Obama Might Be Targeting Americans… and I’m OK With That
I am trying to work some things out in my mind, and I was hoping that I might solicit the help of a few of our thelobbyist comrades-in-arms (probably a poor idiom considering the topic at hand). Am I to assume, that police departments are not allowed (according to some) to ask for documentation pertaining to a person’s legal status in these United States; but it is imperative that our troops and commanders check the citizenship of people overseas in war-torn sections of the world before we take out a target?
The specific case I am talking about has to do with an American born- Anwar al-Awlaki. “Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen, born in New Mexico, and now residing in Yemen, where he repeatedly issues exhortations to murder his fellow Americans,” as reported by the Washington Independent. The Obama Administration has secret intelligence, as well as overt intelligence, tying the American to Al Qaeda operating in Yemen; he ministered to the 9/11 hijackers, was the possible inspiration for the Ft. Hood shooter, and purportedly had ties to the would-be Christmas bomber. Because of this, he has been placed on a counter-terrorism ‘hit-list.’ It is important to note, that the CIA reported that he was not placed on that list until they received intelligence that would lead them to believe that the operation al-Awlaki has been working on recently has gone from the planning stages to the operational stage.
Civil libertarians are upset over the fact that the Executive would use its power to summarily strip away an American’s citizenship and have that person, what they call, assassinated. I want to clear up, however, because killing someone who happens to be an American is not “assassination.” Every surreptitious murder of a fellow American would be assassination. It is the murder of a prominent political figure-head, generally for political purposes. Strategically killing someone who is fighting for the other side is not assassination, or does every time a Taliban or Al Qaeda soldier get killed without knowing whom killed him/her considered assassination? I think the fact that people are saying “Obama is assassinating Americans” only works to hype up the readership of periodicals (like they ever do that).
I understand the plight of the civil libertarians, I understand that they think that this action is a gross misuse of government power and that Americans cannot have their liberties stripped away. Let us clear the record: yes, the government can take away your citizenship. There is a set of guidelines that shows what it takes for someone to loose their citizenship. Title 8, § 1481 details all of the reasons why someone might have their citizenship revoked:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
People against the policy of killing American citizens during a time of war while those citizens are operating against the United States point to the ending clause of Subsection 8:
(8) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
However, this final statement pertains to subsection 8 alone, because the previous seven subsections discuss other reasons why the government might revoke someone’s citizenship. Some talk about if the citizen goes to a consulate office and writes a formal letter, only then can their citizenship be officially withdrawn. Considering we are talking about people who are willing to use airplanes with civilians as missiles, and place plastic explosives in their shoes to kill Americans; I just can’t say that it is reasonable for people to expect terrorists (home-grown or not) to act reasonably. Besides, a person’s citizenship can be revoked the minute they join the ranks of a foreign army or try to usurp the United States government.
When the police are in a stand off with a suspect, an American citizen or not, they are forced to abide by the rule of law and their own standard operating procedures. In times of imminent peril and danger, either to themselves or to the hostages, they use sharp shooters to take out the suspect. No Mirandizing, no obtaining a warrant to search his persons, no trial and jury of his/her peers, the executive has the prerogative to take matters into their own hands in particular situations. I think that a war might be one of those situations. This is not the first time this question has been brought up, as Andy McCarthy writes:
The president is the commander-in-chief with primacy on questions regarding the conduct of war. Even if we were to accept for argument’s sake that at issue is a legal rather than a political judgment, Supreme Court precedent (the World War II era Quirin case and the 2004 Hamdi decision) hold that American citizens who fight for the enemy in wartime may be treated as enemy combatants, just like aliens.
