Will Supporters of the second ammendment right to bear arms, be labelled by Chuck Schumer and the Democrats as domestic terrorists who want guns for terrorist acts?
We may see predator drones being used in Texas, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Mississippi, and other places where enemies of Obama live. In the times in which we are living, you know very well that I am not being an alarmist.
In Obama’s mind, yes he has the right. Another reason he must go.
Great power is invested in the Commander in Chief, as it should be.
However? Voters made a terrible choice in giving Obama those powers.
If you take up arms against the United States, the fact that you are a “Citizen” really does not matter a hill of beans. “Foreign and Domestic” means just that. We do not have to Mirandize or arrest or grant due process to enemy combatants. We just don't.
The problem is that Obama and Holder and Napolitano are very likely to mislabel protesters and those exercising their rights against the government as “enemy combatants”.
Again, however, if a group of people are actively plotting armed rebellion, or are actively engaged in terrorism or sabotage or any form of violent uprising against the United States, our government is NOT required at all to give that person or that group ANY “due process”.
What is particularly galling is that Obama and Holder DID want to give “due process” to foreign terrorists!
The hypocrisy and idiocy are amazing.
I’unno.
Ask Judas Roberts...
>> Eric Holder said that the government has the right to kill American “terrorists” without trial?
Sure; just think of it as a tax. “Your life is required of you by the government.”
Right John?
The sticky point is in the definition of “enemy combatant”. If an American joins an enemy army or terrorist group actively engaged in the violent overthrow of the American government seems, at first glance, a safe definition. However, the potential for abuse by the government is huge.
Rush Limbaugh is actively engaged in the overthrow of this specific group currently running the government. All that is missing is the “violent overthrow” part. Any “right wing violence” could be used as a pretext to shut him down and the connections could be fabricated particularly if he were to be shown to know the perpetrators.
Electing honorable representatives to government has never worked all that well recently. Few are to be found.
Of course he does...who's going to stop him...Holder? Congress? The Constitution ? The SCOTUS ?
All bought and paid for or ignored as archaic ..
Apparently. He’s done everything to kill the country, and no one has stopped him so far.
If the American citizen, unlike David Koresch, has moved to Pakistan, joined the Taliban, and is conspiring with them to kill Americans, then a good case can be made that his citizenship does not protect him, any more than it protected rebels during our Civil War.
What we need is more lawyers.
I believed the Oathkeepers would have stepped in before now.
After the ObamaCare ruling, I’m sure the Administration would argue that Roberts legalized “attacks on decent Americans” simultaneously with authorizing “a tax on decent Americans”.
More to the point - does the president give a rat’s *ss WHAT he has the “legal right” to do?
The answer, of course, is, ‘Certainly not.’
Only in the Thunderdome. But the citizen has an equal chance to get the president.
Evidently he does. Obama has killed 2 that I know of, one that needed killing and another that was a 16 year old American citizen born of a Muslim nut. This is too much power for any one man to have and should be legislated against. I’m fine with killing the enemy on the battlefield during a firefight no matter what citizenship he holds. I am a bit less sanguine about Obama or any POTUS making lists of American citizens to be assasinated. Killing 16 year olds not on any wanted list crosses a big line but the left are hypocrites and the right doesn’t have the wherewithal to make the argument that Obama crossed a big line when he assasinated that kid. And collateral damage doesn’t excuse it.