The other day I realized: this chucklehead hasn’t even been re-inaugurated yet. Our second four years of lies and wicked irresponsibility hasn’t even started.
What could possibly be worse?
Ooh, ooh, I know! Call on me!
How about amending the Constitution so he can be President forever!
Thanks to Dana.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
Who’s feelin’ happy?
Patterico (cec121) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:08 pmYou knew this was coming. Therefore, prepare to respond in defense of our Republic.
Dirty Old Man (0c7e45) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:16 pmO-Bah-Mah, Leader of the new Amerika, President for Life!
(inspired by the masses homage to Papa Doc)
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:17 pmAnd if you don’t want a dictator, you’re a racist.
Ghost (2d8874) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:20 pmJose Serrano? He’s from the South Bronx. Probably because Obama is a “minority.”
Maybe he think some of his constituents will like that.
He would probably say: “I’m not exactly for Obama getting more terms, but why disqualify him?”
Jose Serrano is high on the Appropriations Committee.Before the 2010 election, he was a member of what the Almanac of American Politics calls the “college of cardinals” (Appropriation Committee subcommittee chairmen – in his case Financial Services and General Government.)
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:24 pmcant happen, and when the senate flips in 2014, Obamas reign is over, if not in 2 months of people getting less month as Obama overpromised tax cuts
EPWJ (c5f1fc) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:32 pmrepublicans control 32 state legislatures for amendment purposes you need 3/4ths to ratify
EPWJ (c5f1fc) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:33 pmThere’s a different reason why Serrano supports this;
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1351
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:58 pmElections! We don’t need no stinkin’ elections.
Once the guns are rounded-up and the children are safe from law abiding citizens Obama will time to reform those pesky old fashioned so-called “Constitutional rights” especially the white slave master inspired liberty to assemble and cause trouble.
No one has the right to disrupt government operations. Unruly crowds of malcontents have no authority to congregate into lawless mobs. All unauthorized anti-government demonstrations will be considered as “mob actions” will not be tolerated.
ropelight (100be6) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:59 pmYour link is very telling, narciso. It all come s together.
Dana (292dcf) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:06 pm3
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:23 pmOoh, what a great idea! Bill Clinton could then run for a third term as president again. That might be the only way that Obama could ever be removed from office.
pa (4f643b) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:41 pmWhat is it about lying con men – FDR, Clinton, Obama – that makes Democrats form cult of personality.
Next, press releases announcing Obama’s eight “holes in one” at one golf game.
SPQR (6c1ba4) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:58 pmWow, speaking of Ace’s post about tyranny in the air…just wow.
I’d like to read the whole story one day about how the term limits came about right after Saint FDR died. My mother once told me that there was lots of opposition to him and that families were often split by this rancor.
It’s only later that progressives deified him (and Wilson).
Patricia (be0117) — 1/6/2013 @ 3:43 pmTheir (the Left’s) admiration of Wilson is surprising when you take into account Wilson’s unmitigated Racism; which makes you realize that Progressives are not as accepting of diversity as they claim.
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 3:52 pmYes, Yes 1000 times yes. The Democrats *finally* stood up and started making specific proposals about tax increases. No more “loop holes” or vaguely worded strategies. It’s time for the Republican’s to do the same with cuts. I think it will involve both (I know this isn’t a popular idea here) but Obama won’t propose cuts. He doesn’t want to cut anything. Playing around with PBS and ignoring Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and Defense isn’t going to get the job done. The GOP needs to grow a freaking set, take a risk and put forward a real proposal.
Also, the Debt Ceiling is all about money we’ve already promised to pay. We need to raise it and then move forward with a new, lower budget.
time123 (46cc0f) — 1/6/2013 @ 3:59 pmThat, and Wilson jailed over 1,000 people for speaking out against war. Mostly socialists and anarchists, too.
Means, ends, justified.
Ghost (2d8874) — 1/6/2013 @ 3:59 pmComment 16 is in the wrong thread. Sorry.
time123 (46cc0f) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:08 pmWhich is kind of remarkable when you think about it, Debs, one of the most prominent was a Presidential candidate, albeit a socialist one,
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:30 pmAlso, the Debt Ceiling is all about money we’ve already promised to pay. We need to raise it and then move forward with a new, lower budget.
The fight over the Debt Ceiling has nothing to do with paying back money that has already been borrowed – there is more than enough cash-flow to manage that. It is all about continuing the level of Porkulus Spending that this administration embarked upon four years ago.
Without raising the Debt Ceiling, and allowing ADDITIONAL borrowing, the administration will be forced to prioritize its spending, and not undertake any new programs without the wholesale elimination of older ones.
They wish to continue spending on everything in their wish list as it is the only way to ensure the loyalty of the nomenklatura.
