Obama’s Rewriting of Reality on Jihad

From the Washington Times:

Before the Boston Marathon bombings, the Obama administration argued for years that there is a big difference between terrorists and the tenets of Islam.

A senior White House aide in 2009 publicly urged Washington to cease using the term “jihadist” — asserting that terrorists are simply extremists. Two years later, the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.

Now, some analysts are asking whether the 2009 edict and others that followed have dampened law enforcement’s appetite to thoroughly investigate terrorism suspects for fear of offending higher-ups or the American Muslim lobby.

It’s not just suspected.  The most recent fedgov-sponsored anti-terrorism course I took spent the first few hours going over the SPLC’s laundry list of evil white terrorist organizations that to any sane person, aren’t more than a footnote.

In October 2011, 57 Islamic groups wrote a letter to John O. Brennan, now CIA director, but then President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser.

Citing news reports, the groups complained of “biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” inside the federal government’s instructional halls.

“While recent news reports have highlighted the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials, we have learned that this problem extends far beyond the FBI and has infected other government agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Army,” the letter read.

Muslims objected to several training guides, such as a 2009 report produced at the Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

“Moderate Muslims are not exercising moderation; they are simply applying other means to accomplish the same goal of establishing global Islamic dominance,” it quoted the report as saying.

At least two of the 57 groups were listed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators and as being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the prosecution of a Texas charity for funding Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The groups are the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.

The organizations’ letter demanded that biased trainers be disciplined, that all instructors undergo retraining and that materials deemed offensive by Muslim activists be purged.

Want to know why we can’t effectively fight jihadi terrorists?  Why we keep having Fort Hoods and Bostons?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

- Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu’s reflections on the Obama administration would probably be something like: “If you deny yourself knowledge of the enemy and even deny the enemy’s existence because you don’t want to offend the enemy, you have already been defeated.“

John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, has spent years studying the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and its links to American Islamic groups. The FBI relies on some of them to guide its training. The political left has branded Mr. Guandolo an “Islamophobe.”

“There is no strategy in the FBI,” he told The Times. “At FBI headquarters, it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement in the U.S. or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities.”

Mr. Emerson, who maintains back-channel ties to law enforcement, said any slide presentation on Islamic extremism now has to be submitted to a special Justice Department panel.

He said one slide that was required to be omitted showed the famous photo of captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The photo of a disheveled and unshaven Mohammed was deemed “offensive to Islam,” Mr. Emerson said.

There is a strategy in the FBI.  It’s a strategy of concession and defeat.

… the president does not “see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, jihad, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

Some analysts disagree with that interpretation, saying the Koran clearly states that jihad is a “holy war.”

Jihad is war.

Denying it and pretending that it’s simply “internal jihad” denies reality.  The struggle in Islam is further submission to the will of Allah – Islam means submission.  Salaam and the peace of Allah is all about submission to Allah’s will.  People with an internal “my struggle” tend to be types who are worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Beyond that point, it doesn’t actually matter what the US says.  Contrary to American popular belief, the world does not actually revolve around us.  The right knows we’re big and important and we have an important role to play, but we’re ultimately not everything; the left mocks our actual importance, but then thinks every evil in the world is caused by our interference and instead blames America for everything as though we are the cause of all evil in the world – a far more powerful egocentric belief.

Jihadis who are willing to kill themselves to strike a blow against the West in a desire to further the plans for the caliphate do not care what you or I think of them.  The US saying “Islamic jihadi terrorists are Islamic jihadi terrorists” doesn’t change much.

They don’t need our opinion to make themselves legitimate.  They are, by their own actions, legitimating themselves.  They strike terror against the west and they prove they are jihadis.  The US understanding and saying “they’re jihadis” does not magically make them jihadis.  That they are blowing themselves up for jihad makes them jihadis.  This is a question of acknowledging reality.  They aren’t seeking our approval to make them jihadis.

For your nation to protect itself does demand that it acknowledge what it is fighting.

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

- Osama bin Laden

Frankly, when we’re acting befuddled because we can’t understand jihad, it doesn’t make us the strong horse.  When our government, filled with mush-brained liberals at best; and jihad-allies leftists as well, tells you with their rose-colored glasses and romantic worldview (or straight up leftist redistributive propaganda) that these are a peaceful, peaceable, highly spiritual wise people with a history that goes back thousands of years, wise exotic mystics who travel the deserts and kept alive the knowledge that racist bigoted white European Christians threw away, and then were attacked by ruthless murderous Christian fundamentalist Crusaders who sought to kill them for some reason… it sets up a ridiculous worldview.

