Obama: Anti-Colonial President, Plans for the next term

[vector7]

Is it crazy to prepare for civil unrest?



A Texas judge has come under fire for comments he made about the potential for civil unrest in this country. The judge believes that contingency plans must be put in place in the event that some sort of worst-case scenario becomes a reality.

JUDGE: [The president is] going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN. Okay, what’s going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking worst case scenario now.

VOICE: Right. Right. I understand.

JUDGE: Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. I mean, we’re not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We’re talking, we’re talking Lexington and Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.

“What is the insane part of this premise,” Glenn asked on radio this morning. “To me the insane part of this premise is the president of the United States is going to hand over sovereignty to the United Nations. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I can imagine a lot of scenarios. I just don’t think that that’s going to happen.”

While the scenario the judge has put forth seems highly unlikely, Glenn likened the situation to that of a hurricane. If you live in a place that doesn’t get hit by hurricanes often do you forgo proper preparation because nine times out of ten you won’t be affected by it, or do you prepare in the case of emergency?

Regardless of whether you agree with the claims of civil unrest, the idea of being ready to face even the worst-case scenario isn’t all that crazy. “I am much more comfortable listening to a guy who says, ‘Let’s prepare for the worst case scenario,’” Glenn said.

When you look at many of the safety and defense mechanisms we have in place in the United States, many would fall under the ‘worst-case scenario’ category. “What is Homeland Security? Isn’t that worst case scenario,” Glenn asked.

“What is the Pentagon? Isn’t that worst case scenario? What is DEFCON 1? Isn’t that worst case scenario?”

“Was it likely that the Soviet Union was going to pulverize us, and we would have a full scale nuclear war? No. Did we prepare for it? Yes,” he continued. “Isn’t, isn’t the job of the people in charge to prepare for the worst case scenario?”

On a more local level, have you prepared for family for a job loss or a food shortage? Have you made contingency plans in case there is a fire or a natural disaster? In terms of probability, many of these events are highly unlikely, but that doesn’t mean you don’t prepare.

At the end of the day, it’s always better to be safe than sorry. “Call your state representative, not the Washington clowns. Call your state representative. Call your sheriff. Call your mayor. Call a neighborhood meeting,” Glenn said.

“Who’s prepared? Are you prepared?”

[vector7]

Billboard Controversy Comes To North Texas

August 20, 2012 10:59 PM



GAINESVILLE (CBSDFW.COM) - A billboard that sparked a protest in Indiana because of its reference to the Navy Seals, and removing the President from office, has appeared along I-35 in North Texas.

The ad in Gainesville depicts two men in camouflage holding weapons. The text next to the picture, in a military style font, says “The Seals removed one threat to America,” a reference to the killing of Osama bin Laden. It continues, “Remove the other in November.”

The bottom of the sign says it’s a political ad, paid for by TJ Schad, and has a Gainesville address.

At his home Monday, Tom Schad said he’s not acting for any political party, committee or candidate. He simply saw a similar picture in an email, with an accompanying note that said it should be on every billboard across the country.

“It just started out as something fun to do,” he said. “Let’s see if I could do it. I didn’t have a clue how to do it.”

Schad said he knew the owner of TerryCo., the company who leased him the billboard space through the November
election. He had an artist at an advertising agency design the ad and it was up within a week.

“I think we were just trying to make a statement,” he said. “We felt we needed to change direction in the country, and that’s what we did.”

A similar ad in Elkhart, Indiana prompted a small protest last week. The ad specifically referenced voters removing the president.

Some demonstrators said though that comparing military action to take out a terrorist, with removing a president from office, was too far. Schad said he didn’t see how people could take the ad that way.

“Other than the fact it’s got some seals in there with a gun,” he said. “But I think it’s pretty obvious what they did and what the statement is.”

TerryCo said it only received a few curious phone calls about the board, and Schad said he hasn’t received a single complaint.

Rather people keep forwarding him a picture that he took of the board, that has made its way onto internet blogs. The retired Air Force mechanic said his only previous entry into the political world was a spot on the town airport and appraisal boards. He said he wasn’t looking for publicity, but realized over the last couple weeks he was starting to get it.

“If you’re going to I guess you may as well jump in with both feet,” he said.

