The fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin shocked a nation, inspired tens of thousands to march for justice, and even prompted the US President to declare, ”If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”.
It took nearly six weeks for George Zimmerman, the Florida man accused of killing the teenager, to be arrested and charged with second-degree murder after enormous pressure from the public.
Zimmerman, the captain of a Neighbourhood Watch group, pursued Trayvon because he said that he thought he was acting “suspicious” and was “up to no good”. And that is exactly the same excuse used by President Barack Obama as he justifies ticking off names on a “kill list” for drone attacks.
While Obama called on federal, state, and local authorities to work together as part of the investigation into the killing of Trayvon, just who is going to investigate the President for his extra-judicial killings? He is a man out of control, and while his predecessor justified his actions with a catch-all “God told me to do it”, this president thinks he is God, making decisions about who should live and who should die.
If he was the head of a banana republic, the UN Security Council would be meeting as I write to bring about regime change, with the International Criminal Court on standby with a writ to charge Obama with war crimes.
But the USA is not a banana republic—not yet, anyway—and Obama is the head of a superpower and supposed to be the most powerful man in the world; the man who in 2009 went to Cairo and convinced us all that he was going to engage positively with the Muslim world from the Middle East to Asia.
Looking back at that historic day, all I can visualize is a fox being heralded and saluted by his victims as he walks up the ramp into the chicken coop.
We don’t know how many people Barack Obama has ordered to be killed, but according to the New York Times he has “placed himself at the helm of a top secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical”.
There is huge hypocrisy in the media and from the so-called liberal left when it comes to this particular White House incumbent. The tame journalists who make up the Washington press pack ignore the fact that several times a month around 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to discuss who should live and who should die.
This murderous secret nomination process was the invention of the Democrat Obama Administration, just as the Democrat Bill Clinton Administration brought kidnap and extraordinary rendition flights to the world. Republicans must look on enviously at how the Democrats get away with breaking international laws and conventions without being challenged.
It is almost beyond belief that this kill list has been sanctioned by a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize and ran his US Presidential campaign on a human rights platform. Remember Obama’s declaration that he wanted to close down Guantanamo, end torture, stop secret renditions, and raise the bar in fairness and justice? He clearly doesn’t.
In Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, Obama’s killing machines are not even clinical or always on target; thousands of innocent men, women and children have been taken out by his drone attacks. Their blood is on the US President’s hands, and even his own people are sickened by the hypocrisy and double standards coming out of the White House.
America’s outgoing Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, a man with more backbone and guts than his predecessor, has revealed that he regards the drone strike-driven policy of his government unacceptable. Rather tellingly, he has complained to colleagues that “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people”.
This was revealed in another article published this week in the New York Times, one of the few US media titles finally to adopt a critical stance over Obama’s foreign policies.
I can only assume that Obama’s killing spree has gone largely unchecked by ordinary Americans because they haven’t a clue what this president is doing in their name. This is sad, because Americans do care about justice and fair play; they showed this when they rallied and demonstrated after the killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin by a man who thought he was “up to no good”.
Trayvon’s killer will now stand trial for his actions and his fate will be decided by a judge and jury looking at openly presented evidence. That is real justice, not the shoot and kill version which is coming to define Obama’s presidency.
Many of us who cheered when the first non-white president moved into the White House were hoping for a new era of peace and justice, but we have been conned. The true Barack Obama is an out of control psychopathic killer with a loaded God complex, and he’s running America. This makes him the most dangerous man in the world as well as the most powerful. And that should make every right-minded person in America and beyond shudder with disbelief.
This is soo true , in a way the color and muslim background of obama was a fake disguise just to proceed in the terror which Bush Junior already established in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US foreign policy was so exposed as anti muslim , raciest policy that it needed a black , muslim fathered president with a true jewish capitalistic and narsasitic self!
“The true Barack Obama is an out of control psychopathic killer with a loaded God complex . . .
