|
The
American Thinker…
Will
Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?
By Stella Paul
August 21, 2012
Let's
go there: if Obama thinks he's losing,
will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6?
And if he does lose, will he peacefully
turn
over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013?
Or will he cling to power "by any means
necessary," as a
highly placed insider alleges?
Now,
I'm truly sorry to raise such disgusting,
un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they're not crazy,
and I've
got a disquieting amount of evidence.
The Democrats have already accused
Romney of murdering a woman with
cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years -- the
last
charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate
floor, on
the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
By
Democrat standards, I've got enough proof to
put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.
Whatever
chicanery Obama and his investors may
be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan
crisis,
manufactured or otherwise. So
cast your
mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral
primary.
In
the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his
leadership was
essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office
after
his term ran out on January 1.
Giuliani's unprecedented power-grab was
rightfully scorned by his
eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg.
So what did Bloomberg do when he ran
into term limits? He
deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune
to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term,
claiming that
only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.
My
point?
Politicians a great deal more
conventional than Obama have loathed
giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations
to try to
keep it.
Now,
let's look at just some of the disturbing
evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting
something
big:
Super-High-Level
Trial Balloons
USA
Today reported that on September 27, 2011,
Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club
audience, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress
for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them,
whatever
decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] ...
You want
people who don't worry about the next election."
When outrage greeted her suggestion, she
retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking.
What a kidder!
Meanwhile,
that same month, Peter Orszag,
Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget,
published an
article in The New Republic titled "Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We
Need
Less Democracy." In
it, he posited
that the country was too polarized; hence, "radical as it sounds, we
need
to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a
bit less
democratic."
Please
note that these suggestions to suspend
elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from
basement-dwelling bloggers. They
came
from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding
their
national convention and from one of Obama's most prominent Cabinet
members. Their
close timing suggests
that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat
power
elite.
"Whom
Does the Government Intend to
Shoot?"
That's
the question recently posed by retired
Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying
reports that
the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of
hollow-point
bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S…
Read
the rest of the article with support links
at the American Thinker
|
