In May 2012 The New York Times revealed that Barack Obama was the official who actually made the final call on US drone strikes.

This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years…

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

Seven months before the New York Times report, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was the son of terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi. He did not have a trial. He was never waterboarded.  He was sixteen.

Barack Obama dropped a bomb on his head.
kid drone

From the leaked top secret information leaked by The New York Times we can confirm that Barack Obama called for the drone bombing that killed the sixteen year-old from Denver.
And the hypocrites on the left say nothing.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

1 2 3 4

`
  1. Apparently the left doesn’t even have the strength of their convictions. Hypocrites.

  2. I bet if Obama had a son…….

  3. I hope this wont be worse than a movie seen by nobody ( and shared with the world by Obigears) and used against us in attacks world wide. We would have to blame Obama for all the murders that will happen from here on out

  4. ++

    i hope they have a damn good reason for killing him, like having
    been recruited by his father for a suicidal homicide mission.. as
    for his father, kill them all..

    OT..

    February 6, 2013

    Anti-Islamist Tunisia politician shot dead

    March 22, 2012

    Tunisians See Washington as Too Cozy with Islamists

    ["People here are against the United States helping Ennahda,"
    a journalist told Totten. "All Americans who come here are against
    the Islamists, but the American government is supporting them.
    I wish we had a good, modern, respectful Islamic party. I'm a Muslim
    and I'm proud of it, but I'm not proud of this party."]

    ==

  5. There has been a lot of talk in the press recently about this administration allowing drone attacks on American citizens.

    Keep in mind that due to the multicultural nature of many populated centers throughout American, there are people living in these cities who are from diverse backgrounds. Over a hundred years ago it is conceivable that most immigrants would shake the dirt off their shoes and legitimately become American citizens, and not possess dual identities.

    What we know from the facts staring at us is that many muslim countries are in a prolonged state of turmoil and transition, and are drawing on their heritiage to guided them through. FWIW, I don’t think they will wind up with anything better. That being said, we have to recognize that this concept of jihad means that its participants consider themselves to be a member of a wholly separate social compact, and they are trying to recreate the glory of their past.

    These jihadists who happened to be born in the US are not Americans. Sending drone attacks to kill the terrorist version of jihadis is not an act of the state killing its own citizens.

    My hope is that we don’t have a moral ambiguity about what is happening. If some people are taking up arms to cause harm to real Americans and American interests it is the duty of the government to act.

  6. Off topic:

    DHS Insider: Obama’s cyber warriors & preparing for collapse
    Author – Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives) Wednesday, February 6, 2013

    (snip)

    DH: Okay, we can get on with it, then.

    RB: First of all, two days after the inauguration, at exactly 7:00 a.m. on January 23, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. I heard about this the week after the election, but only saw a hardcopy draft in late December. From what I was told, I believe this is a project that is being paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama, I believe it’s called. I can’t be sure, but that’s what I was told.

    At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two dozen supervisors who make substantially more.

    Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.

    It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” had a list of religious web sites, web sites I recognized as Christian. Another section was a listing of conservative Internet sites. There was another tab with the label “problem sites” that seemed quite extensive. I looked at that section, and it was broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few.

    There was also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC, you know. Numerous e-mail addresses were conspicuous under each news organization, which also included Fox… [unintelligible]. I figured you were going to ask.

    The first page of the binder had bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There was also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions were typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated.

    DH: Where did you see this? I mean, was it at DHS?

    RB: Yes, and that’s as much as I can say on the location.

    DH: What’s the magic behind the number 3,575?

    RB: I asked the person showing me [the binder] that question. Supposedly, it has to do with their budget, or the project funding.

    DH: Go on.

    RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.

    There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.

    Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.

    It was surreal, to say the least.

    Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.” Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.

    There were also motivational statements on various pages, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” which I thought was an odd characterization.

    But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.

    DH: Do you know if these “team members” have their own copies of the binder you saw?

    RB: No. I was told that these people were hired through the campaign offices located throughout the country, and that training meetings were held at various locations. The binders were for instructional purposes, not to hand out. Although I think the people have, or were given, a list of web sites.

    I don’t know any more on the actual mechanics of the project.
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52923

    Pass it on.

  7. #6 February 6, 2013 at 11:58 pm
    Mike Oh commented:

    “These jihadists who happened to be born in the US are not Americans. Sending drone attacks to kill the terrorist version of jihadis is not an act of the state killing its own citizens.”

    Except in the case that the jihadists are American citizens. Then that is exactly what it is: an act of the state killing its own citizens.

    I hate terrorists, jihadist or otherwise, as much as the next person, maybe even more than the next person. But more than I hate terrorists, I love my country. There is no America without the US Constitution. The US Constitution prohibits federal govt turning the military, or military equipment, on its citizens.

    Non-citizen terrorists residing in America shouldn’t be gunned down by drones, either. Instead, haul their azzes off to Gitmo, waterboard the he!! out of them, send Allen West in to put the fear of God or America into them, find out whatever they know that we don’t, and then do what you will with them.

  8. Sucks to be him. Yemen is a dangerous place to be taking the Al Queda
    underground railroad to meet your terrorist dad.

    He should have stayed home.

  9. And all the kid was doing was trying to please Uncle Barrack.

  10. ++

    AuntieMadder #8 February 7, 2013 at 12:34 am

    sounds good to me..

    ==

  11. I’m curious if people would tolerate these drone attacks on our soil. These attacks aren’t going to happen without some collateral damage, property and/or human. Will people be ok with losing a few loved ones who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time if it means taking out a terrorist cell?

  12. Jim this is a terrible piece of writing and is almost kindergartenish in its simplicity and emotion . Im not sure where you are going with this piece ? Barry is a total and utter liar and hypocrite …That being said …….Its PERFECTLY legal I suggest actually reading the 16 page announcement and then write a story Its the ONLY good thing Barry Hussein has done here is an article that should help you to understand this very morally clear and simple ruling I expect better from you Jim

  13. He was a punk and a top bomb maker Jim youre letting your dislike of Obama cloud your judgement are you a conservative ? or a far left ACLU member ? http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209597.php Its called a WAR , and youre trying to put civilian regulations onto a battlefield ….the VERY same things Barry Hussein has been trying to do ……Can you see that your point is TOTALLY hypocritical ? I hope you think this thru as well as all the others on here that are hysterically crying over nothing ..letting their bling hatred get in the way of logic It makes conservstives look REALLY bad and hypocritical

  14. He could kill just about anyone he wants and could get away with it.

  15. Kinda brings new meaning to the Progressive/Liberal/Fascist/Democrat mantra; “It’s for the CHILDREN”.

  16. *sigh* Once again, barry IS not, WAS not and NEVER HAS BEEN a “law professor”, liberal or otherwise. He lectured on community organizing, and how it pertains to law, at Chicago University–he was a lecturer, not a professor. There IS a difference and any true Conservative should know better than to pad barry’s resume.

  17. Mike Oh is right. Before the 60′s there were no “anchor babies”. Now it’s an industry.
    Kim jong Un could impregnate a woman send her to a baby anchor motel to have the baby then let that baby run for POTUSA in 36 years.
    This is basically who Barack Obama is.
    Ann Dunham became an Indonesian citizen after her marriage and when Barry Soetoro was adopted he became Indonesian.
    He still is.

  18. The ACLU and the Gateway Pundit are on the same side of this issue. Congratulations to the GP for his evolving sensibilities.

    The assassinations of these Americans was reported in the “liberal” media when they occurred and widely discussed and criticized in liberal blogs. Why was there no outcry? Because, sadly, the American people DON’T CARE. Most Americans support the assassination of alleged terrorists.

    I agree with the ACLU and Jim Hoft: the US government should not kill citizens.



1 2 3 4


`

© Copyright 2014, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions