Eric Holder: Yes, in extraordinary circumstances, the president can order Americans killed on American soil

posted at 6:41 pm on March 5, 2013 by Allahpundit

Quite a headline, huh? But I think this says more about Holder’s political skills, or lack thereof, than about the White House instituting any egregious new policy.

Remember when Rand Paul said he’d demand an answer from John Brennan on whether the president can kill Americans on American soil? Brennan finally got back to him today and told him that the CIA doesn’t target people inside the U.S. — but that he should ask the DOJ for a formal statement of policy. Here’s the formal statement from Holder, via Adam Serwer at Mother Jones:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

So the president reserves the right to use military assets to repel an attack on the mainland U.S. a la Pearl Harbor or 9/11. I … don’t think anyone seriously questioned that, and even if they did, the politics of facing an attack like that would impel the president to act notwithstanding public opposition. I wrote about this a few weeks ago when Paul first went after Brennan:

But look. For obvious reasons, turning the drone guns on citizens here at home would be extremely politically dangerous for any president, even one like The One who can count on a media cushion. Americans are sufficiently creeped out at the thought of being tracked by the eye in the sky that state and local governments have started passing laws banning surveillance drones. Imagine what the reaction would be to news of someone being incinerated on the highway by a Hellfire because the feds were worried about him. If it happened, the circumstances of the impending attack would need to be so dire and urgent that the president could reasonably expect he’d [be] commended for taking action rather than vilified.

We learned just yesterday that Americans are more comfortable with drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil than anyone might have expected, but it’s one thing to be comfortable in the abstract and another to be comfortable in a concrete case. Example: Imagine the feds get a tip that there’s an 18-wheeler packed to the brim with explosives by Al Qaeda and headed for New York City. They can get a drone there to intercept it on the outskirts, before it enters a densely populated area, but they’re only 75 percent sure of their intel. What does O do, hold off and hope that the cops get there before the bomb goes off or err on the side of neutralizing a mega-attack by firing a missile at the cab and hoping the intelligence is right? If he chooses the latter option and the intel proves bad, there’ll be outrage but it’ll be mitigated by the fact that he did his best in a horribly difficult situation to protect Americans. If he chooses the first option and the bomb goes off, and then the public finds out that he could have gotten a drone there to take out the truck, he’ll never hear the end of it. “We weren’t sure about the intelligence” will do him virtually no good. This is all basic counterterrorism politics; the novelty is that the head of the DOJ, oddly, felt obliged to explicitly carve out an exception to the “no strikes on U.S. soil” policy for precisely this sort of 9/11 scenario. All that’s going to do is creep people out and make them wonder why the country’s second-highest law enforcement officer is giving any thought at all to which “extraordinary circumstances” might justify government killings. Just say, “As a rule, the government will not use military assets on U.S. soil” and then if something like Pearl Harbor happens necessitating that that rule be broken, trust the public to cut you some slack afterward in the name of countering an act of war.

Incidentally, the White House finally decided today to share its top-secret memos on drone policy with the Senate Intel Committee provided that they stay secret — coincidentally, on the same day that the U.S. is denying responsibility for two mysterious air attacks in Pakistan in early February. If you read this post a few weeks ago, you know that those two developments might not be unrelated. Exit question: If an attack on American soil is sufficient to warrant emergency military action by the president against hostiles, why wasn’t it enough in Benghazi?

Update: Rand Paul: “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No, Eric, he CANT.

A word of warning to the Obama Regime. America WILL hold you responsible for your crimes. You won’t be in power forever.

wildcat72 on March 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM

“And by ‘extraordinary circumstances’ I mean being conservative or a member of some tea party.”

-Holder

Bishop on March 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Oh…and you resident libs here at HotGas…is this the hope or the change because I’m having a hell of a time keeping it all straight.

Bishop on March 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Abuse of Power.

Impeachment.

portlandon on March 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM

“Extraordinary circumstances” like this super serious sequester emergency?

forest on March 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM

So it was wrong to splash water on a terrorists face to stop an imminent attack, but drone strikes on Americans on US soil are fine?

El_Terrible on March 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM

No, Holder. But you’re the one who wanted foreign terrorists from Gitmo to have their day in court, didn’t you?

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Anyone still wanna bet the military won’t follow the “kill” orders?

MelonCollie on March 5, 2013 at 6:48 PM

lets be real here, is there anything worth saving this country for?

the founders are spinning in their graves.

jsunrise on March 5, 2013 at 6:48 PM

[N]or shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

Do you see the “except for in extraordinary circumstances” clause in there? Me neither.

Shump on March 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Isn’t that what Janet Reno did at Waco? Is this news?

slickwillie2001 on March 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM

What’s the Leftist spin on this?

Is this one of those times when they ignore the actual story and spew ad hominems at the GOP and Tea Party folks for even questioning The One?

visions on March 5, 2013 at 6:52 PM

mission creep — 1. n the tendency for a task, esp a military operation, to become unintentionally wider in scope than its initial objectives
-
mission creep -2. n Eric Holder

diogenes on March 5, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Because I can kill whomever I want whenever I want, I will, and whenever the whim strikes me and none of you are man enough to stop me. Nah, nah, nah. I won! I won! I won! Now bow before me or I will smite you too. I know your name and your address or can find out pretty quickly from one of my faithful servants, uniformed or nonuniformed. And remember even if my drones miss somehow, I’ve still got all those hundreds of millions of hollow points distributed out among my faithful at numerous of my faithful agencies. Maybe if you knell before me and kiss my hand or my feet or my you know what, someday I will have a low ranking staff member cobble something together where I grant myself official authority to kill whomever I want whenever I want and for whatever reason I want and put it out on the internet for all you peons to fawn over like I have trained you to do. Or maybe I won’t. It all depends on my mood and how I did on the golf course. – Pharaoh and Supreme Ruler, Obama Zod

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

every time I hear the term “land of the free” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

jsunrise on March 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Troll-Free thread?

Del Dolemonte on March 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

What do the ACLU and the liberal peace-niks of the 60′s think of this? The world is so upside down I feel like I need to wear tie-dye, drop acid, and have a sit-in.

Tater Salad on March 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

So the president reserves the right to use military assets to repel an attack on the mainland U.S. a la Pearl Harbor or 9/11. I … don’t think anyone seriously questioned that, and even if they did, the politics of facing an attack like that would impel the president to act notwithstanding public opposition.

Such an attack may be as confused as it was on 911. Did Bush have the right to order a shoot-down of a civilian airliner filled with American citizens suspected to be terrorist controlled?

I think that if a civilian or police agency can take action then that should always be the default procedure, but that may not always be the case. I do know that I would be a LOT happier if it was Bush rather than Obama with that power.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Another “if this was Bush” moment. Can they really get away with anything?

bluealice on March 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

You have no clout
You better not try
You better watch out, I’m telling you why.
Twelfth Imam is Obama and he has come to Washington town
America’s dismemberment is on his list
Will cut Israel up more than twice
Any good fellow Muslims who die
Will go to meet 72 virgins in paradise
Twelfth Imam is Obama and he has come to Washington town

He knows if you’re a Christian
He knows if you’re a Jew
He knows if you’re an in-fi-del
He’s been told by Allah what to do
So….You have no clout
You better not try, I’m telling you why.
Twelfth Imam is Obama and he has come to Washington town
Twelfth Imam is Obama and he has come to Washington town

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

They have already redefined “a threat” and “terrorist” to mean pro life groups, Small gov people, returning vets and Christians so ALL SYSTEMS ARE GO!

katy on March 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Impeach.

Rand Paul: “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

So stop talking about it to the press, and do something. Talk to Republicans in the House and Senate.

INC on March 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM

“Barky will be different than all those white guys who came before him, you’ll see.”

-Lib circa 2008

“No comment.”

-Lib circa 2013

Bishop on March 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM

For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Those are odd examples for reasons the POTUS to authorize the killing of Americans inside the U.S. Or anywhere else.

On the other hand, who knows what people might be driven to do by the hideous pain of this sequestration.

Curtiss on March 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Why shouldn’t Obama have the same power that Hitler and Stalin had?

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Why shouldn’t Obama have the same power that Hitler and Stalin had? Because he’s black? Racists!

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

A word of warning to the Obama Regime. America WILL hold you responsible for your crimes. You won’t be in power forever.

wildcat72 on March 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM

lololol. Still hurting from the nov 6th beat down huh?

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Imagine the feds get a tip that there’s an 18-wheeler packed to the brim with explosives by Al Qaeda and headed for New York City. They can get a drone there to intercept it on the outskirts, before it enters a densely populated area, but they’re only 75 percent sure of their intel. What does O do

What does O do ??
Simple …..order a lethal drone strike on the Palin house
( What ? Ya’ll think he won’t do it ?)

burrata on March 5, 2013 at 7:05 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

The number of people on food stamps (poverty) also is.

