Lee Boyland

America's Imperial President
September 16, 2009

Candidate Barack Hussein Obama promised "Change", and spouted a campaign's slogan pledging, "Change we can believe in." Tired of Washington politics, a majority of American voters went to the polls and voted for that Change. Sadly for the nation, that Change was undefined. Now the nation is learning the folly of electing a president and congressmen on the basis of an undefined catch slogan.

The Democratic Party now assumes they have a blank check to impose their will on the American voter. Too late we are finding out what that promised "Change" really is. Obama has certainly lived up to his pledge, and I for one can hardly believe the Changes in domestic and foreign policy he has made—some of which include: making unwarranted apologies to the world, especially our enemies, for (supposed) past misdeeds; breaking our strong bonds with Israel (in effect throwing Israel under the bus); and his latest fiasco in agreeing to meet one on one with North Korea and Iran. Now Hugo Chavez has announced his intention to have the nuclear option. Talking sure does get results.

Less than a year into his first term in office, Obama has reshaped the face of presidency, not in the imperialistic caricature used to demean George Bush, but rather to make himself the first true Imperial President since Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR, however, won WWII, while Obama piddles in Afghanistan.

Yes my friends, if actions speak louder than words, then have no doubt, Obama is the real deal—a real imperial president: one who cannot be criticized; one who is above being questioned; in short, a president who is, as the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, Evan Thomas, told Chris Matthews, "standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God."

That said, I'm having serious concerns that he may be the first president not to require reelection? Don't laugh—Obama's actions speak louder than his honeyed words. While you and I the American voters sit helplessly watching, Obama has casually done things that would have undoubtedly brought about Ronald Regan's or even Abraham Lincoln's impeachment. Day after day Obama's White House announces yet another un-vetted powerful czar—environmental fanatics, radicals, anarchists, insurrectionists, socialists, and at least one avowed communist now fill positions to advise Obama. Then there is ACORN, a community organizing group with a very questionable history and murky agenda that helped elect Obama and receives millions of taxpayer dollars. Discussing ACORN's tax and business planning advise to a pimp is outside the scope of this paper.

Obama supporters tell us that we must trust the president. But I find it impossible to trust a man who refuses to provide proof he is eligible to be the president of the United States of America. In fact, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party have spent millions to avoid having to produce proof that Mr. Obama is eligible to be president by meeting the criteria established in Article II of the United States Constitution. In the face of the rising demands from so-called "birthers" for proof of Obama's eligibility, all that evasive action has created way too much smoke for there not to be some fire.

Prior to a presidential election, each political party is responsible for certifying that its nominee for president and vice president of the United States of America meets Constitutional requirements. Florida Congressman Bill Posey has introduced a bill that will require each candidate to produce such proof starting with the next presidential election. Liberals and progressives ridicule his bill—a sure sign that the congressman is on the right track.

In the last presidential election, political parties with presidential candidates provided the chief election official of each state an "Official Certification of Nomination" stating that their party's candidates for president and vice president ". . . are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution." In recent days, a breaking news story says the Democratic Party prepared two almost identical  "Official Certification of Nomination" documents, one certification ended with the required eligibility clause, "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution," and the other omitted the clause. It appears that the document with the omitted clause was filed with most states. Both certificates were signed by Nancy Pelosi and notarized by the same notary on the same day, August 28, 2008.

Just another clerical mistake, will probably be the explanation now that the "error" has been caught. The explanation will continue with something like, we realized the first document left out the required clause and we prepared an corrected form. Then, somehow, the incorrect form was sent to most (49?) states by error. Sure it was. Well Ms. Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, its time to produce a certified and verifiable copy of Mr. Barack Obama's Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. The redacted Certification of Live Birth (with the certificate number blacked out) is not acceptable proof.

Within days of Obama's taking the oath of office, the White House grabbed control of the Census Bureau, which now compromises the conduct of a census. In addition, it allows highly suspect organizations like ACORN—which until recently had been tasked to conduct the census—to ask and demand answers to questions that are none of the government's business. Most troubling is the fact that by controlling the census the White House controls the number of Congressional Representatives, as well as the boundaries associated with each district—in other words can influence elections.

During the campaign Obama stated he wanted to form a 250,000 National Security Force (NSF) with capabilities equivalent to the military. Will the new "National Security Force" have Jack boots and black uniforms? A more important question is, whom will they provide security for? And who will be the threat? After careful consideration of Mr. Obama's and the liberal members of Congress' statements and actions, I can only conclude that NSF will protect the imperial president from outraged U.S. citizens. Gee, didn't Hitler do something similar?

Is such a thing possible? A recent event indicates the answer is yes. The East County Magazine  reported on September 11, 2009 that a long-range acoustic devices (LRADs) developed by the U.S. Navy for protection of ships and crowd control was stationed by San Diego County Sheriff deputies at a recent town hall forum hosted by Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) in Spring Valley, and at a subsequent town hall with Congressman Darrell Issa (R-San Diego). The Davis Rally drew an estimated 1,300-1,500 people, including vocal conservative and liberal protest groups. "It’s very concerning," Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. "The main effect of having those weapons at public events is to chill people and chill free speech and free association." Yes, there are law enforcement agencies in the USA that appear to be confused about the power granted to them by the Constitution.

Now comes news of Senate Bill 773 which, if passed, will give the president the power to "direct the national response to a cyber threat." Iranian dissidents (a/k/a freedom fighters) recently used the internet and cell phones to counter control by Iran's ayatollahs. Similar events have occurred in China. Senate Bill 773 can be interpreted to mean that the president can shut down the internet, and/or civilian use of it. Could conservatives legitimately protesting the government's actions be considered dissidents or terrorists? Hasn't Nancy Pelosi likened Town Hall protestors to Nazis? Hasn't the left and referred to them as violent mobs and to citizens who served in the military as terrorists? Will conservatives become targets of the imperial president's National Security Force?

Mr. Obama's actions in the Honduran constitutional crisis supports my fear. The president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, attempted to follow Hugo Chavez's example and force a change to the Honduran Constitution that would allow him to serve a third term. Had he succeeded, Honduras would have allowed Zelaya to become a dictator, just as Chavez is now the dictator of Venezuela. Mr. Obama did not support the Honduran government, its Supreme Court, nor its military and citizens when they expelled their would-be imperial president. Mr. Obama did not support actions taken to ensure compliance with the Honduran Constitution. No, instead Mr. Obama chose to support the former president's attempt to grab power.

Now Mr. Obama and the liberal U.S. Congress are considering sanctions against Honduras. Reuters reports that "Honduran de facto ruler Roberto Micheletti said on Saturday the United States has revoked his visa to pressure him to step down and reinstate exiled President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a June military coup." De facto president? Military  coup? Since when is a man appointed by the Honduran congress, and approved by the courts and the military a de facto president? Aren't military coups perpetrated by the military who then install a junta or a dictator? There was no military coup in Honduras. Mr. Obama's support of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya's attempt to force a change to Honduras' Constitution is consistent with his refusal to provide proof that he meets the requirements of Article II of the United States Constitution.

Shortly after entering the White House, Mr. Obama announced that he wouldn't investigate the allegations concerning the  CIA's "torture" of the (peaceful) terrorists who planned and executed attacks against our homeland (his reassuring words). Then he nominated Eric Holder as Attorney General, and it didn't take long before Holder (with or without Obama's approval) announced his intent to investigate alleged misconduct and to appoint a special prosecutor. Special prosecutors are independent agents who can go where they wish. Now Mr. Obama says he has no control over Holder (his actions).

It is an indisputable fact that the Bush administration protected our homeland from follow up attacks after 9/11. Was waterboarding used on high value detainees (a/k/a important terrorists who spend all their time planning ways to kill you and your family)? The answer is yes. Was timely and actionable information obtained by waterboarding? Again the answer is yes. Does this truth have any effect on the twisted logic of liberals? The answer is no.

Liberals whine torture's not the American way. They say the same information can be obtained by other means. But I have yet to hear one liberal present any proof of their claims, nor document any important information obtained by catering to the whims of a terrorist. Liberals debate by accusation. Accuse their opponent of one thing after another, thereby avoiding questions they cannot answer. For some reason, liberals seem to think they're immune to the actions of terrorists. Liberals never take responsibility for their failed schemes. Instead they always blame someone else.

Attorney General Eric Holder's actions are destroying moral at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, while opening the door and providing opportunity for "man caused disasters" to occur here. If we lose a city or two liberals will find a way to blame it on Bush, or maybe on their new favorite whipping boy, Cheney.

The "war" in Korea was never ended, and the "war" in Vietnam was lost by politicians and the news media. Rules of engagement issued from the White House prevented our generals from developing winning battle plans. In fact, winning was never an option in either "war." Winning is impossible when the enemy is granted sanctuaries where they can rest, re-supply, and stockpile weapons and replacement personnel. Now we're engaging in a similar farce in Afghanistan. "Winning the hearts and minds" doesn't win a war. We tried that in Vietnam. The concept had a chance of success in Iraq, if we were prepared to stay for several decades. Now the evil head of civil war is already peeking out of the desert, as we hurriedly withdraw from Iraq. As we depart, Iran arrives.

Islamic fundamentalists have no intention of living in peace with the rest of the world. Doing so is against their religious beliefs. Denial will not alter facts. No one can control religious fanatics. Like communists, they feel compelled to change the entire world to their way of thinking.

Last year I predicted that Israel would strike Iran before Mr. Obama sat in the Oval Office, and I was wrong. Israel waited, and now (thanks to Obama) they're standing alone, facing a nuclear Iran. There are indications that Iran is, or has, purchased the new Russian S300 surface to air missile system. If true, once installed Israel will not be able to mount an air attack on Iran's nuclear sites. There are reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret trip to Russia to discuss a possible attack on Iran. Our imperial president has crowded Israel into a corner, leaving them but two options: capitulate or attack. If an air strike becomes impossible, what option is left? Take time to consider this, for Israel's decision will effect all Americans.

As I watch in wonder while each new unbelievable Change occurs, I can't help but fear for our great Constitutional Republic know as the United States of America. For if the American public fails to wake up, clamp down on the Congress, and end Obama's imperial reign, we may have a real imperial president like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez.