Obama: The Assassin in Chief

The Obama Administration just convinced a federal trial court that the National Security Council runs something like this:

[video=youtube;TuujTYHCmgs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuujTYHCmgs[/video]


The Court held that since the 130 or so NSC staff members serve solely as "advisors" to the President, the NSC is not an "agency" and therefore need not ever release any documents to the public in response to the Freedom of Information Act.

In this case, the documents in question have to do with the lists of drone attack targets -- "the People's" very own kill list.

With all this work figuring out who goes on the "kill" list, I wonder where he finds the time for golf?

I don't think Awlaki was the only US citizen on those lists. Strangely, folks are curious as to who is being killed in their name, how they are being selected, and why.

I wonder that the current administration -- with all its talk of "transparency" -- has adopted a legal position right out of the Republican "grandeous executive" playbook -- asking courts to "interpret" statutes contrary to their plain meaning when presidential national security and foreign policy prerogatives are involved.

I marvel that democratic and republican administrations seem to have little trouble finding federal judges who are prepared to bend facts and history into pretzels to agree with the government when it makes these arguments.

To read the decision, click through the facebook link below. To follow further developments regarding this and other related cases, "like" the page on the way through.

https://www.facebook.com/GreidingerLegalWorks/posts/544535542263071

Shut up you al-quaeda loving, al-jezeera watching Bush hater. Trusting government is what made this country great. They just want to keep you and your children safe from the terrorists. When the U.S. government acts it does the righteous will of God.

77zach said:

Shut up you al-quaeda loving, al-jezeera watching Bush hater. Trusting government is what made this country great. They just want to keep you and your children safe from the terrorists. When the U.S. government acts it does the righteous will of God.

Click to expand...

Well, the guy in the video is not Bush, your spelling is alarming, and while "trusting government" sometimes is good, it is not the principle this country was founded upon. As to the "righteous will of God," I recalled something you wrote a few days ago:

Re: The Hiroshima Myth

Japanese.gov=mean. US.gov=nice. Japanese.gov offer surrender terms agreeable to U.S.gov as evidenced by what happened after surrender= burn flesh off of hundreds of thousands of woman and children japs because jap.gov is mean= God's work. The End.​

Click to expand...

You are a master of self-parody.

Hats off!

The Donkey said:

Well, the guy in the video is not Bush, your spelling is alarming, and while "trusting government" sometimes is good, it is not the principle this country was founded upon. As to the "righteous will of God," I recalled something you wrote a few days ago:



You are a master of self-parody.

Hats off!

Click to expand...

Hahahahahahaha!! Donkey walked right into that one! The dumb, arrogant, self-important, socialist didn't bother to read Zach's sig line.


Its not election time yet, Dunkey. Come back when its time to promote your favorite criminal to rule over us.

The Donkey said:

You are a master of self-parody.

Hats off!

Click to expand...

Lol. Time to take the sarcasm detector in for recalibration.

77zach said:

Lol. Time to take the sarcasm detector in for recalibration.

Click to expand...

He's too busy trying to build creds for when he comes back as a flak for his favorite criminal at election time.

Seems to me he spent a lot of energy promoting Obama and his policies. Too late by half if you ask me.

Citizen said:

He's too busy trying to build creds for when he comes back as a flak for his favorite criminal at election time.

Seems to me he spent a lot of energy promoting Obama and his policies. Too late by half if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed this when I mentioned it before: I do not -- and am not going to -- "flak" for anyone in the 2013 election on this Board.

If I was, I would say so, as I have before.

As you know, I generally support Obama and his policies. However, I am not afraid to say it when I do not.

Pertinent to this Board/string, I do not agree with the approach Obama took on firearms issues in the wake of Sandy Hook, nor in maintaining certain stances towards national security issues. I find the restrictions Obama has placed on information about how the government works flies in the face of his statements about "transparency."

