Rush Limbaugh has said many times that President Barack Hussein Obama views the US Constitution as an impediment, as an obstacle to be circumvented, to be worked around. Limbaugh said, “…The Constitution is Obama’s obstacle.” The latest Obama “accommodation” drove home the point that Obama really does see the US Constitution as an obstacle to tyrannical rule that he, and many liberals, want to impose.
For some insight into his current thinking, Obama, while in the Illinois senate, in a 2001 interview, said that the Chief Justice Earl Warren court failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the US Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution… that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
That thinking is exemplified by his “We can’t wait” campaign to circumvent the US Constitution, to bypass Congress, and do whatever he pleases to extend “positive” rights when he thinks they are required. If Congress and the US Constitution gets in his way or don’t give him his way, he ignores them. He says “We can’t wait” and does what he wants.
Article II, section 1, of the US Constitution clearly states about the president: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That is the oath that Obama voluntarily took. Further, Article I, section 1, states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So when he says “We can’t wait,” is he hiding behind the phrase “to the best of my Ability?” Does his ability include in what he believes? And how does he get around the phrase “faithfully execute the Office?” Does he think that he is faithfully executing his duties when he invokes his “We can’t wait” stratagem?
Here are some examples of his “We can’t wait” strategy and executive fiat:
- In October, 2011, Obama, seeking to circumvent congressional opposition and to jump-start the economy, pushed a series of “executive branch steps,” beginning with “new rules” to make it easier for homeowners with little or no equity to refinance their federally funded mortgages, through Fannie May and Freddie Mac, which posted larger losses than expected, sought $6 billion in additional aid.
- In July, 2011, Obama told the National Council of La Raza that the idea of “doing things” on his own was “very tempting” when it came to bypassing Congress on immigration.
- In September, 2011 Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus he’d like to work his way “around Congress.”
- In July, 2011, during the debt limit debate, Obama asked lawyers if there was a way to interpret the 14th Amendment so as to get around Congress and establish a “long-term extension of the federal borrowing limit” on his own.
- Before Obama was president he said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry by imposing a cap and trade system that would be so harsh that “electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket.” Unable to get that bill through Congress, Obama bypassed them and used Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to accomplish his goals. According to an analysis released in October, 2011, by the Institute for Energy Research, the EPA is “leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations.”
- Blatant subversion: Lybia war – In Article I, section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the US Constitution, there is the phrase “To declare War…” But Obama said the US actions in Lybia didn’t amount to war, so he didn’t need the approval of Congress. And he ignored the War Powers Act.
His latest decree, announced by Kathleen Sebilius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), said that many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, even if that decree violated moral and ethical beliefs. Robbie George, law professor at Princeton, said, “They pursue this agenda with a religious zeal because, in fact, the ideology in which abortion is a “right” and “sexual freedom” is a core value is their religion.” That decree caused such an uproar that Obama had to “accommodate” it. The point here, however, is that once again Obama is trying to circumvent the US Constitution. Amendment 1 clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….” So again we see Obama, using HHS, trying to bypass Congress and the US Constitution. At least this time he didn’t try to hide behind “We can’t wait.” Was that the reason for his problems and eventual “accommodation?”
So anytime the US Constitution and Congress doesn’t let him have free reign, he simply says “We can’t wait.” The US Constitution and Congress are, indeed, an obstacle to him – and to his agenda.
But that’s just my opinion.
Awww,have a heart. The boy is only 2 generations out of the jungle He’s just following in the footsteps of his grandfather Going Mau Mau on the Constitution “It’s a black thing You wouldn’t understand”
Too many opinions are based on a limited understanding of the Constitution and a the ideas that the ‘Founding Fathers’ had in mind.
In an alternate reality, where Congress does its job and doesn’t abdicate (like the Senate has for over 1000 days on passing a budget), where the court system doesn’t over-step to the point of ”legislating from the bench,” and where the executive branch doesn’t have more czars than Cabinet members, Obama might just have been charged with sedition over his entreaties to ignore/bypass the US Constitution.
We should be grateful for the media’s coverage of things like these:
*In July, 2011, Obama told the National Council of La Raza that the idea of “doing things” on his own was “very tempting” when it came to bypassing Congress on immigration.
*In September, 2011 Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus he’d like to work his way “around Congress.”
