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. retire05 says: 51

    a href=”http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/pelosi-obama-doesnt-have-to-tell-you-when-he-assassinates-an-american/comment-page-1/#comment-403660″>Wordsmith:

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

    So you too, Word, find it odd that I would know of Alex Jones? Seems you also know about him. Do you also live close to Austin, Texas where Jones has been stirring the pot since around 1996?

    Nevermind that I gave a link to Reason, which is where I got the story. I believe if you will check the Reason article, you will see no mention of Alex Jones, who may have, in fact, posted whatever he did by taking it from Reason. But by using Alinsky tactics, Aye has now found that I was being insulting toward LEOs, not the company that created the targets.

    So now I have had my respect for LEOs question, called a liar, called stupid, and had my faith in God questioned. All because I posted a link to Reason which questioned the use of targets that the company removed from their website due to ojbections from (tah-dah) LEOs.

    Facts don’t seem to matter to those who act like wolf packs when they are seeking nothing more than blood.

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom says: 52

    @retire05:

    Aye’s rules require you provide proof of that.

    And that bothers you, of course. Yes, I think you’ve made your contempt for things like proof, facts, truth, abundantly clear.

    ReplyReply
  3. retire05 says: 53

    @Tom:

    Yes, I think you’ve made your contempt for things like proof, facts, truth, abundantly clear.

    Your response is what used to be known as a “cop-out.” It really doesn’t address the issue, just clouds it. Pure Alinsky. Congratulations; you’ve learned the lessons well.

    ReplyReply
  4. Tom says: 54

    @retire05:

    Oh, are you asking me for proof that you’re a sanctimonious hypocrite who deems herself worthy in God’s eyes to judge others, to prescribe true faith for others, to brand others heretics? Ask and you shall receive:

    http://floppingaces.net/2012/12/04/war-on-christmas-reader-post/comment-page-3/#comment-396822

    You will become representative of what is wrong with the Catholic Church and it’s ministers who do not follow the true teachings of Jesus Christ. I noticed that your parish is Jesuit. Why am I not surprised? The Jesuits are the bane of Catholic Church ministry. They are part of the problem, not the answer, with their subscription to the “social justice” agenda.

    It is a shame that the Church doesn’t practice shunning.

    http://floppingaces.net/2012/12/04/war-on-christmas-reader-post/comment-page-3/#comment-396849

    No, I don’t “resent” cafeteria Catholics, which you obviously are, more like disrespect them.
    ….
    So you dismiss the actual Apostle’s Creed as you profess your faith. Hypocrite.

    Tell me, Larry, when you pray, do you just ignore the Act of Contrition which also mentions hell? Or do you dismiss Mark 9:42? Do you also pick and choose those parts of the Bible that only support your own personal views? Who owns the Church? Christ, and yet, you dismiss his teachings but claim the mantilla of a Catholic. Again, I have no respect for cafeteria Catholics any more than I do limousine liberals as you are simply opportunists.

    As to the clergy; they simple represent the Church in the same way you represent medicine.

    It is a sin to not accept not only the words of Jesus Christ, but the teachings of His Church, as well? I guess there will come a point where you will find out.

    http://floppingaces.net/2012/12/04/war-on-christmas-reader-post/comment-page-3/#comment-396857

    If you were baptised, in spite of the fact that you support early term abortions, and doubt the existance of Hell, the priest who baptised you should be removed from his parish until he understands that Catholic doctrine is not up for his, or your, personal interpretation.

    There you go. Unlike yourself, I can back my claims. That’s just a few choice examples of your arrogant assumption that you run the Catholic Church, not to mention Heaven and Hell. To think a person who has the gall to judge another person’s sincere faith is the same person who is comfortable musing aloud about the elasticity and relativism of Truth; how Truth is entirely optional when an untruth can better be used to bludgeon the enemy, is truly remarkable.

    ReplyReply
  5. TOM
    so you are one of the gang, here to support the other on
    trying to stain the reputation of two of our CONSERVATIVE S WHICH ARE MOST WELL READ BY OTHER,
    IT HURT YOUR LIBERAL MENTALITY, BUT YOU’RE NOT HERE TO PUSH THAT MENTALITY,
    GET OF THE BACKS OF MY FRIENDS HERE, AND YOU THE GANG YOU KNOW WHERE YOU BELONG,

    ReplyReply
  6. retire05 says: 56

    @Tom:

    your arrogant assumption that you run the Catholic Church

    No, dimwit, I don’t run the Catholic Church. But I do understand that unless you accept the tenets of any faith, be it Christian, Muslim or (name the faith) you are that only in name, not in pratice. Much like the term “RINO” is applied to those who call themselves Republicans but conduct their business otherwise.

    To think a person who has the gall to judge another person’s sincere faith

    The person I was addressing admitted, himself, that he did not agree with certain aspects of the Catholic Church. That makes him a CINO, or as he, himself put it, a cafeteria Catholic. Someone, who like many progressives, want to pick out the parts that benefit him, but ignore the parts that are hard.

    Why do you try to discuss something you seem to know little about? Or are you like the cayote, skinny and weak, that lags back behind the pack as the stronger cayotes attack dinner? You wait until the stronger, fiercer cayotes take down the prey, then jump in to fill you belly, parading around like you were part of the effort. Little do you realize that, sooner or later, you will fall prey to them.

    ReplyReply
  7. Aye says: 57

    @retire05:

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

    My rules? Hahahaha… Ummm… Those are your rules. Well, they’re yours when you think you can apply them to your advantage anyway:

    When you make a claim, any claim, the onus is then on you to prove it.
    [snip]
    Put up or shut up. Prove your claims or admit you were just running off at the mouth.

    Alinsky. Rule 4. Hold ‘em to the same standard that they wish to hold others to.

    Now, what were you saying again?

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 58

    @Aye:

    Rule #1 – Because you are considered an “author” here at FA.

    Rule #5 – One you seem to excel in.

    Rule #8 – One you seem to subscribe to heartily.

    Rule #10 – Seemingly perfected by you.

    Rule #11 – Self explainitory

    Rule #13 – The rule you have most perfected, Aye. You don’t wish debate, you wish destruction on those you have taken a dislike to.

    So, outside of your professed purpose of destroying anything that Dr. John and I say, what is your real goal? To force me to become so tired of your personal attacks against me that I no longer frequent this blog? If that is your purpose, simply have Curt send me an email requesting my absence. Or do you just like pulling the wings off butterflies?

    ReplyReply
  9. Tom says: 59

    @retire05:

    No, dimwit, I don’t run the Catholic Church. But I do understand that unless you accept the tenets of any faith, be it Christian, Muslim or (name the faith) you are that only in name, not in pratice. Much like the term “RINO” is applied to those who call themselves Republicans but conduct their business otherwise.

    I think you’re missing my point. It’s not for you to judge. You know that book you love to selectively quote, the Bible? It’s pretty unambiguously clear on this point: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John 8:7)

    You wait until the stronger, fiercer cayotes take down the prey, then jump in to fill you belly, parading around like you were part of the effort. Little do you realize that, sooner or later, you will fall prey to them.

    Is someone, in melodramatic teenage style, feeling like a martyr? Is someone throwing a pity party for herself? (sniff)

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 60

    @Tom:

    So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    Quite ironic, don’t you think, that you would quote Scriptures, especially when you support a party, and its leader, that caste aspersions toward its opposition with forethought and malice?

    Is someone, in melodramatic teenage style, feeling like a martyr? Is someone throwing a pity party for herself?

    It is not my problem that you can’t understand the comparison to the skinny, weak cayote, who winds up being the prey, to yourself.

    ReplyReply
  11. Aye says: 61

    @retire05:

    Yes, the TARGETS should give you pause. That has nothing to do with LEOs.

    Umm… okay… Then you should have no problems making an argument against the targets that doesn’t contain negative attitudes toward law enforcement (government employees).

    Ready? Get set…. Go!

    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.

    I never disputed your knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding Alex Jones.

    I am struck by the fact that even with your expansive and meticulous knowledge of him you’d still be foolish enough to fall for one of his hatchlings. You saw the story on Reason and pounced without ever casting a critical eye? You didn’t take the necessary time to suss out the origin? You just gobbled it up?

    It’s really quite amusing.

    Nevermind that I gave a link to Reason, which is where I got the story. I believe if you will check the Reason article, you will see no mention of Alex Jones, who may have, in fact, posted whatever he did by taking it from Reason.

    Well, except for the fact that the Reason article was posted after the one from Alex Jones, that might be a good theory. If you had bothered to follow the link that I provided you would already know that though.

    But let’s put all that aside for a second.

    You originally said “These targets were designed, at the request of the government, to desensitize police officers, according to the company.” Your failure to support that claim after repeated prodding, combined with your new insistence that Reason was your source makes me even more curious….

    You see, Reason didn’t make any claims as to who may, or may not, have “requested” the targets.

    Oddly enough, the Alex Jones site did though. Strange, eh?

    Here’s the conclusion that I’m leaning towards: I the whole “requested by the government” idea from the Alex Jones site, either directly or indirectly, and you don’t want to fess up to it now that you’re cornered.

    If you find the conclusion I’ve arrived at incorrect or objectionable, you’re most certainly welcome to provide the actual source of your claim.

    Until then, Occam’s Razor indicates I’m correct.

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 62

    @Aye:

    Well, except for the fact that the Reason article was posted after the one from Alex Jones, that might be a good theory. If you had bothered to follow the link that I provided you would already know that though.

    Well, perhaps you are right. I should give Alex Jones, who I consider nothing more than a lunatic with his “The Bilderbergers, Illuminati, etc are coming for you”, some traffic for his website. After all, I do give credence to some of the things you say.

    your new insistence that Reason was your source makes me even more curious

    Ummmm, remind me again, to what site was my link?

    So you have counted coup on my head. Congratulations, Aye. You have seen the enemy and taken them on. What a brave little soldier you are.

    ReplyReply
  13. Aye says: 63

    @retire05:

    Rule #1 – Because you are considered an “author” here at FA.

    Rule #5 – One you seem to excel in.

    Rule #8 – One you seem to subscribe to heartily.

    Rule #10 – Seemingly perfected by you.

    Rule #11 – Self explainitory

    Rule #13 – The rule you have most perfected, Aye. You don’t wish debate, you wish destruction on those you have taken a dislike to.

    Thank you. I always strive for excellence in my accomplishments and it’s very nice to have someone recognize that even if you’re completely off base with your assessments. I appreciate it though.

    So, outside of your professed purpose of destroying anything that Dr. John and I say what is your real goal?

    I never expressed any such purpose regarding you or the good Doctor. Obviously, you’re putting your paranoid ravings into writing again.

    What I did say, however, is that I would be right here to nail your sorry hide to the wall every time I caught you playing fast and loose with the facts.

    Surely, you’re in favor of a good junkyard dog standing watch over the standards here at FA, aren’t you? Someone to bark, growl, and even draw blood when necessary?

    Since you present yourself as such a stickler for accuracy and honesty, I know you wouldn’t want anyone to go unchallenged when they ignore the truth and “whip people into a frenzy despite what the facts are.

    Surely not, right?

    Speaking of which…ummm…did you ever challenge Dr J on his inaccurate and dishonest Desiline Victor post? Oh, that’s right…you didn’t. You participated in more of the same. Tsk…tsk… How embarrassing for someone who portrays herself as a paragon of virtue.

    …what is your real goal? To force me to become so tired of your personal attacks against me that I no longer frequent this blog? If that is your purpose, simply have Curt send me an email requesting my absence.

    No, my goal is to stand for Conservative principles thru the pursuit of impeccable and unwavering standards of accuracy and honesty.

    Nothing more. Nothing less.

    If you find the unapologetic pursuit of those standards uncomfortable then that’s your issue, not mine.

    Or do you just like pulling the wings off butterflies?

    Well, I have to admit, if I were to think of you as an insect, a butterfly is not what would come to mind.

