September 23, 2014

What If Barack Obama Had Not Been Elected?

Most conservatives abhor Barack Obama’s presidency. They believe that Obama is leading the United States to its ruin and that nothing is more important than defeating him in the next election. They believe that our very way of life is threated if they do not succeed. I don’t happen to share their opinion that there is a substantive difference between the Bush and Obama administrations, or that anything today would be different if John McCain had been elected.

However, let’s say for the sake of argument that conservatives are correct. The Obama administration is bent on altering American society in fundamental and irreversible ways. Nothing is more important than removing him from office.

Still, conservatives do not look to violently overthrow the present administration. They recognize that, whether the choice was a wise or a foolish one, a majority of those Americans who cared enough to vote chose Barack Obama as their president. So, no matter how relentlessly the Republican Party attacks Obama through its vast network of think tanks, talking heads, and media outlets, no matter how nasty or allegedly unfair conservative talk radio may be, when all is said and done, conservative efforts to remove Obama from office are peaceful.

But what if Obama had not been elected?

What if John McCain had won the election, but was then removed from office in a coup d’état fomented by covert agents of a foreign government? What if that government then installed Barack Obama as president, overriding the wishes of the American electorate? What if that foreign government propped up the Obama administration for decades and American citizens were unable to depose him peacefully through the electoral process?

What if Americans decided to rebel against this tyranny and overthrow Obama in a revolution? What if the foreign government called the American rebels insurgents or terrorists for removing the tyrant, when it was obvious to the whole world that the Americans had been justified in deposing Obama as a usurper backed by foreign interests?

What if, after the revolution, Americans elected a leader that they felt represented their values but that people in other countries did not like? What if the foreign government that had previously overthrown John McCain joined with other countries and imposed sanctions upon Americans, using military force to prevent voluntary trade between the United States and other countries? What if that foreign government sent billions of dollars to Mexico, allowing her to arm herself with nuclear weapons, but forbade the United States to similarly arm herself in her own defense?

What if that same foreign government armed and supported Canada in waging a decade-long war against the United States? What if that government then turned on Canada and invaded her, setting up military bases on her soil, with tens of thousands of troops capable of striking at the United States at any moment?

What if Americans resented the sanctions and threats of violence directed at them and responded with threatening statements of their own?  What if Americans were vilified as terrorists for opposing these aggressive actions with manly firmness? What if the United States had not invaded another country in over 200 years, but was still characterized as a threat to the whole world by a government that routinely invaded other nations, had already overthrown the U.S. government once in the past, had armed America’s neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, and regularly issued official government statements calling for “regime change” in the United States?

What if there were credible rumors that a preemptive nuclear strike by Mexico was imminent? What if the foreign government pledged its full support for Mexico and warned Americans not to attempt to arm themselves adequately to prevent this unprovoked attack? What if it was apparent to all Americans that they had no chance to fight their enemies in a conventional war and win?

What would Americans be prepared to do then?

For more thought-provoking “What Ifs?” see here, here, and here.

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Comments

  1. liberranter says:

    Well said, Tom. Unfortunately, the “Ameri[k]an Exceptionalism” mindset is so deeply entrenched among “conservatives” (in fact, it’s almost genetically hardwired into most Ameri[k]ans), that most would tune you out as soon as they realized which nation your hypothetical “foreign government” represented in your illustration above.

    Sadly, it’s going to take the shoe moving to the other foot and Amerikans getting a stiff taste of their own medicine for any “conservative” (or liberal, for that matter) minds to change. Whether or not this will happen, or whether or not sanity will ultimately prevail without such an extreme coming to pass is an open question. We can only hope for the best.

  2. What if? The questioning of if is so iffy is it not?
    How about being honest with ourselves and stop questioning if. What do results tell us, this has nothing to do with if and has everything to do with acts done.

    The acts of US Federal Government is growth of its empire the empire that does not even belong to them. Government promoting Growth of itself is Tyranny and is the farthest from the idea of Liberty.

    The truth is many in our Federal Government regardless of labels they spout upon themselves have all done the same act, sold out to corporate special interests to get only what they want and not what a country needs to sustain itself. These acts and these results all bare witness to the truth as it can be SHOWN and carries no identification of if, but rather as is.

    Obama a mere puppet like John McCain who prides himself on the act of war and where there is war is there tyranny in its midst.