*In July, 2011, during the debt limit debate, Obama asked lawyers if there was a way to interpret the 14th Amendment so as to get around Congress and establish a “long-term extension of the federal borrowing limit” on his own.
A clever ad man might make a heck of a great 30-second ad around these.
Maybe we should turn in his statements to his own Truth Squad web page.
LOL
“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (quoted in the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992).-Thurgood Marshall
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
You are, most assuredly, correct on the first part of that sentence. And, I will state that you are partially correct on the second part, although only on who you believe it applies to.
Our ‘Founding Fathers’ are quite easy to understand, as to their ideas on the Constitution and what they “had in mind”, being that their writings on the subject of the Constitution are many. This, of course, leads to the first part, where you state that too many opinion are based on a “limited understanding”. What limits that understanding, Lib1? It certainly isn’t limiting to read the words of the Founders on the various issues related to the Constitution. If anything, it enlightens, and highlights, a person’s knowledge of the document. As such, I can state that I certainly don’t have a ‘limited’ understanding of the Constitution, as you imply.
In order to understand the Constitution, one must first answer the question, “what does the Constitution do?” After that, the ‘How’ and ‘Why’ can be answered.
The Constitution establishes our form of government, a representative republic, and delegates to that government certain enumerated powers. It does not GIVE rights to the people. The rights that the people possess were considered “God-given”, or, “Natural” rights. The Constitution protects those rights by limiting government power, and, enumerating certain, specific, rights in the Bill of Rights.
That is ‘What’ the Constitution does, Lib1. After that, the ‘How’ and ‘Why’ should be easy to understand. It would behoove you, though, to understand the difference between positive rights and negative rights before you attempt to understand the Constitution further. The Constitution guarantees negative rights, or, those rights to autonomy that are inherently more stringent and more cherished than positive rights.
What has Congress accomplished since the GOP won a House majority?
The only notable achievement I can recall was to stop short of actually defaulting on the nation’s debts.
Congress presently has a RCP average approval rating of 12%.
On the other hand, more people presently approve of the job the President is doing than disapprove.
@Greg:
Gee.
I wonder why.
Oh!
I know!
~ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER. Or Alexander Tyler. Or Arnold Toynbee. Or Lord Thomas Macaulay. Or…
Point is….Obama is pushing the faulty idea of ”fairness,” whatever he means by that.
And, remember, just like Obama was an empty picture frame you could fill with your ideals in 2008, so, too, Obama is trying to be that empty frame again for 2012.
Lately liberals have been working to convince us that the difference between liberalism and conservatism is that liberals follow the empirical evidence and conservatives mindlessly follow ideology.
But no one has done more to refute this than Obama.
Do you remember more than a few weeks back?
In the April 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama made this remark.
“I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
Charlie Gibson asked Obama if history shows cutting capital gains taxes increases revenues and raising capital gains taxes decreases revenues would he still want to raise capital gains taxes?
Yup, he would.*
Why?
Because there are MORE who identify as wanting gov’t largess than who identify with wanting gov’t responsibility.
So, no evidence against his plan would get in his way.
Facts were (and are) beside the point.
Obama is an ideologue who plays on the weaknesses of people.
When Obama won in 2008 fewer than 47% of Americans were dependent on the government.
During the 2010 election it reached 47%.
Now it is going higher.
There is an amazing chart of the day today.
It is called the MOMMA’S BOY INDEX.
It depicts the correlation between 5-year CDS (a form of insurance to protect against a credit event) of eurozone countries and the percentage of men ages of 25 to 34 still living at home with their mom.
Pretty obvious why Obama wants to call people younger than 26 ”children,” huh?
*See the 2013 budget.
Obama calls for taxing dividends as ordinary income, essentially raising the top rate all the way to 39.6 percent.
And then when you tack on the 3.8 percentage point Obamacare surtax — and an additional 1.2 percentage point itemized deduction phase-out for high-end taxpayers — the rate rises to 44.6 percent.
Mr. Beatty’s last bullet point concerning the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya is on point. It was exactly as he named it….”a blatant subversion” of the Constitution. President Obama adopted the UN norm known as the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as justification for overthrowing the Libyan government. The R2P doctrine is very scary, this article by Steven Groves at the Heritage Foundation goes into much greater detail concerning the R2P doctrine if you are not familiar with it.
