Free Markets, Free People


Anyone else getting mixed signals?

I’m sorry if I misunderstood, but for whatever reason, I was under the impression that this present administration was the administration of law and order which placed the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike in the forefront of any considerations it made.  No more of this “supreme executive” touting the law and  infringing on the rights of good Americans. Why, the administration even made a point of demanding Miranda rights be given insurgents and terrorists snagged on the battlefield.  It made a big deal (from which it has since backed away) about trying terror suspects in civilian courts to show the world we could handle those misfits in our court system.

So how did this suddenly morph into an administration which throws due process down the toilet and orders the assassination of a US citizen – even odious ones with ties to terrorism?

Look, to use one of Obama’s favorite rhetorical flourishes,  let me be clear – bad guys are not people I normally defend.  And I’m no fan of US citizens who’re engaged in activities I’d deem hostile to the citizenry of this country at large.  But that doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily throw “due process” under the bus because it is expedient to do so.  That is unless you also have no problem having that process thrown under the bus if you are deemed some sort of a threat (to be defined as needed later).  I mean this is mafia territory.  You just call Vinny and put a hit out on the guy.  Due process?  The supreme executive don’t need no due process.  Hit him.

Glenn Greenwald, not someone I’m normally in agreement right, fulfills the law of stopped clocks – they’re right twice daily.  He’s absolutely correct in his outrage at the Obama administration:

George Bush’s decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives.  All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law.  Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind.

We at this blog were quite clear about how we felt about Jose Padilla and his unconstitutional handling.  Yes, it’s harder than just being a nice nazi and ignoring the Constitutional provisions provided by our nation’s founding legal document.  But it’s harder for good reason – and this decision to assassinate a US citizen points to the very core of the reason.  Without due process as guaranteed by the Constitution, this is how those in power could act arbitrarily.  No longer the rule of law – it becomes the arbitrary rule of men.  And there’s nothing to say that US citizens such a regime couldn’t find “enemies” of the state to be marked for assassination  domestically as well.

Again, I have absolutely no love for this cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.  Is he an enemy of the state?  That’s what due process is designed to determine.  What we do know is he’s a US citizen born in New Mexico.  Issue an arrest warrant.  Demand Yemen arrest and extradite him.  Drag his jihadist butt into court and try him on the charges.  Present evidence.  Let him face his accusers and try to refute the charges.  And if found guilty, punish him to the full extent of the law.  In this case, I absolutely agree that criminal court is the proper venue for this sort of trial.

But who the hell is Barack Obama to arbitrarily and unilaterally waive Constitutional due process (oh, that’s right, he’s a Constitutional law professor, isn’t he?) and order the assassination of a US citizen?  And as an aside – where are all the liberal voices who spent every waking hour worrying about George Bush’s eavesdropping and loudly denouncing it, forever and ever, amen?  Why are they, for the most part, silent on the subject of assassinating a US citizen?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

42 Responses to Anyone else getting mixed signals?

  • Being governed by a gang of  petulant 14 year olds can be rough.

    I’m sure this will be yet another proclamation he’ll back away from because we’ll get all wee wee’d up about due process for our citizens and all that annoying troublesome crap.

  • He can be tried for treason in absentia, if he cannot be served process and cannot be extradited. If convicted (and the bar is high!) of treason, he can be sentenced to death. If sentenced to death, this order would be legal and relatively uncontroversial. And in the meantime, if he’s palling around with foreign enemies and gets killed in a strike on them, I suspect we can live with that, assuming he’s not their hostage.

    • Agreed on all of the above, but the operative words you used frequently Jeff are “can be”, as opposed to “has been”.   I’m not suggesting we send troops to arrest him, but found guilty and declared guilty by either a civil or military court (and how many times have we executed for treason?) are different than “have that guy killed”.

  • Let’s also be clear about something here:  This is not a case of the guy getting bumped off because he’s running around in the hills with a rifle.  He’s a guy the president wants to kill because he makes speeches in which he says naughty things, and he writes unpleasant screeds.

    • As Bruce correctly points out – it’s currently an assassination order, and nothing more.

  • Interesting discussion going on over at Opinio Juris. Some good points being made on both sides, but it all does a splendid job of highlighting the utter flaming hypocrisy of the left.

