Obama's US Assassination Program?

[Guest]

By Chuck Norris

Sound too conspiratorial to be true? Like the cover-up ops of spy novels? Well, it's reality. And it is possibly the most bizarre, inhumane and abusive way that the White House is expanding its power over the American people.

It's not an extremist belief or theory of the far right. It's a fact that has been confirmed by The New York Times, The Washington Post and MSNBC and even documented by the far-left online magazine Salon.com.

And it's the gravest nightmare of U.S. citizens and abandonment of our Constitution to date: a presidential assassination program in which U.S. citizens are in the literal scopes of the executive branch based upon nothing more than allegations of terrorism involvement as the branch defines it.

Of course, the CIA has executed covert assassinations of foreigners for decades. But tragically, Obama is expanding this program to include American, non-Islamic, stateside, homegrown terrorists.

It all started in January, when The Washington Post reported: "As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a (Yemeni) compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture."

"A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"?

That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.

While the Obama administration continues its Bush-blaming for the economy, it is mega-morphing Bush policy in covert ops overseas, which was, according to the Post, "to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests."

Well, in recent weeks, the Obama administration has taken this overseas killing op to a new low: stateside assassinations.

A former director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, confessed before Congress: "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

If you are wondering who the "we" are to whom Adm. Blair refers, they are Smith, Wesson and the White House.

Now we know what deputy national security adviser John Brennan meant when he admitted in May, "And under President Obama, we have built upon the work of the previous administration and have accelerated efforts in many areas." (Remember when Bush's eavesdropping on U.S. citizens seemed harsh?)

Brennan further explained then that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become "captivated by extremist ideology or causes." He went on to say, "There are ... dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world and ... are very concerning to us."

Do you think "different parts of the world" doesn't include their country of origin?

Conveniently, the Obama administration also is integrating a pervasive plan to ensure the termination of radicals as the feds deem them abroad and domestic, too, with the resurrection of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Also known as H.R. 1955, it was passed in the House by the Democratic majority but was rejected by the Senate.

Everyone thought that legislation was dead until the Obama administration resurrected its tenets in its 52-page "National Security Strategy," released in May. So alarming is the feds' potential abuse of power that officials from London to the Kremlin are recognizing the threat to U.S. citizens.

The European Union Times reported, "Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government."

Woodrow Wilson, during his reign as president, incarcerated more than 2,000 U.S. citizens for speaking out against the government. And now for the first time since, a U.S. president is highlighting the threats of homegrown terror and literally hunting U.S. citizens as terrorists. One senior administration official said, "For the first time since 9/11, the (national security strategy) integrates homeland security and national security."

And what type of "integration" does that entail?

President Obama explained in an often overlooked statement within the "National Security Strategy": "We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. ... This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home."

Could it be any clearer? Right out of the horse's mouth. Or do I need to spell out what "fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home" means?

Remember the words "a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"?

That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.

In Part 2 next week, I will give further evidence of "Obama's U.S. assassination program" and explain why I say the administration is going after non-Islamic stateside radicals. Check out other reasons I oppose the Obama administration in my new PSA ("patriot service announcement") at http://www.BlackBeltPatriotism.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/07/27/obamas_us_assassination_program/page/full

[Tom Wetmore]

Why wasn't Chuck (or you for that matter...)raising a ruckus about this same program when Bush first authorized it right after 9/11?

COnservatives were OK if Bush did it. But if Obama continued the same program started by Bush it suddenly is no longer a good thing in the interests of national security?

Hmmm... I think there is a word for that.

[bonnie]

Why wasn't Chuck (or you for that matter...)raising a ruckus about this same program when Bush first authorized it right after 9/11?

COnservatives were OK if Bush did it. But if Obama continued the same program started by Bush it suddenly is no longer a good thing in the interests of national security?

Hmmm... I think there is a word for that.

Many of us did have some serious concerns with Bush.The saving grace for Bush is he was not a power mad individual.

Whether right or wrong no one believed Bush would abuse his presidential powers the way Obama has and continues to

[Tom Wetmore]

[bonnie]

Another to add to your hysteria. Heard on the news this morning that the SECC is now exempt from complying with the freedom of information act. This was part of the so called financial reform bill.Obama has the strangest idea of the word transparency.

Bush didn't take over a good share of the auto industry,Bush didn't force by bribes and other means health care etc.

For a man that campaigned on opposition to everything Bush did or said,it says alot about this man. He is not only following but doubling down on everything he was against.

[Guest]

Why wasn't Chuck (or you for that matter...)raising a ruckus about this same program when Bush first authorized it right after 9/11?

COnservatives were OK if Bush did it. But if Obama continued the same program started by Bush it suddenly is no longer a good thing in the interests of national security?

Hmmm... I think there is a word for that.

Bush didn't target stateside US citizens for assassination. The argument then was whether or not they should be able to tap US phones or not.