By Chrissy the Hyphenated
Click graphic to embiggen for easier reading.
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2727283480056011884UqYcWO
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2727283480056011884UqYcWO
posted by Pistol Pete
FEAR:GOP WILL CAVE ON SUNDAY;AGREE TO TAX HIKES WITH PHONY SPENDING CUTS
MEDIA ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHO’S ELECTABLE
LIBS BEG KOCH BROTHERS FOR CAMPAIGN CASH;KOCH BROTHERS RESPOND
AN ESTABLISHMENT IN PANIC
HELL HATH NO FURY OR FUNDRAISING LIKE A UNION SCORNED
JOBS REPORT,PELOSI COMMENTS DIM HOPES FOR A DEFICIT DEAL ON SUNDAY
Hey,Nancy–how’s that minority thing workin’ out for ya?
OBAMA TOLD US HE WASN’T READY TO BE PRESIDENT;HE WASN’T KIDDING
VIDEO:PATTI LaBELLE’S BODYGUARD AND HAIRDRESSER CHARGED WITH ASSAULT ON WEST POINT CADET
The cadet was originally accused of being the aggressor;I hope he sues her for a boatload of money
FLASH MOBBERY DALLAS;BLACK YOUTHS TRASH AND ROB ANOTHER CONVENIENCE STORE
Can Obama classify these scum as being employed–as professional thugs?His unemployment numbers need all the help he can get.
WHERE’S THE DEMOCRAT BUDGET?
LAST NIGHT ON O’REILLY
PALIN,PERRY:2012 HOPEFULS MAKE FAST FRIENDS
OBAMA:DON’T LOOK AT ME…ITS THE EARTHQUAKE,TORNADO, STATE BUDGET CUTS,GAS PRICES,LOCAL BUDGET CUTS, GREECE’S FAULT
THINK TANK TO OBAMA:DEFENSE BUDGET NOT YOUR DOMESTIC ATM
STUCK IN A DITCH:OBAMA SAYS WE NEED TO SPEND MORE MONEY AND LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS-HUH??
I LOVE YOU GUYS,BUT GIVE ME A MILLION AND I’M OUTTA HERE
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2882997490056011884HvMvSY
In his defense, the question was awful:
“What message do you have for American men and women in uniform who are undertaking missions, like the very risky one to capture and kill bin Laden, about what they should do in the event that they capture someone alive? And does the lack of these clear procedures raise the risk that forces might be more inclined to kill suspected terrorists in the field, rather than capture them alive, thus depriving the U.S. of the intelligence that they could provide?”
The first part is clear enough. “What should they do if they capture someone alive?”
But … excuse me? You need the CINC to tell them to handcuff prisoners and bring them in? Every kid who watches cop shows knows THAT. Duh.
As for the second part … puh-leeze. Who ever said there was a lack of clear procedures? Our troops capture people all the time. They have procedures. Duh.
The stated assumption that there IS a lack of clear procedures is like asking, “When you beat your wife, do you use a belt or a stick?”
Assuming the question was real, not canned (and that Obama didn’t have a canned response prepared), the moderators should’ve clarified the question before putting it to the president to answer off the cuff.
Maybe then we would’ve gotten a clear answer. Or maybe he’s just one of those people who talks too much because he isn’t as bright as he wants everyone to think he is.
I wrote an answer that is a tenth as long as the one he gave:
“I don’t need to instruct our troops since they already have very clear procedures for how to subdue and transport prisoners and for when it is legally permissible to use lethal force.”
Of course, the possibility exists that Obama pre-selected that absurd dual question precisely so he could give his equally absurd answer. But one would have to be cynical enough to think that Barack Hussein was the type to try and pretend he was telling both the Left and the Right what each wanted to hear.
Oh wait. I am that cynical. Well, pshaw. I’ve got cause.
Anyway, I think both the question and the answer were not actually about telling our troops what procedures should be used or worrying if they might be trigger happy. I think they were both speaking to the widely held suspicion that Obama himself is encouraging assassination rather than capture of terrorists.
