Posts Tagged ‘predator’

‘A Vast Hypocrite Conspiracy’ Alert: Obama Demonized Waterboarding – But He Is Murdering Americans With Predator Death Lists

February 6, 2013

Just to make sure you all get the “vast conspiracy” part: yes, there’s a vast, right wing conspiracy going on here.  We’d better blame Bush.

Only the real crisis is being caused by a conspiracy of abject hypocrisy.  And that one’s got Democrats all over it (and for the record, Hillary Clinton’s “vast, rightwing conspiracy” turned out to be a predatory lizard that was living in Bill Clinton’s pants).

I’ll make you a deal, liberal: you can waterboard me the way the CIA waterboarded those terrorists who ended up singing like birds.  The exact number of pours will be rigorously monitored, a doctor will be present to verify that my medical condition is never threatened at any time during the procedure, etc.

Then I get to smash you into so many pieces they won’t be able to fill a little girl’s shoe box with your remains.

Is that a deal?  Obama – being incredibly stingy with his toys – probably won’t let me have a Predator drone, so I’ll be using a big giant axe for my part of this test as to whether waterboarding or killing is worse.  And I’ll get 183 whacks at you to correspond with the 183 pours ultimately used by one of the three terrorists during waterboarding.

That’s right: Obama tried to criminalize the Bush administration and literally prosecute top Bush officials for their role in trying to protect the American people by using enhanced interrogation measures in order to get people who were willing to die to kill as many of us as possible to tell us what we needed to know to stop the next murderous attack.

It’s wrong to waterboard terrorists.

But it is perfectly okay in our “good is evil and evil is good” administration to order the killing of American citizens without any kind of due process.  And without even having to have any actual “evidence.”

I have a theory for why liberals believe it’s wrong to waterboard but perfectly okay to kill without any kind of due process.  You see, liberals are evolved cockroaches on their own theology of Darwinian evolution.  They just randomly mutated and evolved; there’s no meaning, or value or purpose to their evolved insect lives, so why not treat human beings like herd animals and kill them?  At the same time, they are very squeemish, indeed, about aforementioned herd animals being maltreated prior to their slaughter.  So kill them without due processs, yes, but waterboard them, no.

I just want to point out for the official record that every single Democrat on earth who is not loudly crying out for Barack Obama, Joe Biden and top Democrat officials to resign and be criminally prosecuted is a demon-possessed hypocrite – every single one of you weasels:

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
By Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

Obama’s policy would literally allow him to order a lethal predator drone strike on an American citizen in the United States, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, who read the White House memo.

And Obama has already defined pretty much everybody who disagrees with his socialist agenda as “a terrorist.”  You know, while using actual terrorists who murdered American servicemen to help him do so.  It is amazing that Obama has STILL refused to call Major Nidal Hasan’s attack “terrorist” even though the man carried business cards stamped “Soldier of Allah” and even though he was screaming “Allahu Akbar!” while gunning down his victims.  But he HAS called pro-life Christians, soldiers returning from Obama’s wars and pretty much everybody else who disagrees with Obama a “terrorist.”

Why is there not more outrage in the media and in the Democrat Party?  Because liberalism is quintessential hypocrisy.  And the more liberal you are, the more of a hypocrite you are.  And because to be a Democrat is to be an abject moral idiot.

That’s why the left demonized and slandered Gitmo while Bush was running it, but hasn’t said a damn word going on five years after Obama – after personally demonizing and slandering Bush over Gitmo himself – promised to shut down the place that is still very much open as he begins his second term.

Here’s the rock that Republicans constantly find themselves under: vile, slanderous, dishonest liberal hypocrites demonize Republicans for their very reasonable methods to deal with evil.  They attack us every single day as some kind of fascist Nazis for doing what needs to be done.  Then when they get elected, they do the very damn things – and far WORSE – than the stuff they poured liquid hate on us for doing.  Obama is literally killing Americans with no due process and claiming that he is above the Constitution.  But when the Democrats do this, the fact that they are demon-possessed hypocrites and slandering liars somehow gets conveniently overlooked.