Yeah greg, keep believing a majority of people approve of obama’s performance. Too funny.
@Robbins Mitchell:
Post trash like that eleswhere scumbag.
Hard Right It gets worse. RCP has BHO Well ahead of all 4 Repub. challengers. Leave your head in the sand at your own peril.
Barry…of course the Constitution is a barrier to what you want to do. The founding fathers deliberately wrote it so because they knew you would come along with LBJ, and Wilson etc….and want to act in a tyrannical dictator like way. I only pray that the next group we elect will have the will and fortitude to destroy all that you put in place, and that will be a very tough job. You have hidden so much in your various ploys, even Nancy admitted she and the rest of the educated idiots didn’t know what they were voting for.
Let us pray that we have the ability to return things back to where they need to be, and that the populace will know enough to accept those changes. Thanks for listening!
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, I’ll worry about the polls the week of the presidential election. Until then it’s all white noise.
I also don’t consider RCP a valid source, especially since they are the only one I’ve seen making such an absurd claim.
I listened to speeches given by Mad Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee. Time for a shower.
Sheila scoured the annals of history and found that this Precedent has been savaged like no other. Nothing about bypassing the Constitution. This is a reminder. I should get my yearly annal exam. Don’t know about the scouring part.
C’mon H.R. Everyone knows RCP is an AVERAGE of many polls including Rasmussen. If you truly believe their #’s are all “white noise” you are in a world of your own,locked in a closed mentality.
Please give us one solid sampling from voters that would indicate any of these 4 can beat Obama.
Hope and prayer are great but for now let’s deal with reality.
BTW While at RCP you might look at Electoral College map for 2012 Pres. Election. Very positive for Dems.
If you want to “deal with reality”, then why are you clinging to fantasy wins as stated in polls, rich?
The only poll that counts, and is “reality”, happens in November. Much can happen between now and then, so I’d keep your bubbly on ice, were I you.
@Richard Wheeler:
Stop projecting your hypocrisy onto me. I get tired of delusional anti-Americans like yourself sliming those of us able to face reality.
I will use smaller words since you didn’t understand. I don’t care what the polls say right now about Romney or Santorum beating Obama. The fact you do smacks of desperation.
I also could care less what RCP “averages”. Like I said, they are not credible and in my eyes, neither is averaging. Go troll elsewhere.
Mata, I always get a kick out of leftists, people who suffer from pathological denial of reality, telling others to face reality.
If they knew what reality was, they wouldn’t be a leftist.
You gals just keep hopin and prayin. Worked for BHO in 08.
BTW HR #16 You got a real nasty mouth. Oughta work on that
Calling me anti-American. I’ll ask you AGAIN. What have you done for our country?
Should obama win a second term, I can only hope you are one of the first to lose your job because of what he and his fellow socialists do to this country. Too bad those of us with a brain will also be forced to suffer due to America hating morons like yourself
H.R. You are clueless and a poor excuse for a human being.What have you done for our country?
Bush 2005: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddam piece of paper!’
And he actually did circumscribe it now, didn’t he.
Nuff said, egits
oh that you could only be standing in front of a mirror when you cyber utter those words.
@Hard Right: Oh, bite me with your ‘socialist’ crap you Limbaugh lap dog
@liberalmann:
That paraphrased quote attributed to Bush first surfaced on CapitalHillBlue.com, a website “devoted” to excoriating politicians, both left and right. Unfortunately for you, the editor/creator of that website has since retracted the story, and apologized to the people that frequent his website. He posted a letter stating the reasons why. The relevant subject here is discussed by him below;
Even Factcheck.org has a posting about the story;
Full story here:
What, did you think no one would check up on this, or that no one knew about it?
@libdud, I’ve tried to warn yout about exposing your amoeba’esque qualities here. Seems you don’t want to take the hint, and have no problem playing the ignorant fool.
Bush never said that, and the only hearsay “I stand by my story” idiot who says that happened… Capitol Hill Blue’s Doug Thompson… seems to share your penchant for being the dupe, and accepting fantasy as fact.
Naturally to suggest that Bush said such a thing at a time when he was under serious media/Dem assault for Iraq and Afghanistan would require that Bush was giving a bottom feeder like Thompson an exclusive one on one interview. (talk about fantasy….). Since Thompson would have had media company during this supposed imagined quote, the other media would have jumped on it like swarming flies to honey.
