The Obama rainbow flag. Democrats now run from this flag and the man. The Obama rainbow flag. Democrats now run from this flag and the man.

King Obama?

Does Barack Obama hope to make himself King Obama? At a recent international meeting, Barack Obama took pains to deny this. When one has to take such pains to deny an unpleasant thing, any observer must suspect this thing is true after all. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Barack Obama, de facto President of the United States.

Obama made this suspicious denial in a 38 minute speech, which he gave in Brussels, Belgium, on June 3rd, 2014. He said,

Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs.

He was really trying to deny he felt that way. He said he was speaking of theories of power that belonged in history. Evidently that included this idea:

Order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.

As Leon Puissegur said at Freedom Outpost, actions speak louder than words. Indeed the full context, far from being exculpatory, is damning. He was speaking hopefully of a new world order. Such an order results only when a single government holds sway over all the peoples of the earth. This has been the dream of Progressives at least since Woodrow Wilson. Many Hollywood actors and motion picture and television producers have thought and acted this way for decades. One should recall the late Walter Cronkite, who explicitly called for Americans to “swallow” a “bitter pill” and surrender the sovereignty of the United States to something one might call the United Federation of Man.

King Obama in action

More to the point, the actions of the de facto President belie his disclaimer. The man calling himself President Obama has acted as if he were in fact King Obama. In the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson,

To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has introduced new regulations in a variety of context, from wages to the environment, without consulting Congress, and certainly without seeking Congressional consent.
  • For three and a half years, the United States military has labored under a directive allowing the (de facto) President to send troops in when local authorities cannot or will not do what King Obama thinks is their duty.
  • He has ordered his civilian agencies to buy large quantities of ammunition, including hollow-point ammunition that cannot have a legitimate application in target practice or even in battle according to the current rules of war.
  • He is also supplying Army surplus armored vehicles to police departments both large and small, and in every other way contributing to an awful over-militarization of police in the United States.

With regard to this last, the United States of America is not supposed to have a Gendarmerie, like the organization of that name in France, or the Carabinieri in Italy,or the Mounties in Canada. Yet every month brings a fresh report that King Obama is placing military hardware in the hands of ever smaller police departments. This goes far beyond the equipping of Special Weapons And Tactical (SWAT) forces in major US cities that might, or might not, become targets of terrorism.

Would King Obama really give up?

King Obama as the Sun King
“You should be thanking me,” says King Obama, his face grafted onto the classic portrait of Louis XIV. Graphic by Yael of the “Boker Tov, Boulder” blog.

Not every report agrees that the so-called President Obama wants to become King Obama. Two writers at Politico.com seem to think Obama has given up. They cite Obama’s increased penchant for vacationing, and for preferring recreational pursuits over his official duties. Yet King Louis XIV of France made himself famous for his recreational pursuits, typically involving members of the nobility whom he wanted to keep close. No one ever accused Louis XIV of being lazy or of giving up trying to make himself the absolute ruler of his country. In fact, Louis XIV famously said,

I am the state.

All his dinner parties, boating parties, and the elaborate ceremony of his getting out of bed every morning, were deliberate ploys. Louis XIV obviously believed in keeping his friends close and enemies closer. Why shouldn’t we believe King Obama would want to do the same thing?

Ironically, the same motion picture industry which now seems bent on crowning King Obama as soon as they can, gives clues to his attitude and behavior in some of the most famous lines that any motion picture actor ever uttered. These lines by Actor Sterling Hayden, as General Jack D. Ripper in the motion picture Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, spring to mind. He asked his executive officer whether he knew what the French Prime Minister Clemenceau once said about war.

He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, fifty years ago, he might have been right. But today war is too important to be left the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.

Compare those words, however fictitious, to the very real words that Barack Obama spoke. You will readily see that Barack Obama truly believes the affairs of state are too important to be left to ordinary citizens. I use the word citizens advisedly. To King Obama, we are and by right should be subjects.

In a sense truer that he knew then, Clemenceau was correct. War is too important to be left to the generals. But war and other affairs of state are also too important to be left to politicians, and especially to anyone calling himself President. The electorate must take charge of them again. Every American should remember that, as midterm elections approach this fall. And the next time the would-be King Obama goes on vacation, the citizens should take note of whom he goes golfing or otherwise goes on vacation with. Those are the people he trusts, more than the people. Those are the people to watch. Which is to say, to watch out for.

<a href="https://www.sodahead.com/united-states/king-obama/question-4358571/" title="King Obama?">King Obama?</a>

[subscribe2]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

constitutional law, history, liberty, military, president


Terry A. Hurlbut

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Comments (28)

  • Ruthless dictator is more his forte. A king is generally expected to be benevolent.

  • “including hollow-point ammunition that cannot have a legitimate application in target practice”

    *sigh* We’ve been through this before, several times. You train with the ammunition you’ll actually use. That’s because different ammunition has a different point of impact. If you do your range time with wadcutter ammunition, then load up with hollowpoints, your sights will not be correctly zeroed and you will not hit what you aim at. This is why EVERYBODY does target practice with operational ammunition.

    “or even in battle according to the current rules of war.”

    Which rules, as you know, don’t apply to law enforcement personnel.

    • None of which answers a more basic question: why do all these civilian agencies suddenly need armed police forces, where they never had such armed forces before?

  • “None of which answers a more basic question: why do all these civilian agencies suddenly need armed police forces, where they never had such armed forces before?”

    Name one agency that has been armed by Obama that was previously unarmed before he took office.