Obama gets to benefit by demonizing and slandering his political enemies.  Then he gets to benefit again by justifying his policies with comparisons to the very people he demonized and slandered.  And it doesn’t matter that he’s a criminal who ought to be lined up against a damn wall and shot for his own words about the people he is now using to justify his actions.

To be a Democrat is to be somebody who doesn’t give one flying damn about human rights unless it helps them politically.

This is why the beast is gong to come and why America won’t be much more than a banana republic when he takes over the world: because one party is fundamentally hypocritical and profoundly dishonest, and the other party is the constant victim of an endless stream of propaganda smears from that wicked party.  Everything the Republicans do is slandered and demonized by propoganda even when the ideology doing that slandering and demonization does far worse.

One day you people are going to burn in hell for what you’ve done.  Every single one of you voted for more than fifty-five million innocent babies to be murdered in the abortion mills.  Every single one of you voted for Obama to write kill lists that target Americans without due process.  And the day is coming when the fire of hell is going to consume you forever and ever and ever.

Laugh now, Democrat.  You’ll be screaming in eternal agony later.

Advertisements

Why Would ANY Decent American Want A Bunch Of Weiners Running Our Lives???

June 8, 2011

Anthony Weiner is a dishonest piece of slime.

He’s not merely a depraved serial sexual pervert and predator – which is vile enough.  He lied and broke all of his vows to his own wife.  He contacted a porn star with whom he had an internet sexting relationship and instructed her to lie.  He did all this on the people’s time and with the people’s resources.  He repeatedly lied to the American people in several press conferences.  He invited numerous reporters for interviews and then lied to them – and to all of their readers and viewers.

Republicans will bring up the Weiners and the Barney Franks and the Elliot Spitzers and the Charlie Rangels, and Democrats will bring up their list of Republican slime.

Fine.  For the sake of discussion, let us agree that all of our politicians are a slimy, vile group of people.  So with that, here’s my question:

Why on earth would we want to give these depraved, dishonest perverts our health care and our pensions (and so much more!) to people like this?

That’s what Democrats want, you know.  They want to entrust our lives to congressmen and congresswomen just like Anthony Weiner.  They want a bunch of Weiners to run our lives.  They want you to literally trust your LIFE and the lives of your CHILDREN to a bunch of Weiners.

Republicans want LIMITED GOVERNMENT.  They want to get the government monkey off your backs.  They want to reduce the size and power and scope of government to keep all these damn bureaucrats from being able to hump your leg and force you to take it.  As an example, Democrats shrilly demand that we end our subsidies for oil companies even as they also demand we INCREASE our subsidies to their beloved “green energy” boondoggles and INCREASE the crony capitalism that these subsidies create.  Republicans say, fine; let’s end ALL the energy subsidies!  But Democrats will never have that.  Rather, they want to punish the energy sources that actually GIVE US THE INEXPENSIVE ENERGY WE NEED and instead fund energy that is inadequate and inefficient instead.  They want to take away the Republicans subsidies and increase their own, is all.

Democrats want to give Weiners more power and control than ever; they want Weiners to be able to have more and more and more regulations; they want Weiners controlling a larger and larger chunk of health care with ObamaCare which they want to lead to single payer socialist medicine; they want Weiners to have a larger and larger chunk of our economy; they want Weiners to have the power to punish more and more businesses and punish them more and more harshly.

If you want a bunch of depraved elitest bureaucrat Weiners controlling every aspect of your life, then you vote for Democrats and Obama in 2012.  Because that is EXACTLY what they are promising to give you: more and more Weiners with more and more power to control your lives.  If you want to be allowed to have individual control over your own life, then vote for the Party of limited government.

Get the Weiners out of our lives.