The leftist worldview doesn’t allow for acknowledging who the enemy is.

“They say our enemy is violent extremism,” Mr. Lieberman said. “It’s not. It’s not animal rights extremists or white supremacy extremists. It’s Islamic extremism.”

Lieberman’s one redeeming virtue is that he somewhat understands this.  At the same time, it’s not extremism.

This is extremism:

Rubio also has part of the problem recognized, but this is still a problem:

Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, told Fox News this week that the administration will not recognize the terrorists for what they are — radicalized Islamists.

These are radical muslims:

Notably, those muslim snowboarders aren’t jihadis.  Or at least, probably not (Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Golden Gloves boxer, after all).

“My problem with this administration is they refuse to acknowledge the existence of this kind of terrorism,” Mr. Rubio said.

He noted that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic complex in Benghazi, Libya, the White House refused to call it terrorism and blamed it on everyday demonstrators.

To really explain that further, the White House’s so-called “demonstrators” brought mortars.  The White House story is that they brought fire support to yell about a video that no one had ever seen.

You don’t bring indirect fire area-effect weapons to a protest.

I voice my continued objection to the new zoning regulations! No new strip centers!

This is a Second Amendment protest – a protest about guns and the right of the people too keep and bear arms in order to throw off oppression – up to and including possibly overthrowing a corrupt government:

And they didn’t bring any artillery.  They also aren’t jihadis.

Update: It also looks like the Tsarnaevs’ bombs required some additional training and expertise to make, as though they might not be a “lone wolf” operation as the administration claims, as though there might actually be some kind of global movement that’s doing this bombing extremist stuff (for no discernable reason)… like there’s maybe a group of people who believe in the same thing (extremism and radicalness, sayeth the administration) and are out to spread terrorism for the sake of terrorism.  Whoa.  (How you can have two people working together and still call them a “lone” wolf ignores what the word “lone” means, but I digress.)

Obama On Boston: Do Not Form An Opinion Until We Decide What Your Opinion Should Be

Via Jawa Report, from the Daily Caller:

Americans should not decide their opinions about the Boston terror attacks until the government decides its own opinion, President Barack Obama told the nation late Friday night.

Really.

…when a tragedy like this happens … it’s important that we do this right,” he claimed.  “That’s why we have investigations … That’s why we have courts.  And that’s why…”

This is justification for the next line.

“…we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people,” Obama insisted.

That wasn’t the case a few days ago when NPR said it was domestic right wing extremists.  That wasn’t the case for most of the mainstream media.

The left is more than willing to use terrorist acts to score political points against those they oppose (consider how they supported maniac cop Chris Dorner’s manifesto when it came to gun control, how they accused the communist-quoting leftist who flew into the Austin IRS building of being on the right, and how Palin and the Tea Party was blamed for the schizo in Tuscon, etc.).

There’s never any judgement when it comes to islamic terrorism and jihad – even when there’s overwhelming evidence, and that’s the problem.  Jihad on Fort Hood was called “workplace violence”.  When a guy yells “Allahu akbar!” and says he’s a Soldier of Allah on his business card, and gives presentations on jihad as a good thing, that might all be what’s known as “clues”.

The issue here isn’t to rush to judgement (like the mainstream media claims that the bombers were white male conservative Tea Partiers), nor to wait for the facts (which today are apparent by the jihadis own statements and online presences), the issue here from the president’s point of view is that Islamic terrorism can’t be called what it is.  There are no shortage of islamic terrorist attacks to document it, but there is an ideological component to modern liberal/leftist tolerance that refuses to acknowledge reality.  Never judging and never acknowledging good or evil is a key component to how modern liberals think.

The fact is, the Boston marathon bombers were islamic terrorists.  There’s no denying reality, but there are people who still try.  The White House, in order to deflect blame, has decided to tell the truth slowly to mitigate the damage.

–

Of course, not all muslims are terrorists, obviously, but they are disproportionately represented because the two things do often go hand-in-hand.  When muslim populations around the world are surveyed, they also support terrorism to a disturbingly large degree.  And the same is true inside the US.

Within the US, about one of twelve to one in six muslims (depending on subgroup, as seen above) believe suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified.  In some other polls, there was a “never” option and a “rarely” option to differentiate between those who do support terrorism, but just so fervently as to say “often” or “sometimes”.

The number of pro-suicide bombing muslims jumps to around 13%.  So more than one in eight muslims are ultimately pro-suicide bombing within the US.

The problem is that government for the last few years (or even decades) has chosen never to make a judgement, based on two flawed ideologies.  The Bush administration, run by squishy neocons, went to great pains to call Islam the “religion of peace” and not offend the easily offended.  The Obama government, run by leftist ideologues, has focused on what they think is the enemy – the domestic right that opposes their leftist changes in government, and their destruction of the Constitution.  To the left, which is in power, people like you and me are the enemy because our focus on the American virtues of liberty represents opposition to their fundamentally anti-American worldview.  By contrast, islamic ideology to them, as an enemy of traditional US virtues and the West that they view as an “oppressor” in the world, is an ally.

And as you’re reading this on your own time (if you’re not, tell the Major I’d like four cups of tea sent up, please), you’re being introduced to data that goes against the media and party line – so even if you are on the left, you’ll probably find yourself considered a “right-wing extremist” soon enough.  Consider what happened to Eric Allen Bell – a leftist filmmaker who used to write for fanatically leftist DailyKos and Michael Moore but ended up doing his own research and had his open-minded sensibilities challenged by reality.  He found it’s very hard to be a universal hippy believer in human rights on the left and simultaneously maintain blind lefty support of an ideology that actively oppresses gays and women.

–

If you take all this into account, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a duck and flies like a duck, then Obama tells you not to rush to judgement, it could be a giraffe.

New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg Proposes Blackpowder Regulations

An anti-gun leftist Ruling class tyrant from the northeast?  Naw…

On April 17, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg issued a statement to the public that he intends to propose a bill or amendment to regulate black powder, and other forms of explosive components, in the wake of the Boston Marathon Massacre. The bill would demand full Federal background checks of anyone seeking to purchase the minor explosive, similar to recent attempts by Congress to require full background checks on the sale of firearms.

In the wake of the deadly bombing attacks in Boston, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced that he will reintroduce legislation he has proposed in a prior Congress to require that sales of explosive powder be subject to a background check. He will also file the legislation as an amendment to the gun violence prevention bill currently on the Senate floor

From Lautenberg’s own site:

“It is outrageous that anyone, even a known terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosives without any questions asked,” said Senator Lautenberg. “If we are serious about public safety, we must put these common-sense safeguards in place.  While the police have not revealed what specific explosive materials were used in Boston, what we do know is that explosive powder is too easy to anonymously purchase across the country.”

Consider how nanny-statish New Jersey is.  In New Jersey, for example, you can’t pump your own gas.  It’s both a jobs scam and a “safety” scam that 48 other states’ citizens show is complete bull.

See, in 48 other states, you can walk to a gas pump and fill your tank with gallons upon gallons of gasoline.

In 48 states, you can go and pump as much gas as you can afford into your car or an approved container.  In New Jersey and Oregon, you have to kneel before the might of lobbyists and you have an attendant pump gas for you, but you can still buy as much gas as you want.

Fortunately, highly combustible, flammable, and also explosive gasoline has never been used to kill anyone in any kind of attack, ever ever.  Well, except for killing 87 people at once.  And it’s used all the time by arsonists.

So gasoline is totally more dangerous.  It shows again that there are dangerous chemicals and things all around us, and it’s the people we have to deal with, not the tools… because a dedicated villain will always find the tools.

But Lautenberg, who lives in a state where people are considered too stupid to pump their own gas, demands that we regulate black powder.

Of the $27.8 Billion spent each year on firearms, ammunition, clothing, reloading equipment, optics, and accessories by the American public, only about 7-8% of all gun owners reload their own ammunition on a regular basis. This means that only a relatively small amount of people purchase black powder explosives each year, and in comparison to other flammable, explosive, and dangerous household products such as fertilizer and gasoline, the singling out of black powder for stricter regulation bears little statistical evidence that its use in criminal activity is widespread.

