The Rule of Law or The Rule of Obama, Re: Georgia Judge Considered ‘Default’ Against Obama, WorldNetDaily, January 28, 2012

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 track record 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.

Dictatorship anyone?

Comments are closed.