"SILENCE, I KILL YOU!"

May 31, 2012

Achmid - The Dead Terrorist is a riot act! In case you are not familiar with Achmid, he is a puppet, a character for star ventriloquist Jeff Dunham.

Achmid is a skeletal corpse of an incompetent suicide bomber whom Dunham uses to satirize modern day terrorism. He is known by his yelling demand to infidels "Silence - I Kill You!"

Well, all is fair and funny in the world of Dunham's make-believe, but not so in the real world of President Obama's "Kill List."

Revelations of a so-called "kill list" surfaced Monday, even though the rumors abounded for months. When it comes to the "secret kill list"--a regularly updated chart showing the world's most wanted terrorists--President Obama is the "final moral calculation" in the kill or capture debate, according to the New York Times articles assessing his record.

And despite his liberal background, Obama has taken an aggressive approach to counterterrorism.

The Times said it interviewed three dozen current and former advisers to Obama for the article, who described his "evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda" describing him as a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing.

After stinging criticism from many on the left for possessing such a list, Obama struck back Tuesday by saying he will do whatever is necessary to protect the American people from harm.

Details about the attacks in such places as Yemen and Pakistan and the Al Qaeda members on the list were made public in that lengthy New York Times story mentioned above, that included interviews with more than 30 White House advisers and former advisers.

The story has resulted a range of concerns and questions – including about the legality of such attacks in countries where the United States is technically not at war and the moral implications of Obama deciding whether to OK a drone strike that could potentially kill civilians, as well as whether the Times interviews resulted in potential security leaks.

The New York Times pours forth such lavish praise of the President that it still begs the question: "Why take aggressive action against terrorism now? Should he have been just as determined when he took office instead of trying to eliminate the term "terrorism" from our vocabulary?

Remember, Obama was in office all of two months when he put Americans on notice that there was no longer a War on Terrorism, rather it was to be called an "Overseas Contingency Operation"?

Tuesday afternoon, on FOXNews, Judge Andrew Napolitano broke down the New York Times’ release of President Obama’s so-called “kill list.” He expressed discomfort at Obama’s newly revealed list of alleged Al Qaeda suspects, saying, “Look, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be turning in their graves if they thought that the Constitution that they brought forth permitted the president to become a killer.”

He added, “It doesn’t, it’s wrong, it’s against our values, it’s unlawful and it’s unconstitutional. Congress should do something about it!”

But then, in a smug segment of the O'Reilly Factor Wednesday Evening, Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller jokingly accepted the possibility that they themselves might be on the Kill List and Drones might be deployed at their next joint venture of the so-called "Bolder Fresher Tour."

But what is the real reason the Obama Administration leaked this information to the press? He hasn't changed positions. He still rarely uses the word "terrorism." And, for a man who opposes the death penalty at every turn, even in the most heinous cases of murder, Obama sure is talking "tough." (Now there is a word not likely to be uttered or played out in the liberal way of life.)

Let's face it, the White House wants Obama to look hawkish and as the "guardian-protector" of Americans.

On top of that, you have the massacres in Syria wherein Obama is merely an observer with little or nothing to say, the negotiations with Iran over nukes is going nowhere. Consider, also, the way the Russians are treating the United States. Vladimir Putin is now slamming Obama personally by not attending the G-8 and NATO summit. So, as Charles Krauthammer puts it, the Kill List shows Obama is a tough guy! "He kills by remote control."

There are at least two problems with this, not to mention it's probably unconstitutional. First, an a military strategy, we aren't getting any intelligence from this policy. Right now, we are living off of the intelligence of the Bush years. The CIA is not doing the job it once did. Soon the old intelligence won't be useful because it's becoming outdated.

Second, is the moral argument. Obama went around preening during his election bid and particularly afterward how the U.S. had lost its way in Iraq with the advanced interrogation techniques, but now he comes across as judge, jury and executioner. So which is the more moral way?

 In other words, it's all political. It's another way of making him look before the electorate as a more viable candidate with experience in foreign affairs than a Mitt Romney presidency would afford.

I would argue that there is a third reason, one more sinister and very much overlooked. Only Judge Napolitano has dared to speak it. Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. This means, once again, our President, in his utter contempt for the Constitution, is paving the way for the suspension of due process for anyone he deems is a threat to national security.

Like the National Defense Authorization Act, it is one more "list" Obama has added to his arsenal to use domestically, if he thinks it necessary.

On a more lighter, yet scarier note, were it not for the politics of it, doesn't a "Kill List" strike you as a bit of an overkill? I mean after all, I have seen drones flying over my house on occasion and wonder, should I remain silent? Our Commander-in-Chief may well be saying to me and other pundits of my ilk: "Silence - I Kill You."


We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.