Don't you think the President ought to be held accountable for his argument to the court that the National Security Council is completely exempt from FOIA? Or do you agree with that?

77zach said:

Lol. Time to take the sarcasm detector in for recalibration.

Click to expand...

If I were you, I'd check the generator.

The Donkey said:

Perhaps you missed this when I mentioned it before: I do not -- and am not going to -- "flak" for anyone in the 2013 election on this Board.

If I was, I would say so, as I have before.

As you know, I generally support Obama and his policies. However, I am not afraid to say it when I do not.

Pertinent to this Board/string, I do not agree with the approach Obama took on firearms issues in the wake of Sandy Hook, nor in maintaining certain stances towards national security issues. I find the restrictions Obama has placed on information about how the government works flies in the face of his statements about "transparency."

Don't you think the President ought to be held accountable for his argument to the court that the National Security Council is completely exempt from FOIA? Or do you agree with that?

Click to expand...

2013 election? you have me at a disadvantage Sir.

Liberal do support Obama, generally speaking.

Firearm issues, Obama's position on the same, national security issues, are not pertinent to this thread. Transparency is, and as you incorrectly point out, Obama is very transparent, we know exactly what he wants and when he wants it.

Liberals are Americans too, a liberal told me so.

You do not get to say whether or not you get flak for the 2013 election.

Those firing the flak do. And supporting that tyrant earns you some well-deserved flak. You cannot support both Obama and Liberty. Such a position is incongruous.

So take your flak like a man, not deny it like a jackass.

eye95 said:

You do not get to say whether or not you get flak for the 2013 election.

Those firing the flak do. And supporting that tyrant earns you some well-deserved flak. You cannot support both Obama and Liberty. Such a position is incongruous.

So take your flak like a man, not deny it like a jackass.

Click to expand...

CITIZEN was using the verb form of "flak" ie "to flak for" -- to act as a surrogate for;

You are using the noun form ie "to catch flak" -- to be on the receiving end of your monkey droppings

It is two different questions.

So in response to you:

1. Yes: I am happy to catch your flak. I find you rather intelligent for an ape;

2. Yes, I am a jackass. That's obvious;

3. No, it is not inconsistent to support both Obama and liberty, any more than any other President and liberty. I suspect that you would find fault with every President in the liberty department, as do I. From my perspective, Obama is one of the better ones. In terms of liberty, I would definitely rather have him as President than Romney, Bloomberg, Cruz, and some obvious others that seem to be on the list for 2016.

Like him or not, Obama is President and will not be running for President again. So it is rather immaterial whether or not you support "him" unless you have a daddy complex. It is somewhat more pertinent to consider which policies you do or do not support -- which is what this thread is about.

OC for ME said:

2013 election? you have me at a disadvantage Sir.

Liberal do support Obama, generally speaking.

Firearm issues, Obama's position on the same, national security issues, are not pertinent to this thread. Transparency is, and as you incorrectly point out, Obama is very transparent, we know exactly what he wants and when he wants it.

Liberals are Americans too, a liberal told me so.

Click to expand...

1. I am a liberal and I support Obama, generally speaking. But on the left, there is significant annoyance and dissatisfaction with him.

2. As to transparency, I am envious of your ability to read the President's mind. But even if I could, I might still want public interest groups to have access to some National Security Council documents through the Freedom of Information Act. It would be too hard on my little brain to try to read the minds of 130 staff members at once.

3. Which liberal told you that liberals are Americans? Mason? Jefferson? Madison? Teddy Roosevelt? Did any of them also tell you that private gun ownership is a liberal idea? As is government transparency?

Past presidents and their policies are immaterial, the current president and his policies are material. Future presidents, well.....

By definition, Obama, a liberal, is anti-liberty, and thus anti-citizen. A vote for a liberal is voting against your own self interests. Every liberal desires to expunge the 2A, and subsequently the state constitutional protections from their respective documents. A self-described 2A supporting liberal is a oxymoron with the emphasis on moron.

