“Irresponsible”

It’s interesting to take a look at how Barack Hussein Obama II, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani all used the same word in different ways.

Here is a reminder of what Obama thinks qualifies as “irresponsible”:

“I felt that it would be irresponsible for me, with the first $350 billion already spent, to enter into the administration without any potential ammunition should there be some sort of emergency or weakening of the financial system.”

– Barack Hussein Obama II
January 13, 2009
U.S. Seeks Rest of Bailout Cash

Got that? Even though he said, “it would be irresponsible for me…” it was one of the few times that he wasn’t actually talking about himself. Obama doesn’t criticize himself.

When he said, “it would be irresponsible for me … to enter into the administration without any potential ammunition” he was really saying “it would be irresponsible for President Bush to leave the administration without giving me the other $350 Billion!”

So Obama got to have his cake and eat it, too. Obama got the $350 Billion from Bush, and Obama got to blame Bush for the increase to our debt under Bush’s tenure!

(By the way, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the exact opposite of what Obama said. Boehner said that he did not think the remaining TARP funds (approximately $350 billion) should be released. “Until there is a demonstrated need and a plan to address those needs,” he said, “it would be irresponsible to release those funds.“)

Bush should not have released the other $350 Billion. He should have let Obama ask for it. But President Bush was gullible, and he trusted people he shouldn’t have trusted. Two of the people topping that list of people who Bush should not have trusted: Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, and Barack Hussein Obama II.

Now, what has Obama done recently that is not just “irresponsible”, but highly “dangerous”?

What is the Obama decision that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says is ‘Dangerous and Irresponsible’ and ‘absolutely unnecessary’?

‘Dangerous and Irresponsible’

Now this:
Geithner: Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is “irresponsible”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to “Irresponsible”

  1. ladysforest says:

    Dangerous and irresponsible indeed. Stupid. Ignorant. Arrogant. Appalling.

    Please everyone, go to The Bravest and sign the online petition!

    http://www.thebravest.com/ObamaLetter110909.htm

  2. Math says:

    Ladyforest: why are you so afraid for them to stand a real trial (after years of incarceration without one) if you’re so convinced they’re already guilty?

  3. Math,

    You question was already answered in detail by Rudy Giuliani.

    Try watching the video.

  4. Bhishma says:

    Obviously, Math cares more for bloodthirsty, jihadi killers than for their American victims.

  5. Jonah says:

    In regards to Giuliani’s insistence that our combatting terrorism be framed as a war, I think Yglesias has the right idea here.

    Bhishma, it would be pretty great if you could acknowledge that those on the left care about America too, and maybe, just maybe, we think trying terrorists in a court of law is a good thing because of our patriotism. If you want to disagree with the effectiveness of our ideas, go ahead. But stop it with the “terrorist sympathizers!” nonsense. I thought we grew past that already.

  6. Math says:

    Obviously, Bhisma cares more for a torturing, imprison-indefinitely-without-a-trial America, than for a justice-loving America. See how easy that was?

  7. Sally Hill says:

    Johah – ‘terrorist sympathizers’ is to Dems as ‘racists’ are to Repubs. While I don’t disagree with Bhishma – I do think a majority of Dems are terrorist sympathizers, as it seems you that faction always wants to support the suspects – I mean, contacting Al Qaeda isn’t against the law is it???? Geeze.

    Apparently the differences are not so much what we believe as much as our differences of what patriotism means.

    Math and Jonah need to re-examine their patriotic priorities. The victims are 9/11 were AMERICANS and as such they deserve our FULL support, no matter our differences. If that support encompasses torture – so be it. If that support encompasses indefinite imprisonment, so be it.

    If Math and Jonah can show me a time when America has ever been a justice-loving America, then they might have a point. Where you find politicians, you find corruption. Where you find corruption you WILL NOT find justice. The country was founded by politicians – even the founding fathers had their faults, as intelligent and insightful as they might have been. America is not and has never been without our faults.

    You both need to grow up and join us in the real world and stop living in your imagined utopia world.

  8. RedPillIsNotAPatriot says:

    Giuliani praising the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers in Federal Court:

    “It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,” he said, “that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.”

  9. Math says:

    Math and Jonah need to re-examine their patriotic priorities. The victims are 9/11 were AMERICANS and as such they deserve our FULL support, no matter our differences. If that support encompasses torture – so be it. If that support encompasses indefinite imprisonment, so be it.

    If you really believe that, then they, as well as the countless before them, have died in vain, and the terrorists have won.

  10. Jonah says:

    Sally Hill,

    ‘terrorist sympathizers’ is to Dems as ‘racists’ are to Repubs.

    Right, both accusations are hurled way too often. It’s disappointing to see you revert to such accusations in the next sentence after acknowledging their overuse.

    Math and Jonah need to re-examine their patriotic priorities. The victims are 9/11 were AMERICANS and as such they deserve our FULL support, no matter our differences. If that support encompasses torture – so be it. If that support encompasses indefinite imprisonment, so be it.

    Okay, but what makes you think that support encompasses torture? Because some victims’ families think it does? A lot of victims’ families are against torture, too (keep in mind 9/11 victims were largely liberals). Some are overjoyed that their relatives’ killers will finally have to stand trial for their crimes. How do we decide whose opinion matters more?

    The point of being a nation of laws is that we don’t have to decide. The laws are there for us. I’m sorry if you think bringing these killers to justice will do irreparable harm to our nation (though nobody has really explained how), but the law should be followed. Analogously, I think that removing an elected president over birth technicalities would cause irreparable harm to our republic, but I agree with Red that the Constitution should be followed if it turns out that Obama really was born abroad.

    The point of having principles is that you follow them, even when it’s inconvenient to do so. If you abandon your principles because politicians have been corrupt in the past, or because some people might have their feelings hurt, or because it’s a lot of work to do the right thing, then they weren’t really principles in the first place.

    You both need to grow up and join us in the real world and stop living in your imagined utopia world.

    That would be a lot more convincing if the objections to closing Guantanamo had anything to do with the real world. I just keep hearing fantasies about how terrorists will be able to escape from maximum security prisons, or superstitions about how having them on “our soil” makes us more vulnerable, or how prisoners in solitary confinement will be able to encourage other prisoners to become terrorists too.

  11. Math’s idea of “torture”: Waterboarding.

    KSM’s idea of “torture”: Using a knife to saw through the neck of a live “infidel”, and then posting the video on the Internet.

    I’d rather choose to be waterboarded every day for a month, rather than go through what Daniel Pearl went through.

    But go ahead, Math, say that we’re the bad guys.

  12. The left-coast commenter previously known as “YouShouldTakeAChillPill” and “none” now goes by the name “RedPillIsNotAPatriot”.

  13. Math says:

    I’d rather choose to be waterboarded every day for a month, rather than go through what Daniel Pearl went through.

    So you’re saying that mild torture is ok, but not hardcore torture? How about torture is bad, period? What’s so complicated about that?

    I have a bucket right here, when do we start? Let’s see if you change your mind after the first few times.

    But go ahead, Math, say that we’re the bad guys.

    Did I say that? What’s wrong with standing up for your values in face of the enemy? What’s with that mentality of “it’s ok because they do much worse”?

  14. Jonah says:

    But go ahead, Math, say that we’re the bad guys.

    You’re both bad guys*, and you should know better. It’s not enough to simply be “less bad” than the opposition, is it?

    *I’m using “you” in the rhetorical sense. As far as I know you haven’t actually waterboarded anyone.

  15. Math says:

    You’re both bad guys*, and you should know better. It’s not enough to simply be “less bad” than the opposition, is it?

    I’m sorry but what in my comments led you to believe that I think waterboarding is ok?

  16. Sally Hill says:

    It’s disappointing to see you revert to such accusations

    Your right….I should have clarified a bit better. The media has played a large role in my conclusions and it is hard not to lump the Jonah’s and Math’s in with the liberal media – my apologizes.

    Okay, but what makes you think that support encompasses torture?

    Okay, but what makes you think it doesn’t encompass torture?
    I don’t really have an answer for that other than to try and put myself in the shoes of those right after 9/11. If I knew I had a high ranking terrorist in custody and I desperately wanted ALL the information he had, I very well might resort to torture in order to save American lives. But as a civilian American citizen that is NOT my call, we have government officials who make those calls and agencies who carry out the orders of the government officials – many of whom we elected to those offices. So, if you didn’t actually vote for the guy, then you don’t have a patriotic duty to support him in his decisions even if you disagree with him? Remember – that works both ways.

    Where do you draw the line about who is right and who is wrong? I don’t necessarily think torture is right or just, but apparently those that the American people elected did, so as an American I feel that I need to support their decisions, even if I don’t agree with them.

