Will Obama Keep Power ‘by Any Means Necessary’?

Let’s go there: if Obama thinks he’s losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6?  And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013?  Or will he cling to power “by any means necessary,” as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I’m truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they’re not crazy, and I’ve got a disquieting amount of evidence.  The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years — the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I’ve got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise.  So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.

In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1.  Giuliani’s unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg.  So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits?  He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.

My point?  Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.

Full article