Usurper Obama Laying Groundwork For 3rd Term
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Usurper Obama Laying Groundwork For 3rd Term

  1. #1

    Usurper Obama Laying Groundwork For 3rd Term

    Limbaugh: Obama Laying Groundwork for Third Term


    Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:04 PM

    By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
    Rush Limbaugh is suggesting that President Barack Obama and his political operatives already are laying the groundwork for a third term.
    “You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016,” Limbaugh told his national radio audience. “I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment.”
    Limbaugh has a point.
    Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.
    Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.
    "We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.
    "With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"
    Limbaugh acknowledged that Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.
    “He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”
    Limbaugh said Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.
    “I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”
    Limbaugh said Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”
    Limbaugh described Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.
    “[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”
    During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.
    “You're going to find I tend to get it mixed up with House Joint Resolution Four and Six,” Gibbs said, to laughter from the press corps.
    “I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he's given that awesome responsibility by the American people.”
    But Limbaugh disagrees.
    “Anybody who thinks [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think given ACORN money and fraudulent voter registration — whatever it's going to take — these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.”


    Newsmax.com - Limbaugh: Obama Laying Groundwork for Third Term

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    I actually took an interest in the headline to this until I saw who was discussing it. Come on, you can't possibly take seriously anything Rush Limbaugh has to say, do you? This guy is to the right what Al Franken and Michael Moore are to the left; a bunch of loons.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I actually took an interest in the headline to this until I saw who was discussing it. Come on, you can't possibly take seriously anything Rush Limbaugh has to say, do you? This guy is to the right what Al Franken and Michael Moore are to the left; a bunch of loons.
    Have to take it seriously when its based on facts...

    "Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms."

    U.S. Congressman José E. Serrano ~ Representing the people of the 16th District of New York

    Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    2. H.J.RES.5 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
    Sponsor: Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 2/9/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual... (Introduced in House)
    HJ 5 IH
    111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 5
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    January 6, 2009

    Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
    JOINT RESOLUTION
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

    • Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

    `Article--


    • `The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.5:

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    Fortunately, amending the constitution is such a long and tedious process that even if such an amendment were ratified, it probably wouldn't be untill long after Obama has left office anyway.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Fortunately, amending the constitution is such a long and tedious process that even if such an amendment were ratified, it probably wouldn't be untill long after Obama has left office anyway.
    Not so much...

    The 16th Amendment... Income Tax... the only un-ratified Amendment was effective two years after it was introduced...

    The 17th Amendment... Governors appointment of U.S. Senators was effective a year after introduced...

    The 18th Amendment... Prohibition was effective a year after introduced...

    The 19th Amendment ... Citizens right to vote was effective a year after introduced...

    The 20th Amendment... Term limits was effective a year after introduced...

    The 21st Amendment... Repealing Prohibition was effective a year after introduced...

  7. #6
    Amendment changes to the constitution require 3/4 (38) of the states to ratify the change AFTER winning a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate. I don't really think we need to worry about this, yet.

    Steve

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by srshadwi View Post
    Amendment changes to the constitution require 3/4 (38) of the states to ratify the change AFTER winning a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate. I don't really think we need to worry about this, yet.

    Steve
    what I previously posted included ratification...

    several of the last amendments to the constitution took two years or less from time introduced, until ratified and effective...

  9. #8
    With the current administration and stacked deck in Congress leaning so radically left... I think WE THE PEOPLE had better be more alert to what Washington is up to, more so than ever before!

    And, just my two cents, but Limbaugh is absolutely nothing like Franken or Moore. Limbaugh deals in facts and ideology and has a strong conviction that the freedoms and liberties this Nation was built upon are worth preserving and protecting. These founding principles were spelled out remarkably well in the United States Constitution. A document Franken and Moore would much prefer disregard and ultimately see destroyed. Their pal Obama has long spoken openly regarding his belief that the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. The agenda of this crowd is to fundamentally change America; limit freedom and revoke liberties! And, their interest in doing so is not solely focused on the 2nd Amendment! Their attack is on the whole of the foundation that this great Nation is built upon.

    WE THE PEOPLE had better heed the warning of Benjamin Franklin and remember that...
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    ... any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

    Better to keep a watchful eye and see nothing happen—than to write these warnings off as impossible and end up with king Obama, duly elected by the peoples of America year after year after year… just as Ahmadinejad recently was by the Iranian people.
    Blessed be my God, my mountain, who trains me to fight fair and well! Psalm 144 (msg)
    ...follow me at twitter.com/matthewaynelson

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewaynelson View Post
    With the current administration and stacked deck in Congress leaning so radically left... I think WE THE PEOPLE had better be more alert to what Washington is up to, more so than ever before!

    And, just my two cents, but Limbaugh is absolutely nothing like Franken or Moore. Limbaugh deals in facts and ideology and has a strong conviction that the freedoms and liberties this Nation was built upon are worth preserving and protecting. These founding principles were spelled out remarkably well in the United States Constitution. A document Franken and Moore would much prefer disregard and ultimately see destroyed. Their pal Obama has spoken openly regarding his belief that the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. The agenda of this crowd is to fundamentally change America; limit freedom and revoke liberties! And, their interest in doing so is not solely focused on the 2nd Amendment! They're attack is on the whole of the foundation that this great Nation is built upon.

    WE THE PEOPLE had better heed the warning of Benjamin Franklin and remember that...



    Better to keep a watchful eye and see nothing happen—than to write these warnings off as impossible and end up with king Obama, duly elected by the peoples of America year after year after year… just as Ahmadinejad recently was by the Iranian people.
    I agree the comparison is off base. My only problem with Limbaugh is that he sometimes has seemed to sound like an offical spokesman for the Republican party when often both parties have seemed like two heads of the same beast. If anything he could be more to the so called right for my taste. He is however way better than the Usurper.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  11. And, just my two cents, but Limbaugh is absolutely nothing like Franken or Moore. Limbaugh deals in facts and ideology and has a strong conviction that the freedoms and liberties this Nation was built upon are worth preserving and protecting. These founding principles were spelled out remarkably well in the United States Constitution.

    I agree with you completely.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast