18 Feb

Pelosi: Obama doesn’t have to tell you when he assassinates an American

Via Washington Examiner:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., believes that President Obama doesn’t necessarily have to announce that an American citizen suspected of terrorism has been killed in a drone strike.

“Maybe. It just depends,” Pelosi replied when The Huffington Postasked her if “the administration should acknowledge when it targets a U.S. citizen in a drone strike.” When Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike, President Obama announced the killing within hours. “People just want to be protected,” Pelosi also said. “And I saw that when we were fighting them on surveillance, the domestic surveillance. People just want to be protected: ‘You go out there and do it. I’ll criticize you, but I want to be protected.’”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, responded less blithely. “Anytime the government willfully executes a citizen, regardless of the circumstances, it is a very serious issue,” Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement to The Washington Examiner. “As the body that oversees executive branch actions, at the very least, Congress should have a full accounting – even if it must sometimes be in a classified setting – of the specific considerations that went into the decision.”

Weasel Zippers

       

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

69 Responses to Pelosi: Obama doesn’t have to tell you when he assassinates an American

  1. Sue says: 1

    really? OMG. this administration better be praying because God is already the winner and wins in the end and he will not be very happy with all these commie controls and Obama’s brand of governing. May God have mercy on al of you, You will need it. What a bunch of whimps to jump on the band wagon because you think it’s popular, Really think about who and what you are backing here. There is still time to stand up for America and stop all this. Obama should be impeached.

    ReplyReply
  2. Disenchanted says: 2

    She is a nut. Last week on national television she said the first amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. – and she is a senator?! It is time for this demented woman to resign.

    ReplyReply
  3. bburris says: 3

    Let’s see; the very people who had a stroke over pouring water on the faces of three bona fide terrorists (which, by the way, yielded valuable intelligence) now are just okey-dokey with Hellfiring whomever is “deemed a threat” by government individuals? Aren’t these also the same people who are so righteously against the death penalty? Is it possible for Pelosi to ever tell a bigger lie than that, even with Bush at the helm, she would not object?

    ReplyReply
  4. retire05 says: 4

    Let us not forget how the left got their Hanes all in a wad over warrentless wiretaps of those suspected of terrorist activities. Now it seems that the POTUS can just assassinate anyone he thinks is guilty of being a terrorists, no judicial review necessary.

    I wonder, would Obama have been willing to apply that standard to his good friend, Bernadette Dohrn, when she was in Cuba and conspiring with the North Vietnamese? Just send a drone over Cuba and take her out? No charges levied against her, no judicial review, just consider her an enemy of the state and drop one on her?

    ReplyReply
  5. Aye says: 5

    Congress is exercising oversight on these decisions.

    It’s that whole “co-equal branches” thing in action.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said he’s the oversight for every U.S. drone strike that the President orders during his appearance on Face the Nation. On the other Sunday shows, many politicians were questioning the amount of oversight that governs the drone program. John McCain suggested the Pentagon should be in charge of drones instead of the CIA during his appearance on Fox News Sunday. Rogers said he’s the guy who looks over everything before the strikes are authorized. “I, as chairman, review every single airstrike that we use in the war on terror, both from the civilian and the military side when it comes to airstrikes,” Rogers said. “There is plenty of oversight here. There’s not an American list somewhere overseas for targeting, that does not exist. … The oversight rules have been consistent.” Rogers also defended the strike against Anwar al-Awlaki, saying when an American “joins forces with the enemy” they lose their constitutional rights to due process and can become targets of the American military. “Our options were limited,” Rogers said. “This was a tool that we could use to stop further terrorist attacks against Americans.”

    ReplyReply
  6. Aye says: 6

    Furthermore, the nature of these decisions has already undergone judicial consideration with Judge Bates (a GW Bush appointee), deeming the decision of the Executive to be “unreviewable” by the Courts:

    …this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion — that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is “constitutionally committed to the political branches” and judicially unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance. The political question doctrine requires courts to engage in a fact-specific analysis of the “particular question” posed by a specific case, see El– Shifa, 607 F.3d at 841 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 211), and the doctrine does not contain any “carve-out” for cases involving the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. While it may be true that “the political question doctrine wanes” where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are at stake, Abu Ali, 350 F. Supp. at 64, it does not become inapposite. [p. 77 opinion, emphasis added]

    Also from Judge Bates’ ruling:

    For his part, Anwar Al-Aulaqi has made clear that he has no intention of
    making himself available for criminal prosecution in U.S. courts, remarking in a May 2010
    AQAP video interview that he “will never surrender” to the United States, and that “[i]f the
    Americans want me, [they can] come look for me.”
    See Wizner Decl., Ex. V; see also Clapper
    Decl. ¶ 16; Defs.’ Mem. at 14 n.5 (quoting Anwar Al-Aulaqi as stating, “I have no intention of
    turning myself in to [the Americans]. If they want me, let them search for me.”).

    Looks like we took him up on that request.

    The United States has, however, repeatedly stated that if Anwar Al-Aulaqi “were to surrender or otherwise present himself to the proper authorities in a peaceful and appropriate manner, legal principles with which the United States has traditionally and uniformly complied would prohibit
    using lethal force or other violence against him in such circumstances.” Id. at 2; see also Mot.
    Hr’g Tr. 15:2-9.

    …as the D.C. Circuit has explained, “[i]t is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch’s determination that the interests of the United States call for military action.” El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 844. Such military determinations are textually committed to the political branches. See Schneider, 412 F.3d at 194-95 (explaining that “Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution . . . is richly laden with the delegation of foreign policy and national security powers to Congress,” while “Article II likewise provides allocation of foreign relations and national security powers to the President, the unitary chief executive” and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy).