Capitol Hill Blue is, of course, still measuring up to it’s substandard journalistic creds, being one of those happily throwing the “guilt” and “mud” around about Herman Cain. Thankfully they are still around so they can employ an otherwise mediocre (and that’s an giving him a leg up) so called “journalist” with a vendetta like Thompson. I hear that McDonalds has been raising their criteria for counter help.
@MataHarley:
Mata, check my post above about CapitalHillBlue’s Doug Thompson and his retraction and apology about not only that statement, but other stories as well.
Looks like I’m a lousy second act, johngalt…. You beat me by 60 seconds. LOL But you know, when the ability to absorb facts is as sketchy as libdud exhibits, sometimes you have to repeat yourself, repeat yourself, repeat yourself.
But INRE any so called apology… I see no indication (in our duplicated Annenberg FactCheck link) that he apologized for the inaccuracy. Just explained he was a dumb-as-dirt newbie who sought hyperbole for attention. While the bogus lie was “deleted”, he has never fully admitted culpability. And still, to this day, holds a vendetta for both Bush and the Republicans.
@MataHarley:
You are correct, of course, about the “apology”. The whole posting is more of an “apology” that he got caught than anything else. Unfortunately, as liberalmann shows here, this is accepted as “fact” amongst the liberal/progressive set. Some people choose to remain uneducated and ignorant of truth, even as they are beat over the head with it day in and day out.
@Richard Wheeler:
Well, unlike you I don’t support socialism and I support all of the Constitution. Sorry troll, but you don’t get to support the destruction of people’s rights, and the Constitution which the U.S. is founded on and still pretend to be a patriot.
I’m betting you served only to get G.I. Bill benefits like other left wing douches I’ve met who also served. The difference is they at least had the balls to admit that is why they served and how much they were ashamed of/hated America. You try to pretend otherwise, but your posts prove the lie.
Libtardman, I don’t listen to limbuagh. Unlike you, I can think for myself. You think you’re not a socialist? How about liberal fascist? That would seem to decribe you and your ilk quite well. Nazis were a type of socialist and of the left, which explains where your desire to demonize someone in order to feel good about yourselves comes from. Not to mention your need to strip others of their rights and freedom. Why don’t you and liberal pile of #2 move to Venezuela or Cuba and stop trying to destroy America?
Hard Right I joined The Marine Corps and served in V.N. 11/67-11/68 –awarded Navy Commendation Medal with combat “V” for valor.
You are a foul mouthed coward, pure and simple.
You once fought for freedom, now you fight to deny it to your own countrymen. You are a murtha Marine.
H.R. Here at Camp Pendleton I supported and contributed to the defense of the “‘Haditha Marines” that Murtha wrongly maligned
Take that big foot out of your foul mouth.
The truth hurts I see. Murtha did something noble, then threw it away with his later actions.
In fact because you served, I hold you to a higher standard. Cheering on a flaming socialist and how they are destroying America means you aren’t a patriot.
You join muther, oliver stone, john kerry, and to a similar degree, benedict arnold.
You made your bed so deal with it.
Richard: Hard Right is one of those “keyboard warriors” all tough online but not much in person. I love how you asked him what he has done to serve his country and all he could do is obfuscate and change to subject back to you. I wouldn’t give HR too much consideration as he is nothing but a small man with a big mouth. He is such a coward that he wouldn’t even give a real name. I’ve asked him numerous times but to no avail. Richard you have served your country honorably so you should be proud, HR is just and angry old man who never did anything for his country so he sits at home on his computer and attacks people. Doesn’t take much courage now does it….
Ron H.
H.R. I stand with Sen. Jim Webb D.Va. a highly decorated Patriot.
I assume you stand with dodgers like Chaney.
BTW Comparing me to Benedict Arnold merely confirms your lunacy. Your irrational rantings hurt the Conservative cause you claim to serve.
rich, you can be an ungracious SOB so often. Talk about irrational rantings….
I agree that I like Webb, despite not agreeing with his politics and performance as an elected official. I would not vote for him. Nor would I call him the names you call Cheney. (please note spelling for the future)
Unlike you, I don’t consider those who obtained student deferments “dodgers”. That is a special class that I reserve for those who crossed the border into Canada. You, apparently, will label that insult to anyone whose politics you don’t like.