  • I do agree with you about the fact that the law have to be followed (even about some persons we do not like), because if not it is possible to fall in the judiciary combat.
      It is possible to read in “The Spirit of Laws” second volume, by Montesquieu that from the judiciary combat (a method being derived from the barbaric spirit and leading to the religious fanaticism), which was supposed to resolve the legal problems by combat by hoping that superstition do its job, came the marvelous system of the chivalry : “négromans”, fairy, horses with wings or intelligent ones, invisible men…What should have been necessary in order to reestablish the thoughtful order of justice. Also this method did led to the disappearance of the written laws and even to illiteracy.

    Otherwise there is the law of war and the law for the people, which are different.

  • McQ[W]here are all the liberal voices who spent every waking hour worrying about George Bush’s eavesdropping and loudly denouncing it, forever and ever, amen?

    Achillea… the utter flaming hypocrisy of the left.

    I think that these comments underscore a major problem that people have not only with Imeme, but with the left in general: their words and actions simply do not jibe.  I’d say that hypocrisy is normal in politics, but the dems have taken it to a whole new level over the past decade.  Is it that lefties are too stupid to realize that they are tacitly supporting the very behaviors that they decried when Bush and the GOP (allegedly) did them?  Are they too intellectually dishonest to admit to themselves that Imeme and the dems are engaged in them?  Or are they so cynical that they know exactly what’s going on and don’t care so long as they ultimately get what they want?

    I’m going with the last explanation.

    • It’s always been about picking up any club handy to bash Bush/GOP and regain the power.

      8 years of tearing the country apart with “Bush lied, killing the constitution, oil manipulator” rhetoric just because they wanted power back.

      And when they lose it after 2 years in the saddle? I shudder to think what they’ll resort to next.

  • “they so cynical that they know exactly what’s going on and don’t care so long as they ultimately get what they want?”
    Yes, they are cynical hypocrites, but they are mostly dedicated.  First we must separate the hard core leftists from their many fellow-travellers.    The vast majority of leftists are just misguided and sincerely believe in the Liberal Narrative and regret any “problems” that come up from time to time, such as this one, until the Narrative explains it.   They are concerned –  until the Narrative  comes up with a good reason for this behavior.  Then the world is right again and things are just fine.  Choose one:

    “It’s for the children” – used to justifyunreasonable salary, pension and other benefits for “educators” (who get 90% of the money) during difficult economic times.
    “It’s for Justice – used to justify trying terrorists in civilian courts.
    “It’s for Peace – used to justify defense cuts.
    “It’s what all advanced, civilized, industrial societies do” – used to justify newest Socialist action.

    The list is long and you know them well – or just check the editorials in the NYT.
    The hard core leftist is dedicated to instilling his agenda and changing America into his vision of how a country ought to be and will let nothing stand in the way of that dream, including killing if that proves necessary.  The Narrative is just a useful tool for the sheep (voters) needed to get one’s way.  Refer to “Communists” and their sorted history.  Nowadays they are more insidious, but their morals have not changed.  Have trouble putting President Obama in the same class as Stalin?  Hey, it’s like the old joke with the punch line:  “We’ve settled what you are.  All we are doing now is arguing the price.”   Stalin killed millions;  President Obama one.  Methodology?  The same.  Do what is necessary to make the country into your image of what it should be (and don’t let any of your prior statements of moral belief or actions taken to gain power stand in the way).
    By the way, before you condemn President Obama, make sure that you would have condemned President Bush for the same action against a hard core leftist.  Otherwise you are the hypocrite.

  • Oops!

  • Actually, Obama is sending out clear signals – whether to the UK, Israel, and anyone else — that he’s not a President afraid of making tough decisions, and he’s willing to punish those who do things that harm US interests.  He sent a message when he punished Netanyahu after Israel announced, during a state visit by the Vice President, new settlements were going up in East Jerusalem, land occupied by Israel  in 1967.   He was tough with Karzai, used to being able to roll George Bush, so much that Karzai had a hissy fit and threatened to join the Taliban.    In my own blog today I predict that Obama will probably be remembered for his foreign policy successes even more than domestic.   Bush tried to be chummy, said he looked into Putin’s soul, but ultimately got ignored.   Obama has more steel.  Right now, that’s needed.