    • Where the hotel-echo-double-hockeysticks do I begin?

      Let’s start with the Department of Agriculture.

  • “Where the hotel-echo-double-hockeysticks do I begin?

    Let’s start with the Department of Agriculture.”

    Very well. Let’s start there. There are two law enforcement agencies of the USDA: the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations.

    The Office of Inspector General was given authority to carry firearms by the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, signed by Ronald Reagan.

    The U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations was given authority to carry firearms most recently by the National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986, also signed by Ronald Reagan.

    Want to try again?

    • They were the only two. Now the whole Department, and every agency thereof, or so it seems, have armed themselves.

  • “They were the only two. Now the whole Department, and every agency thereof, or so it seems, have armed themselves.”

    Citation please.

  • “USDA goes paramilitary.”

    That’s from the USDA Office of Inspector General, already mentioned above.

    Why not try another agency? If there are so many that are being armed by Obama (that were previously unarmed), this should be pretty easy.

  • ““USDA goes paramilitary.””

    That link isn’t actually backing up your claims. It just says the USDA is buying the weapons.

  • “why do all these civilian agencies suddenly need armed police forces, where they never had such armed forces before?”

    Probably because they never know when a bunch of heavily armed crazies are going to turn up and point guns at them on live TV?

    • And that is exactly the sort of propaganda by which a group of brown-shirted confidence tricksters convinced the populace of your adopted country to accept One Leader whose word was the only law.

  • It’s not propaganda, Terry. It’s fact. Just weeks ago a federal agency was trying to sort out some over-entitled sponger who thought the government owed him free grazing rights, and a load of heavily armed crazies turned up and pointed guns at them. As at least two of those crazies obviously thought it’s acceptable to murder people just because you disagree with their career choices, can you sort of see why anyone involved in enforcing the law might want to be able to defend themselves?

    • You are being very loose with your accusations against the non-elite in America, and drawing conclusions without any facts. And the reason you’re doing that is that you suffer from one of the most common European political diseases: rhabdouchophilia, or being too friendly, to the point of idolization, obsession, or even fetishism, with that concept called “police.”

  • “one of the most common European political diseases: rhabdouchophilia, or being too friendly… with that concept called “police.”

    That’s because I like another European concept, too; low crime.

    One thing that constantly amazes me about Americans of all varieties, from nutters with stars’n’stripes-painted AR15s to #YesAllWomen ultrafeminist loons, is the degree of fear you live under. Sorry, I just don’t want to go through life in constant low-grade terror of what my fellow citizens might do to me.

    • Criminals make such useful foils for dictators, do they not?

      If every honest citizen and lawful resident were allowed to carry, crime would be even lower than you have it where you live.

  • “If every honest citizen and lawful resident were allowed to carry”

    They are. They just have to demonstrate sanity, competency and compliance with the law.

  • “Criminals make such useful foils for dictators, do they not?”

    I wouldn’t know. Americans seem to be much more frightened of them than Europeans are.

    • And with good reason. Too many of our governments won’t allow my fellow citizens to defend themselves.

  • “Too many of our governments won’t allow my fellow citizens to defend themselves.”

    There you go again. Why the fear? Are Americans really so much more degenerate and violent than Europeans? Guess what: When I go out the house I’m not overcome with angst about how I’m going to defend myself, because I don’t feel threatened.

  • “You mean they just have to demonstrate full accord with the ruling elite.”

    No. I mean they have to demonstrate that they’re not likely to use their guns to hold up a bank, run amok in a school or accidentally fire a shot through their neighbour’s wall because they’re too stupid to operate a safety catch.

    Anyone in Germany who uses their guns to threaten someone will quickly have them confiscated; that way they won’t be able to use them to murder policemen a few weeks later. Can you see why this might be a good idea?

    • That’s called prior restraint.

      Didn’t the citizens of your adopted country learn the first thing from their sorry history with that Bavarian paper hanger?!?

  • “That’s called prior restraint.”

    No, it’s called keeping guns out of the hands of people who can’t be trusted with them. And before you come up with some weird definition of “trusted” I mean “trusted not to murder people.” You know, like Jerad and Amanda Miller did in Vegas but couldn’t have done here (because their guns would have been confiscated…)

    “Didn’t the citizens of your adopted country learn the first thing from their sorry history with that Bavarian paper hanger?!?”

    What Bavarian paper hanger?

    • Hör auf damit, mein Herr. Prior restraint is prior restraint.

      And the Bavarian paper hanger I referred to? Who else but Adolf Hitler? Adolf Hitler, who moved at once to confiscate everyone’s guns when he became Führer.

  • “Prior restraint is prior restraint.”

    Whatever. If that means taking guns out of the hands of maniacs who walk around pointing them at strangers, while leaving law-abiding shooters in peace, I’m fine with it.

    “And the Bavarian paper hanger I referred to? Who else but Adolf Hitler?”

    He was Austrian.

    “Adolf Hitler, who moved at once to confiscate everyone’s guns when he became Führer.”

    Except he didn’t. In fact the Nazis LIBERALISED gun laws. Among other things they lowered the age for gun ownership from 20 to 18, removed all restrictions on long-barrelled weapons and ammunition, extended handgun permit validity from one to three years and massively expanded the number of people who could buy handguns without a permit. The HJ also taught shooting as a core activity. The Nazis actively encouraged gun ownership in many ways. The idea that they introduced gun control is simply a myth.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



© All Rights Reserved. Conservative News and Views.

Back to Top