Obama Correspondence:

Dear Mr. President, On 60 minutes, you stated that anyone that does not think that Osama Bin Laden got what he deserved needs to have his head examined. I am one of those people, but I counter that you need to examine your heart. Firstly, I believe that life is a natural right of all people, even murderers. As such, I, like every other developed nation in the world, do not believe in the death penalty. Therefore, your shoot to kill instructions are very offensive to me. Secondly, America is supposed to be a country which respects the rule of law. However, you disrespected Pakistani law, then you proceeded to act as judge, jury, and executioner of an unarmed man. This is not justice and it most certainly is not legal, unless you agree with Nixon when he said "If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." As you soak in the warm adulation of vengeful people with hate in their hearts, I beg you to check yours. Will you live up to the promise that earned you the Nobel Peace Prize, or will you continue to sow death and destruction in the name of the American people? Sadly, I think I know the answer, but know this: it is not in my name. Yours faithfully, James McFarland

Five People like this: James: Hope is dying Aaron: I wonder if hell take the time to read it. James: I also posted it on http://www.whitehouse.gov/ CONTACT/ HOPEFULLY he will see sense Aaron: You really mean business. Jordan: not to mention it took the US government 10 years 2 wars, almost a million deaths and over $1.1 trillion (interest and inflation not included) to kill one person. Chris: Haw many unarmed innocent men, women & children did Bin Laden murder? Should also be remembered that many bombers hold there hands in the air to surrender before blowing themselves up & all those around them. Would you risk you life to save Osama Bin Laden's? Or would you just pop a

cap in his ass. Arlene Mcfarland: Jim your letter is right up there with Gails ,!!!!!!! and those ten years were not in the hands of Obama ,pity as it may have been sorted out earlier ... sometimes you just cant please everyone but the majority agree I'm sure that Bin laden didnt get what he deserved ,,I certainly dont , ....he should have died the way those innocent of 9/11 were murdered ,,it wont bring them back but made easy to know that evil brain is now defunct..,i really dont believe in the death penalty either as there are too many mistakes made but .....on this occassion i salute the man or men who brought down the evil feelingless tirant not MAN, I love debate but on this ocassion no debate necessary job done now get behind the men to catch the rest of the scum AMEN x Marcos: This is one that I can't agree with you on. As for other countries not believing in the death penalty...How many pirates have been "lost at sea" when the Russians go in and take care of business? And as much as the French get made fun of, they know how to deal with terrorists. WIth guns blazing. The US and Obama are certainly not the only entities giving the Sjoot to kill order. You don't need the death penalty if there is no one to put on trial. Marcos: Shoot to kill...Nobody gives the Sjoot to Kill order anymore, that's inhumane. Stephen: Oh king of contrarians, regale us with your wisdom. 1) What would Obama discover if he sincerely accepted your invitation to self inquiry? 2) What should he have done differently? I am seriously interested in your answers. James: Mum- Catch the rest of the scum or kill the rest of the scum? WWJD? Love thine enemy, mum, even Gerry Adams :) Steve- Hopefully, he will discover his inner humanity then tell our troops to pack up. I find it ironic that a black man continues to carry the "white man's burden Stephen I like Obama's response. See my notes.

OBAMAS RESPONSE

Dear James, Thank you for your thoughtful letter. Of course, I have time to read it. What else do I have to do with my all my kickin it time in this cake job? Allow me to begin by complementing you on coming out in the open about your psychological problem. Many in our great nation are not as courageous, especially in your profession. Since you openly acknowledge that you are one of those people "who need their head examined," I am including, at the end of my response, a list of qualified psychiatrists in your area who specialize in treating people who suffer from D.D.R.R.I. w/ subsequent P.P.R.T. (This stands for Delusional Degenerative Retrogressive Romanticized Idealism with Piss Poor Reality Testing) The complete identification and discussion of this disorder is listed in DSM VII, which I am currently co-authoring in some of my spare time. Just in case you didnt know, this disorder is also included in my new health plan; so no worries, you wont have to pay for treatment after it is enacted. Let me say that I agree with you in your first claim that life is a natural right. When you go on to say that you dont believe in the death penalty, an argument held by many, you enlist the support of all developed nations. I think the citation of this purported evidence is at best shoddy scholarship, certainly nothing you would want to model as best practices for your students, if not perhaps, God forbid, outright deception or something significantly less duplicitous. A brief review of the information on the Internet (from my crack research team) reveals that more countries subscribe to this practice than you suggest[1] This last reference is from Amnesty

International, so I think it might be fair and balanced, to say nothing of accurate. I think you might want to be a little bit more politically sensitive when you exclude so many from your list of the developed countries of the world. Japan, China, and India, to highlight some of the more obvious omissions, might take exception to your claim. I am also confident since you are a teacher in Social Studies, that you recognized the charged language 'developed nation' carries. Experts like you clearly use it in a neutral, descriptive sense, but some of those less advanced countries see such terminology as a postcolonial linguistic extension of colonialism and an attempt to assert hierarchical status conferring power over others - so you might consider avoiding such potentially inflammatory language. As you know, I once taught law, so I wanted to alert you to a possible confusion you might have regarding natural law and your attempt to substantiate your claim by appealing to not only how many, but how many of the best (your cryptic code developed) countries have renounced capital punishment. You see, natural law, from which natural rights are derived, is a theory of the development of law that does not rest on statistical norms. That is, normative statistically is not necessarily equivalent to normative morality, and legal codes predicated on that premise. Therefore, it belies the principle of natural rights when you enlist numerical supremacy as a justification for natural law. Now Im not an outright proponent of capital punishment, but it need not violate the cannons of natural law. I know you will say that natural law means that no one can take it away from you, which is true, yet there is more to consider. If you follow the belief that natural law means that the state or another cannot deprive you of something that is your inalienable right say, your right to liberty, than one couldnt place someone in prison, because it deprives them of their freedom. Yet natural law rebuffs such a claim, by saying that it doesnt remove that right from you, but only temporarily deprives you of the exercise thereof. Now of course, one of the criticisms of the death penalty is that once the right to life is deprived, it is not a temporary removal of the exercise thereof. Purportedly, then natural rights cannot deprive one of the Right to Life. Let me remind you, or introduce you to another justification for the death penalty from the perspective of natural law. When one murders one or many, one has committed such a heinous act to declare that he himself does not believe en mente, nor in deed, in the most fundamental right, and therefore has forfeited both his humanity and his own right to life. Failure to acknowledge this decision on the part of the community of which he once was a part would simply make them an accessory to the very barbarism he committed;

therefore, he has done this to himself viz. excommunicated his own humanity, and it is incumbent upon the community to execute him in honoring the humanity they wish preserve, to say nothing of the what he owes the victims and families and other loved ones of victims he has killed. Now I want you to know James, that I have studied law enough, taught for more than a few years and been in politics long enough that I am not so naive to believe that in presenting this view that there is any remote possibility of you assenting to this as a valid alternative to the way you see the matter. However, since you suggest or accuse me of lacking humanity, I wanted you to know that I had consulted both my heart and my head, and that my humanity voiced no prohibition to my decision, despite what you might think. Now James, let me try to address your second point. In doing this, I want to tell you what really is going on; well not completely, because it would compromise our security, in addition to making our tenuous relationship with Pakistan even worse. You come to the conclusion that I have not only violated the law, but in addition have acted unjustly. You seem to level this claim based on the fact that we have violated Pakistani Sovereignty. I want to explain the actions of the United States against the charges you level. Yes, I believe we are a country of laws I would not have entered the noble profession of law, if I did not believe this. Our actions in Pakistan, while debatably a violation of sovereignty, can be understood as our right to selfdefense as specified in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Eric Holder, our Attorney General, has independently come to the same conclusion. Once again, this can, this is, and this will be debated, but we have satisfactorily come to the conclusion that this is a legal action. There is an additional law you may not be aware of, viz., the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of Sept. 18, 2001, which allows the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines aided in the 2001 attacks. It justifies the actions in the name of self-defense, "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism." Now lets understand this James, I can see how you might not understand some of these legalities, or you might not agree with them even if you presumably understand them, but that does not excuse your bogus claim that this man did not deserve to die. Since justice demands that one gets what one deserves, there is no rational account that I can summons to say nothing of heartfelt-humanitarian concern that this terrorist didnt deserve exactly what he got. Furthermore, I want to address a snide comment I observed on your Face-book notes, that hope is dying, a not so subtle slam against my campaign claim for hope and

change. I have never been equivocal about my aims to bring this terrorist to justice. So if you voted for me, which I hope and believe you did, and your vote was informed, then you should not be disappointed nor feel deceived since I and my administration delivered in full on this promissory intent. Finally, I want to address the debased ad-hominen innuendoes in your closing paragraph. I am not seeking, nor have sought "the warm adulation of vengeful people with hate in their hearts." At best, once again you are confused. While vengeance might be warranted, it is not what I, as the representative of the United States, seek. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance, which is predicated on immediate, angered, rash and most importantly personal revenge for an injustice perpetrated on oneself or a loved one. Retributive justice on the other hand is rationally supported morality and legality that the guilty deserve to be punished and that the punishment is proportionate to the severity of the crime. The only sense in which this was not just, that is proportionally not just, is that Ben Laden should have gone through being killed for each of the murders he so callously perpetrated. Therefore, either way you cut it, the United States and I are cleared from your specious charges, of acting 'illegally, acting unjustly, and the personal charge against my being inhumane.' Unfortunately, James, I believe that most of your charges evince a major confusion, a generic one between sentimentality and correct sentiment, a confusion, like your others that are part of the disingenuous, mirage-like web that characterizes your disorder you so courageously acknowledge, and I reference earlier in this correspondence. While I am sympathetic to your condition, it is clear why someone of your ilk would be so lethally inept in a major leadership position, where such confusions would only engender greater losses than we have already suffered. Please contact my Secretary of Health for further information on your diagnosed condition should you find my recommended professionals unable to assist you with your difficulty I am off to El Paso, to inform the people there of how well our border security is working there and how our immigration policy is doing, thought it still requires some tweaks. Try not to add to your feeling offended by my telling you in advance that I wont be able to respond to this issue any further, since Joe, my able assistant, informed me that I have used up my allotted time to write back to persons with your condition. Recommended Therapists: Dr. Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement Associates Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, How to Win Friends and Influence People

 Dr. Quackenbush, We Treat Anybody Group Dr. Winston Churchills Ghost, You Cant Wage War by Committee. Dr. M.C. Hammer, You Cant Touch This Sincerely, The Dali Bama. President of the United States

[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries.)