[American Patriot]

LOL

"Remove the other in November"

LOL

[vector7]

TSA, DHS Order 1,400 Pounds of High Powered Explosives Set to Deliver August 31

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
August 27, 2012



Documents reveal that The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ordered over 1,400 pounds of super high-powered explosives through the (TSA) Transportation Safety Administration set to be delivered on August 31st. The news comes just after it was reported that the DHS had purchased over 1.2 billion rounds of hollow point bullets and a wide assortment of riot gear. The new explosives purchase, as highlighted by mainstream news service Government Security News, consists of 1,400 pounds worth of high density ammonium nitrate and A-5 Flake RDX explosives.

According to an explosive materials manual, both of these items are considered ‘high powered’ explosives. High density ammonium nitrate in particular is used in certain types of dynamite.

In case you doubt the validity of the mainstream news report, you can actually locate the purchase statements on the official government website. If you prefer to see the purchase statements specifically, you can view them here (link downloads the document to your PC). Here is an excerpt from the purchase order:

“The CES requires the 700 pounds of High Density Ammonium Nitrate and 700 pounds of A-5 Flake RDX to provide Canine Explosive Training Aids (CETAs) to NCP participants. The supplier must be able to meet the exact requirements by August 31st, 2012. Substitutions for this product are not acceptable.”

The recent bulk acquisition of bullets, explosives, and war-ready protective gear has been written off by the mainstream media as nothing more than a bare necessity for training. Of course the amount of hollow point bullets, which happen to be military-grade and in sufficient enough quantity to allocate 4 bullets per American citizen, also happen to be several times the ‘normal’ amount of training-related orders put in by government agencies.

The TSA will likely write this purchase off in a similar manner, however it is important to note that this is the same agency that has not only ignored research published as far back as 1998 highlighting the link between their x-ray machines and cancer, but has been caught telling children that sexually groping them is a ‘game’.


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/tsa-dhs-or...#ixzz24nY7bQ71

[American Patriot]

WHy in the HELL are the Right Wing Talk shows IGNORING this stuff??????

Are they WORRIED they will sound like "conspiracy theorists" or something?

[American Patriot]

Oh wait...its source is Alex Jones... how did I know that?

[Malsua]

With the accuracy of the standard cops, 1.2 billion rounds is probably enough to kill 20 million people.

I guess they plan on shooting people that don't want to go through the naked scanner.

[vector7]

2016: Obama's America, catch it before it gets taken down again...

2016: Obama's America (2012)

- Dinesh D'Souza

[Ryan Ruck]

I downloaded it to watch but when it comes out on DVD (hopefully very soon) I will be buying it to lend out.

[American Patriot]

Yep... there's my house... was worth 240k now worth 172k sigh

[American Patriot]

Russian Class? LOL

There's no connection to communism here.

[American Patriot]

Well, this thread and this movie definitely match perfectly

Obama wants to destroy us because of our "colonalist past"! Not that this country created Colonies, that would have been England, not us.

[vector7]

Video At Link Below...after the first 10 minutes you won't want to stop.

http://www.ourcommunistcommanderinchief.com/

[American Patriot]

Just... wow.

This needs to be seen by all these dumb fucks that wanna vote for him.

[Avvakum]

Just... wow.

This needs to be seen by all these dumb fucks that wanna vote for him.

Yeah, I saw it earlier today, and it is a pretty damning indictment of Obama-or should I say; 'Frank Davis jr?

[American Patriot]

Oh, FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS... I get it. Duh. LOL

I was on the other thread and thinking "Who is Frank Davis" at your other post. brain fart this morning. It's early and first day back to work.

[vector7]

Obama’s Former Classmate: ‘He Told Us That His Father Was an Indonesian King,‘ That ’He Was a Prince’ & ‘Would Be a Ruler’

• Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:38am by Billy Hallowell
• Comments (322)

This week, PBS’s “Frontline” published the transcript from a June 27, 2012 interview with Kristen Caldwell, a woman who grew up with President Barack Obama and attended the Punahou School with him in Honolulu, Hawaii. Among other claims, she told PBS that, as a young child, Obama told his classmates that he was Kenyan royalty or an Indonesian prince — fascinating claims that she discussed in great detail.