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:58 pmDebbs, Schenk, and Fröhwerk would all have shows on MSNBC today, and MSNBC loves Wilson, the man who shut them up.
The doublethink, it’s astounding.
Ghost (2d8874) — 1/6/2013 @ 5:29 pmYou’re not kidding, Frohwerk isn’t that far removed from Michael Moore or Ezra Klein,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=249&invol=204
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 5:35 pmI have concerns that Obama may be a lifetime President though, perhaps, for not that many years. Fernandez articulates it well
roy in nipomo (160066) — 1/6/2013 @ 6:36 pmhttp://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/01/06/couching-tiger-hidden-dagger/
Correction, he articulates the cause of my concern well.
roy in nipomo (160066) — 1/6/2013 @ 6:38 pmroy, that link doesn’t work….this one may:
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 6:46 pmhttp://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/
Thank you, much better.
roy in nipomo (160066) — 1/6/2013 @ 7:24 pmHe didn’t say anything about money that has been borrowed. He said money that we’ve already promised to pay. I assume he means money that Congress has already appropriated, and thus required the president to pay.
And will thus be breaking the law. Don’t forget that the president is required to spend every penny that Congress appropriates. Congress has ordered him to spend it. It just hasn’t actually provided him with it, so he will have no legal choice but to ignore that order.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 1/6/2013 @ 7:38 pm“Stay on target. Stay on target!” – Red Leader
Ghost (2d8874) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:09 pmMilhouse, actually I believe that it is not true that the President is ordered to spend money, in contravention of the debt ceiling. The Democrats like to claim that but its not true. Appropriations bills in discretionary categories usually have language that requires spending from funds available. If there is a hard debt ceiling, then those appropriations are not made by their own terms. The appropriations legislation itself “priortizes”.
The problem comes when mandatory spending ie., entitlements, exceed the revenue and require borrowing and the debt ceiling is not raised. Then there would be a contradiction. But that contradiction does not allow the President to borrow money that Congress has not explicitly authorized. The President has no authority to do so constitutionally. So his only option is to fail to spend some amount of the mandatory appropriations.
SPQR (768505) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:29 pmI don’t know about the rest of what you wrote, but this is undoubtedly true. If the President must break the law, by not spending money he’s been ordered to spend but hasn’t got, then so be it, he’s under force majeure; but borrowing money on his own authority would not simply be illegal, it would be legally impossible, because he has no such authority. It’s not that he can borrow money but the constitution forbids it, it’s that he can’t borrow money, any more than he can try and convict criminals, or make laws. The constitution doesn’t give him the authority in the first place.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:35 pmhttp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/wow-barack-obama-tells-john-boehner-we-dont-have-a-spending-problem/
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:58 pm“Elections! We don’t need no stinkin’ elections.
Once the guns are rounded-up and the children are safe from law abiding citizens Obama will time to reform those pesky old fashioned so-called “Constitutional rights” especially the white slave master inspired liberty to assemble and cause trouble.
No one has the right to disrupt government operations. Unruly crowds of malcontents have no authority to congregate into lawless mobs. All unauthorized anti-government demonstrations will be considered as “mob actions” will not be tolerated.”
– ropelight
Hahahahaha… boogity boogity boogity!!
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 1/6/2013 @ 9:21 pmBarack Obama has no problem whatsoever with spending all of the money that we don’t have.
Icy (f1nk31m@n) (ebb4bb) — 1/6/2013 @ 9:38 pmWell, yeah, it’s all fun and games until someone puts his eye out.
What’s the weather report tonight?
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 1/6/2013 @ 9:40 pmHmm, Snopes has noted this also
Key fact: Serranno has sponsored this every 2 years since 1997, so the “Obama” connection is limited at best.
Others have sponsored similar bills
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (98ae1f) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:27 pmSo, how about a pool? On what date will a New York Times editorial first suggest repeal of the 22nd Amendment?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/7/2013 @ 11:02 amTo be fair, Reagan’s folk were mooting the same thing back in ’86-87
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/7/2013 @ 11:03 amRep. Serrano’s district – CD165 – encompasses a large chunk of the Bronx. This idea is probably enormously popular there.
That said, I can’t imagine that it would pass through the legislature, and if it did, I can’t imagine that it would get approved by the necessary number of states … and I have to assume that Rep. Serrano knows that. Which means this is a political stunt more than an actual policy proposal.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/7/2013 @ 12:53 pmNo need to amend the constitution, the 22nd amendment was passed in 1947 and tha’s like, thousands of years ago and no one knows what it means anyway. Plus we live in a democracy and there is no reason why people should not be allowed to elect whoever they want, and the American people have voted, they want Obama to be president-for-life. Presidential elections are a waste of money also, we could use the money we save to provide condoms for GLBT pre-teens.
max (131bc0) — 1/7/2013 @ 2:29 pm