I know many that continued their education instead of going into the service. Shall I call all of them “draft dodgers” now?
There are many ways to serve this country. Even politics can fit into that category… as a civil servant or elected official. I may not like the way they “serve”, but it’s definitely a form of service. Even the Founders recognized that.
@Richard Wheeler:
Firstly, this isn’t a defense of HR’s postings towards you.
Now that that is out of the way, please answer exactly why you would support someone like Obama, considering all that he has done, regardless of precedent, in opposition to the Constitution, especially considering that you are a veteran.
Being a veteran, you at one time uttered an oath to”support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. I, too, uttered an oath to do so, and I still hold that oath in high import amongst my other values.
So, for you to support Obama, and still hold to that oath, you have to reconcile these issues;
-One, Obama’s continued class warfare rhetoric and desires to make the “rich” pay their “fair share” coupled with his issuance of waivers from Obamacare that overwhelmingly go to unions(87% to 13%) seems to violate the equal protection clause.
-Two, Obama’s non-issuance of a waiver to the Catholic Church, on the surface, seems to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Granted, Obama did not write the bill, however, he did sign it into action. And, if a waiver was issued, see number one.
-Three, Obama pursued an unprecedented federal mandate for Obamacare stating that every citizen had to purchase healthcare. And this was related to the power of “regulating commerce” by congress, despite the historical writings by the founders(Federalist Papers) that did not support such an action. And, on top of that, the daily change by the Obama WH on whether the “fine” levied against those who do not purchase healthcare is a tax or not a tax.
-Four, Obama’s EPA writing and issuing regulation for industry to follow. Only Congress has the power to pass legislation such as this. The Executive Branch’s role is merely to execute the laws as written.
-Five, Obama and his use of “czars” to enact rules and regulation despite no related legislation passing congress.
-Six, Obama and the federal government essentially purchasing a private enterprise, GM, and giving preference for bond repayment to those with unsecured bonds(the UAW) over those who held secured bonds, in direct opposition to all known bankruptcy laws. Obama made law, in this case, and didn’t execute the laws faithfully. Direct violation of his Constitutional powers.
And I’m sure that I missed a few. All of the above are either Direct violations of the Constitution and his powers granted under it, or, questionably a violation of it with no regard, or discussion, made to the Constitution before the action was undertaken. The ends do not justify the means, especially when the Constitution is involved. That document was written so as to protect your inalienable, natural rights, as well as mine and the 300+million other American citizens. In order to do that effectively, and remain a nation ruled by the law, instead of ruled by the whims of men, a more strict adherence to the Constitution needs to be followed. Obama is not doing that, nor does it look like he ever will.
Now, while your leanings, politically, may be on the liberal side, blind devotion and support for someone who willingly and publicly shows no regard for the supreme law of the land, and particularly because of your past service and oath taken, is why HR is questioning your patriotism, Rich.
Instead of settling into a mud-slinging fight, why don’t you reconcile those actions of Obama and his admin with the Constitution, in a public discussion here, in order to show us why your support for Obama does not come into conflict with your previous service and oath taken.
Actually Rich, I stand with those who want to protect and obey the Constitution. You cannot say as much. As for the accused Marines, if you could do something for them, you should have! It’s your duty as a person. They were innocent and slandered by a political hack trying to further his party’s socialist agenda. Yet you support the party that embraced him and his disgusting actions. That says plenty about you.
It is mind blowing to me that you support what is essentially a more moderate version of the people who tried to kill you in Vietnam.
Little FYI, I was not around during Vietnam and a medical condition would have kept me from serving. It’s why I’m not in the military currently. Had I been able to serve, I sure as hell wouldn’t have tossed it aside like you have.
Does this ring a bell Rich?
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;…”
The dems aren’t the enemy in the sense that we have to use violence to combat them, but they are trying to destroy the Constitution and take away rights we enjoy because of it. Lie to yourself all you want, but don’t expect others to buy your BS.
Mata Show me where I have used the vile language of H.R. Absolutely classless and must have been raised in a gutter,where that type of speech is acceptable. Claims “would have served except for medical condition” Right I’ll deal no more with one who so blatantly hurts her own causes.
BTW Would ANYONE compare Cheney to Jim Webb re their military service or lack thereof? Is there any question Cheney could have served if he’d wanted to.