U.S. President Barack Obama (Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

The former classmate, who referred to Obama as “Barry” throughout the interview (the name she claims his classmates called him), said that she believes Obama was at the prestigious school on scholarship. Like other kids who were attending on reduced admission, he likely worked at the tennis courts on campus — a location where the two frequently hung out.

During the interview, she described Obama’s physical appearance and his frequent purported embellishment of his background.

“I can picture him as this slightly — “chubby” is too strong, but rounded, short little guy, Barry Obama,” Caldwell said. “And he told us that his father was an Indonesian king and that he was a prince, and after he finished school he was going to go back, and he would be a ruler in Indonesia.”


President Barack Obama as a child (Photo Credit: FILE)

Obama must have been charismatic even then, as his former classmate said the following about his wild claims: “I absolutely believed him.” Caldwell also said she heard that Obama once told his fifth-grade class that he was Kenyan royalty. While she didn’t hear this directly — and it was years later that the story made its way to her — Obama’s claim to be a prince was something she experienced directly.

“My sister and I remember very clearly that he was an Indonesian prince and that he would be going back there,” she continued. “So there was some reference to where he had come from, and the understanding was his family was there.”


Barack Obama (Photo Credit: FILE)

Caldwell and Obama were purportedly close, seeing as her father allegedly drove him home from the tennis courts on rainy days. Additionally, she claims that they spent a great deal of time hanging out together both during the school year and throughout the summer each year – however, she didn’t seem to know intimate details about his background.

As far as the embellished stories about his father and stature, PBS asked Caldwell why she believes Obama told such tall tales.

The former classmate said that she believes insecurity was the central underpinning of his stories about being royalty and one-day returning to Indonesia to assume the throne. After living in Hawaii until he was six, moving in Indonesia from six until age 10 and then arriving back in the state, once again, she said she could understand why he felt the need to compensate.

“I would think he would have felt very, very fish-out-of-water, very uncomfortable, and like anybody, he’d have to have a little bit of bravado to mask the insecurities,” Caldwell continued.

In a subsequent question, PBS asked if Caldwell noticed anything special about Obama during the time she spent with him.

Considering that he grew up to become the leader of the free world, the outlet was curious to know if he exuded confidence and other such sentiment that pointed to a bright future ahead. While highlighting the fact that Punahou was filled with brilliant and talented children — and that getting into the school required that one fit these categories — she said, “to me he was a normal kid.”

“He didn’t seem outstanding academically or athletically or any other way. To me he seemed normal,” she continued.

While these claims are certainly odd, children often role-play and use their imaginations. It’s entirely possible this is what was at play. Either way, these are some intriguing claims to say the least. Read the transcript from “Frontline’s” entire interview with Kristen Caldwell here.

[American Patriot]

In a subsequent question, PBS asked if Caldwell noticed anything special about Obama during the time she spent with him.

This link is missing... as usual. LOL

Good Old PBS.

[vector7]

OBAMA (2012-2016): The Death of America

AdminDave
Oct 25th, 2012
1 Comment




Dave Hodges
The Common Sense Show
October 25, 2012

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever.” George Orwell

As November 6th fast approaches and America is again provided with the globalist menu for President candidates which repeats the same old worn out theme of choosing between the lesser of two evils; With regard to Romney and Obama, one choice is decidedly more evil than the other.

Barack Obama is an undeniable communist and this fact has been well documented as this one man has dismantled more the Constitution than any combination of Presidents in all of American history. As evidenced by the death panel legislation in Obamacare, he is an absolute eugenicist. Obama is a ruthless dictator hiding behind the cloak of being an elected leader within a pretend Constitutional Republic. Obama has issued ten times, more executive orders (EO) than all of the Presidents in our 237 year history. These facts are enough to frighten any freedom loving American and make all us wonder that if this despot is forced upon the American people, mostly by George Soros voting machines and the from the votes of the 47% of this country that are too lazy to stop taking Obama’s welfare handouts derived from fiat money, what this country will look like at the end of another four years of descent into tyranny.

Obama has provided a strong set of clues as to what his administration will have dtal wtih with his installation, several months ago of the executive order, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCE PREPAREDNESS ACT. If Americans wonder how far this lunatic President will go towards fulfilling the dreams of his real father, and his original political handlers, Weathermen Underground and communist agitators, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne, one should read this EO and thoughtfully consider the ramifications. This Obamnistic portend of the future is summarized in the following paragraphs.

The Legalization of Peacetime Martial Law

The descent into total and abject tyranny is almost complete. With President Obama’s latest executive order, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS ACT, he has granted himself the authority to declare peacetime martial law. This Executive Order was posted on the WhiteHouse.gov web site.

The Elimination of Private Property

This executive order is particularly draconian in that it eliminates the private ownership of everything and Obama has delegated the complete control of the nation’s resources to his cabinet level department heads (i.e. Czars). The delegation of control of the nation’s resources and people is particularly troubling because the heads of America’s resources shall have this power “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions” to control every aspect of our lives. And under this executive order, the President is to the sole decider of what constitutes an emergency (Section 201, paragraph b).”

The Legalization of Government Sponsored Cronyism and Protection Rackets

Through Sections 301b and 302, Obama’s executive order legalizes governmental cronyism in which loans/grants are guaranteed by the Federal Reserve and the related actions are not subject to any kind of review or accountability process. Further, the development and implementation of a type of economic worthiness score, related to the relative importance of companies for “national defense,” will permit the government to decide what companies prosper and will receive stimulus money and which companies will fail in a strange version of “Fabian Socialism for corporations”. This is absolute fascism in which the government will ultimately control all business activity (see Sections 302, 303, 304, 305).

Due to the outcry of massively wasteful taxpayer giveaways to the solar industry which were dispensed to companies such as Solyndra and Pat Stryker’s Abound Solar, the American people have demanded accountability for this thinly veiled misuse of the public’s money. It should be noted that both solar companies heavily donated to the Obama 2008 campaign. Pat Stryker also contributed $50,000 to Obama’s inauguration ball. Now, both companies are near bankruptcy despite the government giveaway of billions of dollars to both of these Obama donating corporations. Boss Tweed would marvel at the firmly entrenched criminal enterprise system sponsored by the Obama Administration.

Section 303 provides a nonspecific delegated power which will presumably be delegated to the President, “to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.” This precisely ties in with what I have publicly maintained for months: One of the goals of the globalists, in their engineering of “The Great Gulf Coast Holocaust,” was to destroy the Gulf’s shrimp and oyster industries in order to pave the way for the massive development of algae farms in support of the nation’s new biofuel craze. along the Gulf Coast To this day, the Gulf of Mexico is still being carpet bombed with Corexit and this toxic substance takes the CO2 out of the water and the only substance that can proliferate in this new environment is algae. Never mind that massive sinkholes complete with explosive methane have been produced by this process which gravely threatens the welfare of Louisiana residents. Subsequently, globalist controlled algae farms are growing exponentially in the Gulf and is beginning to spread across our country. Buffet, Gore, Stryker and Soros are only a few of the billionaire globalists to invest heavily in the biofuel algae industry.

The Literal Legalization of Slavery

As if the previous sections of the already mentioned executive order are not enough to inflame already aware Americans, Section 601 signals the most Orwellian aspect of this executive order in which “upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services” (paragraph 2). What is particularly troubling is that the Secretary of Labor will possess oversight over the Selective Service process, instead of the Secretary of Defense. This revelation left me scratching my head as I wondered why would the Department of Labor be in charge of the coming military draft?

Then it dawned upon me that we were not just talking about military conscription. I refer to the 2008 Presidential campaign in which Obama stated that “we need to construct a national civilian security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded” (as the military). Obama is clearly planning to conscript civilians, train them and send them where they are needed and will pay them whatever wage the Secretary of Commerce determines (Section 601; paragraphs 3, 4-Section 801; paragraph C). In one fell swoop, Obama has sidestepped the 13th Amendment as we are talking about the introduction of forced labor (i.e. slavery).

Does anyone else find it ironic and tragic that our first black president has declared his intention to impose government sanctioned slavery upon the American people? For those that know their history, it should also remind everyone of the forced labor camps run by the Nazi’s in which Jews and other political prisoners were forced into slave labor in support of the German war effort while they were being systematically starved to death. Is this why Jesse Ventura’s FEMA camp episode was scrubbed from Television and why TruTV ‘s archives are missing the FEMA camp episode? Perhaps, America would be well advised to pay attention to the good work being done by Gary Franchi on the topic of FEMA camps. Bill Ayers, the benefactor of Obama’s Harvard education and his original political sponsor is on the record of having stated one day, in America, “we will have to send 50 million Americans to re-education camps and murder 25 million of them.

The Legalization of Sexual Assault and Illegal Searches Upon American Citizens

The Secretary of Transportation has been authorized control over civil transportation which “includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities.” “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership” (Section 801 part A). Can there be any doubt that the expanded surveillance program by of the TSA, in their unconstitutional, hands down our pants VIPER program, is designed to control all travel in the United States? The former Soviet Union used to have checkpoints every 20 miles in order to restrict travel and to prevent the congregation of “revolutionary forces” for purposes of opposing government control as well as to limit the ability of political dissidents to flee from their governmental pursuers. I feel compelled to ask, what is the government going to do that is so nefarious and so intrusive that they are seeking to set up a control grid which will accomplish these same goals?

The Legalization of Eco-Terrorism and the Deindustrialization of America

The Secretary of Energy will have control over all “Energy” (which) means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy…” This means the government will have total control over all utility prices, the installation of smart meters along with the implementation of the smart grid and the amount of energy which can be consumed by average Americans will be severely curtailed under this new system of energy feudalism which will be imposed on the new American serfs. Obama, in the 2008 Presidential Campaign, stated that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Previously ignorant Americans will soon come to know the true meaning and the accurately prophetic meaning of these words (Section 801, part b).

The Legalization of Starving Americans Into Submission

The Secretary of Agriculture will posses control over “fertilizer” (which) means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.” The Secretary of Agriculture will also control “food resource facilities “(which) means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer.”

This is the total control of all food. This will allow Monsanto which demonstrably controls the Department of Agriculture, the FDA and EPA to move forward, unabated, for the total GMO takeover of our food supply. Even more disturbing is that a few men will have total control over all food production and the dissenting masses who oppose this fascist takeover can be effectively starved into submission or starved to death (Section 801, parts c-f).

The Legalization and Installation of Eugenics as National Policy

Under this EO, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain control over all “Health resources” meaning drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.” This is a declaration of a forced form of Codex Alimentarius. Under this provision, it will not matter if Obama Care is repealed, his cabinet appointee will maintain control over all health care, both pharmacological and alternative/natural (Section 801, part i). Can there be any doubt that the death panel provisions of Obama Care will be implemented and carried out with no oversight or regulation in an manner reminiscent of Logan’s Run nightmarish scenario?

I have long maintained on my talk show that there is a decided effort by a relatively few elite to control the nation’s water and this provision will be utilized as a form of both political and population control. Of this, there can be no doubt as the Secretary of Defense will be placed in charge of all water resources Section 801, part n). I can draw no other conclusion that placing the control of water under the DOD represents the weaponizing of water and the intended target of this full frontal assault are the American people for the purpose of imposing population control and complete compliance.

This is only a partial view of what a second term will like under the despot, Barack Obama. If America permits this lunatic to serve a second term, many of us will not be around to vote for his replacement in 2016, provided there are still elections to vote in.

[vector7]

What It Will Take for Barack Obama to Become the Next FDR

By Jack M. Balkin
Nov 1 2012, 8:01 AM ET

First, he should let the United States go over the fiscal cliff. Then he should push filibuster reform.

Larry Downing/Reuters

Ever since Barack Obama's election in 2008, people have debated whether he might be for the Democratic Party what Ronald Reagan was for the Republicans -- a transformational president in the mold of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who changes the basic assumptions of national politics for a generation or more. In this essay, I draw on Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek's work on presidential leadership to answer this question and explain the challenges facing Obama if he wins a second term. (In a previous essay, I evaluated the prospects for a Mitt Romney presidency, which, I concluded would range from difficult to bleak). If Obama wins a second term, he still has a chance to be a transformative leader. But the odds are that he will be more like Bill Clinton--a Democratic president swimming against the tide of conservative politics ushered in by Reagan.

Obama has long had the ambition to be a great liberal president in the tradition of FDR. During the 2008 campaign, he acknowledged that the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, had not changed the course of politics the way that Ronald Reagan had. That is no slight to Clinton, who was (and is) perhaps the most gifted politician of his generation.

