Democrats Dream of Permanent Obama White House

Military dictatorship more likely than Democrats repealing 22nd Amendment

King Obama

Kurt Nimmo
May 11, 2013

Now that Benghazi appears to be destroying the political career of Hillary Clinton and taking air out of the Clinton dynasty, we are beginning to hear rumblings once again about a third Obama term.

Liberals unabashedly throw this prospect out every couple years. They try to get traction on the effort to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment limiting the president to two terms. Democrats pine for the days of FDR and his interminable presidency. If not for a cerebral hemorrhage, Roosevelt would have served an unprecedented fourth term. Republican nominee Thomas Dewey announced support of an amendment in 1944 limiting future presidents to two terms. The Twenty-second Amendment was passed in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951.

George Washington did not seek a third term – he saw term limitation as a bulwark against monarchy – and Thomas Jefferson railed against the prospect of life-long presidents. In 1807 he wrote, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.” Madison and Monroe followed the two term limit, although later presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant and Woodrow Wilson, flirted with the idea.

New York Democrat Rep. Jose Serrano has once again floated an effort to kill the Twenty-second Amendment, undeterred by past failures stretching back to 1997. His bill has zero sponsors and is unlikely to go forward, but it reveals a dogged determination by Democrats and some Republicans – including one sold as a libertarian, Ronald Reagan – to install a president for life.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer back the idea. Former president Bill Clinton believes in a third, non-consecutive term. “I’ve always thought that should be the rule,” Clinton told MSNBC’s Morning Joe last November. “I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”

Fortunately, repealing the amendment will not be easy. It requires a vote by both houses of Congress and approval by three-fourths of the 50 states.

“America is certifiably insane, but that doesn’t make ‘we the people’ agree on much, and at least 48% of voters, based on the results of the last election, didn’t want Obama for a second term, much less for a lifetime,” writes Jim Karger.

Despite the apparent political impossibility, Democrats are scrambling to create a King Obama and install him for life so he can accomplish his neo-socialist dream – or rather the dream of his globalist handlers.

“President Obama has to weigh in if his next term will be enough, especially with the Republican majority in the House and obvious absence of an able successor to achieve his goals,” Sreedhar Pillai wrote for AOL’s Huffington Post following the last election. “Chances are he will see the need for a third term much like President Franklin Roosevelt before him” to accomplish his agenda – which is, of course, the agenda of the ruling elite who use neo-socialism as a hammer to control the masses and consolidate their power.

Liberals are remarkably naïve and seriously blinkered when it comes to understanding how the elite use socialist ideas to institute authoritarian control methods. Liberals and Democrats are pathetically oblivious to the indisputable fact that Obama has continued and intensified the agenda of his predecessor. The wars of globalist conquest continue and expand. More inflated funny money was shoveled out to banksters and the financial elite under Obama than under Bush as the establishment media sold the manufactured threat of an economic sword of Damocles taking down the nation. Obamacare stands as a testament on how a socialist idea – universal health care – can be turned into a nightmare control mechanism.

A third Obama term seems remote at this juncture. However, there are a number of “emergency” scenarios that would make it so.

Economic depression and a subsequent war – following the Federal Reserve pattern of the last century – would likely result in either a repeal of Twenty-second amendment or the imposition of a martial law decree making Barry ruler for life. The shadow government has well-developed plans on standby to suspend the Constitution and impose military rule, as Rep. Jack Brooks briefly revealed during the Iran-Contra hearings.

Emergency decrees require a standing army in order to be enforced. Under the fallacious war on terror, government has put in place a standing army and federally militarized police, supposedly to protect us from bad guys who never attack and never will. Posse Comitatus is a dead letter and FEMA and Continuity of Government mechanisms stand ready to convert America into a military dictatorship. The military actively plans for this inevitability now on a weekly basis with in-your-face training exercises that include mock strafing of urban traffic and invading high schools.

“Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people’s] freedom and subversive of their quiet,” Thomas Jefferson wrote a year before the Revolution. He later laminated that the Bill of Rights does not provide “clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.”

Democrats may not be able to win back the House of Representatives and continue their hold on the Senate, repeal the Twenty-second Amendment and crown a King Barry for life.

They may, however, realize their authoritarian dreams through war and economic depression. In fact, this path seems more likely than the states ever deciding to install for life one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history.


top of page ^

This day in history: SPLC warns of “anti-government extremists”

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jeffe...

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of independence (1776) were all of British descent. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
April 1, 2013


In 1776, the Society for the Protection of Loyal Colonists (SPLC) issued a report warning of the rise of the so-called “Patriot Movement” in the American colonies. As reported in the Boston General Advertiser, SPLC spokesman Marcus Potok announced his organization had been monitoring the takeover of royal legislatures, militias, and town councils by anti-government extremists.


“Dangerous men such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin have stoked the fires of sedition and radicalism among the King’s subjects,” Potok wrote in his report. “As a result, illegal militias have seen explosive growth, fueled by a furious reaction to much-needed revenue laws duly enacted under the authority of the King.”


Potok promised that his organization, in close coordination with King George III’s government, would work to end extremist activity in the colonies. “Our aim is sometimes described as just monitoring these hate groups. I want to say that our aim is to destroy these groups.” Then he added, “After all, we’re talking about the mightiest empire in the world, one that a vast majority of its subjects will remain loyal to, despite the heated rhetoric of a few rabble-rousers.”


Loyalists were assured the “Patriot Movement,” while boisterous and potentially violent, had little chance of success.


Said Potok, “As long as the enlightened merchants of New York and Boston continue to donate to our organization, the SPLC will expose these self-styled ‘Patriots’ for what they are, dangerous, hateful radicals.”




top of page ^


Without chaos, government has no future

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis notes results of the State armed with coercion and a gun

Published: 13 hours ago

by Patrice Lewis I once read a line in Arthur C. Clark’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” as follows: “The newspapers of Utopia … would be terribly dull.” The context of this remark is that in a perfect world, there would be no news. Let’s face it, the news industry thrives because there are always crises to report.

Similarly, governments thrive on chaos. If there isn’t enough occurring naturally, the government may well manufacture it, just to keep themselves in business. A couple weeks ago I saw a comment that read, “Without chaos, government has no future.” This was later amended to, “Without chaos, even if intentionally orchestrated, government has no future.” This is vastly true.

It’s kinda like computer techies. My husband and I have a private theory that, since computer techs must justify their positions within a corporation, they are forever creating “new and improved” computer programs that do nothing but obfuscate, confuse and complicate what had previously been a simple software function that non-tech people could use without a problem.

I don’t mean to pick on computer tech people (except when I get annoyed because Blogger “improved” its services by making things worse) since this tendency is endemic for nearly every innovative occupation. People must do something to justify their paycheck; and what they do is make “new and improved” [fill in the blanks] that are often more complicated, less functional and less user-friendly than before.

Government is the same. It must “improve” the lives of its citizens by creating solutions where there are no problems; or worse, creating problems where none exist in order to justify their solutions.

The difference between computer techs and government, however, is coercion. If I don’t like the new software a company creates, I don’t have to buy it. But only the government can put a gun to my head and force me to accept the “solutions” to their problems.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.” This, let me remind you, was the original vision of America: a land of limited government interference. LIMITED. Got that? LIMITED.

But politicians simply can’t be content to keep the government within the narrow parameters set up by the Founding Fathers. They always want to “improve” it. They can’t allow free markets to be free; they have to jump in and level the playing field or give backroom sweetheart deals to big businesses, or otherwise interfere. They can’t allow the states or the free market or ordinary citizens to handle health care, gun laws, schools and other critical issues; they must make them a federal matter of strict bureaucratic control.

“Each government program carries within it the seeds of future programs that will be ‘needed’ to clean up the mess the first program creates,” writes the late Harry Browne in his superb book “Why Government Doesn’t Work.” “No matter how much mischief it causes, government always shows up in a cavalry uniform – riding in to rescue us from the problems it created.”

Mr. Browne identifies four reasons government grows:

  • The failure of each government program leads to demands for new programs;
  • Everyone wants special privileges he sees others getting;
  • “Public servants” seize on every problem as an excuse to expand their powers; and
  • The “Dictator Syndrome,” which is the belief that all suffering or damage can be eliminated by government programs, which only work under dictatorial power. (Don’t believe me? See what happens when you have a “wetlands” on your property.)

One of Washington’s greatest desires is to save us from ourselves. We are no longer permitted to suffer the consequences of our own actions. Instead, the government must sponsor programs or introduce legislation to rescue us from any and all stupidity, coercing the whole to accept solutions for the problems of the few.

Government cannot thrive without coercion. But since coerced people resent being forced into compliance, government coercion breeds envy, hatred, anger and other vices, which further divides us and sets group against group. No problem. The government has a “solution” for that, too.

This cycle repeats itself, endlessly. And government programs (and the accompanying taxes) are never, ever eliminated. Ever. More programs cause more chaos, which causes more programs, which cause more chaos, and government grows and grows and grows.

See? Without chaos, government has no future. And let me be crystal clear: This applies to Democrats, Republicans and everyone in between. It is absolutely endemic in the political machine.

And it all began because people couldn’t accept Thomas Jefferson’s words: “The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

This insane out-of-control system with which we’re now saddled began when people foolishly thought it was the business of the government to help those who couldn’t help themselves. “Once that door was open,” noted Harry Browne, “once it was settled that the government should help some people at the expense of others, there was no stopping it.”

And now the sky is falling on America. But Chicken Little, please note, wasn’t working to make the sky fall. The government IS, by enthusiastically taking advantage of every tragedy in order to save us from ourselves, with the ultimate goal of dismantling the Bill of Rights and thus achieving total control.

Somebody wrote a succinct and frightening plan of where our country is headed, to wit: Pass gun control. Nationalize the gun and ammo manufacturers. Enact martial law. Confiscate guns house to house. Exterminate the resistance.

Does this sound like the kind of America you want? Is this the kind of America our forefathers envisioned? Because, make no mistake, that’s where we’re headed.

Right now our government is still afraid of We the People (since we’re armed) and is creating as much chaos as it can to splinter us into factions (divide and conquer). If the government succeeds in disarming America, it will no longer have reason to fear us.

I’ll end with yet another quote from Thomas Jefferson, who had the astounding ability to look 250 years into the future: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Do you really want tyranny?


top of page ^