    ReplyReply
  7. drjohn says: 7

    @Aye:

    As if democrats would give a damn about any of that. They’d want Bush’s head.

    ReplyReply
  8. drjohn says: 8

    @Aye:

    Pelosi and dem leaders were briefed on EIT when it occurred, but did that stop their whining?

    Hardly. Pelosi tried desperately to distance herself from any it and gave no support to Bush.

    It’s time to do the same to Obama.

    ReplyReply
  9. Aye says: 9

    @drjohn:

    So, you’re not really interested in right versus wrong, just tit for tat?

    Some of us have higher standards for ourselves.

    ReplyReply
  10. DrJohn says: 10

    @Aye:

    Some of us have higher standards for ourselves.

    That’s sweet but it loses elections.

    The GOP needs to do what the left did to Bush- ignore the truth and ram this up his butt non-stop. Whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are. Impeach his credibility. Call him a tax cheat a murderer, a felon and a liar.

    Being sweet gets you nowhere. No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    ReplyReply
  11. Richard Wheeler says: 11

    Hyperbolic—-”tending to exaggerate things WAY bigger than they are” DrJ You have certainly described your style of commentary.LOL

    ReplyReply
  12. Aye says: 12

    @DrJohn:

    The GOP needs to do what the left did to Bush- ignore the truth and ram this up his butt non-stop.

    And how, precisely, can that be done with any sort of credibility when our side gave GW Bush tacit approval for the same methods of conducting war?

    Whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are.

    No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    We’ve recently seen those tactics on display rather prominently here at FA haven’t we? Most recently following the SOTU.

    And how quickly did that approach begin to crumble under scrutiny? Two comments wasn’t it?

    Any reason to think that efforts by the GOP to undertake these sorts of tactics wouldn’t collapse just as rapidly?

    ReplyReply
  13. DrJohn says: 13

    @Aye:

    And how, precisely, can that be done with any sort of credibility when our side gave GW Bush tacit approval for the same methods of conducting war?

    Notice that it’s always criticism of the right? Notice that it’s never criticism of the left?

    Besides, left wingers can’t remember yesterday let alone a decade ago.

    ReplyReply
  14. Aye says: 14

    @DrJohn:

    Notice that it’s always criticism of the right? Notice that it’s never criticism of the left?

    Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Those principles don’t have loyalties and won’t lead anyone astray.

    But arguing that it’s okay for a Rep to do it and then turning around and shrieking about a Dim doing the same thing is the height of hypocrisy and a complete loser of an approach.

    And if you really think leftists won’t remember and use it to their advantage, you’re fooling yourself. QED RomneyCare.

    ReplyReply
  15. Richard Wheeler says: 15

    Dr. J. I can surely affirm Aye is an equal opportunity criticiser (if that’s a word). Happens you’ve EARNED more than your share of late.

    BTW I can remember pretty well the hyperbole you’ve authored the last couple of years.

    ReplyReply
  16. Wordsmith says: 16

    @DrJohn:

    @Aye:

    Some of us have higher standards for ourselves.

    That’s sweet but it loses elections.

    The GOP needs to do what the left did to Bush- ignore the truth and ram this up his butt non-stop. Whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are. Impeach his credibility. Call him a tax cheat a murderer, a felon and a liar.

    Being sweet gets you nowhere. No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    Wow. Just….wow.

    This right here is what will lose elections.

    The fringe left and their hyperbolic Bushitler bull***t did just as much damage to themselves as conservatives such as yourself are doing to the conservative cause. You’re doing Obama a favor for every hyperbolic, dishonest attack. To the majority, average, mainstream American voter, you are a nutter that gives liberal pundits legitimacy when they point out how deranged conservatives have become in their hatred of President Obama.

    You lose all credibility and are no better than the liberals who are giving Obama a pass for similar decisions that they savaged Bush over. It’s this kind of partisan politics that drives away ordinary, center-left/center-right, apolitical-ideological voters.

    Obama can’t ask for a better present than the posts you do that appeals to the hyperbolic, over-the-top hysteria-driven conspiracy-lovers.

    How about honesty and truth as ingredients to winning future elections?

    ReplyReply
  17. Wordsmith says: 17

    I guess in this instance, you’ve finally spoken truthfully.

    At least now, readers are aware of what your true agenda is and how you are operating.

    ReplyReply
  18. Richard Wheeler says: 18

    Ms. Bees Some friendly advice to read closely Word’s #16. I believe the majority of your comments,though honestly meant to assist the Conservative cause,actually do more harm than good.

    Keep an open mind and a loving spirit.

    ReplyReply
  19. DrJohn says: 19

    @Wordsmith:

    How about honesty and truth as ingredients to winning future elections?

    Obama’s team labeled Romney a liar, tax cheat, felon and murderer by mouth and in ads, from Stephanie Cutter to Plouffe to Axelrod.

    Romney didn’t lose because of Romneycare, he lost because he was painted as a “tax cheat” and a murderer more than anything else. If you spent any time at all on HuffPo you’d know exactly what happened.

    Honesty? Romney spoke honestly about that 47%. It wasn’t advisable but it was honest.

    ReplyReply
  20. DrJohn says: 20

    @Wordsmith:

    It’s quite an experience, this FA self-appointed Star Chamber.

    The fringe left and their hyperbolic Bushitler bull***t did just as much damage to themselves as conservatives such as yourself are doing to the conservative cause.

    Damage? What damage?

    You’re doing Obama a favor for every hyperbolic, dishonest attack.

    What was I said?