It is simply the case that Clinton faced a very different set of political constraints than Reagan did when he took office.

And this brings us to Skowronek's central insight. The course of a president's career is structured by where he sits in what Skowronek calls "political time." Is the president allied with the dominant regime in American politics or opposed to it? And is the regime itself robust or vulnerable? (See my essay on Romney for more details.)

Both Clinton and Reagan were oppositional leaders. Reagan opposed the New Deal politics of the Democratic Party that dominated the period from FDR's election in 1932 until 1980. Clinton opposed the conservative Republican regime that Reagan began and under which we still live today.

Reagan had the good fortune to take office when the New Deal regime and its electoral coalition were falling apart. Therefore, he had the opportunity to become what Skowronek calls a "reconstructive" president, one who sweeps away the old regime and its assumptions in order to create a new one. Bill Clinton, by contrast, entered the White House as the first Democrat elected since the Reagan Revolution, when the current conservative political regime was at its strongest. Unlike Reagan, whose political opponents were in disarray, Clinton faced a hostile political climate and continually had to trim his sails. Skowronek calls this situation a "preemptive" presidency, because the leader tries to forestall opposition by triangulating or finding a "third way." Examples of preemptive presidents include Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and, of course, Clinton.

Preemptive presidents are the most interesting type in Skowronek's theory. In a political age dominated by the other party, they must continually navigate upstream against fierce political currents. Their political legitimacy is always in question. The regime's dominant party continually casts doubt on their right to rule, and their own party often seems too weak to defend them.

What is still unclear is whether the conservative regime that has dominated American politics for 30 years is exhausted, giving Obama the opportunity to begin a new one.

This predicament drives preemptive presidents to be pragmatic, compromising, non-ideological, and unorthodox. They triangulate in order to survive. As a result, preemptive presidents often deeply disappoint their own party faithful, who crave greater ideological purity and stronger principled stands. To members of their own party, it sometimes seems as if preemptive presidents never stand up for their principles; instead, they are always temporizing, compromising, and letting their political opponents push them around.

Preemptive leaders quickly learn that ideological purity will get them nowhere. They have no scruples about borrowing the best ideas of their political opponents, modifying them slightly, and then claiming them as their own. They specialize in offering more moderate (and hence more popular) versions of the dominant party's policies.

This practice may annoy members of their own party, but it drives members of the other party positively insane. These latter ones are quite certain that the preemptive president's pragmatism and moderation are merely a ruse, hiding a criminal conspiracy or a radical agenda. Indeed, preemptive presidents make members of the dominant party so angry that the latter often seem hellbent on destroying them. Think only of the conservative rage against Clinton and the liberal rage against Nixon.

The Course So Far: Preemption, Not Transformation

Obama, like Clinton, is a Democrat who assumed power during the Reagan-initiated regime. What is still unclear is whether the regime that has dominated American politics for 30 years is exhausted, giving Obama the opportunity to begin a new one. Put in Skowronek's terms, can Obama become a reconstructive president like Reagan or FDR, or will he end up as another preemptive president, like Clinton?

In 2008 Obama certainly campaigned as if he planned to be a transformative president.

His campaign slogans of hope and change promised that old political assumptions would be swept away and that American politics would be placed on new foundations.

But once in office, Obama proved to be pragmatic and moderate. He did not govern as a repudiator. His signature legislative achievement, health-care reform, was largely based on conservative and Republican ideas. Even though a financial meltdown had triggered the Great Recession, Obama avoided populist denunciations of Wall Street and the banking industry. He promoted financial reforms far more limited than those most liberals in his party wanted. And he quickly abandoned climate-change legislation.

An important cause of Obama's moderation was the powerful opposition he faced from congressional Republicans. Republicans repeatedly used Senate filibuster rules to block Obama's appointments and legislative proposals; they repeatedly hampered his attempts to fix the economy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell candidly explained that his No. 1 priority was to deny Obama a second term. Despite this, Obama kept insisting that he wanted bipartisan cooperation, even when it was clear that none would be forthcoming.

Obama's calls for a new kind of politics did him little good. The Republican base doubted his right to rule, and conspiracy theories spread about his forged birth certificate, his secret Muslim faith, and his radical affiliations. The Tea Party formed soon after his inauguration, further radicalizing the Republican base. And the 2010 election seemed to demonstrate that the Republican coalition was far from exhausted: If anything, it had become even more powerful, angry, and extreme.

Matters came to a head in the debt-ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011, when Republicans threatened to default on the nation's debts if Obama did not agree to their demands for spending cuts. As members of his own party looked on with increasing horror, Obama made concession after concession, at one point offering to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits in a grand bargain. But Republicans refused to take yes for an answer if it meant raising taxes by even a penny. At the last minute, a crisis was averted. Obama seemed politically humiliated. Yet by successfully putting off resolution of the big issues of spending and taxes until after the 2012 election, Obama bought himself time to plot a comeback. It was a Clintonian -- or even Nixonian -- strategy of political survival entirely consistent with a preemptive presidency.

Foreign policy tells a similar story. Obama made some initial attempts to distinguish himself from his predecessor -- for example, he issued an executive order banning torture on his first day in office. But for the most part Obama has continued the policies of the George W. Bush Administration, effectively blunting any charges that he would be weak on terrorism. Indeed, in some respects Obama has gone further than Bush in promoting presidential power. He staged a brief war against Libya without congressional authorization. And he asserts the right to use unmanned drones to target and assassinate suspected terrorists around the world -- even if they are American citizens.

Finally, the comparative strength of the two parties' electoral coalitions suggests that we have not yet witnessed the birth of a new political regime. Like Clinton, Obama was seriously rebuffed in his first midterm election, with Democrats losing control of the House. Although long-term demographic shifts favor the Democrats, the Republican regional base in the South and Mountain West is still quite strong. In fact, opposition to Obama is so overwhelming in these areas that Obama might win the Electoral College by squeaking by in a number of battleground states but still lose the national popular vote. Incumbent presidents often increase their margin of victory in winning a second term, but that is not likely to happen in 2012. If Obama wins reelection, it will probably be by a narrow margin, and not by a landslide.

All these indications suggest that Obama, like Clinton, is a preemptive president. If so, then it will probably take a third Democratic presidency to finally end the age of Reagan. By way of comparison, it took three Republican presidents -- Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan -- to overcome the New Deal regime, and it took three Democrats -- Cleveland, Wilson, and FDR -- to break the Republican Party's long period of dominance after the Civil War.

Yet the question is not completely settled. Andrew Jackson, for example, did not really become a transformative president until after his reelection in 1832. In his second term, however, Jackson won a long struggle to dismantle the Bank of the United States, shifting politics in his party's favor for a generation.

Jackson's example suggests that a reconstructive Obama presidency, although unlikely, is still possible. Surely Obama has a remarkable record of accomplishments. The Affordable Care Act is the most important piece of domestic legislation since the 1960s. Of course, if Romney wins, the Republicans will probably dismantle most of Obama's reforms, including health-care reform. Obama needs a second term to secure his achievements.

One Shot at Greatness

If Obama does win reelection, he has one shot at truly remaking American politics. He has an ace in the hole, if he plays it correctly. Ironically, it comes from his presidency's darkest days -- the debt ceiling crisis of 2011.

It will not be easy. But if Obama can hold tough until January, he can strike a deal on entitlements, defense, and taxes that will favor Democratic priorities for a long time.

Because of the deal that ended the debt ceiling crisis, large cuts in defense and social programs will take effect at the beginning of 2013. That is also when the Bush tax cuts expire and the country returns to Clinton-era tax rates. But once that occurs, the baseline for political bargaining between the two parties will be totally different than it has been for the past 12 years. Without lifting a finger, the Democrats will have made the tax code more progressive and achieved major cuts in defense expenditures. And America will be well on the way to solving its deficit problems, as trillions of dollars of new revenues will come pouring in over the next two decades.

This new status quo is hardly ideal for the Democrats. There are cuts in reimbursements to Medicare providers and other reductions in social spending. Moreover, the combination of higher taxes and lower government expenditures may well send the economy into recession. But however unpleasant for Democrats, the new status quo is simply unbearable for most Republicans. And it drives a wedge between different parts of the Republican coalition. Defense contractors and hospital administrators will demand relief from the spending cuts, while the rich will demand lower taxes. But nothing will happen until Obama signs new legislation. And that allows Obama -- and his party -- to have a say about what tax reductions and expenditures are passed.

Commentators have warned that if nothing is done immediately, the country will go off a "fiscal cliff," but the term is actually a misnomer. Once the tax rates go up and the cuts begin, it will take some time for them to have a serious effect on the economy, and the tax increases can always be reversed retroactively. This gives Obama plenty of time to strike a deal, if he has the fortitude to wait.

What most observers don't realize is that, after January, Obama will enjoy an enormous bargaining advantage. He will start from a baseline of higher taxes, decreased defense expenditures, and increasing revenues that will shrink the deficit with each passing day.

Obama will surely want to make some changes, especially in order to keep the economy healthy. But after the beginning of 2013, entitlement reform, tax reform, and long-term deficit control will become far easier, because any changes to the status quo will lower taxes instead of raise them and increase defense expenditures rather than cut them. Moreover, this time Obama knows that any agreement must include regular raises in the debt ceiling.

Republicans, who have previously been intransigent, will now feel compelled to negotiate in earnest, because doing nothing will cause different parts of their base to turn against them. Jonathan Chait sums it up well: Once the baseline for bargaining flips, "the Republican anti-tax crusade will be broken, and with it the pathology that has launched the deficit wars."

January 2013 is Obama's magic moment. He has a chance to break the Republican stranglehold on the country's domestic agenda and put Democratic policies in place. That is how Obama might become a transformative president -- or failing that, one of the most successful preemptive presidents in American history. But he will only get one shot at greatness, and he must take maximum advantage of it.

It will not be easy. There will be enormous pressure on Obama to cut a deal during the lame-duck session of Congress immediately after the election. Wavering Democrats fearful of a new recession will insist that Obama prevent the Clinton-era tax rates from ever going into effect. Centrist pundits will demand that Obama adopt the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction proposal, which is actually to the right of what he could probably get from the Republicans after January 2013.

But if Obama can hold tough until January, he can strike a deal on entitlements, defense, and taxes that will favor Democratic priorities for a long time. This would also increase the fissures in the Republican coalition, heightening the divisions between defense hawks, anti-tax ideologues, and deficit crusaders. And, to top it off, Obamacare will remain in place, and a guarantee of health care for Americans will be become part of the social contract for the foreseeable future.

Obama needs to do one other thing, however, that will make his task much easier. He must champion reform of the Senate. The current combination of filibuster and hold rules limits effective legislative reform, and it makes it difficult for Obama to staff federal agencies -- like the new consumer protection agency and the Federal Reserve -- with experts who will promote his policies. It also prevents him from stocking the courts with new judges who agree with his constitutional values. As Reagan well understood, no transformation in political regimes is complete without a transformation of the executive branch, the independent administrative agencies, and the judiciary.

Democrats have little to gain from sticking with the existing Senate rules. If Mitt Romney wins and his party retakes the Senate, the Republicans will have few scruples about changing the rules of the game to promote their policies. McConnell has no intention of allowing current Majority Leader Harry Reid to do to him what he did to Harry Reid.

Because some kind of Senate reform is inevitable, it is rational for the Democrats to benefit from it first, while they can.

Of course, if they retain control of the House in the 2012 election, Republicans have one last card to play: impeachment. Republicans have been trying their best to find a damaging scandal during Obama's first term, so far with little success. But the longer a presidency lasts, the greater the chances are that something will turn up, especially in a president's second term. And if a scandal takes off, Republicans can try to impeach Obama. Scandal and impeachment are serious dangers for preemptive presidents, whose legitimacy is usually already under siege. It is worth noting that of the three presidents who have either been impeached (Andrew Johnson, Clinton) or resigned under threat of impeachment (Nixon), all three were preemptive presidents (Johnson, a war Democrat, became president following Lincoln's assassination and quickly got caught up in a power struggle with a Republican Congress).

Finally, if Obama wants to make his influence lasting, he must work to create an economy prosperous enough to help ensure that a Democrat follows him in 2016. Preemptive presidents usually aren't succeeded by members of their own party, but reconstructive presidents often are. If another Democrat -- say, Hillary Clinton -- takes the oath of office in January 2016, that will be the strongest indication that, at least for the Democrats, it is morning in America. The Age of Reagan will be over, and the Age of Obama will have begun.