    Obama and Holder want to prosecute the Bush administration for what they deem as war crimes….least Obama and Holder be very careful as the next administration might well decide they, too, have committed crimes for which they should be held accountable for. I could name many which I feel Obama is guilty of, but because he is the elected President, I feel I must support his decisions although I don’t agree. I would never support a future administration going after the Obama administration, just as I don’t support the Obama administration going after the Bush administration. It is UNAmerican.

    As far as the terrorists – what is wrong with Gitmo? The men held there are terrorist, not your common criminal. There has been a ton of money poured in to state of the art tribunal courtrooms to hear these trials – why not hold them at Gitmo and carry out sentencing there? These men WANT to be brought to the US and treated as common criminals within our justice system which was never set up or regulated to deal with terrorists and foreign land combatants. Why give them what they want? However, if that is to be Obama’s decision, I will voice my opposition, but I will support it and hope that it will work for the American people.

    I agree with Red that the Constitution should be followed if it turns out that Obama really was born abroad.

    Obama is not a NBC no matter where he was born. He was born with dual allegiances / dual citizenship and thus cannot be a NBC and is ineligible to be POTUS.
    My problem with Obama is his actions, not his words. He can say he is an American Christian all day long, but he just puts doubts in my mind with his actions. Why cover a religious cross behind you if you are Christian? Where did he get the notion that America is a predominantly Muslim country? Why does he want to buddy up SOO closely to the Muslim countries?
    And my problem with his citizenship are his obvious ties to Kenya.
    Why did he travel to Kenya on the American taxpayer dollar, as a Senator, to campaign for a paternal relative? I can only come up with 3 possible answers.
    1. Out of paternal loyalty – irrespective of Odinga’s political beliefs.
    2. Because he too, believes in Sharia Law – perhaps no loyalty involved.
    3. Because he just rides the wind and acts impulsively with no regard for the consequences of his actions. Perhaps he just felt it was the thing to do at that moment – no political or self convictions.

    Once you explain those actions away – then try explaining away his Czars and appointments….such as Harold Koh who not only believes in Sharia Law, but also transnationalism.

    So, I’m curious – with regard to past and present actions, just what ‘principals’ do you think Obama possesses that he following?

  17. Jonah says:

    I’m sorry but what in my comments led you to believe that I think waterboarding is ok?

    You’ll note by the time stamp that I was simultaneously replying to Red, and you just hit the Submit button faster.

  18. Math says:

    These men WANT to be brought to the US and treated as common criminals within our justice system which was never set up or regulated to deal with terrorists and foreign land combatants.

    The crime they’re accused of was committed in Manhattan, not foreign land. The foreign land combatants will still be dealt with by martial courts.

    Obama is not a NBC no matter where he was born. He was born with dual allegiances / dual citizenship and thus cannot be a NBC and is ineligible to be POTUS.

    I guess that depends on your definition of NBC doesn’t it? The fact that he’s in office right now is indication that this is not that simple.

    Once you explain those actions away – then try explaining away his Czars and appointments….such as Harold Koh who not only believes in Sharia Law, but also transnationalism.

    What’s wrong with Sharia if both parties are consenting and it falls within the boundaries of the US law? How is it so different that, say, mediation? I don’t know what his exact thoughts are, especially given the one sentence quote that’s floating around, but I really doubt he meant to say that they should start applying the whole thing, lapidation and whatever else included, or that it should apply to everyone.

    But if two Muslims agree to its terms, and it can settle their dispute, and no illegal act was committed, where’s the harm in that?

  19. Math says:

    You’ll note by the time stamp that I was simultaneously replying to Red, and you just hit the Submit button faster.

    Obviously I meant the comments before the one sent 1 minute before yours where I explicitly say waterboarding is wrong! ;-) But that’s ok, no harm done. I just want to make sure my position is 100% clear.

  20. Jonah says:

    Oh, WordPress.

  21. ladysforest says:

    Redpill,
    Could you be more wrong? You said

    Math’s idea of “torture”: Waterboarding.

    KSM’s idea of “torture”: Using a knife to saw through the neck of a live “infidel”, and then posting the video on the Internet.

    Your use of the word “knife” was irresponsible. Why do I say this? Because you completely left it up to the readers to suppose the knives the KSM use are sharp – I don’t believe that to be the case. They have to exert far more energy in sawing off an infidel’s head with the dull knives that they like to use. I’ll bet the infidel was given the choice of which fate they would prefer, waterboarding or beheading, so we can’t call the headless dead person a victim. After all, since waterboarding is clearly considered the worst torture a person could suffer through, it’s no wonder the infidel opted for having his head removed while he was alive and could appreciate every nuance of the experience.