    • Bwaahahahahahaha – by ‘steel’ you mean stupidity, right?  It’s all going SOOOOO well!  Our allies are happy and our enemies fear us.  The Iranians are toeing the line, Afghanistan is in super shape, Israel is once again our staunch ally and the President is following Constitutional law in dealing with rogue citizens, our new nuclear policy is certain to bring rogue states into line  AND will of course lead to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of all types .   On the domestic front jobs are going great guns, the free health care is rolling off the assembly line…all good!

      Ott Scerb!  You shouldn’t use Erb’s real picture when you post these satires you naughty naughty boy you.

      • Actually, Obama is sending out clear signals – whether to the UK, Israel, and anyone else — that he’s not a President afraid of making tough decisions, and he’s willing to punish those who do things that harm US interests….

        Oh, dear, I just realized what the post is really about, assassinating American citizens with no due process. Gee, I’ll have to get back to you on that. I haven’t seen the talking points yet.

        But I’m sure Obama is doing the right thing, whatever he’s doing. With that Christlike visage, he’s just so, so dreamy. And he thinks like me. In my own blog today I predict that Obama will probably be remembered for his foreign policy successes even more than domestic. Come over and read my analysis. Which is totally not opinion. It’s analysis. There’s a difference. You have to have advanced degrees to do analysis, but opinion is what the ex-military basket cases around here put out.

        Now, let me bash Bush for a bit, because I always leave here feeling unsatisfied if I don’t. And don’t start up with how that has nothing to do with the subject. It’s like one of those parlimentary rules. As far was we wise leftists are concerned, bashing Bush is always in order. Anyway, Bush tried to be chummy, said he looked into Putin’s soul, but ultimately got ignored. And he had no other successes, none, and don’t you dare bring up Iraq. It was a horrible disaster, I decree it. Obama has more steel. Right now, that’s needed. And you dense righties better not be reading any naughty innuendo into that statement about steel, either. Just go back to thinking about Palin’s full lips and ample bosom.

        And I’ll get back to you on the subject of assassination of American citizens later, when some columnists in the New York Times tell me what to think about it.

        • Ott Scerb,

          Whoever you are, wherever you are, if you’re ever in Upstate NY, I’ll buy you a beer.

          I really needed a laugh today. As far as laughs go, that goes for Scott too.

    • Hmmmm your blurb has NOTHING to do with assassinating a US Citizen, which is the point of the post.

      I’m dying to hear why it’s okay to just whack this guy at the first opportunity without any due process.

    • Obama is piece of crap

  • “He’s a guy the president wants to kill because he makes speeches in which he says naughty things, and he writes unpleasant screeds.” Well TAO makes speeches in which he says naughty things and the Democrats wrote an unpleasant screed (health care bill). What was your point again?

  • “I’m dying to hear why it’s okay to just whack this guy at the first opportunity without any due process.”
    Professor Erb is voting “absent” again.  That will be the case until the Democratic think tanks observe that this action by President Obama is creating a problem.  Then the Liberal Narrative will be adjusted to explain why this action is OK (and perhaps also even why it is terrible that the RWNM is taking on so about it).  Having only the facts at his disposal until the NYT speaks, Professor Erb  is at a disadvantage here.  So he will simply avoid the issue.  Later, he will claim “Yes, I did too respond to that charge.”  And indeed, he did;  see above.
    Note also that he is voting absent on my comment as well.  Hey, it works.

  • “Actually, Obama is sending out clear signals – whether to the UK, Israel, and anyone else — that he’s not a President afraid of making tough decisions, and he’s willing to punish those who do things that harm US interests. “
    Oh wait!  Perhaps I have missed it.  Someone check the NYT.  It may be that the above is the official narrative.  Notice that it is a version of the “dipsy-do” – never mind that guy in the booth pulling those levers (in this case the violation of an American’s Constitutional rights) keep your eyes on the Grand Wizard and his wonderfulness!

  • Team Obama seems very unsure that they can afford to screw-up a national security issue.  They do have the shield of immunity based on the claim that “Bush did it too” to cover anything that pushes the envelope (even if Bush didn’t do it because who knows for sure ?  They can always leak a story to the NYT to show he did no matter).
    It is becoming more and more painfully obvious that George W. Bush’s only crime was having an “R” designator after his name.

    • Yeah, don’t ya love knowing that Erb’s explanation for committing a crime like assassinating an American citizen will be “Bush did it too”.

