BO Uses the "T" Word!

For the past year we have been told that we are to no longer use the "T" word. The BO administration (BOA) has stated that "terrorists" are "enemy combatants". We do not call the attacks against us as terrorism or the people who carry them out as terrorists. Our media tries to de-emphasize the Arab or Muslim background of these poor and misunderstood individuals. Prior to having any facts about those who carry out terrorists attacks, we are "officially" told that it must have been done by some lone, isolated, depressed, middle-aged, white man, a Christian, right-wing, tea party and NRA member who listens to Rush or Palin.

So far, the BOA is batting "0". They have been exactly wrong each and every time. All of the recent attacks and attempted attacks have been Muslims, each and every one of them.

But, with all of the media and BOA downplaying of the Arab/Muslim connection, BO has recently surprised just about everyone. Not only is he using the "T" word, but he has gone further than what Bush did when the Left and BO sharply criticized him. Bush came under attack by gaining the authority to listen to phone calls of US citizens without first obtaining a warrant, if they were suspected of having a link to terrorism. Bush also detained the enemy without a trial, when captured on the battlefield, and one of those held was a US citizen who was caught fighting against us. When Bush did these things, the Left actually found and dusted off their old copies of the Constitution and found a place where it states that this cannot be done. He came under extreme ridicule for not following the Constitution.

During the last presidential campaign, BO was asked a question on a survey of the candidates, presented by the Boston Globe: "Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" BO's answer: "No, I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants."

BO also joined in attacking Bush over the eavesdropping on the phone calls of citizens as being unconstitutional.

So, where does our fair nation stand now that BO and the Left are in charge? Once elected, BO had a revelation that the extra powers Bush assumed under the Patriotic Act could come in handy and he not only kept them but has expanded them. The Bush "Terrorist Watch List" has been expanded under BO to include conservative, U.S. citizens who have bumper stickers or attend Tea Party events. As to the detainees, most are still in Gitmo (the same "unlawful" prison camp that BO vowed to close on several occasions with several deadlines now come and gone).

BO has never been accused of not pushing the bar further than his predecessor. But, the recent announcement and articles about his latest move pretty much astound everyone.

BO, our leader who publicly denies the terrorist threat to our nation, has apparently ordered the CIA to assassinate, on sight, anywhere they find him, a U.S. citizen. There will be no trial, no evidence, no defense, no witnesses, no verdict, no additional sentencing. The order, by the President, is to kill him.

Who is the target? He may be as bad as they come but at this point, he is an American citizen and what is left of the Constitution should still apply. Remember the old saying, "Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Well, that does not apply, according to BO, in the case of someone that the BOA believes to be participating in acts of terrorism. Anwar al-Awlaki, and American-born, Islamic cleric is believed to have crossed the line from encouraging attacks against his homeland to helping plan or carry out such attacks as a member of Al Qaeda.

Your first reaction may be, "I agree with BO for the very first time, if you find the guy, gun him down, stop his radical work and end his threat." We are talking about the murder of a U.S. citizen, by our government, wherever they find him. My personal feelings are that if there is good evidence against him that he is helping to kill Americans at home or abroad, try to find him, attempt to apprehend him and bring him back to face justice. But, if he fights back, when found, use the means necessary to prevent his escape and protect the agents sent to capture him.

This is a "slippery slope". We the People need to be very careful about supporting moves by our government (whether on the Right or Left) that shred the rights and protections of the Constitution. There is a long list of past situations where the initial order, though unconstitutional to some degree, was supported due to the specific circumstances or the extreme danger presented by the individual being targeted.

Once we decide that there are "special circumstances" that mandate the ignoring of the Constitution, where will the new line be drawn that we will not cross? Will each of us take the position that as long as it does not affect us personally, we will not object? When they come to take a stranger's "assault rifle", we are fine because we do not have one or want one. When they take guns away from citizens in a natural disaster, we do nothing because we still have our guns. But, when they knock on my door and demand my rifle and the registration of my pistol, I cry foul and want everyone to support me against the trampling of my 2nd Amendment Rights.

Our Constitution IS NOT the "living document" that the Left claims. It IS the supreme law of the land and it was supposed to be followed, not ignored by our government. It IS a document written in fairly plain language with pen and ink. It is not very long but contains the basic framework for the running of the Republic.

In spite of all the attacks and rhetoric about how Bush is going against the rights of the people, BO has just made Bush's agenda appear amateurish. BO has claimed the right to have the CIA kill U.S. citizens without due process of law. The facts of the individual case should not be relevant, but the principle being established should frighten us all. The President is not our king, he is not a dictator, he is not the supreme decider of justice and fairness for the masses. He is supposed to be serving the American people, not robbing from them and killing them. The claim that al-Awlaki is now an acting terrorist may or may not be accurate. That is why we have trials for our citizens and is why as citizens, we have constitutionally protected rights to a defense and a fair trial.

Remember, it was not very many months ago that the BOA-Homeland Security, sent out a warning to all local law enforcement agencies to watch out for the potential terrorists: returning veterans from war, those who listen to conservative talk-radio, tea party members, those with conservative bumper stickers, etc. I and most of you fall into the BOA "terrorist watch list" parameters. In fact, the only part of me that does not fit their list of dangerous factors, is that I am getting past middle-age.

When we allow our government to stretch the Constitution a little here and there, before long, it will not fit anymore. We will not be able to defend ourselves based on the Bill of Rights, those are outdated and ceased to be literally interpreted ages ago. Give an inch to the government and they will take a mile. This is especially true with the BOA as they have stated that the Constitution is a negative document that would attempt to stop them from doing what they want.

When we accept a watered-down version of the Constitution, a "living document" that changes with the evolution of modern society, we have accepted no Constitution at all.