George W. Obama killing citizens without a trial is ok, say Democrats

us air force drone

Apparently it’s just a-ok with many Democrats if a president ignores laws and kills US citizens without a trial as long as that president is a Democrat. These would be the same compromised poodles who stopped going to antiwar protests when it became apparent that Obama would be elected in 2008. They weren’t antiwar at all, just anti-Bush and now cheerfully support what they opposed when Bush did it.

Greenwald:

DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks

“Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.”

Obama worse or no better than Bush at protecting civil liberties, poll finds

Did Dorner copy his manifesto from Obama’s statement about drones???

captain-obvious

When I saw Bob’s post about Christopher Dorner and read his manifesto, I had this sudden sense of data vu — and then it hit me. Dorner copied his explanation from the one Obama made secretly just a few weeks ago, explaining his drone program!

Here’s the President’s original, eerily similar:

I know most of you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am suspected of committing such horrendous murders and have taken drastic and shocking actions in the last couple of years. You are saying to yourself that this is completely out of character of the man you knew who always wore a smile wherever he was seen.

I know I will be vilified by the Republicans and the media. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur in the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda has not changed since 9/11. It has gotten worse. We never should have slacked off in Afghanistan, or been side-tracked into Iraq. The only thing that has evolved from those decisions is the people who attacked us have been promoted and rewarded”¦.

Delusions of Liberals: Thinking Obama is one of them

Lordy, here we go again. Liberals including Krugman think that Obama just needs to be persuaded to do The Right Thing – that he has bad advisers, needs to stiffen his spine, put back on that Liberalman cape he somehow left in the closet, then swoop in and smite the Republicans.

Gosh, that’s makes a nice fairy tale, doesn’t it? Lots of otherwise smart and sensible people believe it.

Let’s face it, to go by 2009 and the debt ceiling brouhaha, Obama is one fucking shitty negotiator. Unless there is tons of public pressure put on him to do the right thing, I fear he’ll cave in to the Republicans on raising the retirement age, only modestly raising taxes on the rich and cutting social safety nets. Don’t trust Obama, put lots and lots of pressure on him.

First off, Obama is a highly skilled negotiator. He’s shown that many times with his pretend financial reform, by resolutely claiming the right to kill whomever he wants without bothering with Congress, and by refusing to enforce Rule of Law against the banks while mouthing platitudes about reform. He out-negotiated lots of people on these issues. Second, Obama can not cave in to the Republicans because he already essentially agrees with them. All those nasty “entitlements” need to be slashed and the middle class needs a strong dose of Castor Oil austerity. It will taste yucky but the results are guaranteed says Tim Geithner, and he wouldn’t fib to us, would he? Oh wait, Geithner was one of the main architects of the financial disaster and Obama hired him to fix it (when he should have indicted him instead.)

Anyone who thinks Obama will be persuaded by the pleas of liberals to save social safety nets is in denial. Ain’t going to happen.

The Tea Party Economist says Obama is not Marxist

In a detailed post showing serious understanding of Marxism, Gary North presents the basic tenets of Marxism then shows how Obama isn’t even slightly Marxist.

He also traces Obama’s docility and compliance to corporate power back to the early 1990’s when he and Michelle were both disbarred. North believes there is a smoking gun there. (Update: Snopes says they weren’t) Could be, but elsewhere he says what I think is the core of Obama’s rise to power.

The Obamas were both social climbers from early in their lives. They are good, old-fashioned liberals, and they learned a crucial social skill as teenagers: how to work white academic liberals’ racial guilt.

As for the future:

The key to understanding the next four years of Obama is his desire to get a lifetime of speaking engagements at $100,000 each. He is a professional politician. If he does not go beyond what his handlers demand, he is set for life.

This is exactly what Bill Clinton did.