Americans face many stark choices in the 2012 election for President but the starkest of all is whether or not they want their President to be bound by the Constitution and act within the law or to act as a dictator outside the bounds of the Constitution and the law. Given Obama’s behaviour and stated intentions, the choice cannot be more stark for Americans…do they want to live in a dictatorship with Obama as the dictator or do they want to live in a free country where their leader is accountable to the people and the country’s institutions and not to himself and his cronies?
Obama has spent the first three years of his presidency ignoring and flouting the rule of law and refusing to abide by the constitutional and legal requirements of his office, refusing to be bound by its restrictions and conventions. He is a megalomaniac who has acted above the law on many, many occasions and his actions show beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is contemptuous of it and has no intention of changing. Electing him to a second term in office will validate his behaviour and lead to more of the same. The Constitution will be shredded and there will be nothing to prevent him from doing exactly as he wishes. That is what he has done in the past and that is what he will do in the future if he is allowed to. The United States will no longer be a constitutional republic and will become a dictatorship with Obama at the helm. He could conceivably decide to dispense with elections altogether in 2016 and simply stay in office without even going to the electorate.
A current court case in Georgia is a prime example of Obama’s attitude and behaviour. It is far from the only one.
Obama’s eligibility to run for President to begin with is being challenged in Georgia, among many other places. American Presidents must be “natural born citizens” according to the Constitution and there is every possibility that he is not. State law in Georgia requires that every candidate for federal office meet the legal and constitutional requirements for holding that office. Earlier this month, a group of citizens presented evidence to a court in Georgia that he does not meet those requirements and as such his name should not appear on a ballot there for the upcoming election. The Judge in the case issued a subpoena requiring Obama to appear before the Court and answer challenges to his eligibility.
Obama did not appear even though he could have and should have, and his lawyers said he would ignore the subpoena and not participate in the proceedings.
Rumor has it that the Court will declare that he is in fact ineligible to run in Georgia and that his name cannot appear on ballots there. That decision will then go to the Georgia Secretary of State, who will almost certainly uphold it. Will Obama respect those decisions or will he act outside the law and run in Georgia anyway? The answer is no he won’t respect them and yes he will run there. Why shouldn’t he since he is, after all, above the law?
The question of his eligibility to run anywhere in the U.S. will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence against him the Court could very well decide that he is ineligible to run for President because he does not meet the legal and Constitutional requirements to do so. What will he do then?
I’ll tell you what he’ll do. He’ll ignore the ruling of the Court and run anyway, all the while doing everything he can to demonize and discredit it. If he is elected again he’ll get rid of it altogether.
That’s Obama for you.
Jerry Philipson is a retired grandfather who has spent many years working in non-profit social service agencies in Canada and the United States. He holds dual Canadian and American citizenship and has been passionate about politics, civil liberties, freedom and democracy for virtually his whole life. He is particularly interested in the Middle East and America and believes that it is vital for people of good heart and good conscience to speak out against tyranny and dishonesty and to stand up and defend and protect Western values, principles and institutions.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement