Written by Bob Siegel and originally published by Communities Digital News
SAN DIEGO, August 4, 2015 —Last week, President Obama commented on his chances of winning a third term if only he were allowed to run a third term.
“I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t. There’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving. But the law is the law, and no person is above the law, not even the president.”
It’s that last part of his speech which should cause us the most concern.
It is extremely uncomfortable when Obama reminds us that he is not above the law because he doesn’t really believe that for a second.
You see, this president thinks he is above the law. And the last time he talked about wanting to do something but not being able, it was when he mentioned that the Constitution didn’t give him the right to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Since then, he has granted amnesty, regardless of the games people play to call it something else, hoping people will forget his earlier statement that such a breach of power is unconstitutional.
With this track record of utter contempt for American law, many are concerned that this president will not step down from office, not even after 2016.
It is not just some conspiracy theory entertained by wackos. Republican candidate Ben Carson, a very intelligent, very sensible man has suggested the same thing.
Speaking with Alan Colmes, who pushed him to explain an earlier comment that there may not even be an election in 2016, Carson said:
“If in fact we continue to have all these decrees being made the way they’re being made, if in fact we don’t fight the kind of war that needs to be fought in order to really put an end to the threat that is brought on by ISIS, if we continue along a pathway of financial irresponsibility, if we continue along a path of envy, greed, and hatred — what happened with Occupy Wall Street will be a cakewalk compared to what will begin to happen in this country.”
This is plausible, despite the multitude of voices which insist it could never happen and that even the entertaining of such as idea is unfounded hysteria.
Lest we forget, it wasn’t too long ago that we heard about what couldn’t happen back in 2012.
Most conservative pundits were telling us at that time that no president had ever won reelection with the economy so bad.
But Obama had already been an exception to every rule. In fact, Obama had already beat the odds when he was first elected president in 2008.
At that time, we could have said that no one had ever won a presidential election after voting for infanticide as he did by refusing to get behind the Illinois Infant Protection Act.
Neither had anybody ever won the presidency by kicking off his political career in the home of a proud, unashamed, self-professed terrorist such as Obama did in the home of Bill Aires.
And nobody had ever won an election after staying for 20 years in the church of a racist, America-hating pastor like Jeremiah Wright.
Or who could win the presidency after openly admitting (in a much more candid way than his predecessors) that he wanted a wealth redistributing country, as Obama did in his conversation with Joe the Plumber?
That was just 2008.
There was a lot more on his record prior to the reelection of 2012.
Who could get re-elected after lying about what happened in Benghazi by pretending that four Americans were dead because of “spontaneous reaction to a video” when the facts have proven otherwise, that this was actually an orchestrated attack from Al-Qaeda?
Or who could get re-elected in the face of Fast and Furious?
And then, since his re-election after 2012, Obama has been caught lying about health care and lying about the IRS scandal.
It goes on and on. His supporters remain faithful and simply don’t care. In fact, the more scandals, the less it seems to them like one man can be guilty of so many crimes. It is far easier to believe that Republicans have made them all up.
So who is to say that President Obama won’t decide to make the White House his permanent address?
He could declare martial law. That’s no stretch of the imagination inasmuch as his department of Homeland Security lists as pools for terrorism, pro-life advocates, those concerned about our borders and those who do not like this current president.
In April 2009, shortly after Obama took office and took over the war on terror, Homeland Security issued a report called “Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. “
This report expanded the definition of those about whom our government should be concerned and mentioned a variety of causes that can potentially percolate into terrorism. These included those who “reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority,” or “rightwing extremists … antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues.”
Also mentioned were those Americans who might have “the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages,” those who “perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms,” and “individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion.”
Between ISIS attacking and Obama responding by saying that we are not at war with Muslim terrorists but rather all terrorists (terrorists being partially defined as people who disagree with him), what exactly do you think is beyond this president?
Some will point out that the term “martial law” is not found in our Constitution.
Others say we don’t need to see the actual words and that the right to suspend “habeas corpus” includes the notion of martial law even though it’s supposed to be done with the consent of Congress.
But that debate assumes Obama feels the need to find constitutional justification in the first place.
A man who has more respect for napkins than the paper our ruling document is written on is not going to strain himself too much in an effort to find constitutional justification.
Besides, who’s to say that he won’t just try to get some judge to rule that third terms are actually constitutional?
Of course, the Constitution says the exact opposite but if you’ve been following recent trends, there are many judges today who don’t seem to care what the Constitution actually says. They see their job as explaining what it means and their self-appointed task is defended by those who call the Constitution “a living breathing document.”
Granted, this is the more outrageous sounding scenario, but if you think our courts are incapable of making unconstitutional rulings, just remember three words, “Dred Scott Decision.”
Obama would not necessarily succeed with any of this. Even if he declared martial law, who knows if today’s army would back him?
And at the end of the day, his desire to continue as president or lack thereof, may be decided with factors no greater than how nice the golf course is starting to look.
But there is nothing about this man which leads keen observers to believe that he isn’t at least considering the option of hanging around.
If he made the attempt, could he get away with it? Yes, and for several reasons: A lot of people are stupid; a lot of people don’t care anymore what’s constitutional, and a lot of people don’t care anymore what’s ethical.
We have only to watch the reaction to these videos that have come forth regarding Planned Parenthood; people shamelessly admitting that they are selling baby parts for profit while enjoying a salad; talking as casually as if the subject were a manicure.
And yet, the bigger national dialogue last week was the shooting of a lion.
This says something about the times we live in. Say what you want about President Obama, he is very good at taking advantage of the times.
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and a columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net
Comments 15
You forget to mention that Obama is gay (J. Corsi) , born in Kenya, prefers Dijon mustard instead of ketchup (the horror), and is in fact the Anti-Christ.
Paul: Why do you think this is not possible? Has Obama shown any respect for the Constitution? Does he feel constrained by the laws of the land? I think SCOTUS would support him in a third term.
Obama is not typical. He is a Marxist community organizer with a lot of power. He is the ultimate narcissist with no heart and no soul exactly like Saddam Hussein. Hasn’t his Fast and Furious gun running, executive amnesty and IRS targeting taught us what he is capable of?
Tin foil hat alert!
HQ, that’s all you’ve got? No answers to the questions I asked Paul? You’re off your game today. I’d like you to show me examples of where Obama has demonstrated that he follows the Constitution.
Dan,
I submitted my post before yours was put up so I really had nothing to respond to other than Bob’s usual rant against our President.
“Marxist community organizer,” “exactly like Saddam Hussein” and “SCOTUS would support him in a third term” really only deserves the response I already gave: “Tin foil hat alert!” However, I will add another thought for you: Similar fears of a President declaring some kind of state of emergency and staying on past his second term were also voiced about Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush. (Google it) They were completely unfounded then and they are equally unfounded now.
Your assertions are so ridiculous that they don’t deserve an explanation. “He’s exactly like Saddam”. You mean the same guy who Reagan approved the sale of WMD gas (by private citizen Donald Rumsfeld) to. He gassed the Kurds but mostly the Iranians. He wiped out a whole generation of Iranian men. If you were born in Iran you would be the loudest screamer of “Death to America”.
Paul: So you have no defense of Obama’s lawless actions on Fast and Furious which resulted in the death of thousands of Mexicans killed by the guns provided by Obama and Eric Holder. You also have no defense of his lawless actions on the predatory targeting of conservatives in the IRS targeting scandal. Further, you have no defense of his illegal executive amnesty flooding the US with tens of thousands of poor people who will not support themselves. How are these actions upholding the law of the land and the Constitution?
These lawless actions are just like Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a dictator and Obama acts like a dictator.
Blaming Bush and Reagan? Let’s focus on Obama and what he would do and what he would not do.
HQ: Bill Ayers, a Marxist, was Obama’s mentor. Obama with his constant race baiting, acts like a Marxist community organizer, and talks like a Marxist community organizer. So I think it makes him a Marxist community organizer.
Reagan, Bush, and Clinton were normal American presidents. Don’t try to compare them with Obama. Obama is unique in showing no respect for the law and the Constitution. It makes you look like a tin foil hat person when you ignore his lawless actions in Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting, and executive amnesty.
SCOTUS would hear the case immediately and vote 9-0 to remove him from the Oval Office.
Brian, I so agree. All due respect to my friend Bob, but this scenario has as much of a chance of taking place as birthers backing down on their Kenyan birth beliefs.
We should not worry about Obama staying in the White House. He can’t. He won’t. Too many red states, and too many sane Supreme Court justices — even the liberals!
Instead we should focus on who will take his place.
Author
To everybody associated with the Rostra, to my friends and colleagues, and to the readers, most of whom I respect even when we disagree: Greetings.
And now, I would also like to say a word to the other kinds of readers, those who do not truly read even though their eyes see the words, those who see only through their own biased, sensory equipment, who emotionally react instead of responding to any of the real points I am making.
First of all, I made NO prediction here. But I did review Obama’s record. I am not a birther. I have spoken against birthers and written against them. I do not believe in Obama conspiracy theory, neither does one need to resort to such nonsense while critiquing Obama. There is enough the man has actually done, and promised to do, such as the things I DID list in my article, things completely authenticated.
I have written many articles on the various scandals and problems. I have quoted my sources. Those articles can still be found with the simplest Google search or you can just go to my Website. Therefore, I will not defend them again here in a comment chat room because it is too time consuming. In the time I would invest to engage Internet dialogue on each of those issues, I could just as easily write another article. I would rather spend that time actually writing the article. And again, since many have already been written, I know that any who truly wish to consider opinions other than their own can read the more detailed context of my statements any time they so desire.
I do not know that Obama will declare Marshal Law and I do not know what else he might try to do again through executive fiat or through trying to find a judge who will reinterpret the Constitution. I do not know and I did not claim to know. The bottom line of my article was twofold;
1) We live in times where what once seemed unimaginable in America has been happening, including unconstitutional Executive Orders. As for unconstitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court, I myself said, “Granted, this is the more outrageous sounding scenario,” but there is certainly precedent for unconstitutional rulings in the name of interpreting the Constitution. I have written about many of them as well in the past, some quite recently, although in this present article I used Dred Scott as an example simply because nobody today on the left or the right (with our 20/20 hindsight) is going to justify that decision and so we are forced to agree that while we may know what the Supreme Court SHOULD do, or what they are LIKELY to do, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is something they WILL do.
2) I made it abundantly clear that I do not know what Obama will do or whether he would succeed even if he tried it. I was talking about what he might want to do. Here is a quote of my exact words:
“But there is nothing about this man which leads keen observers to believe that he isn’t at least considering the option of hanging around..”
I based that on his track record which includes his obvious contempt for what is or is not constitutional. I listed examples and only saw responses about birthers, tin foil, or assessments (predictions in their own rite) about what the Supreme Court would do in a situation like this. The latter responses were fine and respectful, even though they were not much of a response to other things I said or the main point of the article.
As for “Hypocrisy Questioned,” who never seems to question his own hypocrisy, (who mentions my “rants” but posts plenty of his own rants, who responded by talking about tin foil, a term which insults people by suggesting they are either paranoid or into conspiracy theories) to this nameless individual: My assessments and guesses years ago about the shape our country would be in if we elected and reelected Obama president have been coming true. Apparently they were based less on paranoia and more on fact. When I warned people, I was merely listening to what the man said, or reviewing his voting record, or pointing out the agenda of the people who have worked with him/mentored him. All fact. And if that makes me wonder about further things he might do, so be it. To merely ask such a question is fair and it is not based on conspiracy theories. I am not saying anything about secret meetings. I am instead suggesting that this power hungry, dictatorial style president has demonstrated that there is little he would not try if he thought he could get away with it. Only a prophet knows what will actually happen and I am not a prophet. But neither am I somebody who responds to facts with mere insults as “Hypocrisy Questioned” likes to do.
And so “Hypocrisy Questioned,” if you have the stomach for a genuine discussion, one that does not waste my time over the Internet but one that takes place in real time where everybody can benefit from your “rational” response to my “tin foil,” how about a friendly debate over the air on my radio show? If you are interested, there is contact information on my Website. We can set up ground-rules and put a broadcast date on the calendar. And hey, here’s an idea: Maybe you will even have the courage to give your own name:) Say what you want about my opinions, at least I am willing to put my name on them. Still, you are welcome to debate under any name you feel you need to use.
Oh by the way, PAUL THERRIO is also invited for a separate debate. He listed (albeit sarcastically) a bunch of Obama accusations which had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I said.
That is all. Let’s put this to the test. Any further discussion will be over the air if either of you care to defend your positions in real time. But it will be a real discussion, void of ad hominem and non-sequitur comments, and (in the case of “Hypocrisy Questioned”) a chance to make a real case instead of offering another of his stern, fatherly admonitions as he so faithfully has done over time in a plethora of Rostra comments. In his case at least, (at the risk of inviting more response to a mere guess) I will not be holding my breath, either about his coming on the show or revealing his true identify. Nevertheless my offer is sincere.
Bob: Agree completely. IMHO, Obama is capable of anything. Unlike Bill Clinton who was a pragmatist and a “normal President”, Obama is a pure ideologue who will stop at nothing to achieve his stated goal of a “fundamental transformation of America”. I thought you demonstrated this quite well in your posts.
As for Hypocrisy, I’ve often thought he sounds exactly like Todd Gloria. I spent 30 minutes talking to Todd when I ran for Kevin’s temporary City Council seat and since that time, I’ve thought that Hypocrisy is really Todd. Hypocrisy sure sounds like a politician.
Like you, I use my real name because I want people to know that I stand for my beliefs and values. Too many Republicans in San Diego never tell you where they stand because they want to hedge their bets and don’t want to offend anyone. They will always be part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Discussions with Hypocrisy are interesting and great training for anyone who wants to run for office. Keep your comments coming Hypocrisy. I don’t mind the battle of ideas.
Author
Thanks for your thoughts Dan. As for me, I really have no idea who Hypocrisy Questioned is and I suppose it doesn’t matter at the end of the day although I do wonder why people talking about important issues choose not to use their real name. He certainly does sound like a Democrat, but you never know. After all, I am sure most people assume I am a Republican. I am actually a Democrat myself, a conservative Democrat obviously, one who would have been known as a “Reagan Democrat” back in the eighties. It has been a long time since I have voted Democrat and I certainly liked the party more in the sixties than in the present…but there you have it…Technically, I am a registered Democrat:)
Warmest Regards
Bob
Found a thorough discussion on the history of martial law and the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html