As Examiner notes, it’s not prevalent among criminals.  Actual blackpowder isn’t very prevalent (it’s been mostly replaced by Pyrodex), and modern gunpowders basically burn, they don’t quite explode.

Gunpowder is classified as a low explosive because of its relatively slow decomposition rate and consequently low brisance. Low explosives deflagrate (i.e., burn) at subsonic speeds, whereas high explosives detonate, producing a supersonic wave.

From Lautenberg’s site:

Current law allows an individual to purchase as much as 50 pounds of explosive “black powder” without a background check, and also permits an individual to purchase unlimited amounts of dangerous “smokeless powder” and “black powder substitute” without a background check.

And it will cost you shipping out the wazoo.  It’s not cheap to ship that stuff, because you have to comply with DOT regulations and hazmat to ship it already.  Smokeless powder is just a chemical that burns quickly.  When in a shell, with a primer on one end and a bullet on the other, and inside a steel chamber, it becomes useful.  Until then, it’s just a fast-burning chemical compound, and one that happens to be an intrinsic part of the Second Amendment, as ammunition is part of bearing arms.

If one were a terrorist, again, by contrast, you can buy all the gasoline you want.  So you could buy hundreds or even thousands of gallons of gasoline and do whatever you wanted with it.

Ignoring all of that for a moment, consider that Al Qaeda’s online publication, Inspire magazine, has directions on how to make very specific types of explosives.  They detailed the pressure cooker bomb, but they also detail how to use chemicals to mix much more destructive explosives.  The internet is full of destructive bomb-making recipes for those looking for them, and Lautenberg, along with the rest of his dictatorial cohorts, is apparently completely lost on the first word in the acronym IED.

Improvised explosive device.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  There is always a way for the motivated terrorist.

War is not a contest of force, whether conventional or unconventional, declared or undeclared.  It is a question of will.

If you ban one thing, they will find another to use.  The more you ban, the more liberties are lost, the more the terrorists have terrorized you into crushing your own citizenry and treating everyone like criminals.  They will have won, as the American people will feel defeated by the actions of their own government against the citizenry in knee-jerk response to terrorists who will never follow a law.

You have to stop the individual terrorists.  Ultimately, it is the terrorist that kills, and he is who you have to stop.

-

As an aside, while we’re on the subject of background checks for everything, how about we do background checks on who comes into the country, and we stop letting in terrorists and people who will reasonably become terrorists, huh?  Then maybe us US citizens can stop getting screwed with every time we go to do anything?  And how about we do background checks on senators and congressmen and presidents, so if they show any tendencies towards grossly violating oaths to the Constitution and trying to stomp on citizens rights, we don’t let them work in government?

The Immigration Debate and the Boston Terrorists

The AP has this mushball story today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Boston Marathon bombings cast a shadow Friday over the start of debate on legislation to remake the U.S. immigration system, as some Republicans argued that the role of two immigrant suspects raised questions about gaps in the system.

There was no suggestion that the two suspects, brothers who had lived in Dagestan neighboring Chechnya in southern Russia, had entered the U.S. illegally. And authors of a sweeping new immigration bill, which got its first hearing Friday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that their legislation would improve U.S. national security because the estimated 11 million people now living here illegally would have to come forward and undergo background checks.

Those 11 million living here illegally can never pass a background check.  Their first step into the country was to violate US federal law.  They fail.  Every one of them.

There are plenty among that number who have committed further crimes, in fact, there are huge numbers who have committed crimes.  “Sanctuary cities” that don’t turn over illegal aliens to ICE for deportation are full of them, in no small part because local law enforcement does nothing to them.

The Boston terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev could’ve been deported already.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old killed in a wild shootout with police, was a legal U.S. resident who nevertheless could have been removed from the country after a 2009 domestic violence arrest and conviction, according to a Judicial Watch source. That means the Obama administration missed an opportunity to deport Tsarnaev but evidently didn’t feel he represented a big enough threat.

Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but we’re seeking confirmation of a conviction. Nevertheless he would have been subject to removal for the arrest itself.

This falls under crimes of moral turpitude, which are deportable offenses.

Of course, the immigration bill is about amnesty for illegal aliens and creating more Democrat voters, cheap labor for businesses, and changing the nature of the nation into one that has a huge underclass to rule, and a ruling overclass that distributes the handouts looted from the evaporating middle class.  It’s how socialists stay in power and how socialism and class warfare works.  Whether or not terrorists stay in the country is irrelevant to them.

–

They care about neither criminals nor terrorists.  To give some idea of how bad sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are, consider that in Massachussetts, the illegal aliens can hit state representatives while driving drunk and laugh because they know there will be no consequences.

What’s going to happen when you start “background checking” all these illegals and find out they’ve stolen social security numbers, have numerous arrests for DUIs, have numerous arrests for domestic abuse, and such?  It’s all very prevalent among illegal aliens, because many of them tend to be low-class unskilled laborers who well know they can commit crimes because the police will do nothing to them because the politicians will deny the law.

To give a perfect anecdotal example of the sanctuary city mentality, a friend of mine rode with state troopers in WI.  The trooper encountered a car that wanted to race with his unmarked police car, and he obliged just enough so he could make an arrest and take the idiot straight to jail.  When they hit a high enough speed (in a safe area), the trooper pulled over the racer.  Turned out the racer, doing 100 mph as his top speed, was an illegal alien.  No arrest.  The illegal alien walked because it’s WI state policy to not arrest illegals.

Every Democrat immigration bill is about expanding their base.  It’s about destroying the nation and securing Democrat power through the Curley Effect, and it’s about giving away the nation because the Ruling Class Democrats don’t feel like you’ve earned your life – no matter how hard you worked or fought for it, so they’re going to give the nation to someone they feel is more deserving.  After all, you didn’t build that.

Leftist Huffpo Is A Joke

First I saw this screencap of a Huffington Post story on Jawa Report:

And I thought, naw, no way they’re that stupid.  There’s no possible way they can be so politically correct as to willingly ignore the mountains of evidence – mostly the Chechen brothers’ own words online and the self-professed ideology they chose to follow.  The media is already crying that Muslims will be victimized, and yet the media really did claim that the brothers muslim terrorist worldview never made a difference.

I looked for the story, but Huffpo, in the face of mocking reality, had finally started to change it – but “no clues” is visible in the Google cache version.

Now it provides “few clues”, as though it still perplexes them.

Initial Questions About the Boston Terrorists

Most of them want to claim credit for what they did.  The question of how long it takes for a terrorist to start announcing it is answered by the Jawa Report:

Sometimes immediately. Sometimes, not so much:

Osama bin Laden didn’t officially take responsibility for the attack until late October 2001 — almost two months after the assault.Then there’s the 2009 “underwear bomb” attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. That attack occurred on Christmas Day — a Friday — but the message by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claiming responsibility didn’t surface until Monday, three days later. (It had been originally dated Saturday but wasn’t published on radical Islamic websites until Monday.)

And how about the Fort Hood shooting in 2009? It took four days for Anwar al-Awlaki to publicly praise his radicalized pupil, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, on his English-language web site for the tragic killing of 13 people in Texas.

And all of this is assuming that the individual who did the deed was directly connected to a larger terror network. Which misses entirely the notion of the “lone wolf jihadist”.

That’s assuming it’s a jihadist, which it may well be.

Also from Jawa Report:

US News:

A person briefed on the Boston Marathon investigation says the explosives were in 6-liter pressure cookers and placed in black duffel bags.The person says the explosives were placed on the ground and contained shards of metal, nails and ball bearings. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

The person says law enforcement officials have some of the bomb components but did not yet know what was used to set off the explosives.

Pictures of the pressure cooker (most likely a stainless steel-INOX Fagor) and bomb fragments from FOX Atlanta:

Ball bearings glued together in sheets to act as fragmentation is a hallmark of Al Qaeda bombs.  Of course, anyone could download Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine and follow their directions, but this has many of the hallmarks of AQ – as Jawa Report also points out.

As a reminder, the magazine as well as components for making a similar bomb were found in PFC Jason Abdo’s room.

Raees Alam Qazi, a 20-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, and his brother, Sheheryar Alam Qaz also wanted to use the same instructions in a plot to blow up tourist sites in New York City.

The magazine and bomb making instructions were widely distributed among would-be jihadis.

Boston

About the only relative good news is that at the end of a marathon, it’s expected that there will be people hurting from the 26 mile run, so EMTs and emergency personnel were there instantly.

The medic that posted the picture (with permission from the father) said the child was launched about 6 feet, but would probably be okay after a recovery period.