The problem is that we have people who are trying to legislate war. Ironic. War is chaos, it is hell, it is the state of nature according to Hobbes. But then again, it is not the state of nature, because it isn’t all against all, it’s us against them: it’s political. Part of political justice is ensuring the safety of your own before that of those who are trying to harm you, and if it is someone who was once a part of the ‘us’ crowd, it is necessary and proper for the government to take the necessary steps to keep that person from harming the whole. We can try to contain the ravages of war with laws, but there are limits to doing this, as there are limits to everything else in life. But if we tie the hands of the president during a time of war, we tie the hands of the country and ultimately make it more possible for Americans here and abroad to perish. I support what the President is doing in this case, I think that going and throwing Hellfire missiles at every target does us no good; we loose actionable intelligence and sometimes cause collateral damage. But taking out someone that could be critical in the carrying out of terrorist operations is the duty of the President and myriad organizations that have been established to keep this country safe. When they are doing that, I will gladly thank them.
I just hope people keep this in mind when the DoJ and Attorney General Holder talk about “going after” the Bush Administration for their “detaining” and “enhanced interrogation” memos. The pro-National Security Bush crowd seems to be the only crowd (aside from the civil libertarians against both Administrations) that has a consistent policy. The real problem lies in the Obama Administration’s hypocrisy.
-rj
Free Speech…. NO! I Didn’t Mean ‘Theirs’!
Someone should tell Glenn Beck that is is terribly insensitive for him to have a “restoring honor” rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech and at the same location. Haven’t we learned anything from the Ground Zero Mosque? Obviously, this is not how I feel; I believe that the Ground Zero mosque can be built wherever the legal property owners want to build it, and we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are going to operate as a peaceful mosque like so many other mosques in America do. If the Northern Protestant Irishmen and women held the Catholic Church accountable for the sins of the IRA (and PIRA) as we do for Muslims, there wouldn’t be a single Catholic Church there.
But I digress: there is apparently something wrong with Glenn Beck’s rally, but not something wrong with the Ground Zero Mosque. This is the stance some of our friends on the left are taking lately. People are reacting worse to the Beck event than the Ground Zero Mosque as a matter of fact:
“We are going to take on the barbarism of war, the decadence of racism, and the scourge of poverty, that the Ku Klux — I meant to say the Tea Party,” Fauntroy told a news conference today at the National Press Club. “You all forgive me, but I — you have to use them interchangeably.”
So there are going to be counter-”Restoring Honor” rallies held to protest the people who are going to celebrate MLK’s dream, celebrate the brave men and women overseas, and celebrate the country and patriotism. Apparently, these are topics that would offend the late Dr. King. Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped Dr. King’s niece from supporting the “Restoring Honor” rally. As a matter of fact, she is speaking at it.
What I am interested in seeing, is places like Wonkette and the DailyKos and Outside The Beltway, and how they are going to treat the counter-protesters. Perhaps with the same venom and animosity as they have the Tea Party and counter-Ground Zero Mosquers? I won’t put money on that!
-rj
Didn’t Ya Know!? The Government SAVED Ford Motors!
Yes, from the lips of (hopefully) soon-to-be-retired Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lips, to your ears. Senator Reid describes how Ford Motor Company, along with Chrysler (sold off) and General Motors, was saved by our wonderful Hegelian-God state (government is from whom you gain salvation, didn’t you know?). Unfortunately, we find it necessary to remind Senator Reid that such is not the case. As a matter of fact, we dedicated an entire article to it when Ford first pulled themselves up by the boot-straps!
…it seems to me that Ford isn’t the only thing “F’d On Race Day,” as it appears Senator Reid will have the same problem this November. (And before anyone gives me a hard time for citing the Rasmussen Poll instead of the newer PPP Poll, I say it’s because PPP hasn’t be considered the most accurate pollster like Rasmussen has…)
-rj
Should Government Go After Fox, Breitbart?
The DailyCaller has a good article about left-leaning bloggers and journalists who are calling on the federal government to clamp down on Fox news after reporting Andrew Breitbart’s edited video of now jobless Shirley Sherrod supposedly admitting her own racism in her job. When people watch the video of Ms. Sherrod in its entirety, they can gleam from it a wholly separate picture.
