Am I seeing a pattern here?

Is it just me, or does death seem to always be hovering around the Obama Administration?

  • Attacks by US military drone aircraft have dramatically increased, leading to the likely deaths of dozens of civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan — even though the Administration officially claims zero civilian casualties
  • Operation Fast and Furious deliberately placed automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, leading to the deaths of at least one American law enforcement official, and at a minimum, 200 Mexicans
  • Osama bin Laden: executed without a trial; Obama Administration and Democratic party officials ecstatic
  • Anwar Al-Awlaki, a US citizen, killed in a drone attack
  • In the wake of Awlaki’s death, a secret White House legal memo was revealed, which argued that the US government could legally assassinate (that is, kill without the victim knowing he was under attack or having the opportunity to defend himself) a wanted US citizen if capturing him alive was not feasible
  • 100 US Special Forces troops are headed to Uganda and surrounding areas to organize military offensives against Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army
  • Muammar Gaddafi – reportedly captured alive by US-backed “rebels,” then lynched without a trial; Obama Administration and Democratic party officials ecstatic
  • Vice President Biden described the US intervention in Libya (presumably including Gaddafi’s lynching) as a “prescription” for the future of the Middle East

I think it’s pretty safe to say that after all of this, the virtual absence of anti-military/anti-war/anti-US protesters has pretty much delegitimized everything the “anti-war” movement stood for during the Bush presidency.  Maybe it’s a case of “only Nixon could go to China”; that is, only an African-American Nobel laureate messiah figure could get away with policies that involve the aggressive use of military force and the killing of so many foreign civilians — most of whom, it should be noted, have much darker skin than the mostly lily-white members of the Obama Administration.  I suppose progressives no longer consider light-on-dark oppression to be a crime against humanity, now that one of their own is sitting in the White House.

None of this should be surprising.  The twentieth century saw the creation of the most barbarian societies in human history, all in the name of “equality.”  And the same kinds of things happen on a local scale as well.  In a recent news story about “Occupy Oakland” devolving into a series of thuggish vigilante episodes when conflicts erupted between the protesters, an Oakland police supervisor quipped, “It’s interesting for a group that claims to be against current civilization and rules to set up a far more oppressive society than our own.”

Of course President Obama doesn’t really have to worry about raising the ire of the professional progressive protesters.  After all, it’s largely the former “anti-war” crowd that is busy “Occupying” our cities these days, and their overseers can always keep them agitated over something that is supposedly the fault of Republicans.  Still, this is a curious legacy for a man who accepted a Nobel Peace Prize.  How ironic is it that only a few short years ago, liberals reeled at suggestions that George W. Bush be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after toppling the Taliban and ousting Saddam Hussein.

"Young people playing at being poor"
Legal Lessons From The Left
  • Anonymous

    “I think it’s pretty safe to say that after all of this, the virtual
    absence of anti-military/anti-war/anti-US protesters has pretty much
    delegitimized everything the “anti-war” movement stood for during the
    Bush presidency.”

    Must be the Democratic “nuance” when Barry does it.  Wonder if the Norwegians are having second thoughts.

    • PBunyan

      “Wonder if the Norwegians are having second thoughts.”

      Not at all.  In recent years the Nobel “Peace” prize has devolved into the Nobel Communist of the Year prize.  Barrack did and still does deserve that award.

  • herddog505

    But… but… but… BUSH DID IT, TOO!  And… and… and… YOU DIDN’T COMPLAIN WHEN BUSH DID IT!!!ONE!!  And… and… and… HALLIBURTON!!!!  And… and… and… YOU HATE MUSLIMS!!!! AND BLACK PEOPLE!!!ONE!!!  RAAAACISM!!!!!

    / lefty rant

    My head hurts now…

    Once again, Barry proves to be NOT the reincarnation of Jimmuh, but of Woodrow Wilson, who also didn’t hesitate to send the troops to foreign lands and kill off foreigners when it suited him, AND felt righteous into the bargain for doing so.

