ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, August 27, 2012

WND column

Does Romney want to kill Americans?

Former U.S. presidents seldom publicly criticize the current occupants of the White House. It is even more unusual for them to criticize a sitting president who belongs to their own party. But this did not prevent Jimmy Carter from criticizing Barack Obama’s policy asserting the president’s right to murder Americans at will without due process in an article he wrote for the New York Times.

Labels: ,

95 Comments:

Anonymous Roundtine August 27, 2012 5:25 AM  

No one in the right-wing media has asked it either. It's a great softball/loaded question.

Anonymous MJC August 27, 2012 5:35 AM  

Romney shouldn't have to paint himself into a corner by declaring it off limits. What if he has to use a drone strike on Americans to save lives? and here I thought you were smarter than this...

Anonymous zen0 August 27, 2012 5:43 AM  

There is a time and place for dealing with vital issues. A Presidential election campaign is not one of them.

p.s.

MJC....prepare for your excoriation.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2012 5:51 AM  

Romney shouldn't have to paint himself into a corner by declaring it off limits. What if he has to use a drone strike on Americans to save lives?

I assume this must be sarcasm. On the off-chance that it is not, I will merely note that "saving lives" is not a primary responsibility of the U.S. president and does not trump the U.S. Constitution.

Anonymous MJC August 27, 2012 6:10 AM  

I should have clarified that he would be killing Americans to save American lives. That might have made the sarcasm a bit more obvious.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 27, 2012 7:17 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger IM2L844 August 27, 2012 7:20 AM  

If the colonialists had been as apathetic as the general population is today, the United States of America would not exist. Here we are more than 3 years into the presidency of Obama and we still know very little about the man as compared to any past president. The general consensus seems to be that it just isn't all that important. I find that very creepy.

As for Romney, he creeps me out as well, but to a slightly lesser degree. I don't think anyone seriously thinks Romney would relinquish a single ounce of power he would inherit from the last two administrations if he is elected.

Creepiness is the new normal.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 7:34 AM  

Barack Obama’s policy asserting the president’s right to murder Americans at will without due process in an article he wrote for the New York Times.

So tell me, is it true Americans who have agreed to a mutual declaration of war with an enemy, not thinking Jane Fonda here, but one of those American jihadists with Bin Laden, deserves due process in a court? What about in 1812? Did that happen? Did you give due process to people who sided with the Brits, or in 1776?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 27, 2012 7:35 AM  

I suggest America will turn on Romney as fast as they did on the current admin. I also suggest that Rom would widen the police state or further continue the absurd/surreal things that have happened during the last 4 years. I don't see Obam, Rom or Ryan as even wanting the job. Of course, I'm probably wrong...

MF Global - no criminal prosecutions.

4closuregate continues.

The economy will not recover as fast as some believe under Rom/Ryan.

(Questions that swirl locally; won't failed Keynesian policies just continue as usual?

Also; Would Rom/Ryan seek to promote austerity in addition to the killing of Americans without trial?)

As for the creep factor what about the doom factor - I was invited to Tampa by some Charlotte friends and we all cancelled our plans due to the storm. But we wanted to see the level of ignorance in other attendees are even aware of the drone situation in American.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 27, 2012 7:38 AM  

Correct indeed Vox.

I'm sure Goldman and co are laughing all the way to the bank.

Question 3 and 4 are pivotal but will not be asked or shall be ignored when asked. In these present times dodging the question(s) is simply unacceptable.

In response to the NDAA/drone issue, current administration and the GOP contenders it appears that similar to the ACA the NDAA/stateside drones will only expand in presence.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 7:43 AM  

No I don't need your answer Vox I have John Wayne movies. You shot those bastards. You weren't pretty with your motive. You shot those bastards. Which brings me to the line my old man made me watch as a kid on tv, his favourite John Wayne line:

"FILL YOUR HAND YOU SON OF A BITCH!"

Blogger IM2L844 August 27, 2012 7:46 AM  

What about in 1812? Did that happen? Did you give due process to people who sided with the Brits, or in 1776?

I wasn't aware that presidents ordered the assassination of individual American citizens back then, but if they did, I would think that it was just as wrong and just as illegal.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 7:53 AM  

Anti-government types, Minarchism was the Founders answer not no government or total fear of it, now throw out the liberalism in your face, and you will, and move on. Obama would be troubled to win the North-East and California let alone the Heartland that makes America tick. Lincoln was so wrong, I explain my best to Aussies that with two nations the Western Euro socialists would have only had their way in those North-East territories, and California cause it's American liberty divorced, largely, of Christianity. The CSA would have dominated American thinking and commerce like the 10 or 15% of European Christians that drove thinking there for a millenia.

Anonymous JP August 27, 2012 7:57 AM  

On the "damned hypocrisy" front, Carter authorized the Iranian hostage rescue that put 53 American lives at risk, and actually killed eight Americans. The hostages were in no physical danger at the time - it was the rescue itself that put them in danger. And Carter's only motivation was to revive his flagging political fortunes.

Then after he was deservedly rejected, Carter spent decades sucking up to every dreadful Leftist dictator on the globe.

What a contemptible worm...

Blogger James Dixon August 27, 2012 8:08 AM  

> I should have clarified that he would be killing Americans to save American lives. That might have made the sarcasm a bit more obvious.

How many Americans should be killed for each American life saved? 1 for 1, 10 for 1, 300 million for 1?

That's not even a slippery slope, it's a sheer cliff.

Blogger Dan Hewitt August 27, 2012 8:12 AM  

The silver lining, if there is one, is that Romney will run into substantial opposition if he holds the line on the precedents that Obama has set.

The left will suddenly rediscover its antiwar sentiments that have been dormant since January 2009, and we'll likely see something like the Bush days where the country is divided down the middle.

Anonymous Salt August 27, 2012 8:27 AM  

“from this point forward the presidency means the right to unilaterally declare American citizens to be American enemies, and then kill them.”

This has essentially been true since the Trading With The Enemy Act (1917) was modified in 1933 in the Emergency Banking and Relief Act. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act was established in 1977 and sought to clarify - From Wiki:

Congress enacted the law in 1977 as part of a reform to clarify the powers of presidents with regard to national emergencies. Starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, presidents had claimed the power to declare emergencies without limiting their scope or duration, without citing the relevant statutes, and without reporting to Congress.

While many say it's a stretch in such application as the OP states, the US has been in some state of declared emergency since FDR. Every president has continued the emergency by executive order. Even Clinton.

A 1973 Senate investigation found (in Senate Report 93-549) that four declared emergencies remained in effect: the 1933 emergency with respect to gold, a 1950 emergency with respect to the Korean War, a 1970 emergency regarding a postal workers strike, and a 1971 emergency in response to inflation. Congress terminated these emergencies with the National Emergencies Act, and then passed the IEEPA to restore the emergency power in a limited, overseeable form.

Bush declared a national emergency after 9/11. Obama has continued it.

The Imperial President can do as he likes.

Blogger Joshua_D August 27, 2012 8:33 AM  

Comrades! Why all the fuss? Spam sales are up! EBT usage is up! Thursday night football is starting soon! It's a wonderful life in Oceania.

Anonymous joe doakes August 27, 2012 9:02 AM  

I'm of two minds. On one hand, telling the enemy what options are off the table may embolden them, which is why we never promised the Russions we wouldn't strike pre-emptively. Kept their heads down.

On the other hand, even the infamous Star Chamber lacked the death penalty and that was abandoned nearly 400 years ago when its power-mad abuses threatened ordered liberty.

"Deny in public, use in private" would work fine unless Rmoney is actually honest enough to squirm at the blatant lie. Tough call.

Blogger Lucas August 27, 2012 9:07 AM  

OT:

Slippery slope proceeds:

http://tinyurl.com/9p6p6mc

First Civil Union Between Three Partners in Brazil Sparks Outrage

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 9:09 AM  

"I'm sure Goldman and co are laughing all the way to the bank."

Do you mean they're, like, laughing all the way from one side of their office to the other? Goldman IS the bank.

Sorry, that one was just too easy, I couldn't resist.

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 9:22 AM  

"How many Americans should be killed for each American life saved?"

On 9/11, 19 guys (who weren't Americans) killed 2,996 people.

If we could have killed them and prevented 9/11, that would have been a 1:158 ratio.

I'd be fine with that.

Anonymous The Great Martini August 27, 2012 9:24 AM  

You're all upset because it's Americans who might get assassinated w/o trial, but what about when it was everyone else in the world? Didn't that imply that anyone not American, including world leaders, were potential targets? If you can shoot the president of France, why the hell can't you shoot Timothy McVeigh? and actually save lives? And don't hide behind the Constitution.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2012 9:24 AM  

I'd be fine with that.

Just to clarify, you're fine with killing one American for every 158 Americans saved?

Anonymous VD August 27, 2012 9:27 AM  

You're all upset because it's Americans who might get assassinated w/o trial, but what about when it was everyone else in the world?

Unlike Americans, they have no Constitutional rights to due process. They are not the concern or the responsibility of America's leaders, they are the concern and responsibility of their own leaders. Why do you say "And don't hide behind the Constitution"? The Constitution is the entire point, you cannot simply proclaim that it is not relevant here.

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 9:32 AM  

you're fine with killing one American for every 158 Americans saved?

Yeah, especially if the real trade is (say) 19 for 2,996.

If you are an American who is plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans, fuck you, I hope the government kills you before you succeed.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 9:33 AM  

"Didn't that imply that anyone not American, including world leaders, were potential targets? If you can shoot the president of France, why the hell can't you shoot Timothy McVeigh?"

Faulty reasoning. Different standards apply: within the context of the Constitution and American law, we are talking about what is good for Americans, by Americans, within America. In this respect, we do not care about anybody else except Americans, because they are the only people with whom our domestic law is (or at least should be) concerned.

In the great wide world, however, different standards apply. The iron law of reciprocity is generally the controlling principle: one doesn't shoot the President of France, because that means that the French might shoot our President back.

Foreign jihadis, however, have made it quite clear that they intend to gleefully kill Americans wherever and however they can. So it makes sense to shoot them back. American law doesn't apply, the law of the jungle does. (International law is just a polite way of mitigating the law of the jungle; but since jihadis answer only to Islamic law, it makes no difference to us, from our point of view.)

Timothy McVeigh was an American. Both Random Jihadi and the President of France are not. The reasons for shooting them or not shooting them, under this or that circumstance, are simply different.

Anonymous Salt August 27, 2012 9:37 AM  

If you are an American who is plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans, fuck you, I hope the government kills you before you succeed.

Is that not also a President or Congress sending one's people to war?

And don't try and say such is not a plot as it's evidently clear FDR plotted to get America into the European conflict.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 9:41 AM  

they have Constitutional rights to due process.

Surely this has been violated in the early 19th century conflict with Britannia, I'll leave the civil war out of it, no, throw that in too. I guess at some point you give up and say it doesn't matter cause it hasn't been followed since then yes? But some will question you on the legalities of Jesus, he did know law, but did he apply it purely? Not by his words, particularly with the woman who committed adultery. Law is right, as long as people acknowledge the law, but don't hang people for violating those who give a nod to it unless you can be that revolutionary douchebag like Washington.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 9:42 AM  

"If you are an American who is plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans"

The problem is, how do you actually know that Citizen X is plotting to kill thousands? Because Janet Napolitano told you so?

Always trust content from janet4evah@whitegenocide.com !!

This is why we have things like due process and rules of evidence. And this is why we shouldn't let people with names like Muhammad Islam Jihadshallah become American citizens in the first place: it just makes things a lot more liveable.





Anonymous dh August 27, 2012 9:43 AM  

> Here we are more than 3 years into the presidency of Obama and we still know very little about the
> man as compared to any past president. The general consensus seems to be that it just isn't all that
> important. I find that very creepy.

No one cares because you can judge a person or president by his actions. More than a few years back, I don't care.

Same with Romney, et all on the Republican side. Don't care about his magic underwear.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 9:45 AM  

"the legalities of Jesus, he did know law, but did he apply it purely? Not by his words"

This is a basic conceptual misunderstanding. Jesus "astonished them, because he taught as one with authority." He didn't interpret the law, because he didn't have to; he IS the law.

Or at least He is, to believing Christians. Disagreements on this topic have led to the occasional heated misunderstanding. Especially to Jesus.

Anonymous aero August 27, 2012 9:55 AM  

They sent niggers to Vietnam to be killed.

They designed planed parenthood to kill the niggers before they could become a citizen.

The liberal niggers in congress want the draft back so they can send their bros to war.

there are more ways to kill Americans then by using a drone. The piss poor economy will kill more then using drones

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 9:56 AM  

He didn't interpret the law, because he didn't have to; he IS the law.

Dude, tell that to Jews. He told them the Law of Moses basically doesn't count, cause he has a big dick. No really, he said that stoning an adulteress woman was not to be, even though the Law said so, this led to him not condemning said woman either, but after she responded, just warning her not to sin again. Rest assured, he was not popular by interpreting the law his own way when the OT was fucking clear on it. So why do douchebags Christians not think and just apply the Mosaic Laws like Jews? Jesus didn't.

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2012 10:13 AM  

If you are an American who is plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans, fuck you, I hope the government kills you before you succeed.

On whom does the burden of proof fall?

Or would you rather have the government just start killing people because they're suspected of crimes?

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 10:15 AM  

"So why do douchebags Christians not think and just apply the Mosaic Laws like Jews?"

Well that whole Resurrection thing must have impressed them somewhat that he wasn't kidding around.

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2012 10:17 AM  

Just to clarify, you're fine with killing one American for every 158 Americans saved?

By this logic, we could kill all of Congress because they might send troops to war that would lead to the deaths of 84,530 of our soldiers.

I've changed my mind, lets order drone strikes on capitol hill.

Blogger James Dixon August 27, 2012 10:18 AM  

> And this is why we shouldn't let people with names like Muhammad Islam Jihadshallah become American citizens in the first place: it just makes things a lot more liveable.

Or people with names like Barack Hussien Obama become president. :)

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 10:21 AM  

Can anybody help me?

I've been trying to figure out what exactly is "Great" about The Great Martini.

Judging by the shallowness and childish reasoning of his comments, so far all I can come up with is, he must be great at drinking martinis.

Any insights?

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2012 10:24 AM  

Maybe he is a martini that has become self aware and has taken to posting leftist screeds on blogs in remembrance of that great imbiber of martinis, Ted Kennedy.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim August 27, 2012 10:33 AM  

If you are an American who is plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans, fuck you, I hope the government kills you before you succeed.

You think killing is the only way to pull someone's teeth?

That's the problem with America these days: Nobody wants to get creative. Think bigger than bloodshed, my friend. It's more fun and less illegal.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 10:57 AM  

Well that whole Resurrection thing must have impressed them somewhat that he wasn't kidding around.

Do explain to Americans, especially those possessive of Constitutional law. Not saying it's wrong, just saying grab some fucking perspective you weirdo cunts. I'm sure Jesus would say it better, but that's my Aussie interpretation.

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba™ August 27, 2012 11:15 AM  

James Dixon
Or people with names like Barrack Hussein Obama become President.

FTW

GSM

WORD!

TRUE DAT!

YEAH BOYEEE!




Yousef Islam's early stuff was pretty good, though.

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 11:16 AM  

You think killing is the only way to pull someone's teeth?

It is if they are hiding in Yemen or some similar hell-hole.

The problem is, how do you actually know that Citizen X is plotting to kill thousands

See above. If they are hiding in Yemen, I'll take the gummint's word for it that they're up to no good.

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 11:19 AM  

It's more fun and less illegal.

BTW it is not "illegal" to kill people in Pakistan or Yemen using drones.

And I think it's a hell of a lot of fun to have robots kill people from the sky!

Blogger James Dixon August 27, 2012 11:26 AM  

> BTW it is not "illegal" to kill people in Pakistan or Yemen using drones.

Pakistan or Yemen might have an opinion on that.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim August 27, 2012 11:30 AM  

You think killing is the only way to pull someone's teeth?

It is if they are hiding in Yemen or some similar hell-hole.


If they're hiding in Yemen, then I suspect they're going to run into some logistical problems with that whole mass-murder thing.

And I think it's a hell of a lot of fun to have robots kill people from the sky!

No imagination, I tell you. Death isn't the worst thing--or even the most effective thing--you can do to someone. It's not even in the top five.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2012 11:31 AM  

And I think it's a hell of a lot of fun to have robots kill people from the sky!

Do you really think it's going to be all that long before people in Pakistan and Yemen have drones? Or better yet, drones that deliver biological weapons?

Anonymous Roundtine August 27, 2012 11:33 AM  

By this logic, we could kill all of Congress because they might send troops to war that would lead to the deaths of 84,530 of our soldiers.

Have you been watching Eagle Eye?

Anonymous Roundtine August 27, 2012 11:37 AM  

Or better yet, assassin spiders. Technology & the Future of Violence

Anonymous III August 27, 2012 11:41 AM  

Believe me, when Americans decide to take their country back and restore some semblance of a republic, drones will be used on them... those enemies of the uSA. I won't matter who the armed instigators are. What matters, is that patriots will be the enemy.

Yes Jamie, and when O'Romney is president, he will disengage from the Muslim Brotherhood and their armed wing Al Qaeda... in places like Egypt, Syria, Libya...

Anonymous III August 27, 2012 11:45 AM  

I'll take the gummint's word for it that they're up to no good.

The reason why we are here. Imagine where we will be.

You probably gyrate your loins to copdom too.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2012 11:47 AM  

Vox, you're such a radical.

Anonymous cheddarman August 27, 2012 11:48 AM  

Vox,

Romney may want to put you on his "drone list" for coining the term "captain Under-roos."

sincerely

cheddarman

Blogger ajw308 August 27, 2012 11:52 AM  

Drones? The Muzzies don't need drones when their guidance systems have 72 virgins waiting for them in paradise.

Anonymous III August 27, 2012 11:56 AM  

Or would you rather have the government just start killing people because they're suspected of crimes?

Or put into mental institutions... for anti-government thought crimes.

USA! USA! USA!

Anonymous III August 27, 2012 11:59 AM  

Drones? The Muzzies don't need drones when their guidance systems have 72 virgins waiting for them in paradise.

And speaking of them blowing themselves up all over AmeriKa! Must be hard to cross the border.

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2012 12:01 PM  

See above. If they are hiding in Yemen, I'll take the gummint's word for it that they're up to no good.


Alright hoss, when the swat team bursts into your house on a warrantless no knock raid and kills you, I'll take their word for it that you were a meth dealer who also ran human trafficking and harbored illegal aliens and terrorists.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 12:17 PM  

Do you really think it's going to be all that long before people in Pakistan and Yemen have drones? Or better yet, drones that deliver biological weapons?

America's brilliance, like 16th Century Europa, will not be powered by slanty eyed smart arse chinks or wannabe Indian Microsoft technicians.

So who cares a whit. No one gets what made anything great. Fuck it.

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 12:34 PM  

Alright hoss, when the swat team bursts into your house on a warrantless no knock raid and kills you,

Um, did you notice that I said YEMEN and PAKISTAN?

Are you aware that America is not Yemen or Pakistan?

I shouldn't have to say that the logic of drone strikes does not apply within the USA itself, but apparently some people are stupid enough to need this clarification.

Do you really think it's going to be all that long before people in Pakistan and Yemen have drones?

So what if they do? Their drones cannot and will not operate here.

Blogger James Dixon August 27, 2012 12:43 PM  

> I shouldn't have to say that the logic of drone strikes does not apply within the USA itself, but apparently some people are stupid enough to need this clarification.

I don't recall that limitation being mentioned in the announcement. And even if it was, this administration has shown very little regard for the niceties of the law. As for their logic, well the less said about that, the better.

> So what if they do? Their drones cannot and will not operate here.

Why not? Do you think we're going to be able to stop them?

And who says they're only going to target American's here? Americans travel all over the world.

Blogger JohnG August 27, 2012 12:45 PM  

Never had to set this precedent, had they wanted Awlaki they could've snatched and grabbed him - easier than it was to go into Pakistan - and put him on trial.

But I don't fault Obama for pushing the limits on what he can get away with. I fault congress for their cowardice and not stringing him up by his short hairs. F*cking Dems are now going to try to run minorities and special classes every time now because Republicans are powerless in the face of being called 'raciss' or bigot...

Anonymous VD August 27, 2012 1:02 PM  

I shouldn't have to say that the logic of drone strikes does not apply within the USA itself, but apparently some people are stupid enough to need this clarification.

If you said it, you would be wrong. It does apply in the USA itself. 30 different agencies and police forces are already using drones, some of them armed, within the borders.

So what if they do? Their drones cannot and will not operate here.

No weapons technology has ever failed to proliferate. Their drones don't operate in the USA now. But they will.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 1:08 PM  

Joe Farah has pissed a lot of cunts off. Since Clinton days. America is about politics not royalty, so if your goal is to destroy the opposition, hey! Welcome to America where politics is royalty and nastiness knows no bounds cause it's a political war and remember that.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 27, 2012 1:13 PM  

"Maybe he is a martini that has become self aware and has taken to posting leftist screeds on blogs in remembrance of that great imbiber of martinis, Ted Kennedy."

A fascinating theory, to be sure. And yet, questions remain.

For instance, why would a self-aware martini celebrate the remembrance of one of the most notorious mass-murderers of martinis of all time, the war-tini criminal Ted Kennedy? Has this so-called "Great" martini no allegiance at all to his own people, the Tinis?

In light of the terrible crime of so many martinis being consumed during the Tinocaust, should not The Great Martini have joined forces with Simon Wiesentini in arresting this "Ted" Kennedy, (if that IS his real name) and extraditing him back to a jail cell in Tel Tini, to await trial on the charge of drinking six million martinis?

The world demands justice! The millions and millions of fatherless olives and lemon-peel twists cry out for repartini-ations!



Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2012 2:19 PM  

"I shouldn't have to say that the logic of drone strikes does not apply within the USA itself, but apparently some people are stupid enough to need this clarification."

Under current federal law, it is a crime to murder a US citizen anywhere in the world. I always thought that this was a jurisdictional overreach, but (in theory) the law applies equally to all. Under US law, Obama is a murderer.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2012 2:31 PM  

And in case you're too stupid to make the connection, that means it's the same crime to kill a US citizen overseas as it is to kill him on US soil.

Anonymous A Concerned American August 27, 2012 2:49 PM  

I'm scratching my head continuously here. We are discussing this particular topic, because Mohammed Atta, a supposed qualified Boeing 767 pilot, knew it CRITICAL, to place/crash his plane between the 93rd and 98th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center, on Sept. 11, 2001.

We say critical, because the aftermath resulted in 661 deaths, out of a total of 1275 total deaths from WTC1 (north tower), on floors 101-105 alone. That represents ~52% of all deaths on WTC1. That also represents ~40% of all deaths, from WTC1 and WTC2 combined. Funny how floors 101-105 on WTC1 just happened to be floors inhabited by one company, and one company alone. That being, Cantor Fitzgerald. 661 people, from one company alone, from a building with a total of ~110 floors. Imagine that?

Now even more interesting. Cantor Fitzgerald just happened to be the management firm for some specific (and apparently very important) [financial] securities. Securities of the nature of some $240 billion [off balance sheet] supposedly created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet Union. (Later cleared by the Bank of New York)

Huh??? You mean to tell me, that Brandon Raub (et al) was potentially disappeared, under the auspices of the now legal NDAA, because of some concern of a mere balance sheet entry?!? Millions of Americans are loosing their jobs and homes, over a stupid balance sheet entry?!? I can't eat a single french fry, on a public transit system, because of an idiotic balance sheet entry? My toenail clippers are being confiscated because of an utterly ridiculous BALANCE SHEET ENTRY?!?!?

I thought this was a war on terror/terrorism? Who are the terrorists? Where do these guys come from? Oh, what?!? Adnan Khashoggi? That same guy that had connections to the Yeltsin Family?!? Sheik Kamal Adham? former director of Saudi intelligence?!? Who else? Wally Hilliard? The guy who was a close friend of Mark Schubin, whose father was a KGB colonel? I don't want to know anymore. This is too much.

Ya know, come to think of it, there was this guy:

"...terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world."
-- William Eldridge Odom

So, that is why I have to take my shoes off at the airport.

I see clearly now. It all makes sense to me...