  • notherbob2 – [B]efore you condemn President Obama, make sure that you would have condemned President Bush for the same action against a hard core leftist.  Otherwise you are the hypocrite.

    Good point, and I find myself conflicted here.

    I have always thought that Jimmuh made a stupid decision when he issued that executive order against assassinations, and subsequent presidents were foolish not to void it.  First, I think it’s useful to have hostile foreigners (even foreign leaders) understand that pushing the US too hard can have lethal personal consequences; it may give them a moment of pause before they agree to host a terrorist training camp, provide terrorists with weapons, or do other things that we’ve accused “rogue nations” of doing.  Second, not allowing assassinations tends to increase collateral damage because, instead of the dagger, the sniper, the vial of poison, the car bomb, etc. that we might use to kill a single man, we have to go after him with a bomber, a drone, a missile, etc. as part of a “military” operation.  Let’s face it: we are engaging in assassination attempts whenever a Predator launches a Hellfire at a known or suspected terrorist location.  The only difference between doing that and having Jack Bauer sneak it to put a bullet through the terrorist’s head is that the high-tech approach seems (somehow) less underhanded.
    So, on the face of it, Imeme’s decision is reasonable and even commendable.

    The problems are:

    1.  Glaring hypocrisy.  This clown is the leader of a party that has made an industry of criticizing the previous administration and the US government generally for doing anything to get terrorists beyond politely serving an arrest warrant, reading Miranda rights, and providing a good attorney.  Now that the burden is on Imeme’s shoulders, he doesn’t blink at ordering an assassination.  Am I wrong to wonder if that jug-eared buffoon has ANY integrity at all?

    2.  The target in this case is a US citizen.  This doesn’t bother me too much as the clown in question has pretty much severed ties to our country.  However, I’m not happy with establishing a precedent that our government can murder American citizens if they are “bad guys”, especially when there appears to be no proof of guilt or even efforts to establish it beyond “we say so”.  Bush was EEEEEVIL for tossing terrorist suspects into Gitmo and ordering military tribunals for them.  Imeme wants to skip the capture, imprisonment and trial and go right for the execution.  Am I wrong to wonder if that jug-eared buffoon has ANY respect for law and order or due process at all?

    3.  Most importantly, there is no apparent legal mechanism in place, no system of checks and balances.  As far as I can tell, the decision was made by Imeme without any Congressional or judicial oversight.  I am in favor of granting the president pretty wide powers in his role as commander in chief, but there ought to be SOME sort of process beyond the president telling the DCI, “Whack that son of a b*tch.”  I note another case of hypocrisy: Imeme and his fellow libs ranted and raved for years about “warrantless wiretaps”, but don’t blink at a warrantless killing.

    Once again, Congress needs to do its job and write the laws that will establish what the president’s powers are in this regard, what legal standards must be met to allow such an extraordinary action, and what system of checks and balances must be followed before an assassination can be authorized.  They won’t, of course, but it’s what they SHOULD do.

    • I actually agree with Carter’s Assassination prohibition on foreign leaders -

      1)  We shouldn’t be in the business of killing foreign leaders unless we want to go to the effort of attacking their country. Plain and simple, if we can whack some foreign leader because he’s threatening us, we can whack him because he wears white shoes after Labor day.   We can too easily find justification short of going to war for troublesome foreign leaders, and we ought not to think OUR leaders should be exempt from someone else’s hit list if we take this path.  In short, it’s a ‘gentleman’s’ agreement, the same as ambassadors are generally considered ‘off limits’.
      2) The target is a US citizen – ah, there’s the rub.  As Dale pointed out, if we drop him in the hills leading his pack mule along with several of his gun toting buddies while they’re moving to attack an American base, I don’t have much problem with his death – casualty of war – but to kill him outright while he’s scribbling his next nasty note on his lap pad, he’s a citizen, even if he’s a scumbag example of one.  Yet all we have for evidence of this is the President’s determination to execute him.  Under that rule, we can do him here in the States as he’s sitting by his pool sipping a gin and tonic.  Who ELSE can the President decide is an enemy of the state without so much as a nod towards the Constitutional requirement for due process?  Why bother to round up those militia members last week?  Send in an air strike – wham, problem solved, right?

       

      • lookerWe shouldn’t be in the business of killing foreign leaders unless we want to go to the effort of attacking their country. Plain and simple, if we can whack some foreign leader because he’s threatening us, we can whack him because he wears white shoes after Labor day. 

