Obama: A Country Without Rule of Law 'Will Not Succeed'

Yes, he's at it again.

Telling people one thing while cleverly defying what he himself says.

Now Obama says that the rule of law is necessary for a nation to succeed !!

I guess he's right, but why so many broken "rules of law" then ??

Obama is a great one for talking in opposites.

I think we all know this by now.

Maybe some people still don't get it.

During a town hall meeting at a summit with the Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, President Obama explained to a young African student that to succeed, a burgeoning country required a system of laws.

He explained:

Regardless of the resources a country possesses, regardless of how talented the people are, if you do not have a basic system of rule of law, of respect for civil rights and human rights, if you do not give people a credible, legitimate way to work through the political process to express their aspirations, if you don't respect basic freedom of speech and freedom of assembly … it is very rare for a country to succeed.

Obama made his remarks as critics have denounced his “lawlessness,” particularly through his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order, his decision to trade five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, and his controversial Obamacare law.

Strange he never mentioned the ACA or the IRS or the HHS or the EPA,

or the continuous "selective" enforcements and "privileged exceptions" and "prosecutorial discretions" ??

Or the fact that the Attorney General is in Contempt of Congress along with a disgraced former IRS employee ??


The puzzles get more complicating by the day

a reply to: xuenchen

You know what...

Neither will a country that forcibly opresses its population like the United states currently is.

I'm sure a lot of you have been in the courtroom and dealt with police lately, traffic or whatever.

They are clamping down, and i mean really clamping down.

a reply to: onequestion

Well they say selectivity is Obama's golden rule of law.

He has become a master of dilemmas.

Our president is possibly the best example I can think of who is capable of embodying the see no evil, hear, no evil, speak no evil all in one. At least that's how he seems to want us to believe. I certainly won't defend him, but is there any chance he actually thinks he is on the moral high ground? Or does he ever catch even a fleeting glimpse of the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation he heaps on himself and our country every time he shows his inadequacy and lack of character? I want to give anyone the benefit of a doubt, but that pen is out of ink.......

so basically Obama is doing a George Costanza,whatever George thought he did the opposite so basically whatever Obama says you take the meaning as the opposite to get to the truth

So he's admitting to helping our country fail? Treason?

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

I'm sorry I haven't spoken with you for a while, you're always on the move and hard to keep up with. May I offer an interpretation in which what the president is saying makes perfect sense?

For some the law is essential. If you are poor, you can use the law to get money. If your grades are terrible you can use the law to make colleges accept you. If you are not a citizen, you can use the law to get benefits.

And if the law doesn't work for you, twist it until it does. If you need an example, the president will be pleased to offer many.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Dear Charles,

LMAO!

well played, good sir..

a reply to: xuenchen

Now Obama says that the rule of law is necessary for a nation to succeed !!

He didn't mean him...he meant you...the cattle. You can tell that by the keyword "nation".

a reply to: xuenchen

I find this interesting. It depends on what he means. We have to decide for ourselves Is he trying to say something to us or is he doing what he is accused of doing.

You see, the rule of law will always exist because laws will always exist. It's merely what the law is at time you say it. The real question is, is the prevailing law, just, in that it intends to be and is applied in the way it was; say prior to 911.