Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh: If Obama Sought Third Term, Would Anyone Stop Him?
newsbusters.org,blogs ^ | March 9 2015 | Jack Coleman

Posted on 03/10/2015 6:49:58 AM PDT by Whenifhow

The listener's question -- even though the 22nd Amendment prevents President Obama from seeking a third term, what if he decided to remain in office after January 2017? [Rush]

Let's put this in a scenario, because some of you might be thinking, all right, Rush, now this is, we're going too far now. I mean, now all you guys thinking Obama's doing this and that and he's violating the Constitution, but he would never -- well, let's construct a scenario and see if it has even the slightest bit of believability. And let's establish some things that we know to be true that Obama also knows and chief among those is that the Republican Party has said that impeachment is off the table, and more than once they've said this. The Republican Party has made it clear that they will not use that constitutional measure as a means of reining Obama in and maybe even getting him out of office.

They have also made it very clear in just the most recent vote on the funding for Department of Homeland Security that they will not use the power of the purse to stop Obama. OK, so those two realities equal Obama fully aware the Republican Party will take no steps to stop him in his ongoing violations, and running up to the edges, of the Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 22ndamendment; election2016; emperorobama; kingobama; naturalborncitizen; obama; rush; rushlimbaugh; termlimits; thirdterm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last
To: butterdezillion

See FRmail


61 posted on 03/11/2015 3:09:01 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
Because the 22nd amendment is the Presidential term limit of two terms or 10 years, and Obama hadn't reached the limit yet.

-PJ

62 posted on 03/11/2015 4:02:27 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

I meant why didn’t they (other candidates) challenge this part, an ineligible person running?

From your post:
“.... A person who is ineligible to serve cannot run for office. Running is the act, and the other candidates have standing because they are harmed by an ineligible candidate that is running nonetheless. ....”

Any of the candidates (p&f, green, aip, constitution, etc) could have challenged, not just the top two parties (r&d).


63 posted on 03/11/2015 6:15:48 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“The should have stopped Hitler in Munich.”

In how many variations has that sentence been uttered throughout history.

Now kids are asking, “Who’s Hitler?”


64 posted on 03/11/2015 6:20:10 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
I remember all the posts in the late 90s on FR speculating that BJ and Hill would never leave the WH.
65 posted on 03/11/2015 6:38:24 AM PDT by Ghost of SVR4 (So many are so hopelessly dependent on the government that they will fight to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
You are mixing to issues together: candidates challenging an ineligible candidate, and the basis of the eligibility.

As to the basis, nobody was going near the 20th amendment qualifications birth certificate NBC claim; that was toxic. The 22nd amendment term limits claim is much more solid in 2016, and it didn't exist before.

As for other candidates challenging, sure. Why not have all of them challenge? I'm responding to the standing claim by saying that top national figures would not put up with a challenge to their standing the way a minor candidate might. The top candidates have the authority of their current offices to push back against credibility smears.

-PJ

66 posted on 03/11/2015 7:09:25 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Would anyone stop him? No.


67 posted on 03/11/2015 7:10:29 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Cankles Clinton might have something to say about it.


68 posted on 03/11/2015 7:43:08 AM PDT by Politicalkiddo (The family unit plays a critical role in our society and in the training of the generation to come.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

If a judge denies standing and SCOTUS refuses to take the appeal, how the heck does even a “top candidate” “not put up with a challenge to their standing”?

Phil Berg filed his lawsuit against Obama’s eligibility - unofficially on Hillary’s behalf. There’s a reason that Hillary had to have a surrogate file the suit for her. People close to the Hillary campaign said that the Clintons always intended to bring up Obama’s eligibility problem at the DNC convention, if necessary. The plan within the last weeks before the convention was to have Bill Clinton’s good friend - head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney - challenge the first vote so a 2nd vote would be forced, thus enabling delegates to change their votes to Hillary. And then they were going to present the bombshell evidence that Obama was not eligible and Hillary was going to become the candidate.