    I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.

    Woodrow Wilson
    Statement to British envoy William Tyrrell (November 1913), explaining his policy on Mexico

    And does this ring any bells:

    [Wilson] negotiated a treaty with Colombia in which the U.S. apologized for its role in the Panama Revolution of 1903-1904.  In practice, he did not shrink from intervention on behalf of American values, saying in 1913: “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” Between 1914 and 1918, the United States intervened in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, and Panama. The U.S. maintained troops in Nicaragua throughout the Wilson administration and used them to select the president of Nicaragua and then to force Nicaragua to pass the Bryan-Chamorro. American troops in Haiti, under the command of the federal government, forced the Haitian legislature to choose the candidate Wilson selected as Haitian president. American troops occupied Haiti between 1915 and 1934.  Wilson ordered the military occupation of the Dominican Republic shortly after the resignation of its President Juan Isidro Jimenes Pereyra in 1916. The U.S. military worked in concert with wealthy Dominican landowners to suppress the gavilleros, a campesino guerilla force fighting the occupation. The occupation lasted until 1924, and was notorious for its brutality against those in the resistance.

    This is the same man who also said in 1915, “No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other nation.”

    Unless that nation was the United States led by the man “too proud to fight”, Woodrow Wilson.


    • You seem to be suggesting a second round of Wilsonian “Liberal Fascism.”

      • Anonymous

        We ought to know how that ended.

  • jim_m

    It’s really quite simple:

    Whatever the left wants to do is legal, because to the left anything it wants to do is good beyond any question and therefore must be legal (or certainly ought to be).  Being so ideologically blinkered, the left is incapable of conceiving of the notion that they, or their leaders, might be acting in a way which would be illegal.

    The left no longer has any concept of ethics.  You can catch them with bribery cash stuffed in their freezer and they still cannot see what they did wrong.  They refuse to resign office when confronted with malfeasance in office.  Since they have no sense of right and wrong it is hard for them to see that what they do is wrong.  They like it.  They want to do it.  So therefore it must be OK.

    Look at obama, the left doesn’t think that he should have to obey the Constitution.  The laws they were so upset about applying to Bush in the most picayune of fashions they want to ignore completely with him. 

    The left simply doesn’t think that laws should apply to them.  Laws are only for your enemies.

    • Anonymous

      We can be thankful for one thing. The country is becoming more and more repulsed by what happens when an anti-American, liberal-statist-socialist gets elected to the Presidency. The decline into European socialism has been so accelerated by 0-bama and his merry band of marxists, that it’s hypocracy and impotency is obvious to an awakening America. This might not have been the case with a Billary presidency.

  • Anonymous

    I think it’s pretty clear that the extreme left is no happier with Obama than is the extreme right.  Both extremes have an extreme ends justifies the means mentality, and both accuse the other of immoral actions.  They are both right.  Both perform very immoral acts in pursuit of their ends.

    But it is a mistake to think that this is what is happening with Obama’s militarism.  He has always been a militarist, and ran as one.  His objection to the Iran adventure was based on it’s stupidity, not it’s immorality.

    • Anonymous

      The hoopla over the alleged plot by Mansour “Jack Daniels” Arbabsiar seems to show that Obama’s objection to attacking Iran might be going away.  It remains a stupid idea.

    • jim_m

      Obama is not a militarist.  He is an authoritarian.  He believes that the Constitution is flawed because it doesn’t grant the government power over the people to do what it wills.  His administration is hallmarked by the creation of so-called czars who are answerable to no one but the president.  Having lost the control of the House he seeks to render obsolete the legislature by creating laws through the bureaucracy.  He wages war upon foreign nations not just without the consent of Congress but without informing them what-so-ever.

      The objection to our involvement in Libya is not that it is a military adventure, it is that it is an exercise in the creation of a Presidency that is unanswerable to the people of the United States.

      • Anonymous

        Pfft, I agree that Obama is authoritarian, but the executive branch under Bush claimed the power to arrest a U.S. citizen in the U.S., designate him an “enemy combatant” and hold him indefinitely without judicial review, access to a lawyer, or any visitors at all.   Bush’s lawyer John Yoo said that the president had the power to crush a child’s testicles in order to get information from his father.

        That’s about as authoritarian and unaccountable as it gets.

        • Anonymous

          CRUSHIN TESTICLES? I’m outta here!!  Bar is only 250 feet away!  Looooololololo

          • Given chicka’s earlier insistence that women’s suffrage (19th Amendment) was the deciding factor in the success of Prohibition (18th Amendment) one should treat his assertion of sanctioned testicle crushing as unsupported hyperbole absent a source document reference.

            Shorter version: pull the other one, it has bells on it.

      • Actually, Franklin Delano “the bad” Roosevelt was the first to arrest a U. S. Citizen, declare him an illegal combatant, try him before a secret military tribunal, and have him executed (with the Supreme Court’s ex post facto blessing, viz Ex Parte Quirin).

        • Anonymous

          Right, but Quirin at least got a lawyer and a trial and was a belligerent with a country that the U.S. had declared war against.

      • Oh, it should also be noted that the American citizen under the case of Ex Parte Quirin was named Haupt, vice chica’s assertion that it was Quirin, and that the Supreme Court reviewed the case after Haupt had been executed (thus my ex post facto note).

  • Anonymous

    The anti-war left will be back. Just as soon as there is a republican in charge.

    • Which clearly indicates they are not so much anti-war as anti-republican.

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    Somehow Barry brings clarity to McCains ” Bomb Bomb Bomb ,,, Bomb Bomb Iran”  Joke..  Barry is a bigger warmonger then Rumsfeld, waging war and peace at the drop of a putter.

  • Anonymous

    “Am I seeing a pattern here?”

    Yep! Next up Yemen, then ASSSADD, then  AchMadManDingyJihad. In-between golf getaway’s for sure.

  • Anonymous

    Everything Michael says is true, but he left out the plans to attack Iran using that Iranian nitwit from San Antonio as a casus belli. 

    That Pearl Harbor style attack will happen in the late spring of 2012.

    There was a lot of death around the Bush administration, too.

    • Anonymous

      I wouldn’t tip that nut off either.  But he has to know whats coming. He sees the dominoes falling around him as the new world order stage is being set by the Illuminati among others. Does he capitulate or more likely run to Russia for cover?

      • Anonymous

        He’s already getting help from Russia, and China.  That’s why it’s a bad idea.  Iran supplies China with gas and oil.  Attacking Iran on a flimsy pretext or on behalf of Israel could start World War III.  It will certainly shut off the flow of oil from Arabia and cause a worldwide economic crash.  Nobody seems to see how continually threatening Iran would motivate it to build nukes – “Axis of Evil,” anyone?

        • retired.military

          Atrtacking Iran would NOT cause WW3.  How?  It isnt like we are going to go in and grab their natural resources.  Iraq showed that.   Knocking out their nuclear facilities would be a blessing to the world and the world knows it.  Oh sure people would grumble and put on a show at the UN but behind closed doors eyes would wink and heads would nod and everyone would breathe a tad bit easier. 

          Iran is a loose cannon and China, Russia Pakistan and India all know it. Noone would lose a wink of sleep if their nuclear facilities were turned into a pile of nonradioactive rubble.

          • Jay

            Loose cannon?  How so?  

  • Anonymous

    They don’t have to build them. Russia already has.

    • Anonymous

      And Pakistan. Iran could probably buy nukes from either.

  • Anonymous

    Foregone conclusions need not apply!

  • Anonymous

    Flash!  Totally Unexpected!

    Libya plans Sharia Law, Egypt and Tunisia soon to follow.

    • Wow, that’s almost as shocking and “unexpected” as unemployment remaining at or above 9%