On Pretending Obama Wasn’t Involved
By Robert Ringer - Friday, October 7, 2011
Now, let me get this straight. The Obamists want George Bush tried for squirting water up the nostrils of KSM, who was charged with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission, but think it’s perfectly alright to blow to smithereens an American citizen who isn’t even officially charged with committing a crime?
Don’t get me wrong. Being the naïve soul I am, I assume Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy who was intent on killing Americans, but that’s not the point. What’s in the spotlight here is whether or not we’re a country that functions via the rule of law.
I’m curious who, exactly, makes the decision to kill an American citizen — or anyone else. And who’s next — Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Glenn Beck? Kind of scary when the public doesn’t know the rules.
Now we have the Fast and Furious scandal, starring Eric Holder, vying with the Solyndra scandal for attention. The neon sign flashing on Holder’s forehead — the one that says GUILTY! — kind of gives him away, but everyone is careful not to mention the words Barack Hussein Obama. It’s more politically correct to say things like, “This could go all the way to the White House.” Gosh, really?
Does this mean it could be one of the White House chefs? Or housekeepers? Or chauffeurs? The media never tires of playing these tiptoe word games, particularly since the Master of Misdirection snuck into the Oval Office in 2009 without any serious vetting.
During the Watergate scandal, everyone played the game of pretending the president was obliviously playing solitaire in the oval office while G. Gordon Liddy and Co. were playing I Spy at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.
But Richard Nixon was a Republican, who was, like most Republican presidents, hated by the left-wing media. With the help of Boy Scout John Dean, they quickly zeroed in on Nixon from day one and slowly tightened the noose until he had no choice but to resign.
Like most presidents confronted with big political scandals, Nixon not only knew all about the Watergate break-in, but almost certainly gave the order to move forward with it. Stuff like Watergate doesn’t happen without the head honcho’s approval.
This is probably more true of Barack Obama than any other president in U.S. history, because he’s a control freak bent on a mission to reinvent America. Trust me, he calls all of the important shots.
Do you really believe Eric Holder, who will likely be the sacrificial lamb in this case, implemented Fast and Furious without Obama’s approval? Or that an underling gave the go-ahead to loan Solyndra half a billion dollars on his own, even though everyone knew the company was on the verge of bankruptcy?
Of course, up until now, everyone in the Obama administration assumed they could do what they’ve always done in the past — simply ignore these inconvenient matters and count on the media to pretend there’s no story. The idea of having to discuss any of his criminal activities greatly annoys BHO. He takes it as a personal affront if anyone so much as implies that he should be held accountable for his own actions.
If Eric Holder is indicted, or at least forced to resign, like so many other presidential subordinates who have preceded him, you can be sure that he will never implicate his boss. Which is why Obama will continue to simply ignore Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and all other stink-bomb issues, implying, as always, that he doesn’t have time to get involved in such matters.
Very cute … very, very cute. Wouldn’t you love to be able to wash away your misdeeds — particularly if they were criminal in nature — by simply ignoring them?
Maybe Hank Williams, Jr. should be brought in as a special prosecutor to investigate Solyndra and Fast and Furious. What’s come out of his mouth recently makes a lot of sense to a lot of people, even though everyone clearly understands that it’s politically incorrect to admit it in public. We do, indeed, love to delude ourselves, don’t we?
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
18 Responses to “On Pretending Obama Wasn’t Involved”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
Oh, were it that someone would grow a pair and go after obozo and all his ilk. I’m not quite sure how one would go about that but I’ll stand with anyone who is exposing TRUTH no matter how inconvenient it might be.
would that it were, for every hamilton, a burr?
a saddled burr is worse than an unsaddled burr, but then again, a burr coat is just as bad as saddle, bit, and spurs…(and both tack and burrs together? whew…)
stay out of the burr patch……
I respectfully disagree that a U.S. President necessarily have full knowledge and be complicit in activities of deputies. For example, I do believe that Ronald Reagan, a well established manager by delegation, had little if any foreknowledge of the “Iran-Contra” affair.
So, is it possible that BHO had little or no foreknowledge of “Fast and Furious?” Yes, it is possible, but not probable. He is not an efficient delegator, quite the contrary; BHO seems to be invloved up to his elbows in things a president of the U.S. should not be, and conversely, not involved in matters he shoud be.
When deputies are given power and authority or expected to deliver results, sometimes things are done without the knowledge of the supervisor. What does matter is the culture that is exists in an organization, often a reflection of its leader.
Great leaders take positive action when they learn of transgressions and remedy the situation quickly. We’ll see how BHO responds to this, Solyndra and other shenanegans, but don’t hold your breath…we’ve seen very little evidence of great leadership from this President thus far.
Thanks, Robert, for asking the question about the assassination of Al-Awlaki. I was beginning to think I was the only person concerned about this blatant disregard (once again) for our Constitution.
Bob
I’m a lawyer and I understand the legal arguments here. However, this man, Al-Awlaki, openly bragged of treasoness acts against the US, and incited others to do so as well. The penalty on the books for treason is death. That’s what he got. 9/11 taught us, if anything, that the old rules of war and law no longer work as before. The legal system always lags behind societal changes.
The real danger to our freedoms, as I see it, is the Patriot Act, not the assassination of an enemy combatant or two abroad.
and not so btw….
you’ve heard of fight/flight response? that’s sympathetic nervous system response to threat, and it is primary system, comes online first.
but if that fails, if the predator succeeds in running you to ground, then the parasympathetic back-up system takes over. its called the freeze response. possums don’t “play possum” – the freeze response literally shuts them down. this response is widespread, not just possums experience it.
thing is, in freeze, the organism is flooded with opioids and…being eaten alive does not feel so bad, not nearly as bad as it looks to intact observers.
so, just because the “wings” twirling your intestines on a fork, like spaghetti, doesn’t feel as horrible as it in fact is, you are still being devoured.
this post is now out of context…suggestion to censor: develop some sort of interactive shorthand to insert/supplant your excisions. icons, perhaps: “word limit violation”, “profanity”, “too cool for school”, etc.
in case it was word limit (does a lopping loophole really make any sense?):
<whether or not we’re a country that functions via the rule of law
please. PLEASE. (could we get an italics/bold/underline tool in here?).
there is law, which is to say truths, which is to say discoveries. and then there is legality, which is to say frankensteinian invention – and imposition – under color of law.
bait & switch. inculcate reverence for the law (way back when), then slowly, silently, & with legal labeling standards in place, substitute tofu for meat . where’s the beef? gone, baby, gone.
the “law” is merely the rules, and those exist at whim. so, how many examples need be endured before the above rhetorical question is quit?
yeah, nixon was republican. but roosevelt wasn’t. latter “recalled” peoples’ gold (under color of law), and the former closed the gold window entirely (under color of law). what difference does it make which “wing” did which?
in fact, lincoln was the first prez in the spanking new repub wing – and such an uber repub that he got deified (lucifer was an angel, too, no?). ’course, “repub” was just a name change. before that they were called whigs. and always, they were federalists: consolidation, centralization, empire.
as I’ve written before, the left talons are connected to the – right talons; the left wing is connected to the – right wing…you know the song.
and the lift, under that wing, why that’s all the trudgers (voters), mesmerized by the pretty color of law.
and while right side of the wing trudgers remain mesmerized by the left side of the wing trudgers, and the pretty plumage color of law, the single beak is rending and devouring all of your guts….
Amen Reunion.
All you legal eagles that feel compelled to cite case law, well ladi da. Just because some black robe has ruled a statute valid and enforceable, does not make it right, constitutional or sane.
Folks, we had better wake up quick and nullify bad law, or the lawyers will have sent hither swarms of officers and harassed our people and eaten out our substance.
I say goodonya to the guy what pulled the trigger and gooderonya to the guy what gave the order.
A million dollar rocket, or two million to prosecute and then house, feed, guard, and pamper this traitor who would have been shot in WW11 or WW1.
Or maybe like Lt. Col. North said about Bin Ladin many years before 9-11. When he was being scruitinized by anyone and everyone in Congress after the Iran Contra afair. He was trying to justify to Congress why he needed so much security at his home. He has threatened my family and he is the most dangerous man I know in the world today. He should be eliminated now.
I am paraphrasing of course, but this was the gist of his statement. Al-Awlaki was on the same road as that Ladin fellow. Hopefully, I wont remember Al’s first name either
in a couple of months.
bfenn…
your post made me flash on what happened to barry champlain, at the end of “talk radio”. specifically, i remembered the gibbering face of the person who executed barry.
remember the earlier, similar, scene from “network” (“I’m mad as hell – and I’m not gonna’ take it anymore!”)? here’s the grown up version:
http:// http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=HvC5A3K-0fY
bfenn, you are misinformed. I watch Col. North’s testimony live. The name he said was Abu Nidal. He never said the name Bin Ladin.
Folks, you all seem to have missed a key point. The individual in question was no longer a US Citizen having voluntarily performed acts that removed his citizenship status. Let me be specific and save folks some research on the subject. See Items 1 and 2, below which contain the applicable elements. After you have reviewed them, in the future please don’t confuse the protection afforded US Citizens by the Constitution with actions required when encountering an enemy combatant who is clearly and by his own choice not a US Citizen.
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
(1) INA); taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a)
(2) INA); entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a)
(3) INA); accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a)
(4) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a)
(5) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a)
(6) INA); conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a)
(7) INA); obtaining naturalization in a foreign state
parliamentarism…’enemy combatant’ is yet another color of law term, spray painted as/when needed: when killing, torture, is desired.
likewise ‘citizen’: when theft (taxation) is desired.
there are people, for example, born outside the map lines, but to a ‘citizen’ parent (i.e. one who was born inside the map lines), who have never stepped foot inside the map lines, but who, nevertheless,the “designators” (thx, robby bonfire) insist are part of their inheritance.
“citizen” sounds better than indentured servant, and even better than slave – whose status is always up to the “master” to determine. color of law “explanations” are apologia, obsequience…taking comfort, solace, in such terms is dressed up, “yas suh, massa, suh”.
my father used a rolled up newspaper to “train” the family dogs. the current “fathers”, like the founding “fathers” they have descended from, have used a rolled up piece of parchment in a very similar way.
I believe Zero had as much to do with exterminating Al-Awlaki as he did with bin Laden. I don’t doubt he didn’t know anything until he was told about Al-Awlaki’s death, any more than he was privvy to the plan to get bin Laden. If not for Leon Planetta and the JCS, Zero would still be hemming and hawing about what to do about him.
I believe it is in Zero’s narcissistic DNA to have to take credit for all manner of things he had no control over. He somehow believes it will endear him to his dwindling base or even the voting public in general. On the contrary, it simply makes him look like more of an idiot than we already know him to be.
In regards to Al-Awlaki being a US citizen or not, it does not matter. He took up arms against the US and incited others to do so. The fact that he was killed in a combat operation is no different then any other former US citizen dying in war, under the flag of another nation, at the hands of the US military. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
He may have been hunted but he was not assassinated. He was bombed into oblivion along with a cadre of other dangerous bad actors. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it must have sucked to be him. I’m only sorry it couldn’t have happened in Hanoi a few decades ago when another notorious “American” was giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
< it does not matter
you're right. it doesn't. no habeas corpus hocus pocus. lincoln did the same. yes, why bother with a show trial, unless some theater might be useful – as it was decided about bad actor saddam after he was no longer as usefully “ours”. quacking ducks, indeed.
and, did you know, that a baby duck, can imprint on just about anything that moves, and decide – for good – it's mama? hmmm…left wing, right wing, bird of prey, imprint the human(oids) and they'll follow you around all day…why, they'll even create robot prey birds remote-controlled by drones….
Remote-controlled drones are “combat ops”? what about remote-control demolitions? Wtc 7…was that a combat op?
< was giving aid and comfort to the enemy
enemy of the moment. which enemy sent the yankees home (well, elsewhere, anyway, as with the french before them). now, just vietnam. an exporter to the amerikans. you may well have something “made in vietnam” in your possession right now. why doesn’t that occur to you, give you pause?
the person who is really responsible for fast and furious is robert ringer