  22. Math says:

    Ah ladysforest. Nice to see you again. I see you’re still irrelevant as ever.

    Explain to me how this:

    I’d rather choose to be waterboarded every day for a month, rather than go through what Daniel Pearl went through.

    So you’re saying that mild torture is ok, but not hardcore torture? How about torture is bad, period? What’s so complicated about that?

    gets processed in your mind, and this conclusion is what comes out of it is this:

    After all, since waterboarding is clearly considered the worst torture a person could suffer through, it’s no wonder the infidel opted for having his head removed while he was alive and could appreciate every nuance of the experience.

    Perhaps you don’t grasp the subtle nuance between the words “mild” and “hardcore”?

    Again, if waterboarding is such a fun thing to go through, when can I show up at your place with my bucket, so we can have a good ol’ time together?

  23. Math says:

    Oh, WordPress.

    So who got banned this time? Someone we know?

  24. Sally Hill says:

    What’s wrong with Sharia

    EXCUSE ME?

    I’m guessing you are male.

    So, let me get this straight – you have no problems with slavery, additional tax, and of course, absolute non-tolerance of homosexuality?

    Or – are those the pieces and parts you figure he isn’t considering adopting?

    I didn’t realize Sharia was a pick and choose type of law. Either you believe or you don’t. Either you are Muslim are you are not. If you are not, then you pay a tax for being of a different religion.

    You think Sharia Law is a type of mediation???????

    I noticed you chose not to address his little trip to Kenya.

  25. Jonah says:

    Where do you draw the line about who is right and who is wrong? I don’t necessarily think torture is right or just, but apparently those that the American people elected did, so as an American I feel that I need to support their decisions, even if I don’t agree with them.

    I think your view of how our government operates is a little disturbing. The American people owe nothing to their elected leaders, certainly not “support” for decisions with which we don’t agree. Our obligation is to follow the law, and nothing further.

    That said, I also think we tend to get the leaders we deserve. And in the case of torture, we as a people fundamentally failed. We failed to get outraged at the abuses committed in our name, and so the moral stain of this travesty is on all of us.

    At any rate, I think our country should always be willing to admit when it has made mistakes and seek to correct those mistakes, even if it means prosecuting former officials. Conservatives seems to have this fantasy of American exceptionalism, but we can’t be exceptional by sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming “lalalalala” when confronted with our own mistakes. Torture is wrong, period (it’s depressing that I still find myself arguing with people over that fact), and we can’t move on without at least acknowledging that we messed up.

    Why did he travel to Kenya on the American taxpayer dollar, as a Senator, to campaign for a paternal relative?

    I’m more interested in discussing issues than in discussing people (which is why I’m ignoring the part of your post related to Obama), but I’m pretty sure this sentence is misleading at best. But again, I’m not really interested in discussing this line further; my reasons for opposing torture and supporting trials for terrorists have nothing to do with Obama.

    Finally, on the Sharia law point, I don’t really know what Math is talking about, but I’m pretty sure you can’t excise subordinate clauses from a sentence without changing the meaning. Obviously slavery, additional taxes, and non-tolerance of homosexuality violate the “consenting” and “boundaries of US law” part of Math’s argument. And really, to say that Koh “believes in Sharia law” is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? Let’s keep this argument fact-based.

    Red, I’d really like to hear an answer to this question:

    It’s not enough to simply be “less bad” than the opposition, is it?

    Repeatedly you’ve made the claim that because the terrorists are worse than us, our actions must be moral. Do you actually believe that?

  26. Red, I’d really like to hear an answer to this question:

    It’s not enough to simply be “less bad” than the opposition, is it?

    In my opinion, no.

    Repeatedly you’ve made the claim that because the terrorists are worse than us, our actions must be moral.

    That is not a true statement. Please give the multiple quotes where I’ve supposedly repeatedly “made the claim that because the terrorists are worse than us, our actions must be moral.”

    If you want to talk about morality, and what I think about morality, then the conversation will turn to quoting the Bible.

    I’ll go there if you want. Is that what you want?

  27. Jonah says:

    In my opinion, no.

    Thanks, that’s what I was hoping to hear.

    That is not a true statement. Please give the multiple quotes where I’ve supposedly repeatedly “made the claim that because the terrorists are worse than us, our actions must be moral.”

    I guess that was poorly phrased. Let me try again: “Repeatedly you’ve found the fact that the terrorists are worse than us to be sufficient proof that we have the moral highground.” One quote would be your comment at 3:05 yesterday. Another would be your second comment here. (Not surprisingly, we were talking about the same thing.) I vaguely remember others, but I’m not feeling up for searching, and two already qualifies as “multiple”.

    At any rate, all I want is for you to abandon this fallacy of using terrorists as a baseline for our morality. If you’d like to use the Bible as your source for moral guidelines, I’d see that as an improvement over merely trying to be better than Al Qaeda.

  28. Sally Hill says:

    I think your view of how our government operates is a little disturbing. The American people owe nothing to their elected leaders, certainly not “support” for decisions with which we don’t agree. Our obligation is to follow the law, and nothing further.

    Likewise, I think your view of how our government operates is a lot more than just a little disturbing. So, I take it that you are ok when the American people that oppose Obama are disrespectful of him? I guess that would make sense, given the history of what Bush endured for 8 years. However, I totally disagree. We are ALL Americans first – I did NOT vote for Obama and I severely detest his policies and ideologies, but as an American, he is owed my respect since he was elected by the people as POTUS. I’m sorry that you find that fact disturbing.

    Furthermore – the law is not black and white as you seem to suggest. If it were, there would be absolutely no need for SCOTUS. So what you are suggesting is NOT that it is America’s duty to follow the law and nothing more – but that it IS America’s duty to follow YOUR OPINION of how the law is interpreted. Personally, I find that quite disturbing, in deed.

    and we can’t move on without at least acknowledging that we messed up.

    In that Obama has time and again admitted this, time and again has apologized for our supposed past transgressions – I think it is WAY PAST time to move on.

    Again – when and where did YOUR OPINION become FACT? Who says torture is wrong? Who says we messed up? I, too, think torture is wrong – is most cases – but I can guarantee you that if my family were at stake – I would NOT rule out torture in order to save my son or daughter. I think it was desperation on the part of the Bush Administration to torture, and I do not think it was done as a matter of standard operating procedure. Therefore – we must NEVER hold past administrations liable for what people perceive as unlawful in their OPINION. If you have a problem, take the issue (not the administration) to SCOTUS and proceed from there.

    I find it interesting that Obama’s trip to Kenya is always subverted by those that support him.

    And really, to say that Koh “believes in Sharia law” is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?

    I’m not sure what is exaggerated about that statement at all. I’m also not surprised that you would want to defend Koh since he believes the US is the axil of disobedience and the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

    I guess when Koh says that JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal “norms” and Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts, what he really meant to say (since he picked Sharia Law to cite an example) was that he totally disagrees with Sharia Law….yeah, right.

    Koh believes issues ranging from affirmative action, the interrogation of terrorists to Rights of a Child, what the rest of the world says, goes. In that his views of interrogation of terrorists IS relevant to this conversation – please explain to me exactly how I have exaggerated his view on the matter.

  29. Math says:

    Obviously slavery, additional taxes, and non-tolerance of homosexuality violate the “consenting” and “boundaries of US law” part of Math’s argument.

    I didn’t think the original message was worth answering, but thanks for clearing that up for me.

  30. Jonah says:

    So, I take it that you are ok when the American people that oppose Obama are disrespectful of him?

    I don’t think the American people have an obligation to be respectful, no. I think it’s nice when they do, and in a perfectly polite world everyone would be respectful all the time, but I certainly don’t think anyone should go to jail for being disrespectful.

    I’ll pause right now and posit that maybe we’re using the words “duty” and “obligation” differently. If so, maybe we’re not actually disagreeing about anything, but just arguing about different things.

    So what you are suggesting is NOT that it is America’s duty to follow the law and nothing more – but that it IS America’s duty to follow YOUR OPINION of how the law is interpreted.

    I’m not sure how my opinion has anything to do with it. But yes, it I suppose it is our duty to follow current judicial opinion on the law, sure.

    Who says torture is wrong?

    Is that a serious question? Again, the fact that the American people need to have a debate about whether torture is wrong is deeply depressing.

    I, too, think torture is wrong – is most cases – but I can guarantee you that if my family were at stake – I would NOT rule out torture in order to save my son or daughter.

    That’s probably true, yes. But when our families are at stake, we’re willing to do all sorts of immoral things. Good policy is decided by the cool-headed. Just because we’d behave rashly in extraordinary circumstances doesn’t mean that rash behavior is actually correct.

    I think it was desperation on the part of the Bush Administration to torture, and I do not think it was done as a matter of standard operating procedure.

    I think you’re being a little optimistic here, but even if you’re correct, it shouldn’t matter. A crime is a crime, even when it’s done with the best of intentions.

