Has Obama developed a "King Complex"?

1. 65

   collegedadposted 10 years ago

   Has Obama developed a "King Complex"?
   
   I heard this today in reference to the 23 executive orders he just signed. Any thoughts?

   replyreport
2. 80

   Kasmanposted 10 years ago

   Yes.  The problem is not the man, it's the motive behind the man. If you look at history and what the founders actually went through.....our system of government was developed around a Trinity style system. In their own writings, to paraphrase, they spoke about power corrupting man because of the sinful heart of a man. So knowing what they knew, they set up the system to keep man's ultimate power desires in check. They used the Bible in many ways to provide the framework of the system of government and then set up the governing bodies in such a way so that it would be almost impossible to gain absolute power through one person or governing body. Has it always worked, no.....but it's rare when it doesn't. In a kind of basic way of putting it, if one body is evil, the other two are righteous, if two are evil, the other one is righteous, and if all three are evil.......God help us.
   
   The other part of that framework is remembering that the position of the president or any other governing branch was initially intended to be an undesirable position. The person in office was to serve the interests of the people, not the reverse. The fact is that they expected the people to do most of their own self governance by God and their relationship to Him. That's why it was created under a limited government charter. And the founders knew that if all three branches were evil (or tyrannical) at one time that the people were the ones who had to set it right, so came in our bill of rights and the many amendmental freedoms that we enjoy.
   
   That's why for the longest time it's been so hard to bring our government down from the inside because there are many safeguards and checks against corruption put in place for such a time as this. Even Abraham Lincoln said that America would not be destroyed from an outside party, but from within. You could almost say some of the founders were making a prophetic prediction. Maybe, but it's more likely that they understood how power hungry men can be (including themselves) and made sure that WE THE PEOPLE had a way of protecting ourselves.
   
   See most people want to look at revisionist history and take it at face value, I used to be one of them.  What is revisionist history? It's a way to convince people that "lie" is truth, bottom line.  But I've done my own research and developed my common sense to understand how unique the godly formation of our country took place. Do I have it all right? Surely not, but I do believe that I'm definitely on the right track.
   
   Don't take what I say, do your own research.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes he has. He has stated on more than one occasion how he wishes he could bypass Congress, only now he feels free to try because he does not need to face the voters again.
      
      I fear the worst is yet to come.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Self governance is key to the survival of the US. "We the people" used to tell our government what we expect of them. Now our government dictates what's expected of us!

      replyreport
3. 69

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   Developed ???  He had it when he got there.  The first year and a half he appointed more Czars that require no congressional approval than 300 years of the Romanov Dynasty.  In his defense, I would have the same complex if the media treated me like a king as well instead of doing their jobs.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not to mention the least transparent in sometime.  Virtually every administration has some form of a scandal. But the media largely ignores or plays defense for him. Fast & Furious, Benghazi etc. If that were Bush it would be on 6 pm news everyni

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The media protected Bush until 2005/2006 when apologists could no longer defend him. His political team even abandoned him. Benghazi was swept under the rug because the 3rd world is going to war against us and we're trying to downplay it.

      replyreport
   3. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Bush never got a single day of positive coverage from the media exept for about a week after 911.  So-called respected journalist like Dan Rather would put up false draft documents without a minutes worth of research.

      replyreport
   4. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that Obama gets more than his share of the limelight. I've actually stopped watching the news as I feel that the commentaries provided by the media aren't worthe the wast of my time. I want new not personal opinions.

      replyreport
   5. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i have no problem with commentators being biased.  But Hard news reporting is so biased to the left now that it's sickening.

      replyreport
   6. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree! I guess we're not intelligent enough to make up our own minds!

      replyreport
4. 90

   adjkp25posted 10 years ago

   Judge what you will on the nature of the executive orders proposed but labeling his actions as a king is a stretch.  Actually, compared to other past presidents and using the royal labeling, he would probably only be a prince.  Here are some year averages of the past couple of presidents:
   
   Obama - 36
   GW Bush - 36
   Clinton - 44
   Bush Sr - 40
   Reagan - 47
   
   http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe … ition.html

   replyreport
   1. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Each of the other presidents were in office for eight years. Obama has only been in office for four.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      adjkp25posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Incorrect, Bush Sr was 4 years.  If they were in for 8 I divided their total amount by 8.  Look it up at the link I provided, the numbers don't lie.  "King" Reagan still has the most of the five.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I stand corrected. I was a bit young when Bush senior was around. Still we must wait for the current president to complete his term before we cast judgement on his wielding of the pen. Here we have 23 executive orders in one sitting.

      replyreport
   4. 90

      adjkp25posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I was young too.  Who knows what the next 4 years will bring, he might come close to Reagan's 63 in 1982.  So far Obama hasn't had more than 40 in one year but proposing 23 in January puts him on track to pass 40 easy.

      replyreport
5. 75

   Jeff Berndtposted 10 years ago

   Nope. Even counting these 23 executive orders, he's issued fewer than any other president in the last 50 years.
   
   As for the 'czar' appointments, a) those are advisory positions with little to no power on their own and b) Bill Clinton had 8 (6 more than GHW Bush's 2). GW Bush appointed an unprecedented 33 (25 more than the previous administration!). Obama has appointed 38 (5 more than the previous administration). So if anyone has greatly expanded the number of 'czars' it was W, but nobody on the Right (and practically nobody on the Left) made it an issue. Why not? 'Cos it ISN'T ONE!
   
   If you want to talk about Obama and (real) expansions of executive power, talk about his assertion that it's okay to target American citizens living overseas for assassination. (But since that's wrapped up in the war on terror, very few people--Right OR Left--are complaining about that.)
   
   Talk about the NDAA, that authorized the indefinite detention of anyone (citizen or not!) that makes too much noise in an area that's under Secret Service protection. (Of course, Obama only signed that; he didn't write it, so you'd have to hold Congress equally accountable for that.)
   
   But is sure is simpler just to blame the President.

   replyreport
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I couldn't have said it better and agree with you 100% - excellent answer.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Good answer, but again Obama has only been in office for four years. Claiming that he's issued fewer executive orders then presidents who were in office for eight years isn't a fair measure.

      replyreport
   3. 75

      Jeff Berndtposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      He also had fewer EOs than Carter, Ford, and Bush I, and they were one-termers.

      replyreport
   4. 65

      collegedadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This is a two term president. We have no clue what the future holds. It will be interesting to revisit this question in four years.

      replyreport
   5. 75

      Jeff Berndtposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      First it's not fair to compare Obama with 2-termers, 'cos he's only served 4 years; now it's not fair to compare him with 1-termers, 'cos he's a 2-termer?
      
      Well, at least you got one thing right: "We have no clue..."

      replyreport
6. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 10 years ago

   He's President of the United States! Of course he has a "king complex"! Who wouldn't? He manages over 700 military bases in over 100 nations around the world (not including the 4,000 or so in the US or US territories). He's head of state and head of government, which makes him more powerful than any monarch or any single leader in Europe.  But he'll be out of office in 2017.
   
   As to the rest, you have to say what the executive orders are, otherwise there is no full frame of reference to use those against his character.

   replyreport