It’s a valid suspicion, given that his kill vs. capture rate is higher than Bush’s was and the Left thought Dubya’s was evidence that he was a blood-thirsty murderer.
Also, one cannot help but notice that live terrorists who are being interrogated and detained at Gitmo are beneficial only to our national security. For a Democrat president who hollered long and loud about how eeeevil Gitmo was and how he would shut it down the MINUTE he got into office (but didn’t), they are nothing short of a political nightmare.
Suspecting Obama is ordering suspected terrorists be assassinated in the field is a pretty horrible thing.
Unfortunately, his recently announced Afghanistan withdrawal schedule supports the cynical suspicion that he wholeheartedly puts his own political career at the top of his priority list and our national security at the bottom.
A) His own generals oppose the plan.
B) The drawdown is timed for the months directly preceding the 2012 election.
C) He knows he can count on the Left Stream Media to provide him with lots and lots of positive, free — “Oh look the troops are coming home! Rah rah, Obama!” — pre-election news coverage.
Like I said, I’ve got cause to be cynical.
Full transcript of question and answer:
QUESTION: “What message do you have for American men and women in uniform who are undertaking missions, like the very risky one to capture and kill bin Laden, about what they should do in the event that they capture someone alive? And does the lack of these clear procedures raise the risk that forces might be more inclined to kill suspected terrorists in the field, rather than capture them alive, thus depriving the U.S. of the intelligence that they could provide?”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, my top priority in each and every one of these situations is to make sure that we’re apprehending those who would attack the United States; that we are getting all the intelligence that we can out of these individuals, in a way that’s consistent with due process of law; and that we try them, we prosecute them, in a way that’s consistent with rule of law.
And, frankly, there are going to be different dispositions of the case depending on the situation. And there are going to be sometimes where a military commission may be appropriate. There are going to be some times where Article III courts are appropriate in terms of prosecution. And we do have a process to work through all the agencies — Department of Defense, Department of Justice, FBI, anybody else who might be involved in these kinds of operations — to think through on a case-by-case basis how a particular individual should be dealt with.
And I think that when it comes to our men and women in uniform who might be carrying out these missions, the instructions are not going to be based on whether or not the lawyers can sort out how we detain them or how we prosecute them. Their mission is to make sure that they apprehend the individual; they do so safely with minimum risk to American lives. And that’s always going to be the priority, is just carrying out the mission. And that message is sent consistently to our men and women in uniform anytime they start carrying out one of these missions.
But I think it’s important to understand, and the American people need to be assured that anytime we initiate a mission like this, our top priorities are making sure this person is not able to carry out attacks against the United States and that we’re able to obtain actionable intelligence from those individuals. And so that mitigates against this danger that you’re suggesting that our main goal is going to be to kill these individuals as opposed to potentially capturing them. Okay?
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2373254120056011884bsDtVw
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So says the Declaration of Independence, among the greatest documents ever produced by the human race. It is time to declare our independence again, this time by listing the falsehoods made evident through the past century of our history.
I do not believe the government can accomplish any given task more efficiently than the private sector. The awful record of our bankrupt State argues conclusively to the contrary.
I deny both the right and wisdom of government to “own” any industry. Industry cannot succeed without the threat of failure, and the State never has to worry about going out of business. Ownership is the prerogative of citizens, not the government they authorize to perform certain essential duties.
I reject the notion that a just government can exist in the absence of a strictly obeyed Constitution. It is not an archaic document to be evaded when it interferes with the agenda of public officials. A republic must be bound by laws that its elected representatives cannot easily change.
I deny the wisdom of the political class to achieve prosperity through economic control. Their failure is massive and evident. I challenge them to relinquish their control, and watch the creativity and judgment of free citizens surpass their own.
I do not believe the wealth of a free citizen belongs to the government, to re-distribute in accordance with the moral judgment of the elite.
I do not believe that only government officials should be allowed to enjoy lavish benefits and extravagant lifestyles without facing moral condemnation for their greed.
I deny the possibility of a large government without endemic corruption. It’s not just a question of electing honest people to run the super-State. Big Government is inherently corrupt, because it replaces the freedom of choice with the power of political command, and there will always be efforts to purchase the incredibly valuable favor of powerful politicians. If you would have honest government, you must make it smaller.
I deny the possibility of “creating” jobs. Jobs are offered. If you would have more of them, your fellow citizens must be willing to extend more offers. Free people cannot be compelled to make offers.
I do not believe the election of national representatives should be a quest for brilliant masters of industry. They should understand the limits and duties of their own jobs, not how to perform the jobs of those they rule. If a President understands and reveres the Constitution, it doesn’t really matter if he knows anything about the manufacture of automobiles or corporate jets. Electing politicians is not the equivalent of selecting the CEO of America, Incorporated, and Congress is not its boardroom.
I reject the application of compulsive force against citizens who have not engaged in criminal offenses. I am not interested in being “transformed” or “engineered” by my government, and I deny its moral authority to do so against my will.
I reject the idea that the intention behind legislation is more important than its legality under the Constitution, or its actual effects.
I do not believe that the business of funding the government should be turned into an exercise in social engineering, with citizens obliged to run through a vast maze of tax penalties and exemptions, designed to encourage “correct” behavior.
I don’t think the government should be allowed to function without a budget. Ever. This is a mockery of the vital concept of delegated authority. I will not grant the State the right to do as it pleases, and send taxpayers the bill later. How can we judge the performance of government, and vote accordingly, if we are not told precisely what it plans to do?
Except in cases of the most dire emergency, I don’t accept the moral authority of today’s politicians to place unbearable obligations on the taxpayers of the future. Taxation without representation is wrong. Who represents the children of tomorrow? Were their voices heard, when they were assigned to pay off fourteen trillion dollars in debt? It’s one thing to engage in emergency deficit spending when wars or natural disasters threaten the very survival of the Republic. Using the same techniques to encourage dependency on government, or fund the weird obsessions of bureaucrats, is an outrage.
I deny that the continuing dissolution of liberty is “progress,” while the restoration of liberty is “regressive.” The growth of the State is not inevitable.
I do not believe the proper business of government is reducing “uncertainty” in the free market. Opportunity only flourishes upon uncertain terrain. The government’s job should be to reduce the artificial uncertainty generated by its own actions. Free people should not have to worry about being crushed by the State, or watch their commercial triumphs washed away by huge subsidies to their defeated competitors.
I reject the moral authority of politicians to measure the virtue of ambition. As long as those ambitions are legal, politicians have no right to denounce them as evil.
I will not tolerate the continued presence in office of a politician who would compromise the core duties of government to protect funding for its extravagances. If government spending is limited, any official who would jeopardize the essential functions of government, or its financial obligations – as Barack Obama has openly threatened to do – is criminally derelict in his duties, and should be removed from office immediately. I will not allow a government official to threaten me with the refusal to discharge his lawful duty.
I don’t believe it is wise to place control of your life in the hands of politicians, many of whom you will never be able to vote against, or massive agencies you can only influence through savage political battles, fought once every couple of years. State control is all about transitory promises and eternal obligations.
I deny that liberty can be realized entirely through speech and action. It cannot exist without ownership.
I deny that freedom can exist without responsibility. No one is free unless everyone is. That means you cannot make demands upon your neighbors that you are not willing to reciprocate. It means the burden of financing our government should be shared by everyone, not lumped upon small populations that can be easily out-voted. It means that people are accountable for their actions. It is the reason a free people should embrace charity, but deny entitlement.
The Declaration of Independence announced the glory of American liberty by advancing three self-evident truths. The never-ending struggle to retain that liberty involves combining those truths to produce an endless series of denials. The allure of government control and dependency is great, so every free man and woman should be prepared to spend a lifetime saying “no.” Freedom depends upon the right to say “no.”
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://www.zazzle.com/chrissyoriginals/