    Being sweet gets you nowhere. No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    I said that unlike this administration, no one needs to lie.

    The GOP is hanging on by its fingernails. You guys need to smell the coffee. There will not be another “honest” election ever, given how this past one went. Obama has created a machine- a political monster- that will be employed as a pseudo-government using unlimited funds to blast its way over the populace and the opposition.

    ReplyReply
  21. retire05 says: 21

    @Wordsmith:

    This right here is what will lose elections.

    And what Republicans/conservatives are doing now is winning elections?

    You seem to ignore the fact that Rules for Radicals works. That was the brilliance of Saul Alinsky. He designed a policy that would use lies, distortions, false “facts” against conservative opponents, all while looking as being honest.

    Instead, we watch as Republicans on the hill cower in corners, afraid that the press will report, however falsely, something about them and label racists, homophobes, wanting to shove Granny over the cliff.

    So, Word, how do you propose conservatives/Republicans fight against the Alinsky rules? What would you suggest? You think being absolutely honest is going to do the trick? How did that work out in November, 2012 with the relection of a POTUS that has made amost 9% unemployment the norm, increased our national debt beyond all imigination, helped seat the Muslim Brotherhood in the halls of power in Egypt, has seen millions simply drop off the employment rolls and put more people on food stamps than anyone thought possible?

    Just curious; what is your answer to the problem that Republicans are losing elections inspite of the fact that we currently have the worst president in our history (well, since Woodrow Wilson, that is)?

    ReplyReply
  22. Aye says: 22

    @DrJohn:

    What was I said?

    Being sweet gets you nowhere. No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    I said that unlike this administration, no one needs to lie.

    You also said this:

    The GOP needs to do what the left did to Bush- ignore the truth and ram this up his butt non-stop. Whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are. Impeach his credibility. Call him a tax cheat a murderer, a felon and a liar.

    Now, I’m not sure where you learned logic but one cannot “ignore the truth”, “whip people into a frenzy despite []the facts”, ie “call him a tax cheat, a murder, a felon” without lying.

    All of those things are blatantly dishonest tactics.

    How can we find fault with the other side if we choose to allow ourselves to be no better?

    Of course, the hyperbolic dog squeeze has been hurled at Obie since 2008. “Communist…Muslim…Birth certificate…Manchurian…” Blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, so on and so forth…ad hominem, ad nauseum.

    And that worked out really well for Presidents McCain and Romney. Oh…wait…Obama was elected…and then he was re-elected. Very effective and successful tactic that one proved to be, eh?

    Yet, you want to do it some more? Not so bright Doctor.

    The fringe left and their hyperbolic Bushitler bull***t did just as much damage to themselves as conservatives such as yourself are doing to the conservative cause.

    Damage? What damage?

    Do you really think that your posts, and the hyperbolic panting, the lying, the deceit, the exclusions of fact therein, are good for the Conservative cause?

    Do you really think that poorly researched, undocumented, blatantly dishonest posts such as the one you wrote regarding Desiline Victor or the ammo purchases aren’t destructive?

    Do you really think that having HuffPo or any of the lefty loon sites pick up posts like that is a positive influence on the Conservative message?

    If so, you’re more delusional than I had imagined. You’re feeding their stereotypes and giving them the very ammo with which they will turn around and shoot you in the head. Don’t believe me? Go read the commentary on the sites that did pingbacks on your Desiline post for example. You’ll see.

    Some of us have higher standards for ourselves.

    That’s sweet but it loses elections.

    The GOP needs to do what the left did to Bush- ignore the truth and ram this up his butt non-stop. Whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are. Impeach his credibility. Call him a tax cheat a murderer, a felon and a liar.

    Being sweet gets you nowhere. No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    What you’ve demonstrated is that you’re willing to say anything. You’re willing to write anything. You’re willing to go to any lengths necessary to smear, malign, and besmirch anyone as long as there’s someone on the other end of the Interwebz willing to give you Facebook likes and higher view/comment counts.

    You’re willing to publish falsehoods, either intentionally or thru ignorance/lack of research. Then you’re not man enough to issue corrections or retractions when you get your azz handed to you because of it.

    And now your thought process, your willingness to sacrifice your standards and honor and do whatever it takes is written down in the annals of the Interwebz for all to see.

    That’s NOT beneficial to the Conservative cause. That’s NOT beneficial to Flopping Aces, one of the finest Conservative blog sites on the web.

    It’s damaging. It’s cowardly. It’s unbecoming.

    Putting aside the effect on conservatism and FA itself, I have to ask you sir, have you no self-respect or decency? Are you not the least bit embarrassed that if someone called you a dishonest hack they’d be entirely correct?

    Have you no shame at all?

    ReplyReply
  23. DrJohn says: 23

    @Aye:

    Do you really think that poorly researched, undocumented, blatantly dishonest posts such as the one you wrote regarding Desiline Victor or the ammo purchases aren’t destructive?

    You are arrogant and suffocatingly self-righteous. Fortunately, I do not answer to you.

    ReplyReply
  24. Marine72 says: 24

    @Disenchanted: #2: Please understand that she is even worse, she’s a representative, she’s not stupid enough to be a US Senator like Diane Feinstein as she babbled to the press with her finger on the trigger of her self-named “assault” weapon.

    ReplyReply
  25. Marine72 says: 25

    @Aye: #9: Regarding:

    there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is “constitutionally committed to the political branches” and judicially unreviewable.

    My concern rests in the use of Judge Bate’s decision to ignore the total lack of reference to where the Americans are located when this Obamination is allowed to exercise it’s unilateral discretion. The new NDAA’s wording does not specifically exclude the Executive Branch from defining its worldwide battlefield to include drone overflight kill missions over US States and foreign protectorates. Hence, UN-Constitutional.

    ReplyReply
  26. DrJohn says: 26

    @Marine72: Careful. Next thing you know you’re going to be called dishonest.

    ReplyReply
  27. DrJohn says: 27

    @Aye:

    The two of you are far more dishonest than I. I said

    The GOP needs to do..

    And immediately you decide it’s what I do. I am not even a Republican, I am registered Independent. I never said it’s what I do here. I said it’s what the GOP should do but both of you twisted it around.

    Both of you are masters of straw man arguments. You put words in people’s minds and mouths and then bash them for your imaginings.

    Do you really think that poorly researched, undocumented, blatantly dishonest posts such as the one you wrote regarding Desiline Victor or the ammo purchases aren’t destructive?

    Absolute lie. NEITHER post is dishonest. I don’t believe we ought to be importing 80 years olds and you don’t agree.

    Tough.

    The ammo purchases post were no more dishonest than those of Mark Levin or Andrew Malcolm yet neither of you harassed them.

    And let me repeat- I do not answer to you. Take your invective elsewhere. If you want a civil discussion we’ll have one. If not, there simply will be no discussion.

    Have a nice day.

    ReplyReply
  28. Aye says: 28

    @Marine72:

    My concern rests in the use of Judge Bate’s decision to ignore the total lack of reference to where the Americans are located when this Obamination is allowed to exercise it’s unilateral discretion.

    Sigh… From the very portion of Judge Bates opinion that you excerpted (with emphasis added for clarity):

    …there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is “constitutionally committed to the political branches” and judicially unreviewable.

    There is not a “total lack of reference” to location in the decision of the Court.

    There is also not a “total lack of reference” to location in the review undertaken by Congress (see #5).

    Not sure what point you’re trying to make but the facts don’t support what you’ve argued so far.

    ReplyReply
  29. Wordsmith says: 29

    @DrJohn:

    @Marine72: Careful. Next thing you know you’re going to be called dishonest.

    No, John. That goes for those who knowingly perpetuates dishonest positions after having been called out on them. Repeatedly.

    @DrJohn:

    The ammo purchases post were no more dishonest than those of Mark Levin or Andrew Malcolm yet neither of you harassed them.

    What was the original source of the bogus conspiracy again? All roads lead back to it.

    Here’s my bottomline takeaway from Malcolm:

    The lack of a credible official explanation for such awesome ammunition acquisitions is feeding all sorts of conspiracy theories, mainly centered on federal anticipation of some kind of domestic insurrection.

    As I pointed out in my comment #35 in your thread, this conspiratorial alarmism played out last year and was addressed by more reasonable voices. Good conspiracies die hard, so expect to see it play out again the next time the federal government buys in bulk.

    Levin’s take is different than the “Stalin disarmed its citizenry and the government is acting nefariously”-line of conspiracy-thinking. Levin doesn’t perceive the large-scale purchases (made on behalf of all law enforcement at all levels of government) as due to an insurrection on the horizon; but perhaps as contingency-planning in the event of a financial collapse along with a need to maintain law and order should violence erupt (as it has in Europe).

    @DrJohn:

    The two of you are far more dishonest than I. I said

    The GOP needs to do..

    And immediately you decide it’s what I do. I am not even a Republican, I am registered Independent. I never said it’s what I do here. I said it’s what the GOP should do but both of you twisted it around.

    Both of you are masters of straw man arguments. You put words in people’s minds and mouths and then bash them for your imaginings.

    Straight from the jackass’ mouth:

    The GOP needs to do what the left did to Bush- ignore the truth and ram this up his butt non-stop. Whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are. Impeach his credibility. Call him a tax cheat a murderer, a felon and a liar.

    And for you to give yourself an out by focusing on, “The GOP needs to….” and leave the rest off is a prime example of your weaseling, dishonest behavior. Your dissatisfaction with the GOP and your gripe is that they don’t behave more like you and adopt your Alinsky-inspired tactics.

    Then you have the chutzpah to act offended, that your words are being twisted; “No, no…I said it’s what the GOP needs to do…not innocent little ol’ me. I would never do that; just advise others to do so.”

    Rather cowardly (and dishonest) not to own up to your own words, don’t you think?

    You further wrote:

    Being sweet gets you nowhere. No one needs to lie, all they need to do is be hyperbolic.

    And then defended the overall thrust of your argument by singling out the “No one needs to lie” part. Apparently it’s okay to distort and speak half-truths and make insinuations so long as it’s not blatant lying….you’d make a fine Alinskyite politician, the caliber of Pelosi and Edwards.

    No one is distorting your statements. Your own words do a fine job of illustrating exactly who and what you are, in fine Michael Moore fashion. (Retire05: How’d that 2004 movie work out for Democrats in getting John Kerry elected to the presidency?).

    ReplyReply
  30. retire05 says: 30

    @Wordsmith:

    (Retire05: How’d that 2004 movie work out for Democrats in getting John Kerry elected to the presidency?).

    Perhaps you would like to tell me what movie you are referring to? I don’t watch movies, unless they were made prior to 1960. And I certainly would not watch something made by Jabba the Hut Michael Moore-on. He is walking hypocracy living large but claiming to be part of the 99%.

    But tell me, how does this set with you?

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/is-your-local-police-department-using-pi

    Now, I don’t always agree with Reason on everything but the fact that these targets are called “No Hesitation Targets” should give you pause.

    ReplyReply
  31. Aye says: 31

    @DrJohn:

    Are you daft? Do you possess a complete lack of self-awareness? Or are we part of some Internet based “Candid Camera” type show wherein this song and dance routine is part of the act?

    I read your most recent post and, once again, I am struck by the accelerating dégringolade that it represents.

    The two of you are far more dishonest than I. I said

    The GOP needs to do..

    And immediately you decide it’s what I do. I am not even a Republican, I am registered Independent. I never said it’s what I do here. I said it’s what the GOP should do but both of you twisted it around.

    Both of you are masters of straw man arguments.

    No one ever claimed that you weren’t offering your .018 cents worth to the GOP. In fact I acknowledged that here and here.

    No one said you were a Republican. No one even mentioned party affiliation.

    Pssst… When you raise and then tear down points that are unrelated to what your debate opponent is arguing that is… wait for it… a straw man argument.

    You spent all that time claiming that Wordsmith and I are guilty when, in reality, it is you arguing straw men just as I demonstrated.

    You go on to claim that you don’t actually use your “ignore the truth” and “whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are” techniques but are merely suggesting them to the GOP.

    That’s hysterical. And repetitively and demonstrably false. Should I link to, and quote from, your posts as illustrative examples of my point? There is certainly no shortage of material to work with in that regard.

    Absolute lie. NEITHER post is dishonest. I don’t believe we ought to be importing 80 years olds and you don’t agree.

    Really? Neither post was dishonest, eh?

    Was it honest or dishonest when you made the claim that Desiline Victor was subject to the English speaking citizenship requirement?

    Was it honest or dishonest when you made the claim that Desiline Victor had/has “no skills” and is “wholly dependent” on gov’t support?

    Is it honest or dishonest to present theories when there’s not one piece of evidence to support them other than ageist or bigoted stereotypical ideas?

    Is it honest or dishonest to refuse to correct or retract a post when it has been proven false?

    Is it honest or dishonest to completely exclude/deny the existence of evidence and information contrary to your theories prior to or following the posting of such theories?

    Is it honest or dishonest to continue carrying forward dis-proven ideas from thread to thread to thread?

    Is it honest or dishonest to repeatedly try and change the subject when cornered on the original topic?

    All of those behaviors fall under “ignor[ing] the truth” and/or “whip[ping] people into a frenzy despite what the facts are.”

    Of course, I don’t really expect you to have any sort of cogent response beyond something like“Oh no, not me! I’d never do that…”

    Because, when you can’t refute based on fact… all that’s left is twist, squirm, obfuscate, and deny, deny, deny…

    ReplyReply
  32. Aye says: 32

    @retire05:

    But tell me, how does this set with you?

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/is-your-local-police-department-using-pi

    Now, I don’t always agree with Reason on everything but the fact that these targets are called “No Hesitation Targets” should give you pause.

    The reality is that police officers place their lives on the line every single time they put on the uniform and go to work.

    In situations where they face armed assailants, hesitation costs lives. Training an officer to eliminate that hesitation is a potential life saver. Officers are routinely put through training whereby threatening and non-threatening targets are presented and the officer has to make a split second decision as to whether to fire or not.

    Would an officer shot by a child or pregnant woman be any less dead than one shot by someone else? Why should they not be trained to confront what are unfortunate real life possibilities?

    While the use of such targets may offend sensibilities, those of us who don’t wear a badge are not in a position to second guess whether an officer should have life saving training.

    ReplyReply
  33. Richard Wheeler says: 33

    Dr.J In my opinion you’ve been blowing smoke and firing up naive folks like Bees for the last 2 years.

    It’s good to see a fair and honest rebuttal of the outrageous spin you’ve unleashed. I’ve said before, commentary from Aye, Word and Mata have taught me much about the true values of Conservatism and for that I thank them again.

    ReplyReply
  34. retire05 says: 34

    @Aye:

    The reality is that police officers place their lives on the line every single time they put on the uniform and go to work.

    And I said differently where?

    Would an officer shot by a child or pregnant woman be any less dead than one shot by someone else?

    And a pregnant woman, standing in a room obviously used as a nursery or a senior woman in a purple house robe standing in her kitchen would pose a threat to a police officer why? Aren’t officers trained to identify themselves to a frightened home owner? Oh, wait, yes, they are. Maybe you would like to provide us with the stats of police officers shot by pregnant women and grannies in their own homes?

    While the use of such targets may offend sensibilities, those of us who don’t wear a badge are not in a position to second guess whether an officer should have life saving training.

    Well, since you mentioned “sensibilities”, it is notable that every one of those targets were “white.” In my state, the police are under a greater threat from illegals driving drunk, not pregnant/aged white women standing in their nurseries or kitchens.

    These targets were designed, at the request of the government, to desensitize police officers, according to the company. Why would the government want to “desensitize” police officers toward shooting someone that is obviously in their own home? Police departments and sheriff departments give constant training to their officers on how to defuse a situation with frightened home owners every day. It is also the reason that all departments hire professional hostage negotiators, who can also be used in situations as these targets represent.

    I understand that you have assumed the position of the FA’s devil’s advocate, Aye, but on this one I think you are just trying to up that game.

    ReplyReply
  35. Aye says: 35

    @retire05:

    I can think of dozens of different scenarios wherein a police officer may be confronting an armed person within a home, whether it be that person’s own home as you allude, or the home of someone else.

    What does it say about you, and your opinion of law enforcement officers, that you automatically go in the direction of paranoia when it comes to what you think they may be willing to do? Why would you automatically want to believe the worst about the officers who are sworn to uphold our laws?

    You attempted to make a big issue of the type of surroundings represented in these targets. The background of the photos, however, is irrelevant and insignificant unless the viewer is suffering from a severe case of hysteria and is desperately seeking something to glom on to. (Notice how the backgrounds have been faded into an opaque, transparent state? That indicates their irrelevance.)

