Even to ask the question may sound radical, but sufficient evidence exists not only to warrant asking but to suggest that the answer may be “no.” I want to accentuate at the outset that this post does not constitute a prediction that our President has intentions of continuing in his role beyond his term end. Rather, it is a survey of some developments that give reason for concern in that direction.
The more general basis for concern shows itself in the blatantly dictatorial positions President Obama has taken on a broad range of issues. And not only are his actions tyrannical, but the related attitudes are conveyed by the in your face, “I’ll do what I well please and there is nothing you can do about it” attitude of a dictator.
Think of his treatment of the Arizona illegal immigration problem. It is bad enough that the President refused to uphold the law in preventing illegals from crossing the border into Arizona and dealing with those that do, but to then sue the State of Arizona over their efforts to protect themselves constitutes an extremely heavy handed approach to government. Beyond that he has armed those running the illegal immigrant rings through Fast and Furious while working to disarm Americans.
Though all of the above is horrendous, the worst part is that he has gotten away with it. That is, he has not only acted as an arbitrary dictator, but he has done so with relatively little public outcry. America has in effect by their acquiescence accepted his assuming that role.
Or think of the handling of Benghazi. He blatantly lied to the American people regarding the cause, he has never explained where he was while our Ambassador and other Americans were being murdered, and now he is hiding witnesses from Congress, and all this without his suffering serious political ramifications. His capacity to stiff-arm Congress and get away with it in essence leaves him as a law unto himself, the definition of a dictator.
Then there is the IRS scandal. This is a government agency that operates dictatorially itself, one that displays frightful autocratic powers, that can move into businesses with guns drawn and shut them down, making them guilty until proven innocent. For Obama to use this power to attack political enemies is really bad, but worse is his continuance in doing so even after he has been caught. That constitutes the “in your face” part, the “I am a law unto myself” posture.
One consistent characteristic of dictators is that they tend not to step down from office. The dictatorial traits displayed by Obama at least suggest the possibility that he may not either.
In support of the above concerns it appears that President Obama is employing a strategy that moves him toward continuing to occupy the White House after his term is finished in 2017.
One element of this perceived strategy is the assumption of increasingly more autocratic power.
Obama has in effect taken on the legislative authority that the Constitution assigned to Congress. Many have objected that he has no authority to implement those aspects of ObamaCare that he chooses and not others, asserting that he is assuming the prerogative of Congress in doing so. Note that he cares little about such objections, and little reason exists for him to care since he has gotten away with exercising congressional legislative authority with little substantive backlash.
In fact, he has threatened on several issues that if Congress does not pass legislation he wants, he will accomplish those objectives through executive order. Therefore, in effect Obama has now assumed the legislative prerogatives of Congress. From all indications he will continue functioning as a legislator and even expand his role in this area in the future.
It is important to understand that the impact of his assuming congressional power does not reside solely in the power itself. Perhaps even more significant, exercising congressional prerogatives creates the appearance that he now has the right to do so. In other words, Americans are being left with the sense that legislative authority has now been ceded to him. The combination of both legislative and executive prerogatives places him on the cusp of possessing dictatorial powers, and the acceptance by Americans of his exercising both of these categories of power is tantamount to the acceptance by Americans of his dictatorial prerogatives.
If Obama continues to project that such dictatorial prerogatives are rightfully his, if he should decide to maintain power in 2017 Americans will be more amenable to his exercising these powers in the absolute sense.
Desensitizing to Audacity
It appears that another set of behaviors displayed by President Obama that would prepare America for his remaining in the White House after completion of his second term entails desensitizing Americans to his outrageous exercise of power to the point where we no longer feel outrage.
The various scandals above display a progression toward increasing audacity.
Take, for example, his behavior during the government shutdown during which he very blatantly conveyed that he will not negotiate. In fact, he said on several occasions that in effect Republicans must give him everything he wants first, and then he will negotiate. Of course, such a statement makes no rational sense since there is nothing to negotiate if you get all you want. It appears that such outrageous positions and responses have been displayed so often that the American people have come to not be outraged by them. Little was made of this recent display of audacity. It is as if we have been programmed to accept that he has the latitude to take any position or display any behavior he chooses.
Continuing and increasing expressions of audacity until by the end of his rightful term would prime Americans to comply with the ultimate outrage with little response.
In all probability, if President Obama would seek to stay in office, he would not merely cancel elections and proclaim himself as American monarchs. Recall how immediately after 9/11 it was decided that Mayor Giuliani, though his term was up, should stay in power until the situation was normalized.
If Obama did decide against giving up the presidency one might expect that he might create some crisis in response to which he would “borrow from the wisdom of the New York Republicans in similar circumstances, recognizing that this was no time for transition.” The difference would be that a good time for transition would never developed.
Such a ploy would to a great extent soften the blow of his conversion from presidents to tyrant. The strategies described above combined with this ploy might at least prevent an explosive response from the American people.
Managing the Fallout
No doubt preparation strategy and the ploy would be insufficient to quell such a drastic move for many Americans. Two preparations may be in process to manage resistance.
Ensuring Military Support
A critical issue would be support from the military. Having the military on his side would give him power to deal with resistance.
A major piece to military support would entail the strategic selection and placement of generals and admirals so as to ensure that the military would be in the hands of his supporters. In this regard, my attention was arrested by a FOXNews article entitled, “Air Force general in charge of nuclear missiles fired over ‘conduct,’” Two features of this article were of special interest.
First, the article asserted that the “conduct” issue over which the general was fired was not divulged other than to say that “it did not have to do with gambling, or the loss of a nuclear weapon, or sexual misconduct.”
The article also reported the following: “Earlier in the week, the Navy announced that the deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces, Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, was relieved of duty amid a military investigation of allegations that he used counterfeit chips at an Iowa casino.” According to an article in the National Post webside “The move is exceedingly rare and perhaps unprecedented in the history of U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for all American nuclear warfighting forces, including nuclear-armed submarines, bombers and land-based missiles.” President Obama personally made this decision. It seemed more than strange that an officer of this rank would be relieved over “allegations” that he used counterfeit chips.
That two three star officers would be relieved within a period of the week for misconduct, the circumstances in both cases seeming questionable, makes one wonder if Obama is not replacing top brass with his people.
Other developments related to general officers cause reason for further concern.
Also, lifting “don’t ask, don’t tell” has the prospect of infusing the rank and file of the military with those likely to be supportive of him.
Controlling Public Response
Another danger to Obama if he chose to maintain his office would be public uprisings. The information gathering of the NSA would be helpful in this situation. The need of our government for this information has often been questioned. Such data would be especially useful if the scenario in view materialized.
Let me close this post first by again accentuating that I am not asserting that the President has these intentions or that the outcome described above will materialize. My purpose in writing is to share with you indications that suggest cause for concern. We can hope and pray that this is not the outcome. However, people should at least be aware of developments pointing in this direction, especially in light of the lawless nature of this administration and President Obama’s quest to fundamentally change America. This would constitute the ultimate fundamental change.