Absence Of Values: Obama Targets American Citizen For Death Without Trial

May 15, 2010

There’s a phrase that Francis Schaeffer used: “feet firmly planted in mid-air.”  It aptly describes the plight of the secular humanist left.  Here’s a quote to familiarize yourself with the concept:

Since present day Humanism vilifies Judeo-Christianity as backward, its goal to assure progress through education necessitates an effort to keep all mention of theism out of the classroom. Here we have the irony of twentieth century Humanism, a belief system recognized by the Supreme Court as a non-theistic religion, foisting upon society the unconstitutional prospect of establishment of a state-sanctioned non-theistic religion which legislates against the expression of a theistic one by arguing separation of church & state. To dwell here in more detail is beyond the scope of this article, but to close, here are some other considerations:

In the earlier spirit of cooperation with the Christian church the ethics or values of the faith were “borrowed” by the humanists. In their secular framework, however, denying the transcendent, they negated the theocentric foundation of those values, (the character of God), while attempting to retain the ethics. So it can be said that the Humanist, then, lives on “borrowed capital”. In describing this stuation, Francis Schaeffer observed that: “…the Humanist has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” His meaning here is that while the Humanist may have noble ideals, there is no rational foundation for them. An anthropocentric view says that mankind is a “cosmic accident”; he comes from nothing, he goes to nothing, but in between he’s a being of supreme dignity. What the Humanist fails to face is that with no ultimate basis, his ideals, virtues and values are mere preferences, not principles. Judging by this standard of “no ultimate standard”, who is to say whose preferences are to be “dignified”, ultimately?

What happens when “preferences, not principles” encounters a difficulty?  The preferences will go out the window every single time.  Call it a “preference” for “the ends justify the means.”  Who needs moral principles when Obama has political pragmatism?  And bye-bye, any professed principles.

“Feet firmly planted in mid-air,” and the abandonment of principles in favor of a constant stream of moral relativism and ends-justifies-the-means thinking has plagued the amoral Obama administration again and again.  Obama damned Bush over Gitmo; but he’s doing the same thing.  Obama damned Bush over military tribunals.  What is he doing now?  He damned Bush over the surge strategy in Iraq; what in the world would you call the strategy he’s employing now in Afghanistan?  Obama damned Bush over the practice of rendition, but he’s doing it as much as Bush did.  Obama denounced Bush for holding terrorist detainees without trial, but he’s doing the same exact thing.  The list goes on and on.  Obama attacked Bush over his lack of transparency, only to be far less transparent than Bush ever was.  Obama criticized Bush for protecting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, but has since engaged in bailout after bailout of the rich and powerful.  Obama blasted Bush for being partisan, but he has become the most partisan president in American history.  Obama denounced the right for using reconciliation to pass key legislation, and then used it to pass the most significant legislation this country has seen in 60 years.  For all Obama’s lefty rhetoric, he has abandoned virtually every principle he professed.

Quite possibly above everything else, Obama pronounced himself the man who would end the war on terror – if nothing else than by the sheer magnificence of his person – and restore all the principles of liberalism’s views toward constitutional protections to the enemies we would confront on the battlefield.

But when the rubber met the road, the amoral president demonstrated that his moral values amounted to dust in the wind, which would blow away in the face of the next challenge.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the National Security Council’s approval, required no judicial review.

“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

Obama and his supporters have routinely depicted Obama (somewhat falsely) as “a constitutional law professor.”  But stop and think about it: this “constitutional law professor” now has the view that it’s okay to blow away an American citizen without any form of legitimate trial.  He’s dogmatic about protecting the sanctity of the guy’s cellphone calls, but he has no compunction about ordering the guy to be blown to bits without a trial based on secret intelligence.

A pretty remarkable degree of chutzpah from a guy who once demagogued a president over his treatment of foreign terrorists.

Now, one might think that the political left and the liberal mainstream media would be frothing in outrage over all of these abandonments of principle, but the left is as incapable of genuine moral outrage as they are of genuine moral principles.  Which is to say that the media damned Bush over every breach of constitutional ethics from a leftist perspective, but they largely never mention all of Obama’s myriad breaches of the very same ethics.

Whenever the left offered its next political Utopia, the mainstream media of the day sanctified the government takeover as wonderful.  And then failed to speak out as the next regime, and then the next, and then the next, became a living hell on earth (as an example, here’s an article about the “hidden” history of evil in the Soviet Union.  Why is it “hidden”?  Because the left has steadfastly refused to look at the ugly face of socialism/communism).

Standing for nothing, with their feet firmly planted in mid-air, Barack Obama and the leftist radicals he champions have no principles to plant their feet upon.  The result has been one abandonment of principle after another beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.