    You made note that all of the targets depict “white” subjects. And? Are you saying that white people cannot be threats to police officers, whether typical or non-typical?

    These targets are designed specifically to depict non-typical threats. That’s their purpose. That’s why they contain children. And old people. And a pregnant woman.

    These targets were designed, at the request of the government, to desensitize police officers, according to the company.

    Really? The target company said that? If you cannot provide a link in which the company actually made that statement, then we can consider it factually suspect like so many of the things you’ve posted here in the past.

    I understand that you have assumed the position of the FA’s devil’s advocate, Aye…

    Not playing devil’s advocate at all. Simply standing guard over the last vestiges of sanity and reason here at FA until the long overdue Haldol and Klonopin arrives.

    ReplyReply
  36. IS THAT TRUE, THAT PELOSIE SAID THAT
    YOU WON”T KNOW WHEN OBAMA ASSASINATE YOU?,
    WELL THAT’S NOT FAIR IS IT?
    HE TELL EVERYTHING ELSE BUT THAT,
    WE KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE DISAPPEAR LATELY,
    COULD IT BE THAT?
    WELL THAT IS A KNIFE WITH TWO EDGE BUILT LIKE A BOOMERANG

    ReplyReply
  37. THE DEMOCRATS ARE FREAKING UP THE PEOPLE AGAIN,
    OBAMA START THE SEQUESTRATION HE OWN IT, AND AFTER HE SAID HE WAS NOT SERIOUS AFTER FREAKING UP THE PEOPLE LAST TIME AGAIN THIS TIME
    NOW THE REPUBLICANS CALLED HIS BLUFF,
    OBAMA IS STUCK WITH IT AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE COMING PUBLIC
    TO REPEAT THE OBAMA’S LIST OF END OF THE WORLD FOR AMERICANS’
    STORY TO BE FOLLOW

    ReplyReply
  38. retire05 says: 38

    @Aye:

    What does it say about you, and your opinion of law enforcement officers, that you automatically go in the direction of paranoia when it comes to what you think they may be willing to do? Why would you automatically want to believe the worst about the officers who are sworn to uphold our laws?

    What does it say about you that you would attribute opinions to me that I have in no way expressed?

    You attempted to make a big issue of the type of surroundings represented in these targets. The background of the photos, however, is irrelevant and insignificant unless the viewer is suffering from a severe case of hysteria and is desperately seeking something to glom on to. (Notice how the backgrounds have been faded into an opaque, transparent state? That indicates their irrelevance.)

    You don’t seem to know much about the training that law enforcement officers go through. They are trained to take in the entire scene, not just one aspect of it. Is there a woman standing behind the bank robber? Would you hit the woman if you shot the robber? Is there a child in the crib with the pregnant woman holding the gun? Is the little old lady screaming at the officers to identify themselves? Being able to visually consume the entire scene is a skill that has to be taught. That is why eye-witness testimony is often easily disbuted, because people generally focus on ONE thing, not the entire environment. LEOs are trained to do just the opposite.

    Unfortunately, not all LEOs are as capable as you would have us believe. The instance in the man hunt that recently went on in California where the LAPD shot two Asian women, one in her 70′s because the women were in a car that was simply blue, not the dark blue the PD was looking for, shows that some LEOs do not take in every pertinent fact before they shoot. There were 37 bullet holes in those poor women’s truck and all they were doing was delivering morning newspapers. And wasn’t there a recent shooting in New York of innocent people due to poorly trained police? And funny, I don’t remember you defending the Texas DPS officer when CJ was ragging because he got stopped by one on this very site. I am sure if you did, you will be more than happy to show where you sided with the TxDPS officer.

    You made note that all of the targets depict “white” subjects. And? Are you saying that white people cannot be threats to police officers, whether typical or non-typical?

    No, I’m not saying that white people cannot be a threat, although you seem happy to attribute to me things I did not say. But I will point out to you two things; first, the threats that LEOs come across come in all sizes, shapes and skin tone and secondly, it everyone on those targets were all black or all Hispanic, there would be a national outcry.

    Really? The target company said that? If you cannot provide a link in which the company actually made that statement, then we can consider it factually suspect like so many of the things you’ve posted here in the past

    “We apologize for the offensive nature of our “No More Hesitation” products. These products have been taken offline due to the opinions expressed by many, including members of the law enforcement community.”

    http://www.letargets.com

    Not playing devil’s advocate at all. Simply standing guard over the last vestiges of sanity and reason here at FA until the long overdue Haldol and Klonopin arrives.

    Really? So now you are the voice of “sanity and reason?” Actually, Aye, you have reduced your value to nothing more than an nasty provacateur, attacking others not out of “sanity and reason” but for the simple act of attacking. Which is unfortunate, for while I disagreed with many things you used to write, I did enjoy reading your entries. No longer. You are rapidly turning into just another common junk yard dog.

    ReplyReply
  39. Richard Wheeler
    please don’t use my name to support what you’re doing to drjohn,
    I DON’T APPRECIATE TO HAVE MY NAME MIX IN GANG BASHING
    AN AUTHOR OF FLOPPING ACES,
    SHAME ON YOU ALL WHO PARTICIPATE IN IT,
    CAN’T YOU TAKE ON THE LIBTARDS INSTEAD?
    HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE IT DONE TO YOU ALL BY OTHER CONSERVATIVES, ARE YOU CHANGING SIDES? IF SO, THIS IS FOR THE SMART CONSERVATIVES,
    and I’m doing to you all, exactly what you are doing
    to one of us, how does it feel?

    ReplyReply
  40. Marine72
    hi, because of their right to kill AMERICANS, WITHOUT TELLING THEM WHY,
    IT LEAD ME TO BELIEVE,
    THAT THE BENGHASI KILLING WAS LEFT UN ANSWERED FROM APRIL FIRST MESSAGE, OUT OF 7, OF DANGER FOR THE LIFE OF THE AMBASSADOR, AND PROVEN BY OTHER ATTACKS PREVIOUSLY TO 9/11/2012,
    BECAUSE OF THE DECISION TO LEAVE HIM TO DIE IN THE HANDS OF ALQAEDA,
    AND PLUS the SEALS ASKING FOR SUPPORT BEING TOLD TO ” STAY DOWN”
    WAS DELIBERATELY TO ASSURE HIS DEATH, AS NOT HAVING ANYONE TO FIGHT WITH HIM
    AND FOR HIM,
    WHICH TURNED OUT TO HAVE THE SEALS DISOBEY THE STAY DOWN ORDER ,
    BECAUSE THEY WHERE SEEING THE NEFARIOUS INTENT COMING FROM AMERICA,
    TO HAVE THE AMBASSADOR KILLED,
    THE MIGHTY SEALS SCREWED UP THEIR PLANS BY GOING TO HELP COURAGEOUSLY TO A FIGHT TO THE END OF THEIR LIVES,
    CONSTANTLY EXPECTING HELP FROM AMERICA
    TILL THEY DIED.

    ReplyReply
  41. Aye says: 41

    @retire05:

    What does it say about you, and your opinion of law enforcement officers, that you automatically go in the direction of paranoia when it comes to what you think they may be willing to do? Why would you automatically want to believe the worst about the officers who are sworn to uphold our laws?

    What does it say about you that you would attribute opinions to me that I have in no way expressed?

    Actually, you did express those very things. Are you really incapable of remembering what you write?

    The whole crux of everything you’ve said regarding these targets relies on negative attitudes toward law enforcement (government employees) in order for the objections to work.

    If you truly believed that law enforcement officers are decent hard working and honorable men and women then there would be no reason whatsoever for yet another descent into paranoid delusion.

    Retire: These targets were designed, at the request of the government, to desensitize police officers, according to the company.

    Aye: Really? The target company said that? If you cannot provide a link in which the company actually made that statement, then we can consider it factually suspect like so many of the things you’ve posted here in the past.

    Retire: “We apologize for the offensive nature of our “No More Hesitation” products. These products have been taken offline due to the opinions expressed by many, including members of the law enforcement community.” http://www.letargets.com

    Seems you failed to answer the question I asked, eh? Where did the company state that they designed these targets, at the request of government, to desensitize police officers? You made the claim that they did. Now, where’s the source material to support your claim?

    We both know how you feel about the importance of supporting one’s arguments, so I’m sure that if you weren’t talking out of your azz again, you’ll have the link in your very next post.

    I’d venture to say you won’t be able to produce anything.

    Actually, Aye, you have reduced your value to nothing more than an nasty provacateur…

    Help me understand this now… You toss out a non sequitur conspiracy theory that was birthed by the Alex Jones conspiracy cabal and, when I call you out on your loonacy, that makes me the provacateur? Mwahahaha…..

    Damn. You’re really are too stoopid for words.

    ReplyReply
  42. retire05 says: 42

    @Aye:

    What does it say about you that you would attribute opinions to me that I have in no way expressed?

    Actually, you did express those very things. Are you really incapable of remembering what you write?

    Actually, I do remember what I wrote. I even have the ability to go back and read what I wrote. How did the conversation start? I posted the link and asked Wordsmith, not you, what he thought of it. I made no comment to the capabilities of our LEOs. None. It was a simple question to someone else when you decided to inject yourself into the mix, a nasty habit you seemed to have aquired to act as the FA attack dog.

    The whole crux of everything you’ve said regarding these targets relies on negative attitudes toward law enforcement (government employees) in order for the objections to work.

    Obviously, you have the ability to read what is not written. It was not LEOs that created, and sold, these targets but as you can see, it was objections from LEOs that got those targets taken offline.

    Seems you failed to answer the question I asked, eh? Where did the company state that they designed these targets, at the request of government, to desensitize police officers? You made the claim that they did. Now, where’s the source material to support your claim?

    I am not responsible for what the company takes off their website. Perhaps you can find their reasoning on the WayBack Machine.

    We both know how you feel about the importance of supporting one’s arguments, so I’m sure that if you weren’t talking out of your azz again, you’ll have the link in your very next post.

    I gave you the link for the target company. If you are too lazy to do your own search, that is not my problem. And don’t lecture me about providing links.

    Help me understand this now… You toss out a non sequitur conspiracy theory that was birthed by the Alex Jones conspiracy cabal and, when I call you out on your loonacy, that makes me the provacateur?

    Whooohoooo, Alex Jones? He is certifiably insane. Friend of Ron Paul/Debra Medina (a real idiot), sees black helicopters flying over his house, thinks George Bush had the Twin Towers wired for explosion, believes that FDR arranged with the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, yeah, he’s just the kind of guy I would give time to. NOT! He’s a 9-11 truther that makes up fantasy because he was a failed radio talk show host that is trying to make a name for himself.

    Damn. You’re really are too stoopid for words.

    And you really are a miserable person.

    ReplyReply
  43. Aye says: 43

    @retire05:

    I posted the link and asked Wordsmith, not you, what he thought of it…. It was a simple question to someone else when you decided to inject yourself into the mix, a nasty habit you seemed to have aquired to act as the FA attack dog.

