When four dying Americans in Benghazi needed fire-powered drones to take out Islamic militants firing mortars, those hovering drones controlled by Obama’s D.C. administration never fired on the enemy. Maybe the Americans inside the Benghazi Consulate should have kept cows at the Embassy. It’s obvious our spying government holds a deeper grudge against cow manure than terrorists massacring Americans.
The EPA is using drones to spy on cattle ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa in order to make sure that farmers dispose of waste properly.
That’s right Americans, if you are a farmer and your cow manure is disposed of improperly, the Fourth Amendment-breaking, photographing spy drones flying over your farms will tell Washington. And then you and your cows will be sorry!
Since it’s lawful for the government to “monitor real estate to assure itself that the occupier of the lands is not adversely affecting the natural habitat,” perhaps the Americans in Benghazi should have told Obama and Hillary that the Taliban mortars were filled with cow dung that would “adversely affect Libya’s natural habitat.” That might have moved the administration to save Americans and completely annihilate the Taliban.
Obama has no problem using drones to kill terrorists and spy on American farmers, but he has great difficulty when aiding our military begging for help.
Look at the laws Obama uses to conduct the War on Terror he vowed to end and ask why he ignored four men, in his service, fighting for their lives.
Obama uses Article 51 of the UN Charter (the UN has declared it is against the drone war) which “includes the targeted killing of persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks” to conduct drone strikes: 371 of the 424 drone strikes since 2002 have been conducted by Obama.
There is no doubt drones eliminate threats to overseas military and the United States. So, if taking out the enemy is vital to U.S. security, why didn’t Obama (who wrongfully entered Libya without Congressional consent) or Hillary use weaponized drones to aid four Americans fighting and dying inside an American Consulate?
Then there is the National Defense Authorization Act.
Do readers remember why President Obama signed the controversial law on December 31, 2011 (full explanation he on law language here)? This law that detains Guantanamo Bay terrorists indefinitely, and stipulates unconstitutional detention and assassination of any American citizen suspected of terror, is supposed to protect military and their families overseas. That would include aiding those who died in Benghazi. Or one would reason it to be so.
Obama said he had reservations about signing the law (which gives unconstitutional provisions to the president), but did so:
chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.
Apparently those services were never “crucial” enough to extend any “interest” or “security” to Americans being massacred by brutal terrorists in Benghazi.
American farmers with filthy barnyards better look out!
But forget the NDAA, the president has Special Operations Teams readily available to him at all times, in all places, including the Middle East and Mediterranean, who are prepared for capture and kill raids, such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden.
The president also has:
[T]he 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the U.S. Congress passed just days after 9/11. The statute empowers the president ‘to use all necessary and appropriate force’ in pursuit of those responsible for the terrorist attacks.
Where was that protection for those men fighting for their lives in the Benghazi Consulate? Those men fought for seven hours, Ambassador Stevens was gang-raped and tortured to death, Ty Woods begged Washington for help, but was told “stand down,” even as fire-powered drones, meant to provide security, hovered overhead, but were never given orders to fire on the enemy.
What the hell is the point of the NDAA, AUMF, UN Charters, or any special operation teams if the president refuses to utilize military power to bring terrorists attacking Americans to their end?
Why bother signing controversial laws you claim protect overseas military if you tell them to stand down when they must fight?
Why send American troops overseas to fight the enemy if they are not allowed to battle without asking permission, denied help during combat, and told “stand down?”
And why are American drones used to take out terrorists in Islamic countries and spy on America’s cows, but those drones were never used to help U.S. military personnel in Benghazi who begged for help on September 11th?
Obama orders spy drones to fly over American farms, photograph evidence of cow poop, yet refused to order weaponized drones to fire on Taliban terrorists killing Americans in Benghazi. Why?
Answer: Because controlling the constitutional rights of Americans, and our cow manure, rather than aiding our military when it needs help, is what is “necessary and appropriate” “responsibility” to “pursuit” a well-kept and deodorized America.
Maybe our men in Benghazi should have told Obama and Hillary that the terrorists were spewing cow dung all over Benghazi’s streets. Then perhaps the two would have said “Don’t stand down! Fire on those terrorists! It will make all the difference for the environment”