Yea, I think I'm going to vote for Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan. Those two are really going to make a difference...

Those two are going to let me put my shoes back on! Imagine that. Finally some progress in Amurica...

Blogger Desert Cat August 27, 2012 3:21 PM  

Yeh, I always wondered what Cantor Fitzgerald did to piss off the PTB.

Blogger Desert Cat August 27, 2012 3:23 PM  

Yeh, I always wondered what Cantor Fitzgerald did to piss off the PTB.

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 27, 2012 3:54 PM  

From Auster's VFR today:

To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.
---- Voltaire

One must admit that the old atheist degenerate came up with a good point now and again (like the proverbial blind pig).

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim August 27, 2012 4:04 PM  

So what if they do? Their drones cannot and will not operate here.

No weapons technology has ever failed to proliferate. Their drones don't operate in the USA now. But they will.


I think he's convinced that because they use DC instead of AC, it'll never happen.

God help us if Muslims ever discover the secrets of the elusive D-cell battery, though...

Anonymous yukonyon August 27, 2012 4:05 PM  

It's fascinating to see you bring this up, Vox. And I can't help but be curious, especially since you weigh religious foundations so heavily. (It's not a point I dispute) But in this instance, where you have a successor to the current president in this situation, would you rather he be a member of a religion that regards murder to be the one of the two unpardonable sins; the ones that will guarantee you are sent not just to hell, but to a place unimaginably worse? Or would you rather he be a member of a religion that minimizes the seriousness of murder as "simply another sin you can eventually obtain forgiveness for"?

Anonymous yukonyon August 27, 2012 4:10 PM  

Please note, this post isn't meant to start up a religious argument, but I think if you were honest, this could have been more excoriating. Or is it more politically correct in the Christain mainstream to be a good Mormon, or a lousy one?

Blogger JohnG August 27, 2012 4:22 PM  

@Yukonyon

Murder's pretty low on the totem pole. Look at Matthew 5:21-22, and there is the unpardonable one of blaspheming the Holy Spirit mentioned in a couple places.

Anonymous yukonyon August 27, 2012 4:26 PM  

Just to reiterate, Mr. G, I'm not turning this into a theological debate. Regardless of whether or not you disagree in how I should interpret my scriptures, the point remains the same. Please address the point.

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2012 4:45 PM  

Look Yukon, Romney has not condemned Obama's use of drones to murder people, and has said that the program isn't aggressive enough. Furthermore, he's in favor of launching an attack against Iran to protect our bestest friends the zionists. How many people will be murdered I'm that war?

I know your Mormon hamster is strong, but face it, your captain underoos isn't very likely to order American forces to stop murdering people.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2012 4:47 PM  

"I know your Mormon hamster is strong, but face it, your captain underoos isn't very likely to order American forces to stop murdering people."

The writing is on the wall: the Mormons are going to use the drones to kill us, and then they plan to take our women.

Blogger JohnG August 27, 2012 5:07 PM  

"Regardless of whether or not you disagree in how I should interpret my scriptures..." - Yukonyon

Plain English doesn't usually require interpretation for English speakers.

Anonymous FrankBrady August 27, 2012 5:54 PM  

Unlike Americans, they have no Constitutional rights to due process.

The Constitution does not limit (nor does it confer) rights to anyone, citizen or not. It simply articulates some of those rights in the Bill of Rights. "Citizenship" is nowhere mentioned as a prerequisite to Constitutional protections.

Frank

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 5:57 PM  

No weapons technology has ever failed to proliferate. Their drones don't operate in the USA now. But they will.

ROFLMAO! Pakistan has an air force. Do their fighter jets operate here? No. They can't. And their drones will not operate here for the same reason.

in case you're too stupid to make the connection, that means it's the same crime to kill a US citizen overseas as it is to kill him on US soil.

You guys still stuck on stupid?

It would not be a crime to kill a terrorist on American soil to prevent an attack. It is not a crime to kill a terrorist on foreign soil to prevent an attack.

One of the reasons we kill them with drones overseas is that we are not there on the ground to arrest them. That does not apply in the USA, and thus drone strikes in the USA would generally be unnecessary.