Unfortunately for Hillary, Gwatney was killed within days of agreeing to bring on the 2nd round of voting - supposedly the victim of a random shooting, with the perp killed by the cops. And then about a week later, right after Stephanie Tubbs agreed to bring on the 2nd round of voting - she suffered what was called an “aneurysm” (one of the covert ways of getting rid of people) and died. The Hillary people have said that what finally stopped the Clintons was a threat that if they pursued the eligibility issue Chelsea would be killed.

Within a day or two of Tubbs’ death Hillary supporter Phil Berg filed his lawsuit, since Hillary couldn’t do it. The DNC Convention was within the next week or so, IIRC, and there was a LOT of thuggery going on there, to silence the Hillary people.

The judge in Berg’s lawsuit initially acted like he took it seriously. Obama failed to produce required documents and Berg filed to have it legally recognized that Obama had conceded the point that he is ineligible. Then the judge suddenly did a 180-degree turnaround and said that Berg lacked standing - it wasn’t his business, he had no right as a DNC donor to make sure that the DNC followed their own by-laws requiring an ELIGIBLE candidate. (Bear in mind that the state SOS’s claim that they HAVE to put on the ballot whoever the DNC nominates, eligibility be damned).

Now - given all that - what makes you so sure that the same thing could not happen to ANYBODY, regardless of how big-name they are?

2008 was a coup, complete with murders and threats of murder. EVERY judicial, Congressional, and media (including “conservative”) entity claimed that it is NOBODY’S BUSINESS to make sure that the Constitution, basic documentation requirements, due process, etc are followed. In October of 2008 the media companies were threatened by Soros, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod with annihilation if they addressed Obama’s ineligibility and Muslim leanings.

Rush Limbaugh did not poo-pooh this question. He knows that it no longer works to say, “It could never happen here.” When people are threatened and killed it’s a totally different ballgame. And that is what this regime does. Period.

Unless you’ve been in the place of having your family’s lives threatened and seeing physical harm come to them, you have no idea what these “high profile” people are dealing with. You have no idea what it’s like to call the regime’s bluff and watch your loved ones suffer because of it. And as long as you keep buying into the idea that “it could never happen here” you’ll never face that scenario because you pose no threat to this regime. That scenario will fall to the people with the stubbornness and tenacity to face the ridicule and face the mafia by simply finding out and pointing out the truth - people who will never be able to feel good about doing so because they know what it cost their families.

That’s where we’re at, and the sooner we ALL recognize that and deal with it, the more of a fighting chance this nation has. Because ultimately it comes down to Obama bringing a gun to a knife fight, as he said in his own words. Until we recognize the criminal that he is, and how his Islamist puppet-masters took the entire system hostage, we will never have the determination and sense to bring a cannon to Obama’s gun fight. That’s the only way we can defeat the enemies of this nation who now have “Al Qaeda” “inside the building”...


69 posted on 03/11/2015 5:04:09 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

There were four people with perfect standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge Obama’s eligibility. They were the only other people who received Electoral votes and who could show DIRECT injury from an ineligible candidate being elected: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
None of them filed suit, however.


70 posted on 03/11/2015 5:30:50 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If a judge denies standing and SCOTUS refuses to take the appeal, how the heck does even a “top candidate” “not put up with a challenge to their standing”?

You're giving judges too much power, and not giving Senators/Governors/Presidential candidates enough. You keep citing minor players to make your point against top candidates.

You can't transfer the experiences of these minor characters to top-tier candidates during the campaign season.

Why can't you imagine a public outcry if a governor-candidate were to be rebuffed on the flimsiest of excuses? Why can't you imagine that someone running for the "leader of the free world" wouldn't push back? Why can't you imagine that the situation is different for 22nd amendment term limits? This is not "established by the state" language.

-PJ

71 posted on 03/11/2015 5:43:23 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

The fate of this nation is only the “business” of 2 people every 4 years, you say?

Spoken like a slithering snake hissing in the ears. Disgusting.

It is because of people like you that the fate of this nation will never finally be decided in a courtroom or by the ballot box, but by whether the patriots ever stand up and bring a cannon to Obama’s gunfight.

People, think about what you are going to do in that event - how far you are willing to go to protect the people and the freedoms that you love - because war is inevitable. With every hiss of every slithering snake that war becomes more and more inevitable as the process itself is decapitating this country, cutting off the Constitution that has protected us all these many years.

ISIS with all its blood and filth has NOTHING on Obama and his handlers, because the handlers that own ISIS also own Obama. They are the same team - it’s just that Obama’s handlers hiss and ooze soothingly while they wrap their deadly coils around the neck of this nation.

I’m not going to reply to you, Nero, because I already know which side you’re on and I have nothing to say to you. I’m talking to everybody else, because the day of decision is almost upon us. And to all of you I say: Have your answer ready, because when the time comes it will be too late to beg for thinking time.


72 posted on 03/11/2015 5:45:40 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

What don’t you understand about “Chelsea will be killed if you resist”?


73 posted on 03/11/2015 5:46:28 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

A lot of regular people will correct things in short order.

But I will tell you one thing—Rush will not do a damn thing.


74 posted on 03/11/2015 5:48:55 PM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
These top candidates will receive Secret Service protection. What would happen if a Senator or Governor goes public with the threat and the Secret Service gets involved?

-PJ

75 posted on 03/11/2015 6:08:23 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Is that before their loved ones (who don’t have Secret Service protection) are killed (perhaps by an “accident” or a simulated medical event like a heart attack, aneurysm, cardiac arrhythmia, etc) or incapacitated by poisons that simulate Alzheimers, etc.... or after?

Bill and Hillary both had Secret Service protection.

The reason Glenn Beck left Fox was because Fox would not provide bodyguards for his secretary who was receiving daily death threats...


76 posted on 03/11/2015 6:14:09 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“A person who is ineligible to serve cannot run for office.”

Wrong. As long as Nancy Pelosi signs his certificate swearing he is eligible then he can run, just like last time. The Supreme Court said NO ONE has standing to challenge that.


77 posted on 03/11/2015 6:33:52 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be outlawed and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Again, minor characters. Think Rubio, Walker, Christie, Huckabee, Perry, Cruz, and more. Are ALL of them going to get threatened? Plus the District court judges, plus the appellate s, plus SCOTUS?

And then ALL of them will stay silent in fear of Obama?

We're talking about large egos to begin with, because they are Presidential contenders. You think that ALL of them would cower before the Almighty Obama?

-PJ

78 posted on 03/11/2015 8:09:07 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
That was meant to be ineligible under the 22nd amendment. Pelosi wouldn't be so foolish to sign off on that.

-PJ

79 posted on 03/11/2015 8:10:45 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

You think Hillary and Bill don’t have large egos?

The regime has ways of controlling judges - and John Roberts’ turnabout on Obamacare should have us all quaking in our boots. There is much, much more to that story, but it’s not yet time to tell it (and I’m not the one who should be telling it anyway).

And if you saw the post of this thread’s resident snake, you’d know the argument made by a lot of “conservatives” in places like FR: the puppet-masters don’t have to threaten ALL of the contenders, just the one who could claim they would be President if Obama had been forced to obey the Constitution. And they could only claim that after Obama had already violated the Constitution - in a system that claims that Constitutional issues are NOT decided by the courts but by Congress (since the courts say it is a “political issue”) and where Congress has said it will NOT “overturn the results of an election”.

IOW, we’ve already been told what the score is, and the fact is that if everybody lives by the same arguments they made so adamantly in 2008 and 2012, the only thing standing in the way of Obama illegally occupying our White House for life (presuming he has the audacity to try it...) is whether the person who tabulates the votes puts more electoral votes for the D, or for the R.

And that’s pretty much what Rush said too. He knows what’s going on. I’m glad that he recognizes that 2008 was a coup...


80 posted on 03/11/2015 8:30:50 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson