Washington Post publishes op-ed piece pushing for ending presidential term limits!
The Washington Post has published the piece I've been expecting for six years: "End presidential term limits," which they published yesterday. (Surely it's just a coincidence that it was published on Thanksgiving.)
But despite the title of the article, neither the author nor the Post really wants an end to presidential term limits, eh? What they want is for the two-term limit specified by Constitutional amendment to be waived only for Democrats--specifically for the Muslim socialist who's currently usurping the presidency.
You need to understand what the Post's publication of this op-ed represents: The Post didn't just publish a letter to the editor from some random wacko. Rather, this piece was carefully selected and featured by the paper--presumably to try to shape public opinion. You need to ask yourself why.
Yes, yes, I'm well aware that proposals to do away with the two-term limit on presidential terms have been raised many times before. No one worried much about them because everyone knew you couldn't do that without a Constitutional amendment repealing the one that created the limit, and that would take years.
No one seriously believed that one of the two political parties might simply ignore the Constitution. Such a thing was completely unthinkable.
But guess what, cupcake? The current misadministration has done a shitload of stuff that arguably violated the Constitution, and no one's done jack about it. What part of the Constitution allowed barry to do "Cash for Clunkers"? What part of it allowed him to override well-settled bankruptcy law in giving controlling interest in GM to the United Autoworkers Union, cutting out bond-holders (who by law had priority)?
What part allows him to let his Attorney-General deliberately, overtly decline to prosecute violations of voting-rights laws if the perps are members of the Black Panther party?
Back when Bubba (aka Slick Willy) was president a lot of folks were concerned that he might try to grab a third term. After all, this was a guy who didn't bat an eye at committing perjury to avoid admitting he'd been having trysts with interns. But Slick was an altar-boy compared to Obozo.
But apparently the WaPo is so much a supporter of Obie that they think he should be able to have a third term. Oh, I agree they didn't literally say that. They just offered their paper as a forum for someone who did.
Can you imagine them allowing their pages to be used to publishing the same op-ed piece if a Republican were president? But hey, we swear there's absolutely no liberal bias in the mainstream press, no sir!
But despite the title of the article, neither the author nor the Post really wants an end to presidential term limits, eh? What they want is for the two-term limit specified by Constitutional amendment to be waived only for Democrats--specifically for the Muslim socialist who's currently usurping the presidency.
You need to understand what the Post's publication of this op-ed represents: The Post didn't just publish a letter to the editor from some random wacko. Rather, this piece was carefully selected and featured by the paper--presumably to try to shape public opinion. You need to ask yourself why.
Yes, yes, I'm well aware that proposals to do away with the two-term limit on presidential terms have been raised many times before. No one worried much about them because everyone knew you couldn't do that without a Constitutional amendment repealing the one that created the limit, and that would take years.
No one seriously believed that one of the two political parties might simply ignore the Constitution. Such a thing was completely unthinkable.
But guess what, cupcake? The current misadministration has done a shitload of stuff that arguably violated the Constitution, and no one's done jack about it. What part of the Constitution allowed barry to do "Cash for Clunkers"? What part of it allowed him to override well-settled bankruptcy law in giving controlling interest in GM to the United Autoworkers Union, cutting out bond-holders (who by law had priority)?
What part allows him to let his Attorney-General deliberately, overtly decline to prosecute violations of voting-rights laws if the perps are members of the Black Panther party?
Back when Bubba (aka Slick Willy) was president a lot of folks were concerned that he might try to grab a third term. After all, this was a guy who didn't bat an eye at committing perjury to avoid admitting he'd been having trysts with interns. But Slick was an altar-boy compared to Obozo.
But apparently the WaPo is so much a supporter of Obie that they think he should be able to have a third term. Oh, I agree they didn't literally say that. They just offered their paper as a forum for someone who did.
Can you imagine them allowing their pages to be used to publishing the same op-ed piece if a Republican were president? But hey, we swear there's absolutely no liberal bias in the mainstream press, no sir!
posted by SF at
9:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home