    We sit and watch these puppets promise all day long while doing the acts they choose and please and our refusal to resist is our failure unto ourselves. Its not if we pull our heads out of our butts will this all change but rather when we decide to stop walking around in darkness all day long pretending we are not a part of what life is. Living is doing something, causing something and measuring results of what we caused. Since nothing was caused without choice we should look deep within the decision makers of this universe and that is each one ourselves as life in support of life or we lie to us because we are life and we only wish to live and progress in a sustainable manner. When this act is not shown one can only ask themselves the question why for the responsibility belongs to no other.

    Had Obama not been elected we would have the exact same results, bigger Government, bigger wars, the biggest debt ever in history and people going around asking themselves what if versus using a mirror and asking themselves who is the defier, the resister to poor decision making. I am and you are and that is what the mirror will tell you because it only reflects what took place it does not speculate on what if.

    Ron Paul’s (what if) is not a real what if because his intent is to point out the truth because all the things he points out are such truths. This is observation and then you must be politicly correct to speak in a congress because showing mutual respect to the dummies propagating such poor policy hurts their sensitive feelings. This is so bogus and resistance is futile for our survival, a lack of respect deserves no better respect than what is delivered, if none is delivered none shall be returned. In essence only mutual respect should be returned.

    Honesty is not nice but rather the truth and the truth can sometimes hurt especially when it is you the light is shining on.

    The reflection in the mirror is only your acts or lack of and each speaks the truth, it is not what another said or did and what you did or did not do that speaks the whole truth and nothing but the truths and this is why so many avoid the mirror. Facing up and creating your own pain is a difficulty and has no easy terms. But as the saying goes (the truth shall set you free) this is not someone else’s truth to you but in fact means you telling yourself the truth about you and this is exactly what a mirror does when you discover you.

  3. Gigi Bowman says:

    What if this needed to be said and it’s about time someone said it –and so eloquently too!

    Thank you Tom!

    I will pass this on :)

  4. Republic Reminder says:

    Thanks Tom, great article. Very provoking and informative. Keep up the good work.

  5. George Archers says:

    What if John McCain and his IsraelFirsters took office? Iran today would be smouldering in ruins.Middle-east would be the WWIII spark. Israel a waste land. All those supposed Chosen guys will exodus to US of A and tell us Nice Job done America-Bravo.

  6. Claire M says:

    Tom, where a nation’s government comes from– how it was elected/ instituted/ propped up or whatever– makes not a bit of difference to the individual citizen AS LONG AS that citizen’s rights to life, liberty and property are protected by the law of the land. I would submit that ANY government, monarchic, democratic, oligarchic or republican, no matter where it comes from can be legitimate, as long as it exists solely to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens.

    Personally, if I had to choose between a democratically elected government that prevents me from driving, or from associating with any male non-relative because I am female and, say, a non-elected monarchy that allows me the freedom to live my life as I see fit, I would pick the monarchy. Just because the majority of my countrymen wish to infringe on my liberty, it doesn’t make it right for them to do so.

    • Tom Mullen says:

      I would agree with most of that, although I don’t recognize any government as legitimate anymore, whether they purport to be protecting my rights or not. Specifically in the case of Iran, the Iranians elected a socialist leader who made many secular reforms that the electorate wanted, like instituting workman’s compensation, freeing peasants from forced labor, etc. He also nationalized the oil industry, which upset the socialist government in Great Britain, which owned the oil company that operated there. So, the US overthrew the popularly-elected Mossadegh government in Iran and installed a US-British puppet dictator (the Shah), who among other things instituted his own Gestapo (the Savak) to brutally oppress his people for the benefit of foreign interests (and steal back their oil). The US propped up this brutal dictator for almost 3 decades before he was overthrown by Khomeni and his gang.

      Overall, I believe that any sane person would agree that the Iranians were better off before the US overthrew their government, and that the US has had no cause since then to continually commit acts of war against Iran. Would you agree?

      • Claire M says:

        Maybe the Iranians were better off before the Shah… But when the Iranian government nationalized the oil industry, it effectively stole from the British oil companies that had invested in the oil-extracting infrastructure with the expectation that the contracts they had made with Iran would be honored. I think this is equivalent to piracy, and that retaliation may therefore have been appropriate. Maybe instituting the Shah was a bad idea, but on the other hand you can’t let individuals or nations get away with piracy, can you?