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 7:05 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Anyone with a brain. Inflated dollars tend to do that.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 7:06 PM

“Do you punks feel lucky? Well do you?” – Drone King Obama

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 7:07 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

You should sell everything you own and jump in while the jumping is good.

Wassat? What’s “quantitative easing”? Oh that. Uh…don’t worry about it, everything will be fine, you just invest all the money you have.

Bishop on March 5, 2013 at 7:08 PM

According to information from a source know on the internet as “White House Insider”, Obama spends much of his days watching a big screen TV, dressed in sweats and smoking. According to this source, Obama has the greatest enthusiasm for drone killing and watches the recordings of them over and over “like porn” and one doesn’t have to be Sigmund Freud to recognize a very sick mind in that behavior.

VorDaj on March 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Good for Wall Street .
How are the folks in the Main Street doing?

burrata on March 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM

What do the ACLU and the liberal peace-niks of the 60′s think of this? The world is so upside down I feel like I need to wear tie-dye, drop acid, and have a sit-in.

Tater Salad on March 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Holy crap, isn’t that the truth?

Liberal Projection started 45 years ago.

tru2tx on March 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I would love to see Holder in an orange jumpsuit sitting in Leavenworth.

D-fusit on March 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

That must stick in your craw, HAL, that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the poor. Where are your friends with OWS to complain about this and pull it back, to stop the unfairness of it all?

Maybe if you sing Daisy for them, they will come.

You couldn’t be a bigger ass even if your name was libfreeordie.

Pffft!

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I would love to see Holder in an orange jumpsuit sitting in Leavenworth.

D-fusit on March 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I would love seeing Holder in an orange jumpsuit doing something other than sitting in Leavenworth.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:13 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Only those of us intelligent enough to understand what the Fed is doing.

Have any ideas as to what happens when the Fed pulls the plug?

Like all libs you are irretrievably ignorant.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 7:13 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Facade.

portlandon on March 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

There is good reason that the White House has been silent about the new historic highs …

Fed’s bond-buying purchases are pushing stocks up artificially

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/04/federal-reserve–quantitative-easing/1963539/

Market heading toward massive correction, as much as 90%

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola

The BUBBLE is about to burst.

Pork-Chop on March 5, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Facade.

portlandon on March 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM

HAL has been busting all day at the seams to try getting in a good word for Obama here. Without a thread on the matter, he got frantic and had to go O/T–much the same as Sheldon from

Big Bang Theory

who gets twitchy and freaks when he’s prevented from making a point.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Did you forget your OWS buddies eh?

All your wall street buddies has all your monies…

It to shall fall and fall fast…

Scrumpy on March 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Pork-Chop on March 5, 2013 at 7:18 PM

HAL (sinG daisY foR mE) doesn’t get it…

Scrumpy on March 5, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Comforting to know biting Pop Tarts in the shape of a handgun does not elevate the act to extraordinary circumstances at this time.

fourdeucer on March 5, 2013 at 7:22 PM

“Because We Say So”

and

‘Shut Up’

Words to live by brothers……

BigWyo on March 5, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Exit question: If an attack on American soil is sufficient to warrant emergency military action by the president against hostiles, why wasn’t it enough in Benghazi?

Exactly.

Holder can attempt to weasel his way out of this one, but his reasoning really does not fly in re American Constitutional rights.

onlineanalyst on March 5, 2013 at 7:24 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

But Obama was saying that the sequester was going to be a disaster. I guess he was lying. Traders are still digging that monopoly money that keeps coming off the presses.

Summary executions, the debasing of the currency and of course the chronic lying. Hope and Change is really something else.

forest on March 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

All that’s going to do is creep people out and make them wonder why the country’s second-highest law enforcement officer is giving any thought at all to which “extraordinary circumstances” might justify government killings.

It does give one pause, dunnit?

squint on March 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

When I google posse comitatas, I get wiki and DOJ’s interpretation prominantely on page one.

And let’s just say it’s a departure from my understanding.

wolly4321 on March 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Exit question: If an attack on American soil is sufficient to warrant emergency military action by the president against hostiles, why wasn’t it enough in Benghazi?

because them folks were jihadies in Benghazi ??????

burrata on March 5, 2013 at 7:30 PM

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

…Oh look!…the experiment in Artificial Stupidity is here!…sing DAISY for us HotLips !(…as soon as you can pry your lips off your joint!) SING!

KOOLAID2 on March 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Well if that doesn’t give you the shivers I don’t know what would.

Keep at this Senator Paul – keep at it.

gophergirl on March 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM

How far we have fallen as a nation, when the President and the AG treat the Constitution as toilet paper and the Congress does nothing. Why haven’t impeachment proceedings not been introduced on both of these domestic enemies is beyond belief. And why not the Senate Majority Leader for his violations of the Constitution?

I weep for our Country.

D-fusit on March 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Exit question: If an attack on American soil is sufficient to warrant emergency military action by the president against hostiles, why wasn’t it enough in Benghazi?

Uh….. just a WAG here….

because BO doesn’t care much for Yanks?

And (read between the lines)…. two chaps like Holder and BO with big chips on their shoulders making decisions about attacks on US citizens on US soil should be alarming.

Add this to the economic beat down and we have a government that exacts terror on its citizens.

Phucking banana republic.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 7:32 PM

I went to google earth and typed in “Bishops bunker”.

It came up with crosshairs.

I used to mock the tin-foil crowd. Not so much anymore.

wolly4321 on March 5, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Second amendment BS …http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/gun-grabbers-of-katrina/

mixplix on March 5, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Seems HAL has left the building. Must be trying to get a plane ticket for Hugo’s funeral.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Seems HAL has left the building. Must be trying to get a plane ticket for Hugo’s funeral.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Probably.

One thing is certain…. he won’t be educating himself on currant Federal Reserve policy.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 7:40 PM

At what point do Obama and Holder’s crimes rise to the point that any American may put them under ARREST for violation of the Constitution from A to Z?

wildcat72 on March 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Probably.

One thing is certain…. he won’t be educating himself on currant Federal Reserve policy.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 7:40 PM

HAL and education are diametrically-opposed considerations. Like I wrote earlier, I bet he was busting all day to come here to praise his precious Obama–going off topic to make it happen.

Liberals are bad in the first place. But when they’re needy like HAL, they’re downright disgusting.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Just look at the media and this sequestration bullsh%t…

… It would be kind of hard to tell your side of the story after you were liquidated, and ‘teh press’ printing Obowma’s side of the story.

Seven Percent Solution on March 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM

But when they’re needy like HAL, they’re downright disgusting.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM

They’re all needy, emotional, irrational and disgusting.

Put differently….the problem with “progressives” is that they eventually run out of adults to take care of them.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM

They’re all needy, emotional, irrational and disgusting.

Put differently….the problem with “progressives” is that they eventually run out of adults to take care of them.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Agreed! Except I refuse to use their term of ‘progressive’. They’re nothing more than maggot-gagging liberals, in my book.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:58 PM

The only thing scarier than this statement itself is that there are American citizens who agree with it.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Thank you President Bush.

The GOP will betray you

True_King on March 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Agreed. They’re not content with being called “liberals”, so they have adopted the term “progressive”.

The truth is that they’re communists – not socialists. They aren’t at the point of being that honest.

And, naturally, if we call them communists we’ll be referred to as racists.

They’re playing childish word games, but the political games they are playing are damned deadly.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 8:07 PM

In all fairness
Define extraordinary.

Timothy McVeigh just before he put it in park?

It’s always deliberately vague.

WryTrvllr on March 5, 2013 at 8:08 PM

The Fascists are in power…and run the American media.

d1carter on March 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

They’re playing childish word games, but the political games they are playing are damned deadly.

Cody1991 on March 5, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Yes, they’re playing for keeps.

So are many of those opposed to them. They’re active, while their opposite numbers are waiting, biding time.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM

The Fascists are in power…and run the American media.

d1carter on March 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Further accuracy to expand your point, if you will.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Rand stands up for liberty once again. Um….any word on how Rubio feels about kicking due process to the curb? Anyone…anyone heard anything? Nope I guess he out to dinner with Rove.

MoreLiberty on March 5, 2013 at 8:23 PM

George Washington as Commander in Chief ordered killed American Citizens during the Whisky Rebellion.

The Constitution gives the President under Article II the power to do this, including drone strikes theoretically, in cases of Rebellions and against Insurrectionist. Flash fwd 230 years and modern Technology, Nukes, WMD’s, Chemical weapons, etc and you have an even bigger need for this power than George Washington had.

Rand Paul’s attacks on Article II powers are the same mush the Left has been pushing since Vietnam. The Constitution is not and never has been a shield of protection from which American Citizens can make war on the American People.

jp on March 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Quite a headline, huh?

It makes me want to throw up.

scalleywag on March 5, 2013 at 8:30 PM

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/87/commander-of-militia

The President shall be Commander in Chief…of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1

The President, not a judge, not Congress…

But it was the Whiskey Rebellion in the summer of 1794 that impelled George Washington to issue the first formal call for the militia to put down the threatened insurrection. ….

jp on March 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM

jp on March 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM

If the government does not adhere to the Constitution, is it still treason to fight that sitting government?

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:37 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Bush’s fault.

KCB on March 5, 2013 at 8:38 PM

jp on March 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM

So what’s to stop Barack Obama on his own authority from using the full might of the United States military to put down the Tea Party Rebellion whenever he decides to start shooting at us?

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 8:43 PM

jp on March 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic, the day I voluntarily reported for active duty in the Air Force.

My discharge does not end that Oath. The only thing that does is my passing, however God wills it may come.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM

O/T- Dow at its all time high under an Obama “regime”. Who would have thunk?

HotAirLib on March 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Which has what to do with the subject at hand, hal?

The fact is, hal, that your obamassiah will be out of office in less than four years.
Unless, of course, he’s planning on being pResident for life.

Solaratov on March 5, 2013 at 8:49 PM

“Extraordinary circumstances” like this super serious sequester emergency?

forest on March 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Well that or someone trying to get between Michelle and her Burrito or taco or whatever it was.

Oldnuke on March 5, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Solaratov on March 5, 2013 at 8:49 PM

HAL was starving to make a positive point about his precious Obama; he couldn’t contain himself. He was desperate to get that in somewhere, so frantic about his need that he went off topic to do it.

Some people are mentally ill, that happens.

But liberals are just plain crazy!

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Well that or someone trying to get between Michelle and her Burrito or taco or whatever it was.

Oldnuke on March 5, 2013 at 8:49 PM

And a good-nutrition meeting held in the upstairs room of a pizza joint.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:53 PM

And has already done so. Take Breitbart, for example…

The Rogue Tomato on March 5, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I could see a situation where we make draconian cuts and would need to deploy federal troops to Detroit, Chicago, and other metro areas to quell the unrest.

Punchenko on March 5, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Punchenko on March 5, 2013 at 9:02 PM

No.

Liberal Democrats made their idea of Utopian perfection, and race-baiters like Sharpton keep it going.

Let them fix it.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Abuse of Power.

Impeachment.

portlandon on March 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM

For something that he hints that he MIGHT do? There is a list of things that he HAS done that warrant it, and he’s still sitting in his seat. What WILL it take?

Arrgh!!

JannyMae on March 5, 2013 at 9:18 PM

If the government does not adhere to the Constitution, is it still treason to fight that sitting government?

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 8:37 PM

See, now THAT is the question dujour.

And the obvious answer…

Depends on who wins.

WryTrvllr on March 5, 2013 at 9:28 PM

See, now THAT is the question dujour.

And the obvious answer…

Depends on who wins.

WryTrvllr on March 5, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I must disagree with your last, there. While it can be said that half the purpose of history is to hide the truth, I tend to go with the text of the Constitution and Original Intent for my basis.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I always felt that when Bush/Cheney were in power, they would do whatever it took to protect the American people, regardless of what laws were on the books. Knowing they would work in the shadows and do what had to be done was the main reason I never slagged them.

Sadly, I fear this administration is working in the shadows, but not in protection of the American people.

can_con on March 5, 2013 at 10:04 PM

What?

pat on March 5, 2013 at 10:09 PM

..next thing you know…Obama will be launching wars without Congressional approval…..

……………..oh wait.

Baxter Greene on March 5, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Like Ruby Ridge and Waco, right, Eric?

besser tot als rot on March 5, 2013 at 11:42 PM

I must disagree with your last, there. While it can be said that half the purpose of history is to hide the truth, I tend to go with the text of the Constitution and Original Intent for my basis.

Liam on March 5, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I have read somewhere that in the turmoil following Cornwallis’ surrender and the dysfunctional government that followed, the Virginia delegation begged General Washington to take the crown. I’ve also read that when his men went unpaid by the congress he resigned his command rather than stage a Coup.

I wasn’t referring to the history books that will be written.

I was wondering if there are still people like that.

WryTrvllr on March 6, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Put Holder’s domestic drones can kill suspected Americans in “extraordinary circumstances” statement together with the purchase of all those bullets and those “mini-tanks” by Homeland Security and mix in Obama’s statement five years ago that he wanted a domestic military to rival the armed services and what do you get? A dictator, that’s what.

polarglen on March 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM