[EBH]

Really? With 0bama using drones to kill American citizens in foreign lands with the sweep of his pen? The guy will be named an enemy of the state....he’s toast. Under 0bama there is no need to bring him back, 0bama will just take him out.

[struggle]

Now if we could find out what really happened to Breitbart.

[batterycommander]

Five dollar wager that the drones are already circling his hotel.

[Mrs. Don-o]

In public policy debate, perception is just as important as reality. That might explain why liberal activists keep harping this idea of "inevitability." When they can't move the needle of public opinion any farther, the Obamunists try to resign America to the fact that it's only a matter of time until everyone conforms, and that their power is so great that all dissenters will be punished -- or killed -- or "disappeared".

The goal is to make The Hostile Surveillance State seem so omnipresent and unavoidable that people stop fighting it -- turning the illusion of "inevitability" into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Don't help them.

Fight. Encourage and protect the fighters.

That's all I've got to say.

[ponygirl]

Which is why he is going to China. A drone attack would be an act of war.

[butterdezillion]

Going public was his only form of protection against Obama. Sure, Obama can kill him. But if it happens through anything but a medical assassination, the world will know and it will vindicate his very reasons to blow the whistle on the criminal shenanigans of this lawless regime.

And what did he “leak”? That Big Brother can see and hear everything? Anybody with a brain already knew that, and those of us who didn’t care if we were Alinsky’ed came right out and said it. If there were terrorists stupid enough that they didn’t know that already, they are too stupid to be effective anyway.

If our government could have all the clues, all the warnings from other countries, all the records of movements, etc of Tamarlan Tsarnaev, and still did nothing to keep him from killing in a terrorist attack, then what makes us think that ANY surveillance is going to be used to keep us safe?

Osama Bin Laden’s son Hamza was at the finish line of the Boston marathon. He was classified as a known terrorist, but as soon as Obama met privately with the Saudi ambassador that classification was removed, he was visited by the supposed First Lady, and was safely jetted away from US law enforcement.

We had advance warnings about Tsarnaev and it didn’t keep us safe. We had Bin Laden’s son in our hands and Obama made sure he got away safely. Don’t anybody try telling me that either of those guys carried out this plan without contacting each other. What good did all the surveillance do in keeping us safe from these 2 known terrorists who were almost certainly communicating with each other in this country?