Is Barack Obama a Megalomaniac?

by heyrob4449

Merriam-Webster: MegalomaniaA delusional mental disorder marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Let’s examine a few of Obama’s words and deeds and try to draw a reasoned conclusion on this question. The examples we can draw from go back to before the 2008 election; however I think we can paint a pretty clear picture with just three recent examples.

We’ll start with Obama’s September 2011 order allowing the killing of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, without benefit of any criminal charge or trial, a blatant violation of the man’s 5th amendment right to due process. The killing, accomplished by a missile fired from a pilotless drone over Yemen, was not done as a response to any physical act of aggression against the United States or its citizens. Furthermore the killing was not limited to al-Awlaki, but also killed his 15-year-old son, another constitutionally protected U.S. citizen.

Surprisingly little was made of the incident by the liberally biased mainstream media, but on March 5th 2012, without mentioning al-Awlaki specifically, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at Northwestern University, near Chicago, that amounted to a defense of, and justification for the policy behind the Obama administration’s “war on terror” and what he described as “extrajudicial killings.” Really? Now I consider myself to be quite constitutionally literate, but can someone please point out to me where there is a constitutional provision for “extrajudicial killings”, because despite my best efforts I can’t seem to find it.

It’s clear that there was plenty of evidence that al-Awlaki was involved in a number of terrorist plots aimed at the United States, and I have no regret that al-Awlaki is no longer a threat to our security. However, Obama has far exceeded any semblance of executive authority with this “extrajudicial killing”. Plainly that’s just semantics, an attempt to make politically palatable what was nothing less than murder by executive order. If that doesn’t send a chill down the spine of any red-blooded American, nothing will. Obama has stated repeatedly that he believes that the foreign combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are entitled to trial in an American court of law. How then can he justify killing an American citizen who was never indicted, and in the process kill the man’s son, without the benefit of just such a trial? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, but I’m sure perfectly logical to a megalomaniac.

Let’s move on to the January 12th, 2012 “Recess” appointment of two cabinet level bureaucrats. While the Senate was in pro-forma session (a closed meeting of limited duration), Obama inferred that since the Senate was unavailable it was therefore in recess and inappropriately used the “recess clause” to confirm his own appointments.

Let me explain briefly for those who do not have a full understanding of the constitution and its principles. Our republic is based on the concept of a separation of powers. We have three co-equal branches of government the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme and inferior courts). This provides a system of checks and balances, meaning that no one branch can wield exclusive or dictatorial powers over another branch or area of government. The recess appointment clause was provided because there were times when congress could be in recess for long periods of time and it may be necessary to fill important vacancies during that time. However, it was purposefully included to prevent a single person from having monarchial power to make unrestrained appointments without oversight. Once more Obama believes he is above the constitution, and the Senate let him get away with it.

In the Federalist Papers number 51, James Madison wrote “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” In other words there needs to be a mechanism to prevent exactly what Obama did! Later in the same paragraph Madison wrote “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Barack Obama is clearly no angel and fully resists all constitutional controls placed upon him. My first two examples plainly bear this out.

Finally there are his disturbing statements this past Monday in regard to the Supreme Courts review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare”. Obama’s remarks of April 2nd. can only be attributed to a leak of the results of the initial vote of the court on the merits of the case. Had he not been informed that the court had voted to strike down the unpopular law, what possible reason would he have to lash out as he did?

Obama told reporters “I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary event by overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress,” [emphasis added]. Let’s first examine his claim that overturning the law would be “unprecedented”. The idea is beyond ridiculous, and a true “Constitutional Law Professor” would certainly know it. Since 1789 the Supreme Court has struck down over 150 laws as unconstitutional, 53 of them in the past 30 years alone. So much for unprecedented, but why make such a statement in the first place? If not to hoodwink the more mindless of his minions, then perhaps it’s because he thinks his s**t doesn’t stink. Additionally, there’s the statement that “Obamacare” was passed with a “strong majority”, when in fact it passed by a thin margin of 212 to 219 a mere 7 votes. Hardly a “strong majority”, but I digress.

Then there are his remarks about the court being an “unelected body”, and that overturning the law would amount to “judicial activism“. The court has always been an unelected body, and he has appointed two of those nine justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) himself. That’s in addition to his countless other appointed bureaucrats and czars, who impose their will upon the rest of us with little option for redress or appeal. So what is his point, or more importantly, his intentions if the court dares overturn his signature law?

While I won’t argue any derision of judicial activism, the truth is that courts at all levels have been guilty of  it for years. Yet isn’t it interesting that in 2009 when a federal judge overruled a “democratically” approved amendment to the California State Constitution, to ban same-sex marriage, there was no cry from the White House, the media or anywhere else on the left, about judicial activism? I suppose that such activism is acceptable when it suits your agenda. In reality judicial activism is never okay; but in this case it’s an irrelevant argument, since overturning a clearly unconstitutional measure is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “Activism”.

I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what “his highness” does in June when the Court’s final decision is set to be announced, but his comments were clearly intended to influence the independent actions of the court, and that is almostunprecedented” in our history. Only fellow wannabe dictator FDR has likewise attempted to usurp power beyond that authorized by the constitution, as well as attempt to manipulate the court. In 1937 FDR threatened to expand the court from nine to  fifteen justices by adding a “co-justice” for every one of the six  justices over age 70. That would have given him a majority and made the Supreme Court his obedient servant. Will Obama attempt something similar if he loses this battle?

I’d like to share an example of exemplary executive behavior that I’m convinced Obama will not follow. In 1952 in the shadow of a looming strike by steel workers, President Harry S. Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry and avert the strike, that fight went all the way to the Supreme Court. Before the court ruled on the case, a reporter asked Truman if he would respect the court’s decision. Truman replied “Of course I would. Of course I would.”  The reporter then asked “Well then, as far as you are concerned, the system of checks and balances goes on unimpeded?” to which Truman replied “Why certainly – unimpeded. I have no ambition to be a dictator.”  What a marvelous contrast to the actions of the current resident of the White House!

These are only three recent examples of a long list of things that I believe show a distinct pattern of megalomaniacal behavior on the part of one Barack Hussein Obama. Forget the “Birther” issue, forget Democrat vs. Republican, forget black or white, Hell forget everything else; just ask yourself two questions…  “Are these the actions of an honorable leader?” and “Can I in good conscience allow a man with no demonstrated concern for the constitution or the rights of others, an unrestrained “lame duck” term in office?” I hope your answer to both questions is a resounding NO!

I don’t much like the current field of candidates the Republicans are offering, but I am certain that none of them will attempt to destroy our country, our liberty, or our very way of life, the way this megalomaniac will.


–  Rob

UPDATE:  Although this is sort of old news (December 2011) I came across this article and video while reading another related piece. According to the guests on the MSNBC  show Morning Joe, Obama sees our 18th. century republic as “as a stumbling block that’s getting in the way of his greatness” . More proof that he’s a megalomaniac? You decide.