Jim,
There is another line of reasoning concerning the November election:
The founders intended for government to be constrained by rule of law, and provided a Constitution designed to create suitable boundaries. Since then, we have had weak leaders and strong leaders, men of integrity, and men sold into vile corruption; but as long as the rule of law was preserved, and Constitutional limits observed, the Republic could survive these human shortcomings. I am well aware that the fabric has strained over the past hundred years, (arguably since Lincoln, or even Marbury vs. Madison?), and I work ( as you do) towards reestablishing Constitutional limits on Federal authority. But as long as participants in the political process defer to rule of law, we have a hope of restoring the Republic.
Our current President is unlike previous occupants of the White House in that he does not merely seek to enact legislation, or pursue an agenda; but rather, he strives always for the mastery, for political power, and for the abrogation of legal limits on his own authority. He has created a clique of political apparatchiks within the various Federal agencies which abet his desires, and he has developed political power within the fourth estate and the Democratic Party which render him largely immune to criticism or the consequences of his actions. In short, BHO appears to be a revolutionary intent on establishing a personal, dictatorial rule by whatever means are necessary.
While we may argue based upon his behavior whether he is socialist or Marxist, Muslim or atheist, anti-colonial or merely gangster, we have no instance where he did not react forcefully to any attempt to limit his personal power. He uses czars and recess appointments to evade the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ powers (Article II, Section 2), he deigns to enforce laws or not enforce laws based upon his personal predilection (DOMA and immigration), he refuses to consult Congress when commiting acts of war (Article I, Section 8 and War powers), his DOJ and DOI secretaries both defy Congressional subpoenas, he demonizes any branch of government which opposes him, he strengthens Patriot Act and other provisions which allow him to personally make the life or death decisions, he plays multinational institutions against Constitutional liberties (the UN against Arizona over immigration), and he publicly demagogues how he will act without Congress. All the while building up his power base and destabilizing the government with Unions, state supported voter fraud, and Communist/Marxist/revolutionary movements. One might easily make the case that all of his efforts are designed to overcome the rule of law and establish the personal rule of BHO.
As such, BHO is a threat to the very life of the Republic in a way that the US has not experienced up to now. Like a Hitler, or a Chavez, or a Castro, every day that BHO remains in office is a day that he may use his authority to undermine the rule of law. While Romney has never been my candidate, and remains a very poor choice for the Republican nominee (much less POTUS), Romney is not a threat to the rule of law or an envoy of complete destruction to the Constitutional Republic. Romney lacks the political power, the driving ambition, and the amoral, sociopathic detachment necessary to become a world historical villain.
For those of us who see Obama as the beginning of the US principate, or our first revolutionary dictator, the choice is pretty clear. We MUST get rid of him before he completes his mission. I think I speak for a lot of conservatives when I say that I don’t like this choice, but I will stop the dictator before he becomes Hitler.
Amen to all of that. It is the truth, and sadly, the choice we are left with. I agree with you and thank you for your post.
Why I will Vote For Romney in November
http://www.jeffhead.com/Romney2012.htm
Obama’s Disasterous Firsts as President
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama1sts.htm