“Just Asking” — Will President Obama “Leave” the Presidency in 2017?

It’s been awhile since I wrote about this, but World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah’s argument with RightWingWatch prompted me to revisit it, even though we’re still two years away from the Obamapocalypse.

First, there was on Thursday a column published by Joseph Farah, “Will Obama Leave Office in 2017?” It got 715 comments (so far). This was followed up on Friday by a published e-mail from a Frances Haase: “How Obama Could Stay in Office in 2017.” Just speculating about civil unrest and martial law and suspension of elections. It got one comment.

Then, in response later that day, Miranda Blue published on RightWingWatch: “Joseph Farah Is ‘Just Asking’: Will Obama Actually Leave Office in January 2017?” RWW noted this:

“[W]hy do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?” Farah asks in a column today. “I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why.”

It’s a pathetic phrase that is often used by people who want to say something they know will be controversial and, for some reason or another (since Farah has said far more controversial things and been forthright about it), they don’t want it coming back on them, or they want an excuse to say, “Hey! I didn’t actually say that, I was just asking the question!”

Richard Hoagland does this a lot when claiming that every asteroid and comet is a space ship.

Despite RWW and WND going head-to-head for years, apparently it rubbed Joseph Farah the wrong way. He actually responded in a column on Sunday: “Who Would Oppose Obama 3rd Term?” Who indeed? He starts out his column as such:

In this space on Thursday, I raised a question that Americans had only been whispering about among trusted friends: Will Barack Obama leave office in 2017?”

People for the American Way’s “Right Wing Watch” didn’t like it.

I trust that means the group will use all of its influence and legal firepower to oppose any attempt by Obama to subvert the law – though there was no hint of that in its response.

Rush Limbaugh responded to the question Friday when a caller raised the possibility Obama might ignore the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution as he has ignored so many other laws since taking office.

[…] Limbaugh speculated that Obama might actually consider the possibility of a third term given the Democratic Party’s weak field of potential presidential candidates for 2016. He imagined Obama going on television and making a case to the American people that he is in the best position to stop a Republican from capturing the White House – “not after eight courageous years of transforming America!”

So, “Not only am I ‘just askin’,’ but so is Papa Rush!”

RightWingWatch responded today with a post by Peter Montgomery: “Birther Joseph Farah Wants PFAW Help To Block Third Obama Term. Let’s Make A Deal.” Here’s his proposal:

Farah was apparently bothered that Miranda’s RWW post did not include a pledge that People For the American Way would “use all of its influence and legal firepower” to stop Obama from chucking the Constitution in a White House power-grab. Of course we don’t take the possibility seriously, but since Farah seems to, let’s offer him a proposition: If President Obama refuses to allow a constitutional transfer of power to his successor, we will join you at the barricades. If the American republic miraculously survives, you will stop polluting the public discourse with toxic nonsense. Deal?

I think that’s fair.

And the Conspiracy Starts: Obama Won’t Leave Office in 2016

I remember it well: The year was 2007, or perhaps 2008, and I was listening to some nameless conspiracy talk-show. The host and guest du jour were talking about what seemed like The Impossible — then-President George W. Bush might now relinquish control of the Presidency in January 2009. He might just refuse to do it. He might declare martial law, or some health emergency, or make up some terrorist threat. Would he nuke a US city and claim someone else did it instead? The murmurings continued until, finally, like a breath of fresh air – and Constitutional Crisis averted – President Obama too the Oath of Office and became the new President of the United States.

Whew.

Or not?

On February 11, 2014, World Net Daily’s Kathy Shaidle raised the specter of those rumblings from oh-so-many years ago: “Will Obama Not Leave Office After 2016?”

Ms. Shaidle is apparently echoing the musings of Rush Limbaugh, which makes a little more sense: “For the second time this year, talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh has expressed his fear that President Obama may not step down when his term ends in 2017. To make his point on his national broadcast Tuesday afternoon, Limbaugh cited Obama’s three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. “They’re delaying [the full implementation of Obamacare] until Obama’s gone. Although what evidence do we have that Obama’s leaving?” Limbaugh added provocatively.”

Sigh. I think we can expect more of this until January 2017, when the next President takes the Oath of Office. With GW Bush, all sides of the political spectrum participated in this conspiracy-mongering. The liberals because they hated Bush, the conservatives because it was an anti-big-government conspiracy they could latch onto. I suspect this time, it will be mostly the conservatives trumpeting this conspiracy.

Obama’s Not President?

On Christmas, a bizarre story came out on World Net Daily, written by Erik Rush, “a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare,” and the article has a form at the bottom so that you can sign up to “Receive Erik Rush’s commentaries in your email.” The title was, “Stop Pretending Obama Is Our President.” It opens with this:

When are we going to stop pretending that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama and currently holding the office of president of the United States is anything other than a foreign-backed, Marxist operative and Islamist whose objectives include the effective destruction of America as we know it?

As I advised my streaming show audience this week, I – or anyone else, for that matter – could crack the façade concerning our president’s motives in seconds on any one of the national television news shows on which I’ve appeared by asking one simple question:

“Why is it that everything – everything – Obama has done has had a detrimental effect on America?” Enumerating them and clarifying said motives would, of course, be child’s play.

I started WND Watch blog to make people aware of some of the more crazy things going on on WND, and it’s evolved since then into more my own commentaries. However, I think that, in this case, I’m going to leave it at that. This is definitely one of those crazy things on WND, and I don’t think anything more needs to be said about it.

Birthers Live On on World Net Daily

I really don’t know what World Net Daily hopes to accomplish other than drumming up continued support for its extreme right-wing conspiracy-minded readership (and staff). Bob Unruh’s article on December 13, “‘Universe-Shattering’ Twist in Obama Birth Probe,” is yet another in a long line of articles (which really began with WND) that President Obama was not born in the United States.

This one, in particular, is really just an announcement article of things to come. Which never did. Especially something “universe-shattering.” The claim this time appears to be centered around the death of Hawai’i state Health Department chief, Loretta Fuddy, from a plane crash. The clear implication being that she was going to reveal something. The obvious question being, if she had any information about this, why would she be killed five years after President Obama’s election when he has no further elections for which to run? Seems kinda like the King Tut “curse” (supposedly, everyone involved with the excavation died because of the “curse,” except that the vast majority died decades later of natural causes).

However, I suppose the article accomplished its goal. As of this writing, or last reloading of the article, there were 1,492 ratings for an average of 4.82/5 stars. Pretty high – the most I’ve seen. Similarly, there are 1755 comments, the highest one getting 101 up-votes, another indication of how much this was read. I guess it’s pretty clear what WND readers tend to like to read on the site.

Meanwhile, a few weeks later on January 2, 2014, Bob Unruh put out another article trying to, yet again, make a mountain out of a molecule: “White House Nightmare: Eligibility Case Still Alive.” Except it’s not. And the “universe-shattering” information is not revealed, though the promise of it persisted:

Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, told WND only weeks ago that the investigation continues, and is getting close to results, as sheriff’s investigators now are officially helping the volunteer Cold Case Posse.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”

Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.

Something tells me that President Obama is not having nightmares about this in anticipation. But, the article again achieved the goal of driving up the faithful: It garnered 837 ratings (a whopping 4.86/5 average, one of the highest I’ve seen with >100 ratings), and 1246 comments.

We’re Against Wildlife Protection and Hunting Restrictions, Unless Obama Is, Too

In a link to an Associated Press article, WND posted on December 7, “Obama Offers 30-Year Eagle-Killing Permits.”

I admit that the image in my head was of former governor, former VP candidate Sarah Palin now not going elk hunting in her helicopter, but going eagle hunting.

This visage in my head is because, typically, I read and hear about how conservatives are against any hunting restrictions, are against wildlife protection, want to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, and think it’s insane that if you kill an animal on your property that’s threatening you, it is you who could be doing something illegal and could be punished. That’s what you typically hear about, right?

This story is about President Obama’s administration granting permits to some startups that want to make wind farms to generate electricity, but those startups are afraid to do so because of the danger of killing a bald or golden eagle that may fly into the blades. The illegality of killing those eagles makes many balk at trying to start it up, because lawyer fees may cost as much as the equipment (maybe? — you get the idea). This permitting process is meant to ease that so more will be encouraged to make these wind farms.

It seems like a win-win from my point of view between the small (but growing) wind power industry and conservative ideas in the sense of easing restrictions on killing wildlife accidentally. Environmentalists, won’t be happy, but that’s a third party that WND certainly doesn’t care about in this story.

What I don’t understand is why WND readers are so ticked about this. The story does only have 3 ratings (3.67/5 stars) and 14 comments. The highest-rated is “Tosheba” with 10 up and 0 down: “Oh, man, this dude is dangerous.” “Looking4Sanity” (who won’t find it on WND) responded with, “The worst is yet to come. Brace yourself.” That person got 8 up votes and 0 down. Other comments are similar but longer.

I seriously do not understand this. It it that bald eagles are different because they are the national bird? Then what about the golden eagle permit? Or, is it as I proposed that they really would be for this if anyone except President Obama had been the one to authorize it?

Obama is Firing Generals to Weaken Us (the US)

If there’s something (two things) that one can say typifies many conservatives, it’s that the government should be shrunk and the military should be strengthened. Yes, that is a VERY reduced version of the argument, but I don’t think I’ve misrepresented its principle (please correct me if I’m wrong). In that sense, I find the positions a tad dissonant since government funds the military.

That’s the purpose of this column by E. Michael Maloof, taking a break from warning us we’re all DOOOOOOMED by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack and taking the time to explain, “Obama ‘Gutting Military’ by Purging Generals.”

President Obama has fired “nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term.” WND wrote: “Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide. “Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.”

This of course plays into the conspiracy that President Obama is trying to weaken the United States for a takeover by [insert boogyman of the week, such as the UN, China, Russia, Muslims, etc.]. This is also bad because, apparently: “The military is looked upon as one of the last bastions of conservative ideas, even though under the Obama administration, it, too, has become a testing ground for social experimentation. The efforts include openly homosexual behavior and women in combat.”

The article was VERY widely read by WND fans, garnering 1,869 ratings as of today with an average of 4.81 out of 5 stars. It also has a whopping 1404 comments. The article was published around 10 days ago, and it’s still garnering comments. The comments are what one would expect for WND, Obama = evil = Hitler and various other comparisons and complaints.

What they ignore is that this has been talked about for several years as a way to reduce the deficit; or, at least to reduce some spending. It’s something that I remembered because of the name: Star Creep. There are numerous articles about it, but here’s one from 2012. The idea is that generals keep getting promoted and then sit at the Pentagon not doing much but get paid to sit there. And when they retire, they somehow make even more money.

I’m not saying that this is the reason that President Obama is removing these generals because of this issue — I did minimal (as in, no) work with respect to investigating this, since the point of this blog is more to point out what WND is thinking rather than be an excellent example of investigative journalism.

Obama’s Approval Low, WND Ignores Obvious Comparison with Bush II

In a link to a Politico article, World Net Daily publishes with a video the story, “Poll: Obama Approval at All-Time Low.” President Obama’s approval rating is around 42%, disapproval rating is 51%.

Okay … now compare that with G.W. Bush. His approval rating over the course of his presidency averaged 49% with the first term anomalously high due to Sept. 11, 2001, at 62%. His second term average (remember, Obama is in his second term) was 37% approval, and his low point was 25% which happened in three separate polls.

Clearly, people have long-term memory issues. World Net Daily commenters are among them.

“Bossman22” with 13 up-votes wrote the comment, “Obama’s approval at an all-time low? Why does it matter? His approval has ALWAYS been low, yet there are enough no-and-low information voters who keep voting him and the Democrats in office and it doesn’t look like it’s going to stop. Look at how millions of racist blacks voted for him despite most openly disapproving of his policies.”

That’s the general tone of the comments. ‘Nough said.