On Feb. 26, President Obama, in reference to Moammar Khaddafy: “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule…”
At first I laughed out load. Seriously, I LOL’d, and I do not easily LOL. The very idea that, up until recently, Khaddafy had legitimacy is laughable. Hugely, insanely laughable. Silly me, I thought legitimacy came from the consent of the governed.
But this is the official Obama position, as stated by Hillary Clinton as well. Think about it.
As long as a leader can stay in power by intimidation, and by means of less than “mass violence” against his people, he’s “legitimate” in the eyes of an Obama.
That’s scary and it proves what learned others have said:
“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue until they are resisted with words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those they oppress.” — Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
“The strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it….” — Thomas Paine
“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” — Albert Einstein
Or, as I’ve written in my Laws of Government site: Law # 1, Fifth corollary: “Government will violate all of your rights, if you permit it.”
It is the nature of government to impose just as much oppression as we are willing to permit.
I find it interesting too that Obama is, apparently, OK with “ruling” as opposed to leading. To “rule” is to exercise ultimate power and is very different from “leading” a country. Dictators rule while presidents lead. Our president has no problem with dictators, in principle, and sees ruling as a legitimate form of government — until the ruler resorts to mass violence. Interesting.