    Therefore – we must NEVER hold past administrations liable for what people perceive as unlawful in their OPINION.

    For all the crowing on the right about moral relativism, it’s disconcerting to see a conservative embracing legal relativism. Hey, as long as it’s my OPINION that murder is legal, I guess I can get away with it, right?

    As for Koh (who probably didn’t even say anything of the sort about Sharia in the first place), I’m not interested in talking about him any more than I’m interested in talking about Obama, but it seems to me that you haven’t the faintest idea of what transnationalism is, if you think it means erasing the distinction between US law and international law.

  31. Aaron says:

    If Bush gets put on trial for “war crimes” it will only serve to show everyone the true face of the left. A petty, vitriolic, spiteful, vengeful, childish movement whose only desire to ever “move on” comes up when one of their own is called out for wrong-doing. Hence the formation of moveon.org, whose first desire was to “move on” from the scandal surrounding Clinton’s ACTAUL, PROVEN, criminal fraud in Whitewater. They just used the Monica BJ story to distract attention from actual crimes Clinton was committing.

    Hypocrates.

  32. Jonah says:

    If Bush gets put on trial for “war crimes” it will only serve to show everyone the true face of the left.

    I’m not sure where in this discussion you got the idea that Bush would be put on trial.

    Hypocrates.

    Ancient Greece has nothing to do with it.

  33. ladysforest says:

    Hey, Math. I see that you are still running around in your big ole shiny Troll suit. But I can’t play with you for a few days buddy. My Gram passed away last evening, so I must focus on the family for now. But you should keep up the posting Math, it gives everyone such a perfect look into what the obama administration is promoting. You are our window into that world.

  34. Math says:

    But I can’t play with you for a few days buddy. My Gram passed away last evening

    I’m sorry to hear that. My sincere condolences.

    it gives everyone such a perfect look into what the obama administration is promoting. You are our window into that world.

    You do know I’m from Canada right?

  35. Jonah says:

    Yeah, pretty sure I’m the only resident ‘merican lib’rul ’round these parts.

  36. November 15, 2009 at 11:29 am Math said:

    Ladyforest: why are you so afraid for them to stand a real trial (after years of incarceration without one) if you’re so convinced they’re already guilty?

    Let’s go back to what Senator Chuck Schumer said:

    It is clear we need to try those suspects in a forum that achieves two primary goals—two goals, I might add, that may not conflict.

    First, the Government must have the power to use even the most sensitive classified evidence against these suspects without compromising national security in any way, shape, or form.

    In addition, those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive.

    Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.

    Schumer was right when he said that. It was right eight years ago, and it’s right now.

    It’s too bad the Schumer of 2009 has changed his mind, and he now supports the very thing that he said was “ludicrous to suggest” in 2001.

  37. ladysforest,

    I pray for the Holy Spirit to comfort you and your family.

  38. Pingback: Inherited? No, Instigated! « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  39. Pingback: The Federal Reserve, Great Depressions, and Socialism « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  40. Pingback: Honey Trail Redux

  41. Un-happy anniversary: TARP turns 3
    By Michelle Malkin • October 3, 2011 01:09 PM

  42. Miri says:

    What a group you have here, Red Pill! Great post. I came over to check out your latest. I read about that pre-trial hearing in today’s paper. Last page of second section. An afterthought. Saw that the judge gave KSM a big platform for spouting his lies and hate, rubbing salt in the wounds of the victims’ families. Exactly what so many feared. Justice? Hardly. Whatever the outcome, it will drag on and become another grudge for the jihadists. One wonders how long before deals are made to release him, like they’re discussing sending the “Blind Sheikh” back to Egypt, to become a new OBL-like cult leader. Obama was talking about Guantanamo recently. How he’s not yet reached his goal of closing it. Why do I suspect that the goal will be reached as he’s leaving office? When he just ups and releases all the prisoners, maybe even with pardons? Go and sin no more.

    ladysforest: Sincere condolences to your family on the loss of your grandmother. God rest her soul. There’s a special place in heaven for grandmothers. Up there with the rest of the angels.

  43. Miri,
    Thank you for your comment. I hope I didn’t throw you off with a current link (from WTPOTUS) to this three-year-old post. I wrote this in Nov 2009…

  44. Miri says:

    Ha! You did throw me off. I didn’t notice that it was an old post at all. I read the comments, too. Nothing seemed old or out of date. I still send my condolences to ladysforest. One never gets over such a loss, even though the years pass. Someday, we’ll all be together again. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s