    As I’ve told you before, if you want to have a conversation with someone where you wield control over participation, the place for that would be face-to-face, e-mail, telephone, old fashioned snail mail, or…dare I say it…your own blog.

    The fact that you directed your comment to Wordsmith does not prohibit me from responding to your point.

    The whole crux of everything you’ve said regarding these targets relies on negative attitudes toward law enforcement (government employees) in order for the objections to work.

    Obviously, you have the ability to read what is not written.

    Actually, I do. From your very first post where you claimed that the targets should “give you pause” you’ve been riding the crazee train.

    Your paranoid theories about these targets cannot have life without negative attitudes toward law enforcement .

    Thankfully, not all of us have fallen victim to mushy intellectual capacities.

    I am not responsible for what the company takes off their website. Perhaps you can find their reasoning on the WayBack Machine.
    [snip]
    I gave you the link for the target company. If you are too lazy to do your own search, that is not my problem.

    It’s not my responsibility to chase down your source material for you. You claimed: “These targets were designed, at the request of the government, to desensitize police officers, according to the company.”

    What’s on the Interwebz lives forever, so you can’t use “they deleted it” as an excuse. Where is the source material to support your claim? You’ve been asked over and over yet you’ve failed to provide it. Wonder why.

    And don’t lecture me about providing links.

    Since you’re really big on setting up expectations for others and then failing to measure up to them yourself I’ll lecture you about anything I damn well want to.

    I’ll also eagerly apply your own standards to you over and over again. I believe that’s
    Alinsky’s Rule 4.

    Whooohoooo, Alex Jones? He is certifiably insane. Friend of Ron Paul/Debra Medina (a real idiot), sees black helicopters flying over his house, thinks George Bush had the Twin Towers wired for explosion, believes that FDR arranged with the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, yeah, he’s just the kind of guy I would give time to. NOT! He’s a 9-11 truther that makes up fantasy because he was a failed radio talk show host that is trying to make a name for himself.

    So, you admit in great detail, that you know precisely who Alex Jones is and what he’s all about.

    Yet…you posted a paranoid theory that was hatched out by the Jones Conspiracy Cabal anyway? [Snicker]

    As I said, too stoopid for words.

    ReplyReply
  44. retire05 says: 44

    @Aye:

    From your very first post where you claimed that the targets should “give you pause” you’ve been riding the crazee train.

    Yes, the TARGETS should give you pause. That has nothing to do with LEOs. You are trying to compare apples to oranges again.

    Your paranoid theories about these targets cannot have life without negative attitudes toward law enforcement

    Only in your very narrow brain.

    So, you admit in great detail, that you know precisely who Alex Jones is and what he’s all about.

    Duh! You dipshit, of course I do. Jones has been an Austin, Tx. talk show host for over 15 years, long before he jumped on the truther bandwagon trying to make a name for himself. Now, I’m sure you find it odd that someone who lives relatively close to Austin and who does business in Austin, would know who Alex Jones is. And golly gee, he was promoting Ron Paul, who just happened to be my Congressional representative at the time. And how odd that since the only radio stations I can get are from Austin, why how odd that I would know of Alex Jones. Think that one up all by yourself, Aye?

    As I said, too stoopid for words.

    I concur. You most certainly are when you find it odd that someone who lives close to Austin would know who Alex Jones is. Doesn’t mean that I agree with a damn thing he says. But I am sure you will find a way to twist that, as well. You are so good at twisting, think I’ll start calling you CC.

    And don’t bother linking to Jones’ website for me. I refuse to give him ANY traffic. It only encourages his insanity.

    ReplyReply
  45. Tom says: 45

    Is this December 25th? Am I dreaming? My two favorite Conservatives, the two biggest blabbermouths on the internet, two of the most laughably obvious liars I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading, Dr John and Retar..Retire5, both preaching the necessity for dishonesty in political discourse while they politically discourse away. I’m trying to remember the last time a public admitted liar was ever taken seriously again in public debate… Oh, never. Credibility = ashes. Beautiful. High Comedy. THANK YOU.

    Word and Aye: surgical. downright surgical.

    Hat tips to Rich Wheeler in 11. hilarious.

    ReplyReply
  46. retire05 says: 46

    @Tom:

    And another member of the Peanut Gallery chimes in.

    ReplyReply
  47. Tom says: 47

    @retire05:

    Am I really a member of the peanut gallery, or is that just another one of your convenient lies? Remind me: do lies, and generally being a nasty horrible sub-human, help to build your house in Heaven?

    ReplyReply
  48. Tom says: 48

    @retire05:

    You’ve humbly bragged endlessly how religious you are, while we’re all going to hell, so tell me, is there fine print I’m not aware of on You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? Something along the lines of “unless thy neighbor has an “Obama/Biden 2012″ sign”?

    ReplyReply
  49. Wordsmith says: 49

    @retire05:

    As I said, too stoopid for words.

    I concur. You most certainly are when you find it odd that someone who lives close to Austin would know who Alex Jones is. Doesn’t mean that I agree with a damn thing he says. But I am sure you will find a way to twist that, as well. You are so good at twisting, think I’ll start calling you CC.

    And don’t bother linking to Jones’ website for me. I refuse to give him ANY traffic. It only encourages his insanity.

    OMG…the jokes just keep writing themselves!

    I think aye’s point in mentioning Alex Jones just flew over your head…or through the ears.

    Too stoopid for Word…..

    ReplyReply
  50. retire05 says: 50

    @Tom:

    You’ve humbly bragged endlessly how religious you are,

    How so? Aye’s rules require you provide proof of that. You see, only certain people are allowed to post something here without providing proof.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site