One California Man’s Domestic Terror False Flag Operation

Via Jawa Report, from ABC:

Federal agents arrested a California man this morning in a terror sting after he allegedly tried to detonate a car bomb at an Oakland bank as part of a Taliban plot.

The FBI said the explosive device that Matthew Aaron Llaneza, 28, of San Jose tried to use was not operable and posed no threat, and that Llaneza’s Taliban contact was actually an undercover agent.

According to authorities, in November Llaneza met with a man he believed was linked to the Taliban and the mujahideen in Afghanistan. At their initial meeting, Llaneza allegedly proposed a car-bomb attack against a bank and making the bombing look like the work of anti-government militias. According to the criminal complaint, Llaneza wanted to spark a government crackdown and a right-wing backlash that would lead to civil war.

Emphasis by Jawas, but it’s the key point in the story.

Just like murderer and LAPD failure Chris Dorner, who wants his rampage to be part of the push for gun control, there are leftist zealots who’ve so firmly embraced the cause that they will kill others just to get government to come after you.  This is an ideological movement by individuals who believe in the leftist cause so firmly that they will do whatever it takes to get the agenda through.  These people want Cloward and Piven Strategy through violence as well – they want to destroy the US.

They aren’t all George Soros, some of them are just terrorists like Bill Ayers and Brett Kimberlin.

Drone Strikes On Americans Legal According To Obama’s DOJ and The Terrorists In The Living Room Argument

From NBC, via Drudge:

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

HotAir notes that even some leftist media figures find it “frightening”, and more by Ryu Spaeth:

Upon even a cursory examination, however, these constraints are virtually meaningless. The government is not required to “have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.” Furthermore, the feasibility of capture can be determined by several factors, including if it would simply be too risky for U.S. personnel to conduct a capture operation, or if a capture operation would imperil a “relevant window of opportunity.” There are miles of space to maneuver within the so-called constraints.

Enough evidence for a tyrannical regime?  Check.  Too risky to send jack-booted thugs?  Sure.  Relevant window of opportunity?  Check.

Attorney General Eric Holder last year said the Constitution’s guarantee of due process does not necessarily entail a “judicial process” in situations in which national security is at stake.

The state must confiscate guns for the greater good.  The people who want arms are a threat to the state.  They are radical insurrectionists.  The state does not need “judicial process” against people who oppose national security gun confiscation objectives.

That’s just taking things to their unfortunate conclusions.  Methinks the Founding Fathers would be loading their M4s right now.

Scarborough makes a very interesting point at the 12:35 mark at the HotAir video:

Scarborough: (an American could be killed by a US drone strike)  … Because somebody is sitting in the living room of a guy who is a terrorist?

Congressman Harold Ford (D): I’ve never had one in my living room.

Really?  Because Obama has had this terrorist in his living room:

Update: As a counterpoint, Dr. Rusty at Jawa Report notes that provided the sentence is finished with “in Al Qaeda”, the meaning is totally changed.

1) He must be an immanent threat. By immanent, we don’t mean the threat is immediate. What we mean is that the person is involved in operations that will go forward unless he is killed. In other words, we don’t have to wait for a suicide bomber to get on the airplane before we kill him.

2) Capture is infeasible. This means that a terrorist living in France will be treated differently than a terrorist living in Mali. The major difference being that the French police are perfectly capable (assuming they have the backbone) of arresting a suspected terrorist. In the hinterlands of Mali, not so much.

3) The strike must be consistent with the laws of war. Which is just another way of saying we don’t bomb the whole city of Abotabad just because we know bin Laden is there.

I sure hope he’s correct in his interpretation, and that it is limited in scope solely to AQ operatives.  The first few pages of the memo’s justification aren’t about AQ, though the last few pages get more AQ specific.

But then again, the DOJ that wrote it also intentionally armed the narcoterrorist cartels next door and killed hundreds of our Mexican neighbors and two US federal agents; and we’ve already seen the Obama administration’s hostility towards the Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizenry.

Terrorist Bill Ayers and the Left’s Absolute Access To Education

From The Blaze:

“If we want change to come, we would do well not to look at the sites of power we have no access to; the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon,” Ayers added. “We have absolute access to the community, the school, the neighborhood, the street, the classroom, the workplace, the shop, the farm.”

Bill Ayers on 9/11/01:

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”