While we all acknowledge that after the death of president FDR, who died in office during his 4th term, our U.S. Constitution was Amended so that no future president can hold the office of Commander-in-Chief for more than two terms, president Obama’s Master Plan to save the planet will require more than 8 years [two terms] to accomplish. Seeing his approval numbers starting to fall in every major poll, his supporters must be working around the clock to promote a change in the XXII Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. With national unemployment at record numbers, perhaps the highest since [10.8% at] the end of 1982, and, facing losses in the House next November, the time to act is now.
They have not overlooked the fact that Fidel Castro, our North American neighbor, was president/Prime Minister of Cuba for 50 consecutive years from 1959 until early in 2008. Obama supporters will argue that as our Constitution was changed once on the issue of “term limits” it can be changed again.
After all he warned all of us to expect “change.” Is this a remote possibility?
Amendment 22 – Presidential Term Limits
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
All joking aside. Based on the XXII Amendment I might suggest that we add Term Limits to every member of Congress, some of whom have been serving for over 50 years . That’s true. West Virginia’s Senator Robert Byrd is the longest serving member of the US Senate having been elected to that distinguished body 56 years ago. John Dingle is the third longest serving member of the House at 53 years and counting. Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy has been in office for 46 years.
Are we to believe that we cannot find qualified “new blood” from their respective states who are ready, willing and able to serve their country as we confront the challenges of the 21st century?
And while I am on the topic of Term Limits. Perhaps we should give consideration of Term Limits for Federal Judges who have lifetime posts.
Juice readers. As always your comments are welcome!
This is just fear-mongering crapolla from feeble minded right wing-nuts.
Where were these CONCERNED CITIZENS when George W. Bush took this country into UNPRECEDENTED TERRITORY?
PREEMPTIVE WAR
TORTURE
DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE
EXPANSION of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH’S POWERS
SECRECY
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
*Only if Arnold gets to be his Vice President in his third term!
Term Limits for Congresspeople is one thing…for Senators….not a chance! These people will filabuster until the cows come home!
anonster.
you are so blind with rage against almost everything I write you missed the part where it begins:
ALL JOKING ASIDE. Get a life. President Bush 43 has moved on and so should you!
Larry,
Problem is, we don’t think you’re really joking. We’ve seen far too much of this fear-based, conspiracy theory idiocy coming from the right to dismiss it as “joking”.
Larry, MOVE ON? Tell that to the DEAD, MAIMED and DISPLACED. Just because Bush’s DIRTY WAR DIDN’T affect you personally doesn’t mean you can “move on” and forget it, remember; WAR CRIMES are FOREVER.
You again, have proved yourself to be a CONTEMPTIBLE HYPOCRITE.
As to your post being a “joke”, sorry if I missed that, who knew something so hilarious was buried in all that bullsh*t.
Sounds like the amendment the Bush was going to do, according to some nuts on the left. Also had him declaring martial law and declaring himself dictator.
The is the nuts on the right trying to promote the same crazy stuff about Obama.
Gather all nuts left and right then package and ship into outer space where they all belong.
Just makes me laugh at the kind of things people will believe. What happened to the moderates with sanity ?
Sounds like the amendment the Bush was going to do, according to some nuts on the left. Also had him declaring martial law and declaring himself dictator.
This is the nuts on the right trying to promote the same crazy stuff about Obama.
Gather all nuts left and right then package and ship into outer space where they all belong.
Just makes me laugh at the kind of things people will believe. What happened to the moderates with sanity ?
anonster. Did you write the following comment?
“Tell that to the DEAD, MAIMED and DISPLACED.”
Were you referring to LBJ? Perhaps I can support your words with the following facts:
United States Armed Forces
Casualties as of November 7 2001:
58,209 Killed in action, 303,635 Wounded in action (including 153,303 who required hospitalization and 150,332 who didn’t)
1,948 MIA’s. No, not George Bush 41 or 43. Another two presidents who happended to call the shots in Vietnam named JFK and LBJ.
And that my friend are only American casualties.
Should we go back to FDR and WWII?
Stop looking for ways to, selectively, beat up on the family Bush.
It exposes your fervent prejudice to the entire Internet world that read your comments.
Larry,
As usual, you miss the larger picture. This isn’t about beating up on the family Bush…
This is about beating up on ANY President who would lead this country into a war that was not necessary. Note that I said ANY President.
Try as you might, you cannot separate Mr. Bush from the Iraq war. He started it…and criticizing it is not a personal attack on his family. It’s an attack on the decision he made.
anon. The larger picture?