        Even if the Iranians were better off before the Shah, they are at least marginally worse off now under Achmadinejad and the Ayatollah. More to the point of all this, I would dispute the implication that the US action of instituting the Shah prevented Iran from becoming the wonderful free constitutional democratic republic that it would otherwise have become. The budding Islamist movement was already in opposition to the socialist governments in the Middle East during the ’60s and it would eventually grow and take over regardless of any actions by foreign governments. Islamic Jihad has it’s own raison d’etre, which is Islamic theocracy, and while it does perhaps find anti-US propaganda useful it would thrive even in the absence of anti-US sentiment because its main driver is religious fervor.

        This morning I heard an analyst on the radio making the case that the reason there is no secularist party in Egypt is because “secularist” is considered to be a huge insult there. The idea of separating church and state is unthinkable and certainly unspeakable in most majority Arab countries, as it is in Iran. I don’t see how you can blame this on the US, or how anything we do or don’t do will change this fact.

        • Tom Mullen says:

          “it effectively stole from the British oil companies that had invested in the oil-extracting infrastructure with the expectation that the contracts they had made with Iran would be honored. I think this is equivalent to piracy, and that retaliation may therefore have been appropriate. Maybe instituting the Shah was a bad idea, but on the other hand you can’t let individuals or nations get away with piracy, can you?”

          It was an act of piracy against the BRITISH GOVERNMENT (which owned Anglo-Iranian Oil, now known as “BP”), not a private company, and had nothing to do with the United States. The US govt had no right to tax its citizens to defend the socialist British government nor to expose US citizens to the risks associated with doing that. If the British wanted to defend their socialist government, that was their prerogative.

          “Even if the Iranians were better off before the Shah, they are at least marginally worse off now under Achmadinejad and the Ayatollah. More to the point of all this, I would dispute the implication that the US action of instituting the Shah prevented Iran from becoming the wonderful free constitutional democratic republic that it would otherwise have become. The budding Islamist movement was already in opposition to the socialist governments in the Middle East during the ’60s and it would eventually grow and take over regardless of any actions by foreign governments. Islamic Jihad has it’s own raison d’etre, which is Islamic theocracy, and while it does perhaps find anti-US propaganda useful it would thrive even in the absence of anti-US sentiment because its main driver is religious fervor.”

          Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? Again, why am I financially responsible for the Iranian government? Why should I be placed at risk of terrorism by ny government meddling in their affairs?

          “This morning I heard an analyst on the radio making the case that the reason there is no secularist party in Egypt is because “secularist” is considered to be a huge insult there. The idea of separating church and state is unthinkable and certainly unspeakable in most majority Arab countries, as it is in Iran. I don’t see how you can blame this on the US, or how anything we do or don’t do will change this fact.”

          Same answer.

          • Vae Victus says:

            The “who cares?” approach is really how we need to approach this, simple as it is.

            In our complex, fast-paced world, people are conditioned to think that everything is complicated and will take bureaucrats, academic experts, years of political debate, and trillions of dollars to solve problems.

            But we rarely stop to ask the simple question: “WHAT exactly IS the problem?”

            I made the same point on the “What if Iran…” piece to you Claire.

            In the commentary on that one, you were engaging in the same thing: deducing one thing after another about national security, rights of citizens, military policy etc. but while you had very passionate opinions about what to do about the “problem” of Islamic demography in Europe, for instance, not once did you actually articulate WHY this is a problem for the United States.

            Our political leaders engage in this cart-before-the-horse arguing to bound the entire debate. A recent example is Libya: the questions were should we just bomb, or use ground forces too, how long and how committed should we be, etc. Hardly anyone (save Rand Paul and Mike Lee, among several) asked “why is Libya even our concern?”

            I can understand the purpose behind politicians bounding the debates in this way: it makes the aggrandizement of the Executive proceed smoothly, it keeps the tax dollars flowing to the special interests, and it keeps up the appearance that “things are dire” so as to keep the public focused on manufactured fears rather than the debt and failings of our own system.

            But I have an increasingly difficult time understanding why regular, everyday people engage in it.

            You wouldn’t handle most of your life decisions in this way: if you did you would probably be broke, maimed, or even dead.

            Just think if someone approaches you in the office and says, “hurry you have to make a decision: voluntarily quit now with severance pay, or take a new position down the hall at a lower salary, oh by the way you only have 2 minutes to decide.”

            First thing you would probably do is ask, “Uh, WHY am I being presented with this?” You, hopefully, wouldn’t just say, “Oh sure let me think on that for 2 minutes.”

            But when it comes to interventionism, it is ASSUMED that this is the correct course. And even more narrowly, interventionism in the Middle East.

            A very specific, costly, and dangerous policy that has netted our country nothing for decades, but its sanctity is presumed, with no one asking “why?”

          • Claire M says:

            I don’t think it’s “(our) government meddling in their affairs” that puts us at risk of terrorist attacks, nor do I believe that announcing a strict non- interventionist policy will protect us from such attacks.

            Who cares how much destructive power will one day be in the hands of religious fanatics who think secularism and democracy are the ultimate evils? I do.

          • Tom Mullen says:

            “I don’t think it’s “(our) government meddling in their affairs” that puts us at risk of terrorist attacks,”

            No, regardless of the fact that they say so over and over again, you don’t think that’s why they do it, and what’s more, you think that you can rob me of my hard-earned money to wage ridiculous wars against millions of people because 19 fanatics flew a plane into a building. Claire, it is unfathomable to me that you will reach so far to try to justify the actions of the US government when it comes to the war on terror and mindlessly repeat every idiotic they make to justify wars that are waged for the same reason the government does everything else – to rob you and I for the benefit of their connected supporters. I have to conclude that you have formed a deep, emotional attachment to the war on Muslims and no matter how ridiculous the arguments for, and no matter how obvious the arguments against, you will defend it. This is the same mindset that defends our massive welfare state. Why you think this is any different is a mystery to me.

          • You know the other day a great question came up and this is what was asked;
            Is GM now Government motors or is Washington now Corporate Government?

            I think our British counter parts or our enemies have spiked the punch bowl. When I look at history at the British rule encompassed by world financiers and then I look at the results we see today what is so different? Empires need financing to expand, Financiers need Governments to expand and they collaborated then and aren’t they collaborating now? I mean its the Corporate new buzz word of the decade to collaborate and corporate is so successful isn’t it?

            I mean look at all the achievements in this country sustaining such an existence; NOT!

            Just sayin.

  7. liberranter says:

    “I don’t think it’s “(our) government meddling in their affairs” that puts us at risk of terrorist attacks,”

    Clare, pleasure answer the following questions:

    If Islamic terrorists are targeting America solely because of its “freedoms,” why is that no attacks by Muslim religious extremists ever took place against Americans or American assets, on our own soil or abroad, prior to America’s metamorphosis into a global empire that specialized in meddling and murdering its way across the Islamic world? Why were Muslims around the globe not flocking to our shores, beginning with the nation’s founding 235 years ago, to hide amongst us and commit acts of Jihadist terror against the newly established, evil beacon of secular liberty? After all, if America’s existence as a land of economic, social, and, above all religious liberty was such an existential threat to Islam, wouldn’t the Islamic world have retaliated immediately? So why is it that even after America became a global empire, it has only been within the last four or five decades, when America has lost more its much vaunted “freedoms” than at any point in its past, that Muslims have chosen to strike back?

    Osama Bin Laden made it crystal clear, over and over again, in several of his taped messages to the Amerikan Powers That Be. The sole motivations of the Jihadists in their acts against Amerika are: the Amerikan imperial military presence in Islamic lands (e.g., Saudi Arabia, and now the occupations of Iraqghanistan and soon Pakistan), the unconscionable treatment of Palestinian Arabs at the hands of Amerika’s Israeli proxy (along with that proxy’s own illegal and immoral occupation of Arab lands), and the Amerikan enabling of corrupt, repressive kleptoplutocracies in Islamic world. NEVER ONCE did he, or any of the other “terrorists” mention “America’s freedoms” as a motivation.

    Bottom line: Amerika’s imperial meddling has justifiably earned it enemies, in the Islamic world and elsewhere. If this nation ever goes back to minding its own business, following George Washington’s farewell advice regarding foreign nations, to extend … our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
    good faith. Here let us stop.”

    To return to such a policy is to put an end to almost all “terrorism,” what little there has been, that afflicts us.