Tuesday, September 28, 2021
HomeRecommendedThe Terror Presidency: A Conservative Reaction

The Terror Presidency: A Conservative Reaction

Herman Cain is running for the Republican nomination to unseat Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America, and what he heard recently, and his reaction to it, is a true red, white and blue, all American reaction. You see, Mr. Cain found out what those of us who eat, drink and sleep politics already knew, that Barack Hussein Obama has taken this Country down a path of a terror Presidency. What he, and his Faculty Lounge partners have decided, is that it is appropriate to kill a United States Citizen overseas as part of his battle in the War on Terror.  Being a Conservative, I have an immense respect for the battle that rages against Islamic radicals. I also believe that we have the right to eliminate all the terrorists – we were attacked first, they continue to threaten us.  All that being said, it is UN-Constitutional for this President, or any President, to seek to murder an American citizen in the name of protecting this Country. What truly ticks me off is the silence of the non anti-war left, though it is clear they were actually more about being anti-Republican President vs anti-war.  Still, you would have thought perhaps they had one thimble full of honor, but alas that is not to be. It has been left to We The People to call into question Obama using his Presidential powers to have an American citizen executed without trial and jury. The Imperial Presidency.

Tuesday – Going to war whether Congress likes it or not

Wednesday – Commander in chief of the economy

Thursday – It’s OK, he’s our imperial president!

Rising Republican star Herman Cain got quite the shock last week when he learned about the powers President Obama claims in the name of national security.

“This is the first that I have heard,” Cain exclaimed to his interviewer, the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf. “You’re saying it’s OK to take out American citizens if he suspects they are terrorist-related. Is that what you said?!”

When Friedersdorf explained, yes, that’s Obama’s position, a horrified Cain replied: “If you’re a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No.”

Sure, a presidential candidate like Cain should do a better job following the news, but his unscripted reaction was the only appropriate one for a limited-government conservative — a “gaffe” only in Michael Kinsley’s sardonic definition: that rare occasion when a pol accidentally blurts the truth The truth is that American presidents have more power than we can safely entrust to any fallible human being. That was so even before the massive expansion of presidential power that followed Sept. 11.

Civil libertarians once looked to this president to right the constitutional balance. But what Obama has wrought is the same old “Terror Presidency” with new rhetoric.

Gen. Michael Hayden, President George W. Bush’s CIA director, notes a “powerful continuity” between the two administrations on national security powers. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney now grudgingly praises Obama for leaving most of the Bush framework intact.

In some areas, “44” has gone even further than “43.” Bush claimed “inherent power” to attack other countries at will, but never fought a war without congressional authorization.

Our new “decider” launched a war in Libya without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress. “It’s nice to have a neocon back in the White House,” the Washington Times enthused as the Tomahawks began to fly.

Your mileage may vary, though — especially if you worry about domestic spying. Last week’s Patriot Act fight, in which the administration leaned on congressional allies to quash debate, highlighted how much Obama has “grown in office.”

“No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.” Obama promised on the campaign trail.

Yet the Justice Department’s latest report to Congress shows record-high use of NSLs: More than 14,000 Americans had their records searched last year using this extraordinary legal device, which allows the government to demand sensitive personal data like phone and bank records without the inconvenience of judicial review.

Why my man Herman is talking to the Atlantic I will never know, but I have to say I enjoyed his response, because truth be told, a majority of Americans would have had the same response. There is not much I wouldn’t want my elected officials to do to protect this Country, but as Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

JadedByPolitics
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy & does not destroy him is his own enemy

4 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

4 COMMENTS

  1. I read the link to the article which addresses the Cato Institute position. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, which is anti-war. They actually make the Christmas Day Bomber out to be a figment of our imagination in the War on Terror.

    This is probably one of my first big dissapointments with Cain, who I have supported with no shame. I love his position on the radical islamists. This statement just doesn’t fit his prior policy, at all.

    Had Mr. Cain thought about it for a minute, he would have considered Anwar al-Awlaki, a US born terrorist who ran his butt off to Yemen when the US started gathering a whole bunch of info, in particular with his Falls Church, VA radical Mosque. The Times Square Bomber was a naturalized US citizen.

    There is a big difference between taking out American citizens, even in foreign countries, and taking out American citizens that have not broken the law, or who have not been radicalized. It seems to me that the Cato Institute lumps all of them together, simply because they are anti-war, and want nothing more than to cut our Defense/National Security budget. I adore Herman Cain, but on this issue, I have serious dissagrements.

    Sorry for the spelling errors, I am not starting my post over to find the correct spelling.

    • Well SEC on this one I we will have to agree to disagree kind of because I am going to use it to BURN the shit out of Obama, if I can turn half of those lefty parasites against him for the election of 2012, well I will suck it up, hell I personally would make the whole Middle East right up to Israels borders a glass lot, so I really don’t care if one pos is killed by our military but I do care that he has targeted a US citizen for murder without trial and jury, after listening to the left for 8 LONNNNNNNNNNNG years talk about MY President Bush and his “radicalism” I am certainly not going to let the biggest lying leftist get away with his radicalism!

      obtw who cares about spelling…lol!

    • Agreed SEC, the commander in chief must not be hampered in his duty to defend the country to separate out citizens from non-citizens that are waging war against the US. Our President must have the power to so act. Voters should consider the character and judgment of the candidates when they vote to grant this power. And if we think a President has misused that power, then we can impeach or not re-elect. Would UBL have been entitled to police-like domestic rights instead of being taken out in a military operation if he was a US citizen that was waging war against the US? Of course not.

      • The only thing I can say is I am so thankful for the 22nd amendment. I want Obama gone after four years, and I certainly do not want the 22nd amendment repealed so he can be president for life. I have become quite jaded and pessimistic about voters that are able to consider character and judgement when they vote.

  1. I read the link to the article which addresses the Cato Institute position. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, which is anti-war. They actually make the Christmas Day Bomber out to be a figment of our imagination in the War on Terror.

    This is probably one of my first big dissapointments with Cain, who I have supported with no shame. I love his position on the radical islamists. This statement just doesn’t fit his prior policy, at all.

    Had Mr. Cain thought about it for a minute, he would have considered Anwar al-Awlaki, a US born terrorist who ran his butt off to Yemen when the US started gathering a whole bunch of info, in particular with his Falls Church, VA radical Mosque. The Times Square Bomber was a naturalized US citizen.

    There is a big difference between taking out American citizens, even in foreign countries, and taking out American citizens that have not broken the law, or who have not been radicalized. It seems to me that the Cato Institute lumps all of them together, simply because they are anti-war, and want nothing more than to cut our Defense/National Security budget. I adore Herman Cain, but on this issue, I have serious dissagrements.

    Sorry for the spelling errors, I am not starting my post over to find the correct spelling.

    • Well SEC on this one I we will have to agree to disagree kind of because I am going to use it to BURN the shit out of Obama, if I can turn half of those lefty parasites against him for the election of 2012, well I will suck it up, hell I personally would make the whole Middle East right up to Israels borders a glass lot, so I really don’t care if one pos is killed by our military but I do care that he has targeted a US citizen for murder without trial and jury, after listening to the left for 8 LONNNNNNNNNNNG years talk about MY President Bush and his “radicalism” I am certainly not going to let the biggest lying leftist get away with his radicalism!

      obtw who cares about spelling…lol!

    • Agreed SEC, the commander in chief must not be hampered in his duty to defend the country to separate out citizens from non-citizens that are waging war against the US. Our President must have the power to so act. Voters should consider the character and judgment of the candidates when they vote to grant this power. And if we think a President has misused that power, then we can impeach or not re-elect. Would UBL have been entitled to police-like domestic rights instead of being taken out in a military operation if he was a US citizen that was waging war against the US? Of course not.

      • The only thing I can say is I am so thankful for the 22nd amendment. I want Obama gone after four years, and I certainly do not want the 22nd amendment repealed so he can be president for life. I have become quite jaded and pessimistic about voters that are able to consider character and judgement when they vote.

Must Read