Anonymous Meh August 27, 2012 5:59 PM  

Let me put it to you another way -- if other countries, especially broke-dick countries like Pakistan, are able to conduct drone strikes in the USA, that will indicate the complete collapse of the USA as a military power and political entity.

At which point we have a HELL of a lot bigger problems than other countries making drone strikes on us.

Anonymous FrankBrady August 27, 2012 6:01 PM  

If you are an American who is plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans, fuck you, I hope the government kills you before you succeed.

Meh, you left out a two important words that I've taken the liberty of inserting here, which may clarify things for you (although I somehow doubt it). Surely you meant to write, "If you are an American who is accused of plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of other Americans, fuck you, I hope the government kills you before you succeed.



Anonymous FrankBrady August 27, 2012 6:05 PM  

It would not be a crime to kill a terrorist on American soil to prevent an attack. It is not a crime to kill a terrorist on foreign soil to prevent an attack.

Ah, a "pre-crime" advocate. Your ignorance is as stunning as your immorality.

Blogger James Dixon August 27, 2012 6:56 PM  

> Pakistan has an air force. Do their fighter jets operate here? No. They can't.

They can't? Someone has suspended the laws of physics for Pakistani aircraft within US borders?

Actually, they can operate here quite well. They merely don't for sound logistical reasons, which can readily be overcome with the proper exercise of time and money.

And since drones are over an order of magnitude cheaper and can be over an order of magnitude smaller, those logistical difficulties rapidly become non-factors for any determined party.

But you'd probably be one of those people (to use a well known example here) arguing that the invasion of the west coast by japan was imminent in WWII.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2012 6:58 PM  

"It would not be a crime to kill a terrorist on American soil to prevent an attack. It is not a crime to kill a terrorist on foreign soil to prevent an attack."

Lawful self-defense and defense of others has been legal in this country for a long time, so there was never a need for new laws, executive orders, or findings to allow a terrorist to be killed if they are in the process of carrying out an attack. If they're not, then the lawful course of action is to arrest them. Killing them without trial is murder.

If you still disagree, ask yourself this -- would you be perfectly OK with a US citizen killing a person under the same circumstances in which you are willing to allow the government to do it? If someone says "bomb" on an airplane, or if I just think they do, is it OK for me to go ahead and just bash their skull in? Shoot first, ask questions later?

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2012 7:00 PM  

Meh, what you are advocating is the total dismantling of the rule of law, and the word "stupid" is hardly adequate to describe such a position.

Anonymous Stilicho August 27, 2012 7:48 PM  

To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.
---- Voltaire


Crap, that's a long list.

Anonymous Those Who DON'T Control the Media (and if you say we do, you're fired!) August 27, 2012 8:27 PM  

"Crap, that's a long list."

No, not so long, once you stop and think about it.

One word, really.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 8:59 PM  

No weapons technology has ever failed to proliferate. Their drones don't operate in the USA now. But they will.

Give us a break! Weapons technology hasn't proliferated because Earth has a Creator! And also, humans fear destruction even as they flirt with it. Okay so there's no creator, that means Hitler should have won and the Mongols should be the Empire we all fear today. No there is a Lord and his justice should make all tremble. Iran won't destroy Israel.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 9:01 PM  

Americans are fucking freaks. Their ways can't be copied and pasted elsewhere, others don't think like you. Even in technology.

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 9:03 PM  

It's nice to think you're a badass, but sometimes you need to pull back and admit, that yes, you're a badass.

Blogger Michael E August 27, 2012 9:34 PM  

jamie-r, the law of moses states that both of the parties to adultery must be put to death, not just the woman, and there must be witnesses, and a witness must cast the first stone. the pharisees deliberately broke the law in bringing only the woman without witnesses, to see what Jesus would do. they were hoping that He was as ignorant as everyone who brings this up as an example of Jesus not following the Law...

Blogger Jamie-R August 27, 2012 10:02 PM  

Michael E, the law of Moses is irrelevant to those who follow Jesus. We don't follow the law, we are simply forgiven my brother. I like to cry sometimes about humanity's flaws, nothing we do is pretty. Nothing Moses did could have prevented it.

Blogger Jamie-R September 01, 2012 10:20 PM  

We acknowledge the Law. As long as people know they have sinned, there is God.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts