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.
Obama's US Assassination Program? Part 2
Updated 08/03/2010 ET
Last week, I gave evidence of how the Obama administration is importing its overseas policy of assassination and implementing it stateside against U.S. citizens it deems as radical threats to American security and safety. (If you have not read Part 1, please do so before you read the rest of Part 2.)
I will reiterate a couple of key points. Deputy national security adviser John Brennan explained 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."
A former director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, even 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."
President Barack Obama himself 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."
Now it finally is coming to light why, back on Dec. 16, President Obama signed an executive order "designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities."
It all comes down to one basic verb. Can you find it in the following paragraph?
Obama's executive order reads, "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)..."
There's the magic verb: "to extend"!
As I wrote earlier in the year in a column on Interpol, titled "Obama's Secret Vault," is it also just coincidental that Interpol is exempt from typical American search and seizure laws?
Anyone still not connecting the dots?
There is one more titanic element that I must stress. The one overriding dilemma for Americans in Obama's hunt for homegrown terrorists is that he has changed the definitions of terrorism and terrorists. Their definitions no longer necessarily include or imply Islamic extremism or extremists.
Don't ever forget: Obama and his administration repeatedly have played down the actual threat of terrorism by Islamic jihadists. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama promised to close down Gitmo in the first year of his presidency because, he said, it was an affront to American values and justice. He also promised to end the "warrantless wiretaps" of George W. Bush. In March 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proclaimed there is no terrorism -- only "man-caused disasters." In the same month, the Obama administration also proclaimed that there are "no enemy combatants" and "no war on terror" -- only "overseas contingency operations." And in May 2010, Brennan, Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, added, "Nor we do describe our enemy as 'jihadists.'"
Therefore, we are left to wonder: To the Obama administration, what exactly qualifies as radical extremism and terrorism, and who is on its "shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"? Consider even now who might fall into this category of non-Islamic, non-jihadist, stateside, homegrown terrorists. Do I need to make a list?
That's another thing that really chaps my hide. While Obama ratchets up the power and pursuit of homegrown U.S. terrorists, why in God's name is he loosening his grip over Muslim extremists who are planning, recruiting and seeking to carry out harm against the very U.S. citizens he has sworn to protect?
Am I missing something?
Has the White House not completely strayed when the president of the United States minimizes the role of Islamic jihadists, reserves the right to assassinate U.S. citizens regarded as terrorists without due process or a trial, increases the powers of law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol) that are not bound to search and seizure laws, sues the state of Arizona for enforcing illegal immigration and border control, and does nothing to prohibit an Islamic victory mega-mosque on the edge of ground zero?
I guess the Obama administration forgot to read the Dec. 4, 1981, Executive Order 12333, signed by then-President Ronald Reagan: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. ... No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."
Tragically, the administration also is abandoning the fundamental principles of due process, habeas corpus and our Constitution, which states in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
God, help us. God, protect U.S. citizens. God, save our courts. God, save our land. God, restore our republic.
(Check out other reasons I oppose the Obama administration in my new patriot service announcement at http://www.BlackBeltPatriotism.com.)