Hey Rich, how about addressing JohnGalt’s post? Or will that just make it clear to everyone I’m right about you?
And spare us your whining. I started off civil with you and you wanted to start trouble. Well, you got it.
Ron H. #35 There it is.
J.G. Let’s let the Supreme Court do it’s job. You are a smart and respectful guy (for a swabbie lol).but they’ve got a little more total time in grade than you have.
Rich:
Yeah Hard Right lives in a world of his own delusion. He constantly spews bile and then acts like he displayed civility all along. Not only is he a hypocrite but he is a coward.
Ron H.
What on earth has your conversation with HR have to do with a hill of beans? Read my comment again. What I took exception to is your label of “dodger” to Dick Cheney because he had student deferments during Vietnam. So the hell what? He chose education instead of military service. He was not alone in opting for college in those years. Are all of them dirt beneath your feet, rich? Or just Cheney?
Sometimes, rich, you let your emotions rule your grey matter.
Another tangent off into LALA land, rich. Is this supposed to be a contest of who is a superior American in your mind? So only the ‘superior’ people enlisted, not waiting to be drafted, or instead chose education? Is that your contention and measure of a patriot?
Heaven knows that the majority of young men of that age must be crushed to know that you consider them all draft dodgers.
As I said, I recognize and laud Webb’s service. And I can do that without liking his politics. I can also laud political service… coming short of the power hungry career types in Congress. That’s not service. That’s padding their futures with cushy pensions and exemptions from laws the rest of of have to follow.
Now perhaps you find him inferior to you in his service to America. I don’t. I appreciate your service to the US. And I appreciate his. That is something you seem incapable of doing.
But if you want to play your strange one-upmanship games, let’s go. I’ll say that Cheney’s given a lot more of his personal life in serving this country in time/years than you did. How about them apples? Do you like your “who’s the better man, and who did more for our country” game now? As you can see, using your select yardsticks, there’s lots of ways you can measure service to the nation.
Hey, while we’re playing your game, let’s consider your hero, the Zero. Did he volunteer to serve? Hang no… when he was of prime enlistment age, he was busy taking trips to Pakistan… a place just a year before, Pakistan students set fire to the American embassy there. Did he enlist so he could lend aid to the Gulf War? Why no… he was busy being an apprentice attorney. Why don’t you apply your unusual yardstick measure of a patriot to Obama equally?
Frankly, I really resent your demonization based on student deferments, which pulls a ton of other young men under your blanket spitting and inflated self ego. You need a reality check on who draft dodgers were… they were the ones who ran to Canada with their tails between their legs.
@Ron H.:
Ron is still butthurt I see. You don’t want me face to face. That I can promise you.
Btw, the issue isn’t his service. It’s what he’s done since then. Oh and where did I obfusicate? Nowhere. I guess reading along with being a patriot isn’t your strong suit either.
Mata I never compared myself to Cheney.I compared him to Webb. One who wraps himself snugly in the American flag while securing 5 count em 5 deferments. The other a twice wounded Marine combat platoon commander recipient of The Navy Cross a Silver Star and 2 Bronze Stars.
Damn right I think Webb a better man than Cheney.
I am well aware of the deferments, rich. You had to keep renewing them, and he did not receive any draft notices. You don’t even know if he had a higher draft lottery number, tho by then I think he may have been too old.
You compared yourself to him indirectly by making snide.. yes snide… remarks because he chose education instead of enlistment,and calling him a dodger. That is what I take exception to.
I’ll say this again, STUDENTS ARE NOT DRAFT DODGERS!
Another snide “wraps himself in the American Flag” liberal/progressive piece of crap from you now? I’m sorry, rich. A man who has served in the House of Representatives, and in two White House administrations – one as Defense Secy and another as the VP – is not allowed to be a patriot, or feel pride in this country?
Screw you and your intolerance.
Keep digging, rich. You become more ungracious with every letter you type.
So Rich, is there a reason you aren’t answering John Galt’s post to you?
Tell us Rich, how do you go from fighting communists, to supporting devout socialists?
If you don’t want to answer me, that’s fine. You might want to answer John. You’re looking pretty bad.
For those Conservatives offended and or annoyed by my tactics, I apologize. Sometimes it is necessary to draw out the inner ugliness of the left. As rich revealed, he thinks because he served, he is superior to those who could not. You’ll also note how he ran away from John Galt’s post. I can understand him being mad at me, but the fact he refused to answer the question posed of him says that on some level even he understands he’s sold out his values and his country.
I started off civil, but it became clear in post 15 he wanted to go the snotty and insulting route, so I obliged. I’ve never been the cheek turning type…which explains the many fights I had when younger. Believe it or not, I’ve mellowed some with age.
Really, I simply don’t understand how you can go from fighting communists to enthusiastically supporting and assisting hardcore socialists who are a just a more moderate version of communists. No wonder he refused to answer. It would mean facing reality, and liberals aren’t capable of that.
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, telling us to wait on the SC is a copout. Did you do that because you just didn’t want to answer my question(s), or because you couldn’t? I want YOU to reconcile those actions I listed by Obama against the oath you took over 30 years ago.
J.G Re interpretation of Constitutional issues I defer to the Supreme Court and will certainly a
bide their decisions. They’re a hell of alot smarter than me. You can make your own call,
Re class warfare BHO does not promote it When it exists it is brought on by a disparity in income between the upper 5% and lower 25% that is outrageous and unsustainable in a free society. JFK said so in his first year “A free society that does not care for the many who are poor cannot protect the few who are rich” Fotunately people like Gates and Buffett understand this and lead thru their philanthropic examples.
I stand by my oath as a Marine Officer and anyone who thinks I don’t can meet me at beautiful,ocean view Semper Fi Park right here in San Clemente.ANY TIME
BTW A lot of the statements on here such as my supporting a devout Marxist/Socialist aren’t worthy of response.Comments like “inner ugliness of the left” simpiy make me laugh.
@Richard Wheeler:
Beautifully put, Rich. I certainly hope you see the humor in dealing with people like this, rather than letting their vile slander impact your day one iota. I just have to shake my head when I see the self-proclaimed “Protector of the Free World” and the self-proclaimed “Protector of the Constitution” treat you like this and belittle your service for expressing your opinion. Apparently all the good you’ve done in your life is now null and void because you voted for who you wanted to vote for in America. Since when is that Un-American? Apparently it is here. What a laugh. According to John Gault, exercising your right to vote puts you at odds with your Marine vow – why? – because John Gault decided it did. Who the hell does this guy think he is? Isn’t exercising your right to vote as your conscious tells you to honoring the constitution? How many veterans and active duty soldiers and marines, people right now in harm’s way, do you think voted for Obama? In other words, how many veterans and active duty soldiers and marines did John Gault label traitors? How that pompous ass can sleep at night is anyone’s guess. Wrapped in the Constitution I’m sure.
@Tom:
I don’t remember asking you into this discussion, Tom. And, if you actually read what I posted above, you would see that I was very respectful of Rich. It is apparent that you have a reading comprehension problem, as I never once called Rich a traitor. All I did was put forth the view of conservatives on how conservatives feel that Obama has violated the Constitution, and asked Rich, due to his oath he took some 30 years ago, to reconcile that list I made with the oath. It was not disrespectful one little bit, nor did I, or have I, ever belittled Rich’s service.
As for being a pompous ass, I guess you would truly know more about that than I would, considering you just attributed words to me that I never posted towards Rich. How do you sleep at nite? Wrapped up in your ignorance is my guess.
@johngalt:
You’re a liar, John. You did call into question his patriotism and his honor (whether or not he kept his vow as a Marine). If you want to hide behind a “this is what HR was saying and I’m just fleshing it out” defense, then you’re also a coward. You called his patriotism and honor into question because he voted for Obama. Apparently on the planet you live on, Obama is radically different than John McCain (does John McCain pass your personal Constitutional purity test, I wonder? But I digress). I can’t believe anyone would have the unmitigated balls to call someone’s patriotism into question because of their choice in the voting booth. That’s a right (a constitutional right, if I’m not mistaken?). But my disbelief is multiplied when you apply your purity test to someone in the military (or a veteran), calling their patriotism into question because they voted for Obama.
Maybe you can just clear this up for us. Is an active duty Marine who voted for Obama in violation of his oath?
“…call someone’s patriotism into question..” LOL You taking any meds for your hysterical hyperbole, Tom?
Better get to ’em quick. Looks like your blood pressure is a’boil.