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
