Could Obama Have Won The Election, Probably Not. However, He Still Might Try To Do It The Old Fashioned Way--Making Sure His Successors Don't Show Up For Inauguration!

What would happen if the President Elect and Vice President Elect could not serve due to death, disability, infirmity or other issue preventing him/her from taking their place at the Inauguration? It is obvious that the 25th Amendment would take effect after the Oath of Office had been administrated. But what happens if the issue arises between the election and January 20? Would/could the standing President a) stay in office until a new election was held and a new leadership team be inaugurated b) Allow the Speaker of the House to become President c) move to have his position become permanent?

The Amendment dealing with this issue (the 25th) does not address the issue of assumption of power between between the election and the inauguration. It only discusses a standing President. Here is what the Amendment says as reported in Wikipedia::

The text of the 25th Amendment:

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.^[3]

If something were to happen to Trump and Mike Pence, would President Obama choose a road not travelled before?  We fear so.  If given the choice, Obama would stay in office (as he feels he deserves being there for a third term), saying he would hold elections at a point in the future--which, like Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, will never happen. 

Maybe this explains some of the moves he has made recently. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which now allows the Pentagon to judge what news is real and what is fake.  Like the Pentagon has never or could never be politicized. It would be nice to have someone on your side deciding to stomp on real news and only put out the "company line" ala the old Soviet News Agency, Pravda.

It also explains the tenor of his actions against Israel.  Obama has emasculated Israel in the world's view. It is no longer in charge of its future, the UN (and Obama) is.  It would show he has the power to hurt any country that does not agree with him.

He has pardoned 3-4 times as many criminals serving sentences than any other President. Are these his shock troops and/ or a dependable voting block?

The talk of war with Russia, trying to put Putin back in his box. He is trying to do things that he has not done in his entire administration.That of being strong.  This change of tactics makes us wonder what is going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And we still have 20 days to go before our fears go away. That is a lot of time to do damage.

For those of us who thought that the worst was over when Trump was elected, it appears as if Obama was not thinking the same way. We fear (and hope we are wrong) that the President has other things up his sleeve and will not leave the Presidency the way the Constitution prescribes. Let's hope that we just had a bad dream and the transition is seamless!

Conservative Tom

King Obama? Would he Have Been Able to Beat Trump?

 13  1  1  12  31 

 

  1

In an interview with David Axlerod, President Obama made it clear that he believes he would have won the election if he had run against Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton. Trump in one of his famous tweets begged to differ. So the question stand – would Barack Obama have been able to crown himself King Obama in a third term?

During the podcast with his former White House adviser Obama said, “I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

Trump’s reply in his tweet was, “President Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY! — jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc.”

During this last month of Hillary Clinton’s failed run for the presidency, Democrats banked on the fact that Obama’s name and record would ensure her the win. But, they couldn’t have been more wrong.

In a number of post-election interviews, Obama insisted that Clinton’s resounding loss is not a rejection of his policies or vision for America. Instead, he argues that the Clinton campaign failed to take advantage of the willing coalition he had put together across the country.

“I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I — if I had run again and articulated it — I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” the president said.

Obama blames a lack of communication of what he has done for the country as the problem. “See, I think the issue was less that Democrats have somehow abandoned the white working class, I think that’s nonsense,” Obama said.

“Look, the Affordable Care Act benefits a huge number of Trump voters. There are a lot of folks in places like West Virginia or Kentucky who didn’t vote for Hillary, didn’t vote for me, but are being helped by this . . . The problem is, is that we’re not there on the ground communicating not only the dry policy aspects of this, but that we care about these communities, that we’re bleeding for these communities.”

In spite of the fact the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” Obama gave political pundits reason to debate a non-issue.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich reacted to Obama’s claim by saying, “Obama doesn’t know and neither does anyone else. Obama would have increased the turnout in the African-American community, but he also might have increased the repudiation of him among those who felt they were betrayed. All of the lies he told about Obamacare, ‘keeping your doctor’ . . . would have come back to haunt him. It would have been a totally different race.”

Obama’s assertion that he would win a hypothetical race against Trump is not as certain as he states. Rove said, “I’m not certain if I were President Obama I would be glibly saying ‘I would have won,’ particularly when you read the rest of the interview,” he says, ‘Oh, we were doing great things for rural America and they benefited from the Affordable Care Act, and we really, you know we really did a lot of things for working-class white voters. The economy was getting so much better.'” This is not how people perceived the Affordable Care Act, or the Obama economy, or really even the impact of all of his policies.”

Obama seems to be ignoring the realities of this past election. It is working-class white voters who voted for Trump in record numbers. Middle-class voters of all races have had enough of Obama’s failed agendas. This was no more evident than in Trump’s wins in states that have voted historically Democratic like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Over the past few weeks, Obama has become less and less conciliatory. Trump’s picks for Cabinet-level positions make it obvious he plans to dismantle much of what Obama has accomplished. Trump’s team’s requests for the names of bureaucrats who have worked on Obama priorities like climate change have led liberals to fears he will remove those people from their positions.

Those who voted for Trump, applaud his determination to keep his campaign promises. Those who pine for a King Obama should look at the general election map again. This is still a red country.

~ American Liberty Report

RINOs Running Republicans Really Are Traitors To Those Who Elected Them

LIMBAUGH: GOP LEADERS 'PREFER HILLARY' AS PRESIDENT

'They're not even pretending to be an opposition party'

 JOE KOVACS 

Radio host Rush Limbaugh

PALM BEACH, Florida – The leadership of the Republican Party actually prefers to see Democrat Hillary Clinton elected as next president as opposed to some conservative GOP members running for commander in chief, says talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.

“They would be happier with Hillary Clinton as president than Ted Cruz,” Limbaugh declared on his national broadcast Wednesday.

“And that’s not a feeling. I know that almost for a fact. I know that with almost ontological certitude. They as members of the inside-the-beltway establishment, no way no how, do they want anybody like Ted Cruz in the White House. They would much prefer Hillary.”

Limbaugh flayed the Republican establishment, including outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, for engineering the recent two-year budget deal with President Obama.

“This budget deal essentially paves the way for Hillary Clinton to become president,” Limbaugh said.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/10/Hillary-Clinton-WH.jpg

Hillary Clinton (White House photo)

“What they’re doing makes no sense,” he said of the Republican leadership. “They’re not even an opposition party. They’re not even pretending to be an opposition party.”

Addressing grassroots Republican voters across America, Limbaugh said, “You’ve been lied to in terms of how your representatives were gonna fight the Democrats, fight spending, fight this constant bloat. We can now officially claim that the Republicans are responsible for 5 trillion additional new dollars added to the national debt. Spending bills originate in the Congress. … We turned over the writing of the budget to Obama and the Democrats essentially.”

As far as the reason why the Republican leadership is going along with Democrats, Limbaugh claimed: “There is a combined bipartisan effort to finally render conservatives and conservatism as irrelevant as a pock mark. The only thing that explains this. This is not good budgeting. Not only is it not conservative, it’s not Republican, [or] even moderate Republican.

“This is rubber-stamp liberal Democrat budgetary philosophy. This violates every pledge and promise that they’ve made in election campaigns going back to 2010, repeated in 2012 during the presidential race and repeated again in 2014.”

Limbaugh explained how 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney “let it out of the bag” recently as he pined for the days when there were very few news outlets in America.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/10/mitt-romney-smile-smiling-600.jpg

Mitt Romney

“There was a time when we all got the news with the same facts, if you will. We had three networks we watched for the evening news. Most of us got newspapers. Everybody in the middle class got a newspaper, so we got the same facts whether we agreed or not with them,” Romney said during a recent “Axe Files” podcast with Democratic strategist David Axelrod – Obama’s chief political architect.

But now, Romney bewailed all that’s changed – and not necessarily for the better.

“[Now people] get their news on the Web … they tend to read those things which they agree with,” Romney said. “[They are] not seeing the other side, … not even getting the same facts … [relying on] commentators … who are hyperbolic in expressing their views on issues.”

Romney also said “the extremes within our respective parties are having a louder and louder voice and demanding more attention” and “immediate action” as opposed to “collective action,” Breitbart reported.

“In my party, there are more and more who feel they are more insurgent than toward the center of the party,” he said. “And I think that divisiveness is one of the things that has led to Washington having such a hard time getting things done.”

Like the reporting you see here? 

Romney doubled down on those comments on Sunday during a “State of the Union” interview on CNN. Then, he expressed concern about the rise of conservative insurgents and said: “The challenge in our party is not so much that people have differing views on issues, as much as people have differing views about how to get those issues implemented. There are some in our party who think the best approach is throwing bombs. The problem with bomb throwing so far is that most of the bombs have landed on our own team. That doesn’t help. … We have Paul Ryan, for instance, that’s willing to work with Democrats. I think that’s a productive thing.”

On Wednesday, Limbaugh said: “I haven’t found any reaction to that anywhere. Not a peep. And to me, it was the biggest news because it confirmed long-held suspicions.”

He said Republicans have harmed themselves tremendously in the upcoming election, presuming Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination.

“When you can’t go after the Democrat presidential nominee for who she and what she will do … what in the world are you going to campaign against her on? … What’s gonna be the primary campaign message when all of this is off the table?”

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2015 WND

Since 2012, Relations Between Israel And US Have Gotten Worse And Democratic Support For Israel Has Plummeted!

Contentions

The Democrats and Israel: What Now?

Seth Mandel | @SethAMandel09.06.2012 - 11:05 AM

When you hear a Democratic Party official accuse Republicans of using Israel as a political football, you know one thing for sure: someone in the Democratic Party did or said something patently offensive toward Israel and is being called on it. The accusation that someone on the right is politicizing Israel is an indication that Democrats believe whatever just happened could cost them among Jewish voters—a constituency they take for granted.

So what does it mean when multiple party officials, liberal pundits, and even television “reporters” start making that accusation all at once? Panic. That’s what set in last night after the Democratic Party’s convention delegates angrily voted down adding pro-Israel language back into the party’s platform yesterday—though the language was added anyway over their objections—after party officials were left trying to explain why they and President Obama wanted such language deleted in the first place. Politico notesthat Obama approved the deletion, though there wasn’t much doubt of that, and then adds this delightful anecdote:

The division over Israel also flies in the face of a prediction Obama strategist David Axelrod made days earlier on “Fox News Sunday,” when he crowed that Obama’s convention would be free of the sideshows that plagued the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa.

“We don’t have the problems that the other party has,” Axelrod said then. “We’re not divided. We don’t have to worry about, you know, what people are saying on the side or about their affection for the president or — we don’t have those problems.”

In fact, not only is the Democratic Party divided on Israel, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out on CNN right after the debacle, the Democrats are practically split down the middle on this. He cited a Gallup poll from earlier this year showing that only 53 percent of Democrats—versus 78 percent of Republicans—side with Israel in the Middle East conflict.

Which leads to a larger point about the issue and the reason the Democrats went into damage control last night: the Democratic Party’s base is pulling it away from Israel. It’s disturbing that only half of Democrats sympathize with Israel, but as yesterday’s events showed, among the base sympathy for Israel is not nearly that high.

As Abe wrote last night, yesterday’s disastrous convention session and the fact that Obama will take criticism from all sides on this issue are the price the Democrats are paying for a party divided. But the uproar among Democrats was over adding the pro-Israel language; omitting the language inspired no such soul searching. It is becoming easier in the Democratic Party to ignore Israel than to pronounce support for the Jewish state.

Axelrod was wrong that the party has no divisions. But the question now is: For how much longer will Axelrod be wrong? That 53 percent constitutes a tenuous grasp on a majority. Democratic Party officials can pretend they have no “Israel problem” all they want, and they may soon get their wish. The original version of the 2012 Democratic Party platform was uncontroversial among party faithful. Republicans did the Democrats a favor by stating the obvious, since it gives the Democrats a chance to try to convince their base of the merits of supporting Israel and try to turn the tide. But that there is a tide to turn is undeniable.