Here’s the rub: I know Fox News and Andrew Breitbart participated in ruining this lady’s career, and they should be reprimanded by us, the consumer. However, I can see outcry on both sides of the aisle after this story broke, and especially after the fecal matter met the fan blades; but I did not see the same response from the left after ABC news reported on bad information. That is what Fox is guilty of, reporting faulty information. They should apologize and set the record straight, but government should stay the hell out of it. Otherwise, if the government lays down the law on Fox News, they should go after ABC for reporting false information about President Bush’s Air National Guard records, and Andrew Sullivan for his Levi and Bristol Palin infatuation (all which turned out to be false) and hell, every other news organization that reported something that ended up damaging their own credibility anyway. That’s what will, and should, happen with Andrew Breitbart and Fox after this fiasco.
-rj
BEFORE You Pass the Unemployment Extension!
Unemployment is the new-old hot button issue that is all over the news again since we finally corked the oil spill in the Gulf for the time being. This is also a topic that affects far more Americans directly, so naturally, it is back on the front burner before Congress takes their August recess. Today it is looking like we are going to get the extension passed without any consideration for how it will be paid for, or what it will even accomplish.
There is one talking point I would like clarified by our friends on the left: has the stimulus been successful, or are we in a dire situation? We cannot have it both ways, and yet, President Obama and his cabinet would like you to believe that the stimulus was successful while at the same time lecturing the Republicans on the reasonableness of passing the unemployment extension because we are in a crisis (and God knows, this Administration won’t let any crisis go to waste!). You can’t have your cake and eat it too, although, we are supposed to eat ours.
So which is it? Those of us with a more Conservative (or rugged individualism) proclivity are likely to say, “a year for unemployment benefits is ample time! Suck it up and get a job!” Those of us who may be more mindful of taking care of our fellow man (or, at least forcing others to do so through government so we don’t have to do the dirty work ourselves) might argue, “there are no jobs, what are they supposed to do?”
Taking only one side of this issue leaves one without a complete understanding of our present crisis’ gestalt. There are certainly a number of situations where people have been using unemployment benefits to subsidize their sloth; while one cannot take away from the fact that some areas of a state simply have no infrastructure for job growth. You cannot deny that the job situation has gotten worse, the New York Times has an interactive map that shows the growing unemployment rates state by state and how they climbed over time. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not show a particularly peachy picture of jobs to come, considering at the present moment there are five Americans competing for every one job.
I know it won’t happen, but there are two things I would like to see done if Congress and the President are to pass the Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension:
First, I cannot imagine why we can’t find a way to pay for it. Emergency unemployment benefits are not paid by the employer during the worker’s tenure, it comes straight out of thin air thanks to the Federal government’s Nietzschean ability to posit something from nothing; in this case, create money and with it, value. The Federal government sets aside a block grant to the state, whose Department of Labor hands out the benefits accordingly. Our Federal deficit stands at a paltry $1.6 Trillion dollars this year, as projected by the administration. The Unemployment bill that is set to pass today will add yet another $36 Billion to our gluttonous budget, and all the Republicans and a few Blue-Dogs ask for is a means to pay for it… part of it? Half of it? Any of it? Somebody please go to YouCut and find one of those programs that Representative Cantor’s office has bulls-eyed and we could have this extension paid for.
Secondly, I’ve already hinted to it earlier in the piece, but the Wall Street Journal has an article about stimulating unemployment where a crazy correlation was made: “A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, ‘It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.’” Imagine that: incentivizing people to not get jobs, and then telling them “well instead of getting a job call your Congressman and ask him or her to extend unemployment benefits” would lead people to strive for nothing. That’s as stupid as setting time-tables in a war. Nevertheless, if we are going to do this last emergency extension, why the hell would we not get something out of it in return? Why not ask of people (and I say ask now, but rather, I’d be much more willing to demand it as part of the prerequisite for receiving such benefits) to help out their community? I would make it mandatory for people to volunteer at least 20 hours of their week towards their community, state or nation in exchange for their free benefits (because we must remember, that they did not pay into this unemployment pool). This would allow people to create at least some value from their benefits outside of paying for the bare necessities that had to be paid for already. Giving money away doesn’t add value; but giving money to people in exchange for something does.
When I mentioned this on my Twitter account (follow me, rcaster – we are not afraid of shameless self promotion here) I was accosted by some #P2 fellow, which means he is a “Progressive” in Twitter lexicon. He claimed my idea was unfair because “the unemployed are not criminals!” I would have re-posted the conversation for you, but BlackJedi”somethingorother” was embarrassed enough to just erase his entire end of the conversation, and my tweets went as well (I guess that means I was blocked).
Imagine that, doing something for your community is an activity that should be relegated to those people who are being punished. Perhaps this is the truth about the soul of our communities, and why liberal areas tend to lack it. Doing community service is a punishment? Well I would rather bestow benefits upon people willing to contribute to their community, than give it to those who do not. And besides, who can take away the fact that people will feel better once they get into a productive groove; perhaps they will put their rear-into-gear afterward and go look for that next job with some new skills; perhaps they won’t sit around and feel sorry for themselves, but feel a sense of accomplishment for having achieved something, and that may just be the push they need to go out the door and apply. I used to get into arguments with my high school history teacher, Mr. Lubenetski, about FDR’s New Deal and whether or not it ended the Great Depression. He would say to me, looking exactly like Teddy Roosevelt (he did, red hair, mustache, glasses and all) and explode with his booming voice, “it may not have brought people all the way up to their feet, but it kept them off their knees!” If we are going to pay people who lost work, I say we put them back to work, because you may not be able to measure the benefit of doing so, but a man’s pride can carry him further than his pouting ever will.
-rj
“Lost, Lost, Lost…I’ve Lost My Marbles” Thelobbyist and Birtherism
Let me throw one thing out their for those of our readers who could not help but notice that our Editor-in-Chief seems to have lost his marbles (<- Must Watch Hook video): we do not condone “birther-ism”! I want to point out that I suffered through the video that was posted under the heading “Obama Admits He’s Not a Natural Born Citizen,” and it is overwhelmingly apparent that the opening scene of the video, which shows the President addressing an auditorium full of people, has been dubbed so that when the damning statements were made, his face was not shown on the movie clip. It has been doctored.
I want to apologize, for I fear our beloved Nick’s proximity in Georgia to the Georgia Guidestones seems to have affected his ability to differentiate between what he hears on Coast to Coast AM and what is the actual truth. I love a good conspiracy theory, but when they interfere in everyday life that could harm the safety of the United States, I get a bit apprehensive being associated with such accusations. The Birtherism is funny to a point; just like chemtrails or LaRouchian fueled Conspiracies involving Neocons, Leo Strauss and Freemasons. As long as we treat it as it is… a joke.
-rj (non-Birther)
Got Hamilton…?
…well, Aaron Burr did. He got Hamilton with his pistol on July 11, 1804 along the bank of the Hudson River. Hamilton and Burr had a less than cordial relationship going back some years, and I cannot help but think of the vitriol that had to be stewing to lead to the death of a former President. Hamilton announced that he would leave the Federalist Party (which he founded with Madison, John Jay and others) should Aaron Burr become the Federalists’ Presidential candidate, but instead he became Vice President in 1800. Aaron Burr followed later by running for governor of New York under the Federalist Party ticket, and he and Mr. Hamilton backed Jeffersonian Morgan Lewis. Alexander Hamilton died the following day, July 12th, 1804.
I always find it repulsive when people whine about the lack of civility in politics: as though it gets any more uncivilized than one politician shooting another. There is a weird, as Palin would say, “backasswords” understanding of the Duel though. During our current campaigns, it is much easier for people to take pot-shots at one another or make ad hominem accusations. You are supposed to develop a thick skin and let it roll off though; whether that means you are more virtuous than your opponent, or just that you have less character to assassinate. But there is something almost refreshingly manly about two men willing to defend their honor in such a way.
I also want to thank BigGovernment for posting a small blip about today’s importance.
-rj
God Save Our American States
I wish Dale Peterson Was Watching MY Back!
OK, I am sorry but I cannot seem to embed videos or media or whatever technologically savvy fellows like Nick do with this stuff. But I HAD to inform the masses of the NEWEST Dale Peterson commercial that is sure to go viral in a few hours. Enjoy!
Dale Peterson: You get Away From That!
Thanks to our friends at ICAUCUSRegion6!