    ReplyReply
  14. Aye says: 64

    @retire05:

    Well, perhaps you are right. I should give Alex Jones, who I consider nothing more than a lunatic with his “The Bilderbergers, Illuminati, etc are coming for you”, some traffic for his website.

    Here’s another idea, rather than give Jones web traffic, why not just post the source supporting your claim that “These targets were designed, at the request of the government, to desensitize police officers, according to the company?

    Ummmm, remind me again, to what site was my link?

    Irrelevant. The link you provided doesn’t support the claim you made.

    Here’s what we know: 1) You claimed it, 2) You say it didn’t come from Jones, and 3) It didn’t come from the Reason article you linked.

    So, where did it come from? Specifically, the parts of your claim that I underlined.

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 65

    @Aye:

    No, my goal is to stand for Conservative principles thru the pursuit of impeccable and unwavering standards of accuracy and honesty.

    Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Liar. Your sole purpose to to destroy with insults. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    You say it didn’t come from Jones,

    I said my link was not to Alex Jones. I never stated where Reason got the article.

    Now, do you deny that Reason showed some of the targets designed by the company in question? Since you seem to be all knowing, do you know where Reason obtained those target photos? Was it from Jones’ website, or the company’s own website?

    Do you deny that those targets, by the company’s own statement, was removed from their website?

    Irrelevant. The link you provided doesn’t support the claim you made

    You only find irrelevant that which does not support your agenda; to wage personal destruction on me, what ever your sick reasoning for that may be.

    Surely, you’re in favor of a good junkyard dog standing watch over the standards here at FA, aren’t you? Someone to bark, growl, and even draw blood when necessary?

    Not when that dog has shown to be rabid. It only shows a miserable, unhappy dog.

    ReplyReply
  16. Aye says: 66

    @retire05:

    Liar. Your sole purpose to to destroy with insults. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Interesting. You’ve been whining about “insults” and how people are attempting to “destroy” you on this site. Yet, now you’ve devolved into nothing more than insults and amateurish forays into mind reading as you try to divine what other people’s motives are.

    Tell me, do you have any proof to support your claim that I am lying? Surely, you wouldn’t make such a serious claim without some sort of proof would you? I’m very interested to see what, if anything, you can present in that regard.

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

    You say it didn’t come from Jones,

    I said my link was not to Alex Jones. I never stated where Reason got the article.

    Ah… the waffling begins. I wondered how long it would take.

    Still no actual source to provide, eh? Wonder why you’re resisting on that so strongly.

    Now, do you deny that Reason showed some of the targets designed by the company in question? Since you seem to be all knowing, do you know where Reason obtained those target photos? Was it from Jones’ website, or the company’s own website?

    Do you deny that those targets, by the company’s own statement, was removed from their website?

    The pictures don’t matter. The removal of the targets from the market doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what Reason did or didn’t do. All of that is irrelevant because those are not disputed matters. Those are smokescreens that you’re trying to create.

    What matters is that the Reason article you linked is not the source for your claims and you’re desperately holding out on posting the actual source.

    One is left with many questions as to why.

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 67

    What matters is that the Reason article you linked is not the source for your claims and you’re desperately holding out on posting the actual source.

    I posted the only source I knew of. Obviously, you are more up on what Alex Jones does than I am.

    The pictures don’t matter. The removal of the targets from the market doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what Reason did or didn’t do. All of that is irrelevant because those are not disputed matters. Those are smokescreens that you’re trying to create.

    Whatever, Aye, whatever. It is quite obviously one has to abide by your rules of what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Your game, your rules. So pat yourself on the back for counting coup. Tell me, how long have you been doing the dance of the Dervish when trying to destroy others? Nevermind, I’m not interested enough for you to answer that.

    ReplyReply
  18. Aye says: 68

    @retire05:

    I posted the only source I knew of.

    Well, it’s safe for me to say that you’re the liar here then.

    You either lied when you made your claim…or you lied when you claimed there is no source that “[you] knew of.”

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

    ReplyReply
  19. PICTORIUS IS INNOCENT
    I SAY
    a premaditate murder would not be so increminating by the actions which happened,

    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