« Big Three bailout undeserved | Main | Grateful to our veterans »

November 17, 2008

We’ll make it through hard times

I hope that the people who elected Barack Obama did so for the right reasons. I’m not sure President Bush was elected that way.

It would be sad if academia, the mainstream press, Hollywood, liberals, ethnic groups and die-hard Democrats elected Obama simply to exact revenge for Bush, or because he is a black man or because it’s payback for perceived mistreatment of Clinton.

It is my hope that the man will grow into the presidency, that he will surround himself with bright, honorable people without regard to anything except his and their allegiance to the U.S. and willingness to provide for the health and welfare of all of us. We need and deserve such action, even though we have not always received it.

Our Constitution is not a living thing to be changed at the whim of a justice or politician.

Our president must protect those of us who served, in our time, to protect him and those who came before and after him.

Many of us have lived hard times. We prevailed by hard work, good fortune and with the help of good people.

Ours is a flexible and resilient economy and society. We will be well again.

E.H. Barnes
Prairie Village


KC news Hound

Work hard and work on that nest egg!


Eng, when you deprive someone of due process you can say anything you want about them. I would argue the right to trial and the ability to hear the evidence against you is a basic human right.

Knowing nothing about the individual cases, I am agnostic to their guilt. For all I know they're all guilty. But that is not the issue. Either classify them as POWs or else charge them with a crime. If they're POWs they can be incarcerated in a POW camp. If they're charged with a crime then they deserve a trial. If they're guilty, then the incarceration continues.

As it stands, such indefinite incarceration is exactly what was being addressed by the authors of the Constitution.


We are talking about armed combatants taken in a conflict that is still going on. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it applies to non citizens not on US soil.
The detainees are, for the most part and as demonstrated by those who have been released, dedicated enemies of the US.


The Constitution addresses civil rights. One needn't be a U.S. civilian to enjoy them. The Constitution is clear on the question of speedy trials, trials by jury and the jurisdiction under which these rights are guaranteed. I refer to Article 3 and the 6th Amendment specifically.


Listen Dumb, those enemy combatants in Gitmo do not have the rights of American Citizens. I do not recall giving the prisoners we took their "Miranda Rights". I suspect the guys in Korea and WW II did not either.

By the way Dumb, people said we were not at war in '68, I can point to some 500,000 of us who would disagree with you. I would also point out that the families of some 3000 people in New York would also disagree with you.

If we are not at war Dumb, why don't you journey to Norh Pakistan and preach about Jesus, you should be completely safe, if we are not at war.......


Yes we are, with these people. Of the 250 that have been released from Gitmo over the years, 50 have been killed or wounded in battle following release. Going by the odds this would suggest that a very large percentage of those released have rejoined the fight. The detainees are not in the United States and they are not citizens. Far from being clear on the matter, there is nothing in the Constitution that says such people are covered by it. So nothing is clear unless you want to take the reasoned stand that as the constitution does not apply to them they have no rights under it.

Stifled Freedom

Engineer, so explain why Roberts, Alito and Scalia voted against the Constitutional right to trial for the detainees? The Constitution is pretty clear on the right to a trail for the accused.

I dont like the detainees either, but that is beside the point and the US govt captured them and holds them. We must follow our own law.

Scalia even wrote "we are at war". NO we are not. War was never declared and even Bill O'Rielly claims that was Bush's big mistake. Scalia appears to be delusional and interpreting as HE wants it to be.


To amend the Constitution as legally provided by that document is one thing. To subvert it ala Ginsburg by saying it may have meant that yesterday but today it means.... is quite another.

Stifled Freedom

Mr Barnes, while your encouraging words are appreciated, I cant help but seeing them overshadowed by your ignorant assertions.

"It would be sad if academia, the mainstream press, Hollywood, liberals, ethnic groups and die-hard Democrats elected Obama...."

Mr. Barnes, Obama got elected by a majority vote in a totally legal democratic popular election. There is no minority group or conspiracy to blame for an outcome you did not agree with.

"Our Constitution is not a living thing to be changed at the whim of a justice or politician."

Not living huh? Then why were there amendment provisions provided for by the founding fathers and why has it been amended some 27 times? So you dont agree with the amendments banning slavery and allowing women to vote either?

Read up on the Constitution and instead of listening to Palin's dingy campgaign speeches. The constitutional amendment process involves 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures. The President has no formal role in the process, does not sign the amendment and cannot veto it. But then again, I guess you dont believe in amending it anyway.

"Our president must protect those of us who served, in our time, to protect him and those who came before and after him."

What does that mean? Does that mean only veterans are entitled to the rights in the Constitution? I dont think so. What are the rest of us entitled to....in your opinion?

Why did the Star allow this to be published?

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright