Trump encourages unpopular marksmanship training idea

 

Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so

 

Repealing the 22nd Amendment is a great idea, but not Republican Andy Ogles' (TN-5) idea of revising it to allow Trump a third term but not Clinton, Bush 43, nor Obama

 Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House

Ogles' idea that Trump was denied the power inherent in two successive terms is an admission that the 22nd Amendment limits the power of the executive.

Is the Congress so limited? No.

Is the Judiciary so limited? No.

The 22nd Amendment is an unfair limitation on the power of the executive. 

That is why we have dueling tyrannies, one of the legislative, and one of the judicial.

The one has put us $36 trillion in debt because it has the power of the purse. The other has jammed a code down our throats from time to time because in Marbury vs. Madison the Supremes arrogated to themselves the final say on the meaning of the constitution.

The founders intended the three branches to be separate, contending, equal powers.

The 22nd Amendment prevents the executive from contending beyond two terms, and so we are condemned to focusing unnaturally on who will be president every four years, which has the ironic effect of exalting the presidency to the point that there is all this hubbub all the time about the imperial presidency when our real masters are others, a neat trick those masters work like mad to pull and pull and pull.

Term limit everybody, or term limit no one.

A "political" Supreme Court which is "balanced" is wishy washy precisely because it is a function of an Executive branch hamstrung by the 22nd Amendment

  This never occurs to Hugo for some reason.

A Court system which depends on the transient figure of the president for its existence can hardly be anything but political. That's where the fetish for political balance on the Court comes from. It is simply an extension of the overweening impulse to limit the Executive power. And it's not a coincidence that the loudest voices for it come from the Legislative. It's an expression of their tyranny over everything.

Of course the Supreme Court is a political institution.

It is appointed by an elected president, and confirmed by an elected Senate. But it is the two term limit which sharpens its tip, raising the stakes over every appointment.

The Court has become more political precisely because the political power of the Executive which appoints it has been limited. It's how the wronged Executive manages to live on, long after he has been forced from the scene. He routinely runs for office partly on the promise to partisans that he will make the right appointments to the bench.

If the Framers had intended the Executive to be hamstrung in this way while the other two branches were not, they would have said so. 

The people have the right to elect whomever to the presidency as often as they wish, just as they have the right to return Nancy Pelosi to the US House year after year. They also have the right to get rid of the bum if they don't like his appointments. Anything less gives too much power to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and to the judges he leaves behind.

The way to improve constancy of meaning on the Court and consistency in the rule of law is to improve both in the Executive.

We aren't going to be saved by a Court which has temporarily recovered its senses. They could just as well lose them again. And they'll also still be there, long after the president who appointed them is gone.

Who checks the Court? 

It's more complicated than Mark Levin says: Sean Davis points out Senate rules require articles of impeachment to be delivered by House managers to the Senate, and changing those rules is too heavy a lift

Nancy Pelosi is a wily devil. She already knows how to use the rules against the Senate.

Seems like quite a vulnerability in the balance of powers which she is exploiting to grab the power for the House over the Senate and the presidency.

Ask yourself who benefits from the 22nd Amendment? And the 16th?

We have the tyranny of the legislative, despite the founders' many warnings.

McConnell must go nuclear to fix this, but probably will not. The gravity of the situation certainly calls for it, but the political toxicity would be just horrific.

Repeal the 22nd Amendment

If Nancy Pelosi can serve 17 terms, so can Trump.

Repeal the 22nd Amendment, 2019 edition

Limiting the president to two terms when House and Senate members are not so limited increases the political power of the legislative over the executive, contrary to the founders' vision of separated and balanced powers. The executive is automatically lame on reelection as a consequence, and the Congress knows it and exploits it.

The growth of the so-called "imperial presidency" in the post-war has been simply a response to this infringement on the executive. To be sure the individual responses of the executive often become offenses in and of themselves, but nothing has been more offensive in the history of the Republic than Congress' sorry record of unimpeded theft of the American people's money and its headlong leap into the spending abyss. 

Like guilty dogs caught peeing on the carpet of the Constitution, the Congress occasionally bows its head and cedes a little power back to the executive in one form or another, the latest example on display being the National Emergencies Act of 1976. With that the Congress is quite content to let the executive take all the political heat for making the difficult decisions in extremis while posturing as defenders of the Constitution. They win both ways, and the president loses. Congress' incumbents know they'll be back for the long run, but the president won't.

Repealing the 22nd Amendment would actually put more of the onus on Congress these poseurs to do their damn job for a change instead of dumping it all on one person while crying "Tyranny!" after he acts to clean up their puddle. And that's why it won't happen.

But it still should.

Pittsburgh Tribune Review Agrees Obama Is Essentially A Fascist

According to an editorial in Saturday's Pittsburgh Tribune Review, here, agreeing with John Mackey the CEO of Whole Foods, Obama is essentially a fascist. The editorial approvingly quotes this definition of fascism by libertarian Sheldon Richman:

“As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. For those with the hubris to think they, not free markets, could better serve society, ‘fascism‘ (or as we prefer, 'fascistic economics') was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone (classic) liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism.”

Just when you thought there's been no progress defining for the public who and what is Obama, a businessman and a newspaper provide some:

"The general parallels to Obamanomics are glaring. Throw in the specifics of ObamaCare — then consider forays into national industrial policy and state protection of organized labor cartels — and the parallels are blinding", the editorial says.

Not that America's odd mixture of socialism and capitalism is something new.

It was Herbert Hoover, as far as I know, who was the first liberal to identify the American phenomenon of a mixed economics. Hoover located it in the blended strongman presidency of FDR, which was based more on Roosevelt's admiration for Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler as leaders than it was on substantive convictions about the dismal science. The alphabet soup of government which we take for granted today is the direct descendant of Roosevelt's impulse to try something, try anything, until it worked. Well, they're still trying.

Under Roosevelt, perfectly good food was deliberately destroyed by government to keep it from reaching the market in order to support prices in a deflationary economy even as people went hungry all across the country. Today we deliberately devote half the corn crop to produce an expensive, politically correct fuel boosting the cost of food animals while the number of people on food stamps is at an all time high and consumer demand has fallen like a rock. In the immortal words of Curly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed.

But Hoover the loser was on to something, even if calling the man who beat him an un-American dictator lover was beyond the pale for some people. History eventually proved Hoover right when FDR broke with American tradition dating from the founding by running for a third term, and then a fourth. It took until 1951 for the American people to wake up and put a stop to that, with the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Some dictators are assassinated, others just end up in the circular file. In many ways, Roosevelt simply out-Hoovered Hoover's own liberalism. People forget that FDR ran on what amounted to a repudiation of Republican liberal economic interventionism in the economy, and promptly ramped it up beyond anyone's imagination after he was elected.

But the blended system in America surely began much earlier. We could dial it back probably all the way to Lincoln himself, which would be fitting if only because the current occupant of The White House who practices fascism goes to such great pains to style himself after him, the president who chose to make the principle of national union over sovereign States the new definition of America. That fact of working a revolution, of remaking the country, should trouble everyone who has an ounce of independence left flowing through his veins, which is what troubles so many people who hear Obama speak of transforming the country. For half of us, one such revolution was enough.

This year we might do well to reflect on a later example, however, seeing that it is the anniversary of the abolition of private banking 100 years ago. It's strangely coincidental. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law in 1913 by a fanatical progressive Presbyterian named Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat who hated the encumbrances placed upon government by the constitutional order and wanted to forge a new world where nations disarmed, lived in peace and cooperated toward a common goal, with the US not at its then natural place, at the head. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in thoroughly partisan fashion by Democrats who had swept to power in the election of 1912 and rammed it through the Congress without Republican support. Their dollar then is now worth 4 cents.

If Woodrow Wilson doesn't yet remind you of Obama and ObamaCare, maybe its because after 100 years of the pernicious effects of American style fascism, you're just too poor to pay attention.

The Line of the Day Award Goes to "Hope Needs More Time"

The line of the day award goes to the ever-incisive Steve Huntley for The Chicago Sun Times, here:

Hope needs more time. That was President Barack Obama’s message in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention Thursday night. But a country that was forced to live on hope for four years and rewarded with dreary unemployment, falling middle class income and depressed home values may not be ready for another dose of lofty national goals based on nothing more than oratory.

Hope is the very stuff of ideology, whether political or religious.

Religious ideology makes life tolerable by offering faux rewards in the forms of community, sacraments and liturgy with hope of eternal life deferred to the next one. Forgiveness in the here and now goes with all that, a sort of foretaste of the salvation to come. Or it offers assurances of the imminent in-breaking of the kingdom of God with the second coming of Christ, a recrudescent hope which litters the historical landscape since the time of Jesus. Such assurances are often accompanied by religious experiences of being "born again", or of so-called miracles, which require new exempla over time to validate the ideology as the second coming fails to materialize and the experience flattens. Certain Jews say year upon year "Next year, in Jerusalem." Muslims await the last imam, fourteen centuries after Muhammad.

But political ideology promises, promises and promises, with not much to show for it even in democracy, which promptly turns it out when it is still healthy enough to do so. The American record in this regard is mixed. Woodrow Wilson was not turned out. A terrible, costly and demoralizing war was the consequence. FDR was not turned out. Another terrible, costly and demoralizing war was the consequence. But LBJ was turned out, in the throes of a period when first principles were readdressed selfishly under what was decided was an existential threat to the next generation. Say what you will about the '60s generation, war in America stopped being involuntary. 

Ideologues sometimes become dictators, in which case they just go on promising. FDR did this but in the extenuating circumstances of global war, flaunting the long-standing American tradition that presidents serve but two terms. A free people finally came to its senses and put a stop to that with the 22nd Amendment, but not until after the fact.

In other times and other places dictators install themselves permanently, as was the case with one Robert Mugabe. Barack Obama has made no secret of his admiration of such like, openly expressing his dissatisfaction with the constraints placed on him by our form of government at the same time he voices his admiration for the lack of such constraints in places such as China. Are Americans wrong to be disquieted by this?

Hope needs more time. But for what, exactly?    

Obama Admits It Again: He's Tempted By Tyranny, and Disrespects Limits

"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform." (quoted here yesterday)

Here's The New York Times in March: Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China.

And, of course, at the age of nine being prime minister of Indonesia already looked pretty good, according to this in April: His mother's ambition was clearly not lost on the future US president. When his Indonesian stepfather asked him once what he wanted to be when he grew up, he was probably expecting him to say an airline pilot or an athlete. "'Oh, prime minister', Barry answered,'" wrote Ms Scott.

The hunger for power evidently began early. But its possession now apparently does not satisfy. What's especially disturbing is the frustration Obama keeps expressing with the limits we place on presidential power in America. He's frequently seen bowing to foreign leaders. Why not to the constitution?

Nothing in it prevented FDR from seeking a third term, and then a fourth, except respect for the long tradition of the unwritten rule of laying down power voluntarily after two terms, going back to the example of George Washington. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, was the people's response to the lack of self-control FDR showed by his actions.

Obama would do well to consider that more seriously, and these words from our Declaration of Independence:

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.