And unless I need new glasses, anonster singles out Bush yet overlooks his predecessors who were at the helm in prior wars resulting in many more dead and wounded Americans and other combatants.
And tell me that JFK/LBJ did not start the bogus war in Vietnam. The following lengthy text is from a former combatant’s Internet report in which he also mentions data found in the Pentagon Papers regarding that war which might be worth reading.
The following timeframe preceedes the infamous Gulf of Tonkin trigger point:
“Neither the Secretary General of the UN, the French President, nor the Soviet government received any encouragement from the US. The Johnson administration quickly rejected the idea. (Indeed, there was no interest expressed at exploring any of the opportunities for peace which seemed to be opening up.) President Johnson stated that “We do not believe in conferences called to ratify terror,” The next day the US announced that it would increase its military mission in South Vietnam 30 percent (from 16,000 to 21,000. Johnson was no doubt eager to forestall any possibility of a Republican attack on him during the upcoming 1964 election. Being accused of being “soft on communism” wouldn’t wash well with the public.
In Vietnam, the war was entering a new phase. Air Vice-Marshal Ky stated publicly in a news conference of July 23 that South Vietnamese commando teams had been engaged in sabotage missions inside North Vietnam “by air, sea and land.” Two days later Hanoi Radio charged that the Americans and their “lackeys” had fired on North Vietnamese fishing craft, and the Hanoi government lodged a formal protest with the International Control Commission. On July 30 Hanoi accused the South Vietnamese naval vessels of again raiding its fishing boats in Tonkin Gulf under the protective cover of an American destroyer, and additionally bombarding two North Vietnamese islands. This elicited another North Vietnamese protest on July 31.
On August 2, according to the official US version of events, North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an unprovoked attack upon the US destroyer Maddox while it was engaged in a “routine patrol.” Hanoi admitted to the attack, but said it was in reprisal for the bombardment of nearby North Vietnamese islands.
[Senator Richard B. Russel suggested that the North Vietnamese might have been “confused” because there had been some South Vietnamese naval “activity” in the Gulf of Tonkin, but State Department officials rejected the explanation.]
Hanoi and Washington thus both agreed that North Vietnamese PT boats had deliberately engaged the Maddox on August 2, but differed as to where the engagement took place, the reason for the attack, and its outcome.
According to the US, on August 4, North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched a second attack, this time against the Maddox and another destroyer, the Turner Joy, at a time when they were 65 miles from shore. Neither destroyer suffered any damage or casualties and were reported to have destroyed the attacking boats. Hanoi insisted that this second attack never, in fact, occurred. As Senator Fulbright later observed:
But this Gulf of Tonkin incident, if I may so, was a very vague one. We were briefed on it, but have no way of knowing, even to this day, what actually happened. I don’t know whether we provoked that attack in connection with supervising or helping a raid by South Vietnamese or not. Our evidence was sketchy as to whether those PT boats, or some kind of boats, that were approaching were coming to investigate or whether they actually attacked. I have been told there was no physical damage. They weren’t hit by anything. I heard one man say there was one bullet hole in one of those ships. One bullet hole! [This “Tonkin Gulf Incident” was indeed fabricated by the US, as was discovered in the early 1970’s when the Maddox and Turner Joy logs and transmissions were revealed. There had been no attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats.]
The American response, putting damage and doubt aside, was prompt. President Johnson went on television at 11:30 p.m. on the evening of August 4, thirteen hours after the attack. He informed the American public that retaliatory action was already underway. “Air action is now in execution against gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam which have been used in these hostile operations.” Prior to issuing this statement, he had met with the leaders of both parties in the Congress and informed them that “I shall immediately request the Congress to pass a resolution making it clear that our Government is united in its determination to make all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defense of peace in Southeast Asia.” They had, he said, given him “encouraging assurance” that “such a resolution will be promptly introduced, freely and expeditiously debated, and passed with overwhelming support.”
The next day President Johnson asked Congress to “join in affirming the national determination that all such attacks will be met,” and to approve “all necessary action to protect our Armed Forces and to assist nations covered by the SEATO treaty.” The resolution passed 466-0 in the House, 88-2 in the Senate (with only Senator Gruening and Morse opposing). It authorized the President to “take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.” The measure further stated that the United States was prepared “as the President determines to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”
The die was cast. The so-called Tonkin Gulf Incident was just one of many fabrications made by our government to further the cause for war. One such ridiculous fabrication was a 1966 US Army training film called, “County Fair,” in which the sinister Vietcong were shown in a jungle clearing heating gasoline and soap bars thus creating a vicious “communist invention” called… napalm.
Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, was the man most responsible for “giving, controlling and managing the war news from Vietnam.” One day in July 1965, Sylvester told American journalists that they had a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good. When one of the newsmen exclaimed: “Surely, Arthur, you don’t expect the American press to be the handmaidens of government,” Sylvester replied, “That’s exactly what I expect,” adding: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? — stupid.” And when a correspondent for a New York paper began a question, he was interrupted by Sylvester who said: “Aw, come on. What does someone in New York care about the war in Vietnam?”
Something to think about as we are to place our trust in everything alleged that comes out of DC
Larry,
Did you not read the part where I said ANY President?
That said, we are, at this moment in history, embroiled in a war that Mr. Bush started, unnecessarily. Highlighting THAT over what’s happened in the past makes sense…we’re all still living it.
this is all planned for the New World Order.
Only a matter of time…
this is the plan for the New World Order
that will be built around him
only a matter of time….
ship them to space yes sir just make sure anonster is in that box .
#14, Great one, that would mean anonster would have to leave his mothers basement, and actually go outside.
*There is a great movie called: “They Live!”…we recommend all of the above take a look. It is with Roddy Pipper…very cool flick. Look it up
on http://www.IMDB.com
Meanwhile, meaningless wars are for always for profits….ask brother Adolph…..oops…he is unavailable presently for comment. How about those cool guys in Cambodia….that offered up the “Killing Fields”. “Khmer Rouge” knew about
cash and supplies from various foreign interests.
“There is big money in War…Godfather!” Don’t think any of those guys had a Bush moniker! But you can bet they knew them all…even our next President Jeb!
anon. Cute.
After you highlight ANY in your comment you immediately name president Bush or am I looking at a different post?
You wrote: “That said, we are, at this moment in history, embroiled in a war that Mr. Bush started, unnecessarily. Highlighting THAT over what’s happened in the past makes sense…we’re all still living it.”
Go to any VA hospital and I bet you will find more vet’s from the Vietnam War who are still fighting their monsters. Specifically, “Post-Vietnam Syndrome” to be recognized in 1980 as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.”
Sadly their plight doesn’t make the headlines as frequently as your non-stop attack on president Bush.
Just curious. Do you have BUSH as #1 on your speed dial on any Juice article?
Larry, I see that you have conveniently strayed off-topic (one of your pet peeves) of the oh-so-hilarious point of this post; Obama radically altering the US in the name of “change”.
I bring up Bush the jr. because HE DID radically alter the country. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war is a case in point, we have fought many stupid and unjustified wars, but the reasonings behind the Iraq war took US policy in a radically different direction. The Bush jr. years were marked by radical and extreme policies, a point that is ignored by you hypocritical Obama-alarmists.
Yes, we would ALL like to “move on” from the “change” that Bush jr. brought, but like anon said; “we’re all still living it”.
Dr. Anonster or Mr. PHd anonster.
“There you go again.” You are wrong.
Osama bin Laden, not George Bush, “radically altered the country” on 9/11 (and before).
Prior to that date we had not lost thousands of Americans and others in terrorist activities on our soil on the same date.
That tragic experience led to the formation of our Homeland Security Department which removed some of our freedoms that we accept in the spirit of public safety.
FYI. We had CIA operatives in the war on terror during the last years of the Clinton Administration.
Perhaps you might watch our interview of Gary Bernsen, “one of the CIA’s most decorated officers and key commander coordinating the fight against the Taliban forces around Kabul” that can be found in our archives. Sadly we have a history of poor decision making when it comes to promises made, promises kept. An aide to General Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Afghan Northern Alliance stated “This is common for America. You make promises and abandom us. You ask for our committment to fight an enemy and then you walk away. I will never understand your country.” February 2000.
Dr anonster. Question. Who was president of the United States on the date of that quote?
http://www.cuttingedge-atalkshow.com
The Cutting Edge a talk show program is also the title of Gary’s book. Jawbreaker.
Larry, the Iraq war had NOTHING to do with 9-11. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war pertained to IRAQ.
Bush was determined to strike Iraq, he was looking for ANY pretext, 9-11 was just a convenient excuse, a “gift” to the neocons.
Bush USED “terrorism” to push through his radical and extreme ideology and policies.
Dr. anonster.
We can make the same argument for the Vietnam war under JFK/LBJ
You ned to throw away your artist brush and go to Ace Hardware and buy a house painter’s brush.