”
What is the purpose of this statement, and in a larger sense, this piece? This type of over-the-top hyperbole convinces no one. Is the purpose of the article to make convincing arguments, or rather to regurgitate outlandish opinions for like-minded readers? If the latter, what does that accomplish? The fringe talking to the fringe in fringe terms achieves absolutley nothing. If on the other hand the author is trying to convince a wider audience, how can this be done by employing this type of language? Arguments are not won by ad hominem attacks. This type of prose simply marginalizes the author for that 99% of the population which, while it may disagree vehemently with some of Obama’s policies, does not for aminute believe he is a “psychopath”. You’re simply ruining your argument with this type of language.
John, it’s not hyperbole. Read the book “Snakes in Suits” by Babiak and Hare. Obama’s behavior reveals classic characteristics of a psychopath.
proving once again that dialogue can stand on it’s own virtues…
but will that generate revenue ads?.
For a peace prize winner, Obama is really the opposite. He would really relish bombing Syria to the middle ages, like President Johnson did to Vietnam. Obama is becoming more and more violent, sending his drones into Pakistan more frequently than ever. The only way for the US to understand the sorrow the rest of the world suffers because of US policies is for it to experience the fire and death of war on its territory. Perhaps that is too much for any one to expect. We must not wish death to our fellow humans. However, Asians wait patiently for the day of reckoning when all the death, suffering and misery of Asia and the rest of the world, is avenged. Perhaps that will the day the world ends.
Is the author tring to make a public stunt? We live in a world where the farthest you stand on your argument the more likely recognized you become.I honestly don’t believe there is a sane citizen who would buy this cheap propaganda.
Propaganda? Obama has declared for himself the power to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner and assassinate American citizens. Wake up, America.
Wake-up mate you seem to be living in a world of illusion or suffering from denial. Objectively try and discredit any point of the article. Just by saying its a public stunt is a typical stunt used by the mainstream media and you seem to be using it as well.
Jeremy, I’m familiar with “Snakes in Suits”, but I don’t agree that it applies to Obama. If Obama is a psychopath, then Lincoln and Churchill were, too.
The real point I was trying to make is that this type of over-the-top rhetoric convinces no one but the true believers, while it turns off the other 99%. While I don’t think that Ms. Ridley’s argument stands on its merits, that’s almost beside the point. Why marginalize oneself and the publication one is writing for by using such language?
Is the purpose of our writing to persuade and convince the broadest possible audience, or to make ourselves and a tiny circle of believers feel good? It seems to me that the former is the only cause worth our time and effort.
Lincoln and Churchill as psychopaths. Hmm, interesting suggestion. It’s possible, I suppose.
I am pretty sure that even before he became president Obama was informed or realized that the President does not make the truly important decisions which are all taken by the Pentagon-CIA-National Security establishment. What he is doing now with the ‘kill lists’ is merely more posing. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a democracy facade.
Whatever one might label a particular behaviour to attract attention surely the most important point here is the moral and legal position of Obama in relation to the,so-called, ‘kill lists’. Many will point to the ‘realpolitik’ of taking the fight to the opposition and eradicating the potential enemies of America; completely consistent with the foreign policy evolution in the US since Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz et. al began their crusade back in the 70’s! The counter-point might be that if western liberal democracies are ever to find a legitimate position as ‘champions of democracy’ they must, in ALL that they do in the name of foreign policy, practice what they preach! We have seen the first option tried, tested and dismally fail..including Obama’s extensions and appalling additions to this policy! Ain’t it about time we REALLY went for option two for a change – the only option,in my view, consistent with international law, the US constitution and any other legislation worth considering!
The thesis that Obama controls our foreign and domestic policies tends to run up against the optomistic illusion that he calls the shots.
I’ve been a Democrat for 60 years until the recent Supreme Court decision re corporate campaign contributions to politicians (you can do the math here with reference to how candidates get elected.)
In previous decades one could say there was an American “ethos” having to do with civility and what constitutes fair play in business.
That certain Anglo-Saxon code of respect is gone.
So now the question is, in the banking-Wall Street community, “can we get away with it?…And if we can’t, can we pose a semi-credible defense to settle with a financial slap on the wrist.
Unfortunately, the Presidentcy has become an honorary office.
with the bushes, at least u know the score
with obama , u dont even know u’re being penetrated
http://tinyurl.com/29fxzcx