        I understand your point and I admit that there is much in what you say.  I think (perhaps “hope” is a better term!) that proper legal procedures for getting such an order would prevent abuse of this extraordinary power; I don’t want another Guatemala-type situation.  Consider that the president has control over a few hundred strategic missiles and bombers, yet we don’t worry too much about him using those willy-nilly because we developed procedures to guard against that sort of thing.

        I also don’t think it’s worthwhile or even wise to have to send in the Marines and the 82nd Airborne just to get rid of one troublesome SOB; the locals, who probably don’t like him any better than we do, tend to get a little touchy at the sight of US troops marching around their streets.

        lookerWho ELSE can the President decide is an enemy of the state without so much as a nod towards the Constitutional requirement for due process?  Why bother to round up those militia members last week?  Send in an air strike – wham, problem solved, right?

        As you say, there’s the rub, and it gets back to notherbob2‘s original point about hypocrisy.  Those of us who – often with varying degrees of reluctance – supported the Patriot Act pooh-poohed hysterical predictions that Uncle Sugar would start looking through library records or eavesdropping on telephone calls to Aunt Sally in Schenectady*.  “Don’t worry; it’s only to get foreign terrorists,” we said.  Now Imeme and his idiot followers are making the same claim about something they want to do.  Are we worried because he’s crossing a line and claiming too much power… or are we worried because it’s Imeme and we don’t trust him in the way that we (more or less!) trusted Bush?

        As for sending in an air-strike to get criminals / suspects, I think we’ve already started down that path with “no-knock” raids, paramilitary police units, etc.  Janet Reno went after the Davidians with an armored vehicle, for cryin’ out loud.  It isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine another AG or president using even more overwhelming force to “protect the lives of police officers”.  I’m all for giving our police the tools they need to deal with armed and dangerous criminals, but I’m also very much in favor of careful oversight to see to it that those tools aren’t abused as I believe that they have been.

        —–

        (*) As we know, most of those hysterical predictions were cynically made for political gain by democrat trash who didn’t object to the law per se, but merely wanted to be the ones in charge.  The proof is in the pudding: far from repealing the Patriot Act, the dems quietly reauthorized it.  Guess it wasn’t REALLY so bad after all, eh?

    • Am I wrong to wonder if that jug-eared buffoon has ANY respect for law and order or due process at all?

      Only when it comes to non-citizens, apparently.

  • Nothing wrong with this. If he’s facilitating terrorism, then he’s a combatant. He gets military due process if he is captured or surrendurs himself, but it’s no requirement that he be captured as opposed to killed. He’s a hostile: shoot the bastard, on sight. Once he’s been identified to have adhered with the enemy, he can be targeted.

    You can say, “well, what about due process,” and the answer is that on the battlefield, and this is the asymmetrical battlefield chosen by terrorists, the object is to kill the enemy.

    If he wants a different outcome, then he should send his emissary to the nearest U.S. consulate and arrange to surrendur. Otherwise…

    • “on the battlefield” – I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that zone for taking this guy out.

      But I have to ask  – the battlefield must now be world wide 24 X 7?  And we can do him for “linking” him to guys who have attacked us?   Even if he’s a citizen not physically participating in any actual attack?

      So we can snuff him walking through an airport?  At a 7-11 in Moose Jaw?  On the streets of Paris? Or is it only okay to snuff him if we can do it with a Predator from 10,000 feet while he’s in some foreign country that can’t possibly respond on a military basis.  You get the idea here?  We wouldn’t feel free to snuff the guy in downtown Berlin or downtown Moscow would we?    Would it be okay if  CIA agents masqueraded as British Citizens and shot the guy in a hotel in Dubai?  And most troubling to me, we can do this without even the benefit of a kangroo trail where we sentence him to death in absentia?  Is that what we’ve become?

      So I have to ask,  why did we round up the radical militia members last week, an attack by them was imminent according to sources, why didn’t we just kill them?  They were a terrorist threat, on the 24X7 world wide battlefield that has been declared, and we don’t need a trial, do we?  The linkages were strong enough for us to issue arrest warrants and round them up, under that argument I think we could dispense with trails and just kill them, no?  They gave up their citizenship rights when they plotted against the country, even if they did do it here instead of hiding in Yemen.

      • The militia guys in Michigan fall under civil statutes. So far as we know, they are not in league with any foreign governments or factions, they’re just domestic criminals. They didn’t, for instance, leave the country to join up with and be trained by terrorists and then return. As far as we know. (Going back in time to the ’90s: That accusation was leveled by some journalists and McVeigh’s lawyer but not by the government, by the way, against Ok City bomber accomplice Terry Nichols.)

        This guy has been determined — and the national security people have to make such determinations even when someone incompetent is president — to be an identifiable terrorist. That doesn’t mean that he has to be running into a marketplace with a bomb strapped to his chest. Osama bin Laden doesn’t do that either. He’s a facilitator of terrorism and has adhered to the enemy. He’s in play as a combatant, much the way a military commander is in play as a combatant.

        And if he’s not, well, he should surrender and claim his rights, such as they are now that he has been identified as an enemy combatant. I don’t see any way for him other than to go straight into military custody. Maybe that’s possible, but what they have on him probably wasn’t obtained under ordinary criminal warrants. And they probably  have a lot on him. I mean, I don’t think he’s just some sort of “Tokyo Rose” or “Baghdad Erb” type enemy cheerleader. This got run through the NSC, so he has clearly been “vetted” for this status.

        As to where they can zotz him, I suspect that would be limited to places where he could not easily be apprehended, and the difficulty or danger in apprehending him is probably the reason the NSC will settle for a zotz.

        I think that what we probably can’t see here is that there are a set of protocols for making a call like this that are not part of the handouts they give to reporters, but are not beyond our inferential capacities.

        • Perhaps we can’t see them because they don’t exist.  Who wrote these theoretical protocols we’re simply supposed to infer are there, and what gives them the legal authority to completely abridge the legal rights and protections of an American citizen (however contemptible that citizen may be)?  Sorry, but “just take it on faith” isn’t going to cut it, not with a question this fundamental, not with this president or any other.

          • No, it’s not just take it on faith. The president is the commander-in-chief. It doesn’t make any difference if an enemy combatant who has adhered to an enemy is an American citizen. He has adhered to the enemy. I don’t think that the “checklist” for how the NSC would arrive at designating him a combatant would be all that mind-blowing, but it would ultimately come down to the president’s authority as CINC. I’m just pointing out that it would not be some willy-nilly arbitrary process and would have some structure to it.

  • I believe you can lose your citizenship if you swear and oath to another power, or join another power’s military.
    Couldn’t this be used to strip his citizenship? It would also send a nice signal to other Americans who think about playing jihad.
    Of course, that’s why Obama won’t do that – looks bad in the press and Arab street. Better just to kill the dude and look tough.

    • A trial might bring up awkward questions of a religious nature, best left unsaid. 

    • You can, but you have to do so voluntarily and with the explicit (there’s a form you must complete and sign) intention of giving up your American citizenship.  As far as involuntarily losing it, I know there have been cases of naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship under false pretenses having had it stripped from them by federal judges.  Whether that can be done — and how and by whom — to someone born an American citizen, I don’t know, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet it’s not simply a matter of the president pointing and saying “I abjure thee.”
      .
      Until/unless Awlaki voluntarily forfeits or has his citizenship revoked through whatever that due process may be, McQ is absolutely correct — he continues to have all the legal rights and protections due an American citizen.   Especially when those very same rights and protections have been extended  (with much pompous and pretentious idiocy) to individuals who aren’t American citizens and never have been.
      .
      So here yet again is illustrated the utter flaming hypocrisy of the left and, yet again, lackwit Erb volunteers to be the poster boy for it.

       

  • My question is why the f*** was this even discussed publicly?  Either do it or don’t do it, but keep it quiet.

    It’s been over a year, time enough for these folks to realize they are playing in the real world now, with adults. This kind of crap can be amusing when fools like Erb spout it, but it ceases to be amusing when this kind of *stuff* comes from  those who have other peoples’ lives in their hands.

  • The King of the United States, like any other King, can’t abide open disobedience from one of his subjects.  Otherwise, the system falls apart.

    I mean its just obvious guys.

  • But it’s nice to know that the Obama Administration has stopped using “Islamic Jihad” and “Islam” in national security reports … say what qualifies this guy for death … “Islamic Jihad” ???