

Judged:

2

1

1

Dwight K Snider wrote:

Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – General Welfare
The Preamble to the United States Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles which the Constitution is meant to serve. It expresses in general terms the intentions of its authors, is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve…
(Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)

Judged:

2

1

1

Rona Fribley wrote:

Californian's won't even stand up to Illegals and the pols who use them against us in our own Legislature...Do you really think Californians would "grow a pair" and defend their families from Islamic terrorists when they can't even stop the Legilature from destroying our families future??? Do you really think California Males are going to become MEN again........Not likely......PLEEEEEEEEEEESE.

Judged:

1

1

1

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Dwight K Snider.
You are exactly right. However, since the elderly 60s 70s revolutionaries came into power, their "idea" of what the intentions of our founding fathers meant in the preamble to The Constitution is exactly opposite theirs. Their expressed view is that The Constitution is a "living document", and therefore, its purpose is to be used as a tool to impose the very tyranny the founding fathers sought to free us from.
As far as reliance on Wikipedia entries, goes, one can post anything on Wikipedia and slant it any way he might desire. As long as the entry meets the current political correctness standards of the regime then in power, its likely to remain there.
Ronald

Judged:

1

1

1

Concerned American wrote:

I am in agreement with Ms. Mannion's comments regarding the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Unfortunately, the resolve that most Americans have as a citizenry to combat evil when it attacks us is not held by Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. His politically correct response to this obvious act of terrorism is an abomination and disrespectful to those servicemen and women that lost their lives on that day. We had 7-1/2 years free from attacks on our homeland after 9/11 due the seriousness placed on terrorism by George Bush. Obama takes office, eliminates the term "War on terror" from political vernacular, starts apologizing for America around the world, and within 10 months of his taking office we have another terrorist attack. This man and his comrades in the Democrat leadership are an embarrassment to proud Americans, and, by their pre-9/11 politically correct response to this attack, are only inviting more.

Judged:

1

1

Dode Penrod wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're telling us that Wikipedia is unreliable and has incorrectly posted the preamble to the Constitution? Seems strange that my copy of the Constitution has exactly the same words and my copy was sent to me in 1987 by my Assemblyman.
As far as the debate over whether the Constitution is a "living document," I'll take the Supreme Court's decisions on the cases brought before it rather than some guy named Ronald who spends his time telling us what the founding fathers "meant" when they signed their names to the Constitution of the United States of America with the same preamble as quoted in Wikipedia.
And just in case common sense means anything to Ronald, he might consider the fact that the Constition has been amended (updated) 26 times, the last time July 7, 1971, some 184 years after the founding fathers wrote it. Sounds like a "living" document to me.

Judged:

2

1

1

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Penrod.
As usual, the point escapes you. As Orwell tried to explain in his insightful "1984" publication, it is not the words that are used, but rather, it is what the changing meanings of the words that enables Big Government tyranny.
Even beyond and separate from that, once the dastardly Republicans inflicted upon a war weary nation their infamous 14th Amendment, whatever the founding fathers intended in the preamble to The Constitution became moot.
Ronald

Judged:

1

1

1

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Penrod.
As usual, the point escapes you. As Orwell tried to explain in his insightful "1984" publication, it is not the words that are used, but rather, it is what the changing meanings of the words that enables Big Government tyranny.
Even beyond and separate from that, once the dastardly Republicans inflicted upon a war weary nation their infamous 14th Amendment, whatever the founding fathers intended in the preamble to The Constitution became moot.
Ronald

Judged:

3

3

2

Concerned American wrote:

I am in agreement with Ms. Mannion's comments regarding the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Unfortunately, the resolve that most Americans have as a citizenry to combat evil when it attacks us is not held by Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. His politically correct response to this obvious act of terrorism is an abomination and disrespectful to those servicemen and women that lost their lives on that day. We had 7-1/2 years free from attacks on our homeland after 9/11 due the seriousness placed on terrorism by George Bush. Obama takes office, eliminates the term "War on terror" from political vernacular, starts apologizing for America around the world, and within 10 months of his taking office we have another terrorist attack. This man and his comrades in the Democrat leadership are an embarrassment to proud Americans, and, by their pre-9/11 politically correct response to this attack, are only inviting more.

Judged:

2

2

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
CA - a lot of us felt that way during the last administration. Somehow or other, you conservative jokers voted Bush in a second time. And what did we get? Two wars, a slumping economy, massive debt, the first bailout package, scandals in the administration ... it was horrendous. And what did you do about it then? Nothing.
You'd better just sit on your fanny and wait a bit -- your rush to judgment here is precipitous. If anyone could be accused of trying to tear up the union now, it's you and your ilk. Arm-chair quarterbacks.
You should be ashamed of how you let this country slide during the Bush years. If things get worse within another year's time, I think you'll find the liberals doing in two what you guys didn't do in eight -- standing up for the country.
In the meantime, keep your shirt on. Don't go all hissy.

Judged:

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
CA - a lot of us felt that way during the last administration. Somehow or other, you conservative jokers voted Bush in a second time. And what did we get? Two wars, a slumping economy, massive debt, the first bailout package, scandals in the administration ... it was horrendous. And what did you do about it then? Nothing.
You'd better just sit on your fanny and wait a bit -- your rush to judgment here is precipitous. If anyone could be accused of trying to tear up the union now, it's you and your ilk. Arm-chair quarterbacks.
You should be ashamed of how you let this country slide during the Bush years. If things get worse within another year's time, I think you'll find the liberals doing in two what you guys didn't do in eight -- standing up for the country.
In the meantime, keep your shirt on. Don't go all hissy.

Judged:

1

1

SURF808 wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe these so called "Conservative Jokers" can shine some lights into your **** Liberal mind.
The Democrats were so bent out of shape after 9/11 because it was an opportunity for greatness for George W. Bush that had passed President Clinton by.
We have 9/11 on video, and we have a large percentage of this country, mostly Democrats, who think that George Bush knew about it and engineered it and let it happen. So don't think that just a video is going to persuade. If Obama wants to stay in denial about this, then he will find a way to try to pull it off. I mean this is blatant. This is blatant. We know intelligence agencies knew everything about this guy. He was connected to a radical imam who advised, inspired two 9/11 hijackers. He was in the same mosque. He was communicating with this imam 10 to 20 times via e-mail. "Allahu Akbar" when he opens fire. I mean, this is more than denial going on.
Whatever happens, whatever happens, the backlash is always against us. You got Napolitano, you got Casey worried about the backlash against Muslims. It's not the Muslims who need protection. It's us! We are the ones who need protection. Oklahoma City, blame us! 9/11, blame us! Chelsea Clinton said it was Bush's tax cuts that led to 9/11. She did. Hurricane Katrina, blame us! Fort Hood, blame conservatives! Some lunatic shoots an abortion doctor, blame us! Swine flu, blame us! It's always our fault.
Still Willfully Blind [Andy McCarthy]
President Obama at Fort Hood today: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."
Really?
After the carnage we've seen for two decades, and the high religious authorities that have endorsed it, it is simply astounding that an American president — at a solemn memorial service for soldiers killed just days ago by a jihadist acting on his rational, broadly accepted understanding of his religious duty — could claim that "no faith justifies" sneak-attack murders, and that no religion teaches that "God looks upon them with favor." In fact, a widely held interpretation of Islam holds exactly these principles. No one is saying that all Muslims follow Hasan's construction of Islam, but hundreds of millions do and they have scriptures to back up their beliefs — scriptures we could all read if we'd just pull our heads out of the sand.
To deny that is to deny reality. A country can't be protected by people who lack the will to face reality.

Judged:

2

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
CA - a lot of us felt that way during the last administration. Somehow or other, you conservative jokers voted Bush in a second time. And what did we get? Two wars, a slumping economy, massive debt, the first bailout package, scandals in the administration ... it was horrendous. And what did you do about it then? Nothing.
You'd better just sit on your fanny and wait a bit -- your rush to judgment here is precipitous. If anyone could be accused of trying to tear up the union now, it's you and your ilk. Arm-chair quarterbacks.

Judged:

1

1

1

SURF808 wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe these so called "Conservative Jokers" can shine some lights into your **** Liberal mind.
The Democrats were so bent out of shape after 9/11 because it was an opportunity for greatness for George W. Bush that had passed President Clinton by.
We have 9/11 on video, and we have a large percentage of this country, mostly Democrats, who think that George Bush knew about it and engineered it and let it happen. So don't think that just a video is going to persuade. If Obama wants to stay in denial about this, then he will find a way to try to pull it off. I mean this is blatant. This is blatant. We know intelligence agencies knew everything about this guy. He was connected to a radical imam who advised, inspired two 9/11 hijackers. He was in the same mosque. He was communicating with this imam 10 to 20 times via e-mail. "Allahu Akbar" when he opens fire. I mean, this is more than denial going on.
Whatever happens, whatever happens, the backlash is always against us. You got Napolitano, you got Casey worried about the backlash against Muslims. It's not the Muslims who need protection. It's us! We are the ones who need protection. Oklahoma City, blame us! 9/11, blame us! Chelsea Clinton said it was Bush's tax cuts that led to 9/11. She did. Hurricane Katrina, blame us! Fort Hood, blame conservatives! Some lunatic shoots an abortion doctor, blame us! Swine flu, blame us! It's always our fault.
Still Willfully Blind [Andy McCarthy]
President Obama at Fort Hood today: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."
Really?
After the carnage we've seen for two decades, and the high religious authorities that have endorsed it, it is simply astounding that an American president — at a solemn memorial service for soldiers killed just days ago by a jihadist acting on his rational, broadly accepted understanding of his religious duty — could claim that "no faith justifies" sneak-attack murders, and that no religion teaches that "God looks upon them with favor." In fact, a widely held interpretation of Islam holds exactly these principles. No one is saying that all Muslims follow Hasan's construction of Islam, but hundreds of millions do and they have scriptures to back up their beliefs — scriptures we could all read if we'd just pull our heads out of the sand.
To deny that is to deny reality. A country can't be protected by people who lack the will to face reality.

Judged:

1

1

1

Charlie wrote:

<quoted text>
And Bush, who had all of the Intel that Clinton had, plus Richard Clark warning him, plus the CIA's information about Al-Qaeda attempting an attack by plane, did... let it happen.