The Donkey said:

Perhaps you missed this when I mentioned it before: I do not -- and am not going to -- "flak" for anyone in the 2013 election on this Board.

Click to expand...

Typical sleazy lawyer dodging. What about the elections after 2013? I said to come back when its time to promote your favorite criminal to rule over us, not come back for the 2013 election.

As you know, I generally support Obama and his policies.

Click to expand...

QFT

Don't you think the President ought to be held accountable for his argument to the court that the National Security Council is completely exempt from FOIA? Or do you agree with that?

Click to expand...

Tries to turn it around and point it at me with his question. He's the one that supports big government, and then pretends to object (sometimes) when it acts like big government. Entirely predictable behaviors are a "surprise" to him.

OC for ME said:

Past presidents and their policies are immaterial, the current president and his policies are material. Future presidents, well.....

By definition, Obama, a liberal, is anti-liberty, and thus anti-citizen. A vote for a liberal is voting against your own self interests. Every liberal desires to expunge the 2A, and subsequently the state constitutional protections from their respective documents. A self-described 2A supporting liberal is a oxymoron with the emphasis on moron.

Click to expand...

If I may make a distinction, sir, classical liberals were very much in favor of small government. But then what we know today as "liberals" came about, and the classical liberals adopted the name "libertarians."

But if you wanna be hipster about it, "classical liberal" is cool too.

Silvertongue said:

If I may make a distinction, sir, classical liberals were very much in favor of small government. But then what we know today as "liberals" came about, and the classical liberals adopted the name "libertarians."

But if you wanna be hipster about it, "classical liberal" is cool too.

Click to expand...

When i call someone a liberal everyone knows, or should know, exactly what that liberal is intent upon doing, via the ballot box, to this country. Classical word games are not worth my time.

OC for ME said:

When i call someone a liberal everyone knows, or should know, exactly what that liberal is intent upon doing, via the ballot box, to this country. Classical word games are not worth my time.

Click to expand...

We know what you mean, to many of us though the "conservatives" are know different.

When debating with self proclaimed liberals I found it a great tactic not to let them own that word and to use it a lot like saying "in a free and liberal society" and them make a point how liberty is the better position, it's fun to watch them try to squirm out of the true meaning of the word.

I just tell liberals that they know some much that is not so. I then tell them that they should not have the right to speak their mind. They disagree, in the strongest terms and cite the 1A, I then cite that the 2A is the next right down on the same document that they just cited. :shocker:

OC for ME said:

I just tell liberals that they know some much that is not so. I then tell them that they should not have the right to speak their mind. They disagree, in the strongest terms and cite the 1A, I then cite that the 2A is the next right down on the same document that they just cited. :shocker:

Click to expand...

This is kind of like comparing "New Coke" versus "Classic Coke:" same wine different bottles. . . or perhaps you would prefer "same whine"

I am happy to own the term "liberal" either way.

But I must say that for all the bluster and name calling, you guys -- whatever you call yourselves -- are pretty lame.

This thread asks you to stretch beyond the labels: President Obama is taking a stand against transparency and in favor of the national security bureaucracy here.

If you are "national security minded" perhaps you are inclined to support where the President is coming from.

If you are "open government" or "suspicious of government" minded, you might be inclined to oppose this.

Is it that some of those of you who have commented above have such strong feelings on both of these scores -- or are so afraid of criticism -- that you cannot take a position on the subject at issue, and thus can only dully and repetitively attack me, or Obama, or liberals, or whatever other straw man comes to mind?

Come on boys! You don't fool me! I know you have the IQ for it!

OC for ME said:

2013 election? you have me at a disadvantage Sir.

Click to expand...

Statewide elections here in Virginia in November.

A moderate pro-business liberal is about to wipe the floor with a doctrinaire right winger because people here are up to here with both the left and the right and the right wing guy has more foul smelling stuff sticking to him than the other guy.