See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms? : Bills Introduced In Congress To Repeal 8-Year Restriction Of 22nd Amendment
Source:
WorldNetDaily.com
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52246
Published: Oct 8, 2006
Author: WND
Post Date: 2006-10-08 11:38:05 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 465
Comments: 28
Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms? Bills Introduced In Congress To Repeal 8-Year Restriction Of 22nd Amendment Posted: October 8, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 http://WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON – One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate. But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents. Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system. "The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result." Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington. "We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny." Hoyer argues the 22nd Amendment "has the effect of removing the president from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years." Rep. Howard Berman, D-CA, is another advocate of the move. "I don't like arbitrary term limits,'' he said. "I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term. Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense.'' Should the resolution pass and be approved by the states, the repeal would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms. The 22nd Amendment states: "Section 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. "Section 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." Hoyer's bill is not the only one in the House with the same goal. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, has introduced a similar resolution. Both of the Democrats have been working on repealing the 22nd Amendment since the presidency of Bill Clinton. Former President Clinton is on record as approving of the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result." Bullshit! They are both globalist hacks. And we see what the vaunted democracy has gotten us, full blown fascism.
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
No, a thousand times no. In fact the term for president to be limited to say a 5 or 6 year term and out you go.
Groovy Cynic Dude, we fnally agree 100 percent on something.
If you are a student of history...The CSA rewrote the Constitution with term limits on ALL elected offices, their President was restricted to one 6 year term. The reason for the change was because the Southern states saw the danger in lifetime professional politicians. The Yankees won the war and now we suffer for their ignorance.
Yet another jackass refining his comedy routine.
Power in Congress???? Judicary system???? That part brought me to a rage. The Justice system has long been the "LEGAL" system, nothing more. The Congress is nothing but a group of nattering old ladies that should be given until sundown to leave town or be shot.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. How's the Arnold for President bill coming along?
Southerners as well as us little old New England Yankees are responsible for the drafting and acceptance of the U.S. Constitution. You mix the inertia factor of how hard it is to change something already made organic to us with regrets the war between the states finished with the result you loathe. You have to accept responsibility for the ratification taken part in, even if you feel a document drafted to replace it was used for but a brief span of a few years is better and you wish the Confederacy yet lived. The myopia of the product accepted at the Constitutional convention belongs to everyone in the several states. Stop whining, it's lame. /teasing
Southerners wrote it, Uncle Ben edited it.
We should impose similar limts on Congress, as well. Three terms for Congressmen; two for Senators. No benefits, either.
And the similar document called The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations inspired much of it. I don't argue aspects of the genesis, I merely point out that once signed, all own responsibility for it, with all due respect. ;-)
Indeed. Foley should be stripped of his pension he quickly resigned to protect. Further, in regards to the pension for these yard birds, it is too large and too easily given.
With all due respect, that might be a stretch. http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm It certainly is more poetic!
Actually, if you look at the separation of power inherent to that document, you might feel differently.
The Iroquois confederation was cited as an example of dispersal of power in making arguments for the constitution. The claim that it "inspired" the Constutition is ridiculous. The founders were classically educated men- that is- steeped in Greek and Roman history. As was typical of educational standards of that time- an "educated man" coud read and write both Greek and Latin and was well versed in the classics of ancient literature. The raging topic of the great Roman orators of the Republic were about tyranny and ways to limit it. The founders were obssessed with the fall of the Roman Republic and poured over its history to see where it went wrong- how it slid from virtuous stoic republic to decedant militarized empire. They wrote the constitution with that very much in mind. The Iroguios confederation was NOT the inspiration to the constution but merely an example and argument used in favor of it.
Ah, spoken like someone with the thin vein of Manifest Destiny and gratitude for the Doctrine of Discovery running through them. We all have shadows of the Indian loather in all of us, do we not? I include myself in this, despite all my good intentions. ;-) Interesting argument I am well familiar with, but I do not concur.
Huh?
I am merely saying you betray your lack of regard for the influence the natives these men knew well had as is typical of people in our culture, that's all.
And I am merely saying that a confedeation of stone age tribesmen and their dispersal of power was merely an example used atop a well layed cultural and education framework of a civilization that had been grappling with political questions about tyranny for hundreds of years in attempting to devise a system of government that would limit concentrations of power. The idea that the Iroquios confederation created this debate out of thin air is preposterous.
You reveal I am right concerning your cultural prejudice with those two words. These folks had also been grappling with the same political questions about tyranny and the matriarchal aspects of their devision of political and economic power shows they were just as innovative and sophisticated as we ever were in developing solutions and compromises to ameliorate and or eliminate concentrations of power. These people were anything but "stone age." Just because they hadn't adopted gun powder from Chinese civilization and had the traditions and science of war out geography necessitated us to develop their relative isolation protected them from, that hardly means they were any less a sophisticated and evolved culture as ours.
That's all well and good, but the point is that the Iroquios confederation was not the blueprint for the constitution or the inspiration for it. Anglo settlers didn't wake up one morning and say- gee - look at that confederation - what a good idea- lets imitate that. In case you hadn't noticed- they came from a civilization that was a little more in depth about politics, the role of the state, rights of citizens, property rights, wether rights were god given or "granted" from the state- their own history in which the early history of the first democracies and republics were carefully studied- an entire paradigm of thought that revolved around the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the state. The simple minded idiocy of a dumbed down PC left that says the white man copied the constitition from the Iroqios is history for morons.
I could lower myself to the ad homenim level, but I studied Native American culture never, ever because I had to, I did it because I had a passion for doing so, and I recognize the tragedy of what was lost, and how in many ways, they had elements to their myriads of cultures actually far better then our own. I leave you to suffer the narrow minded haughtiness of your statement alone. My views incidentally are not solely the purview of those left of you on political outlook. We came to the better parts of the Constitution in spite of our historic legacy, not because of it. If the Founding Fathers had not had the Iroquois and other natives there to get fresh perspectives, the final product of that convention would have been far less inspiring. End of this discussion. Grow-up.
The repeal of the 22nd would endanger the two party fraud and ultimately the DC oligarchy. It's power rests on the perception that the transference of nominal power in the Executive back and forth among DC Beltway Houses is evidence of a "free" country. The occassional disruption and inconvenience the presidential election charade causes for the Beltway is far outweighed by its effective propaganda value in masquerading their rule. Further- an Oligarchy doesn't want a continually elected dictator- he might get "populist" and threaten their rule.
You are an unserious boob. End of discussions with you period.
Nice coining of a word, unserious. Actually I an quite serious, which is why I declined your invitation to a mud wrestling match here. You claim you left LP because people were intellectually lazy and dismissive of discussion of any depth. Yet here you lash out because I differ in opinion, and my perspective is different. Later Alligator.
No, you were not discussing anything- but first attacked me as some manifest destieny denizen for not properly bowing before you idiot notion that the American colonists were suddenly hit over the head with the notion to create the constitution because of a tribal system of war avoidance among some indian chiefs. I have noticed that you continually do to this others as well. I don't waste time with simplistic emotional dopes- and you are one.
Sure, why not? Then along with the 25th Amendment, they can have a dynasty of Bushes, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warburgs, and cryptoJew Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests, all answering to the cryptoJew Pope, and never requiring another election. "The 25th Amendment or the Rockefeller Amendment made the 1947 Order of Succession NULL AND VOID because the President was given the power to APPOINT a Vice President if the Vice President died or was forced to resign!!" http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller-for-president.html Congress has brought our so-called law into accordance with the goals of the Vatican: "....FORMER CATHOLICS FOR CHRIST: The Spanish Inquisition is a good example of Rome's harsh control, as "inquisitors NEVER lost a single case. There is no record of an acquittal". You either believed everything they said, without question, or you died at their hands. Rome no longer has the political power to kill all those who will not comply, but she still controls them by claiming to hold the power over their souls. The Council of Trent announced over 100 anathemas to anyone who did not comply with Rome. s doctrines., Rome's history is filled with harsh treatment and inquisitions as admitted by her own writers: "Armed with this elastic notion of what contradicted the faith, inquisitors arrested people for eating meat on Friday, omitting their Easter duties, reading the Bible, saying it is a sin to persecute for conscience. s sake, speaking ill of a cleric . priest or bishop. Any jibe against his Holiness was an indictable offence, even when uttered by a man in his cups. Any departure from the life of the community was proof of heresy meriting death. It is clear from this that the aim of the Inquisition was to defend not the faith but the papal system. As one victim of the inquisition concluded: . It is safer to discuss the power of God than the power of the pope. ...The ultimate injustice was being accused of thinking heresy. For the Inquisition, orthodoxy was not only speaking and acting in an unorthodox (that is, papal) manner; it was also thinking as the pontiff would have a person think. If under torture a prisoner proved he had never said or done anything heretical, he could still be punished for his inmost thoughts, his doubts, his temptations" (Vicars of Christ, Peter De Rosa, 158). [Emphasis added] ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE DECLARED TO BE TOP RELIGIOUS LEADER IN KINGDOM OF ANTICHRIST! http://www.cuttingedge.org/news /n1285.cfm TITLE: THE VATICAN'S GLOBAL PLANS Subtitle: A Global Kingdom Including Those Who Do Not Know Jesus Christ On December 13, 2000, the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, under the heading, "All are called to build God’s kingdom", published the Pope’s words from his General Audience of December 6th. The Pontiff declared, "Those who have chosen the way of the Gospel Beatitudes and live as ‘the poor in spirit’, detached from material goods, [i.e., read UN TAX on Americans to further bring us down to third-world status] in order to raise up the lowly of the earth from the dust of their humiliation, will enter the kingdom of God…. Those who lovingly bear the sufferings of life [i.e., read the sufferings of life of the Russian people under Communism, which is what the papacy is] will enter the kingdom…All the just of the earth, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, who, under the influence of grace, seek God with a sincere heart, are thus called to build the kingdom of God by working with the Lord, who is its first and decisive builder." These beguiling words are false. Each expression suggests salvation in a way that is alien to Scripture.............." "....Since 1973 the European Common Market had by plan and purpose become the European Community (EC). The EC further evolved into the European Union. Now the EU is expanding its collective presence by proposing a European army, police force, criminal code, and Prosecutor. In 1998, Torquil Dick-Erikson of the Critical European Group (CEG), a group of academics and students interested in scrutinizing the EU, wrote: ‘Corpus Juris’ is a plan prepared by the EU commission (XXth DG) at the request of the European Parliament, **** to tackle fraud against the EU budget. [see our 14th Amendment. You are a "terrorist" if you question the national debt, foisted on us by the money powers through contrived wars, our stolen gold and silver, forcing on us fiat "money", and debt collaterized by our lives and our property, and those of our children, and grandchildren, compounded by usury charged for the "privilege" of using their fiat money.] It will set up a European Public Prosecutor, on the continental inquisitorial model, who will have over-riding jurisdiction throughout Europe, to instruct national judges to ***** issue arrest warrants against suspects, have these held in custody for indefinite periods pending investigation (or transported to other countries in Europe)¾ with no obligation to produce prosecution evidence and no right to a public hearing during this time." [sound familiar????] "The cases are then to be tried by special courts, consisting of professional judges and ‘excluding simple jurors and lay magistrates’. They will be empowered to hand down sentences of up to seven years." "It is the expressed intention of the EU Commission, and the President of the EU Parliament Don Gil Robles, for this system to be an ‘embryo European criminal code’, ***** later to be extended to all kinds of crime. [like our new "terrorist" designation for petty theft.] On November 8th and 9th, 1998, there was an Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Strasbourg, where the Corpus Juris project was put forward for informal consideration. Fourteen member states expressed general agreement with the idea.". It is disconcerting to note that the EU is considering legislation that seems to resemble historic Roman Catholic Church judicial practice. **** Absent is ‘due process’; gone are the Miranda Rights. [again, sound familiar] Is this coincidence? Or is history repeating itself? In centuries past, the Church of Rome always employed government henchmen to hold, even bind, her people together. She has always desired, and for much of her history has had, secular prosecutors and an inquisitorial system to apply her penalties against what she considered heresy. [Anyone found to be in heresy against Herr Bush is considered a terrorist, and can be picked up, tortured, made to watch one's children be tortured, murdered, "rendered" in one of his transplant hospitals, all his property confiscated - See Title 50, Confiscation of Property - all without recourse, and without a howdy-do to any loved one's who might be looking for you, and without any penalty or judicial oversite. The perfect crime. The only Private Corporation in the country allowed such a privilege. So much for equal justice under the law!] One must ask what is the ultimate purpose of the Papacy in European and international affairs and just what is the structure of the Papacy that would give it international political power to achieve those goals. FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY "The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II" sees himself as the one capable of (if not ordained to) bringing in World Government. Through his new Catechism he declares, "It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level." [International level? Crikey! Sounds like the Noahide Law!] And from his perspective, the "common good of civil society" is Roman Catholicism, embraced by the rank and file; defended and enforced by civil authorities; subject to the will of the Holy See. The Pontiff’s goal for ecumenism plots towards world government in political, economic, and social life. This is the way his predecessors on the Pontifical Throne also expressed themselves. For example, Pope Paul VI in his 1967 encyclical on the topic of "The Progress of Peoples" in an entire section titled "Toward an Effective World Authority’’ proclaimed, "This international collaboration on a worldwide scale requires institutions that will prepare, coordinate, and direct it until finally there is established an order of justice which is universally recognized…. Who does not see the necessity of thus establishing progressively a world authority, capable of acting effectively in the juridical and political sectors?" Who indeed! Upon hearing this statement we must cast a backwards glance at the witness of history; for what has ever been the purpose of the juridical and political sectors in the eyes of Rome but to function as a secular sword, wielded at her behest! For when she was Mistress of the world, then and only then was there to her mind a "healthy socialization." INTERNATIONAL COURT AND 'HEINOUS' CRIMES And so Archbishop Renato Martino (the Holy See’s permanent Observer to the United Nations) on June 16, 1998, at the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court spoke for the Vatican, "As Pope John Paul has stated, ‘Within the international community the Holy See supports every effort to establish effective juridical structures for safeguarding the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals and communities. Such structures however can never be sufficient in themselves; they are only mechanisms which need to be inspired by a firm and persevering moral commitment to the good [who defines that good?] of the human family as a whole.’" [Emphasis added] The Roman Catholic Church’s historical record is consistently one of absolute, and more often than not, deceitful tyranny, destroying rather than "safeguarding the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals", and this fact the Archbishop undoubtedly knows. Rome nevertheless imagines herself as the only authority on morality. This position, so clearly codified in her present day Canon Law, implies that the Roman Catholic Church is the one whose right it is to define ultimately what is for "the good of the human family as a whole". Thus it is not difficult to see that her interest in the International Criminal Court is distinctly and solely a vested interest. Post this frightening note upon hearth and home; the Holy See has a delegate to the World Association of Jurists thus giving Catholic Canon Law an influence on the judiciary on an international scale. Archbishop Martino further stated, "Those who are responsible for violations of the most heinous crimes [like "anti-Semitism", perhaps?] which offend the conscience of the human family, the crimes which will fall under the jurisdiction of this Court, must be made to accept their responsibility in accordance with universal [read "Catholic"] norms…Any structures or rules which could lead to decisions about guilt or innocence that are based upon political rather than juridical considerations have a questionable role in the proposed statute." Since the Church of Rome declares that her laws, including those defining heresy, are "irreformable", the statement that "those who are responsible for violations of the most heinous crimes which offend the conscience of the human family...will fall under the jurisdiction of this Court" is broad enough to include eventually those things that Rome defines as heresy. Biblical Christian churches will undoubtedly fall into this category, just as they did during the Inquisition that killed 8 million Protestants! But, this Rome will kill her billions [Revelation 13:16-18] POWER AND POLITICSThe Roman Catholic Church deals with nations under the title of "The Holy See". On her web page, while commenting on the "The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations", she states, "The term Holy See stands for the central authority of the Church, which transcends, even if it includes, the tiny sovereign State of Vatican City. Thus, the Holy See represents a world wide community and not only the citizens of Vatican City." Distinctly, therefore, she defines herself simultaneously as "the Holy See" and "the central authority". She then sets the jurisdiction of this "central authority" to swallow up the " world wide community". We would be deluded were we to imagine that only Roman Catholics are included within this realm, for Rome’s own dogmas teach that all humanity falls under papal sufferance. Exactly how ‘magnanimous’ and ‘beneficent’ such "authority" intends to be is a foregone conclusion. In a concise, intense, insightful official law, the same RCC authority declares, "The First See is judged by no one." No accountability, only tyranny: such has ever been Rome’s stamp upon the pages of history. The Pope’s mission is also clearly declared in his official pronouncements. He defines the Church as, "the Church which is a ‘sacrament or sign and instrument...of the unity of the whole human race." No doubt, to be unwilling to submit to "central authority" would be a heinous crime offending the "conscience of the human family," and disrupting the "the unity of the whole human race." POWER STRUCTURE THAT MAKES DICTATORIAL POWER POSSIBLE It would appear that the goal of the RCC hierarchy to restore the Holy Roman Empire is being realized on a global scale. Setting aside the biblical and simple organizational structure of the bride of Christ, the RCC clearly documents the structure by which she controls her own household. Her power structure is central and totally dictatorial. "She" is a system of men, carefully set forth in order of command, fully arrayed in clothing that signify rank. The Pope claims absolute authority his Empire, "By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful...he proclaims by a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held." **** "No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff." Thus it is here, at this point that the "dignity and fundamental rights of individuals and communities" cease to be. CHAIN OF COMMAND IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM The government the Vatican mimics is not that of a church, but that of the Roman Empire. Like the Imperial Rome, her power structure is similar, with senate (curia), ambassadors, and a world net of influence. The Roman Catholic hierarchy consists of the pope, cardinals, patriarchs, major archbishops, archbishops, metropolitans, coadjutor archbishops, Diocesan bishops, coadjutor bishops, Episcopal vicars, eparchs (bishops of the Eastern Churches), Vicars apostolic, prefects apostolic, apostolic administrators, and vicar generals. Most Roman Catholic pastors or parish priests deal with the last on the pecking- order regime, "the vicar general." Crushed beneath this ponderous hierarchy are the nuns and laity. As they serve "Holy Mother the Church", they obviously fail to reflect that this hierarchy is composed solely of celibate men. "Also subject to the Holy Father are titular archbishops and bishops, religious orders and congregations of pontifical right, pontifical institutes and faculties, papal nuncios and apostolic delegates." "Assisting the Pope and acting in his name in the central government and administration of the Church are cardinals and other officials of the Roman Curia." IMPOSITION OF POWER The Roman Catholic Church imposes her rigorous religious rules on men and upon their consciences. In that domain she claims that her Pope is infallible, and no one can judge him. The baptized Catholic must give loyal submission of the will and intellect to his teachings, even when these teachings are not claimed to be infallible. Thus she decrees, "This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra..." The Roman Catholic Church enforces authority over 814,779 women who are her nuns, 57,813 men whom she calls religious brothers, and 404,626 men whom she calls her priests. For the nuns the vow of obedience, alien to Biblical thought, compels submissiveness. Her Canon Law #601 teaches, "The evangelical counsel of obedience, undertaken in a spirit of faith and love in the following of Christ who was obedient even unto death requires a submission of the will to legitimate superiors, who stand in the place of God when they command according to the proper constitutions." Obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ as commanded in the Bible is twisted in the Catholic world into obedience to one’s local superior "who stands in the place of God." Each local superior is accountable in the chain of command to his immediate overseer, an upward progression that ends ultimately at the Pope. The RCC goes so far as to declare, "Religious can be coerced by penalties by the local ordinary [the Bishop] in all matters in which they are subject to him." (Canon 1320) Such dictates as these run contrary to the Lord’s command to His servants: " be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." [Matt 23:8] "be ye subject one to another" [1 Peter 5:5] "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." [Galatians 5:1] In truth, the Papacy cannot point to a New Testament model for its hierarchical structure. It also runs contrary to Federal and State law that no foreign power can coerce U. S. citizens......" http://www.cuttingedge.org/ articles/RC141.htm UNTIL NOW, of course!!!! EXAMINATION OF HOW THE PAPACY HAS TOTALLY MISUSED CIVIL AND POLITICAL POWER IN THE PAST, AS A GUIDE FOR THE FUTURE Subtitle: Since the Roman Catholic Pope has been chosen to be the supreme Religious leader of the coming New World Order, and since the Virgin Mary has assured John Paul II that he will reign supremely, we should look at how the Papacy has treated its subjects in the past when it possessed both supreme Religious and Civil power. THE PAPACY AND CIVIL POWER by R.W.Thompson "....when the late Vatican Council enacted the decree which made papal infallibility, for the first time, a dogma of religious faith, and threatened with anathema all who should refuse to recognize the pope as incapable of all error in matters of faith and morals, all further disguise was thrown aside, and the world was awakened to the fact that these measures were but the inauguration of a deliberately concerted effort to make the papacy a power so absorbing and omnipotent that all nations and peoples should be held by it in abject, passive, and humiliating subjugation......." http://www.cuttingedge.org/ articles/RC127.htm ON CUE, BRITISH, EUROPEAN UNION, AND AUSTRALIAN PROPAGANDA PROPOSALS START FLOWING -- TO PASS STRICTER "ANTI-TERRORIST" MEASURES TO "PROTECT" THEIR CITIZENS Subtitle: As predicted, British, E.U., and Australian authorities began calling for severely restrictive measures in order to "protect" their citizens against further terror attacks. Using the London "terror" attacks as the excuse, these leaders are copying the success President Bush enjoyed after 9/11: Destroying freedom and liberty in the guise of protecting them....." http://www.cuttingedge.org/news /n2055.cfm Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism Legislation tolls the bell for the day America died, birth of the dictatorship http://freedom4um.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36469 Gulags For American Citizens In Final Planning Stages http://freedom4um.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36665 The so-called founding fathers set us up for this. George Washington was a Freemason, a closet Catholic, and got his funding from the Rothschilds through their agent Haim Solomon. See What About Those Pilgrims - The Pilgrim Society. Cornwallis told George Washington that a Holy War would now begin against America, and she would be working for "divine government", the British Empire, and her churches would be used to teach the Jews' religion. THE VATICAN CONNECTION TO ENGLAND, A CONTINUATION OF ROMAN CONQUEST Chapter I Letters from Pope Innocent III, to king John "in my book called "The United States Is Still A British Colony". I pointed out that in the 1213 Charta, the king gave all of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent III. Many people still find this hard to believe, or understanding what they have read in this Charter. To do so Challenges what they have accepted as truth for years. Some wonder if true, what is the relevance. I made it clear what the relevance is, not just the obvious, that the Pope was now a legal party, as of 1213, in regards to the affairs of England, Ireland and the United States, by way of the charters creating the United States. Since Britain's rejection of the Catholic Church in 1689, when they cast off the Pope's religion and bulls, for the Protestant religion, the Pope has used any means to regain control. This needs to be understood by every person in the World, for knowledge is freedom and it will change our World......" http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/VATICAN_CONNECTION1.htm Now the Pope today, may just be a figurehead for the banksters, or the City of London. I don't know....it is one tangled ball of string, but I suspect the later. I remember that when the Pope was dying, he was always followed by a large group of "suits". Whoever these people were associated with, are probably the real power behind it all. Now this farce of updating the Constitution is just that, a stupid farce. By now we know, when Herr Bush said the Constitution is just a G-D piece of paper, he meant it. These so-called representatives of the people gave their power and authority over to the Beast. If he doesn't like what they say, he can just disappear them, torture them and theirs, seize their goods, murder them, and be done with it!!! They are not necessary anymore, except to possibly provide a curtain for the Wizard of Oz. Don't they have better things to be doing with the time they have left, like buggering little boys or something? Sheesh!!!!
Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.
#2. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?
#3. To: Cynicom (#2)
"No, a thousand times no. In fact the term for president to be limited to say a 5 or 6 year term and out you go."
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
Groovy Cynic Dude, we fnally agree 100 percent on something.
#5. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."
#6. To: lodwick (#5)
"Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."
#7. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
"I don't like arbitrary term limits,''
#8. To: Cynicom (#4)
"The Yankees won the war and now we suffer for their ignorance."
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
responsible for the drafting
#10. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#11. To: Cynicom (#9)
"Southerners wrote it, Uncle Ben edited it."
#12. To: who knows what evil (#10)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
And the similar document called The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations inspired much of it.
#14. To: robin (#13)
#15. To: robin (#13)
#16. To: Burkeman1 (#15)
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
Ah, spoken like someone with the thin vein of Manifest Destiny and gratitude for the Doctrine of Discovery running through them.
#18. To: Burkeman1 (#17)
(Edited)
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#18)
#20. To: Burkeman1 (#19)
(Edited)
"stone age"
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
#22. To: Burkeman1 (#21)
"The simple minded idiocy of a dumbed down PC left that says the white man copied the constitition from the Iroquois is history for morons."
#23. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
#24. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
We came to the better parts of the Constitution in spite of our historic legacy, not because of it. If the Founding Fathers had not had the Iroquois and other natives there to get fresh perspectives, the final product of that convention would have been far less inspiring.
#25. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Four more years of Bush and I'll be forced to swim with stingrays
#26. To: Burkeman1 (#24)
"You are an unserious boob. End of discussions with you period."
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
#28. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms? : Bills Introduced In Congress To Repeal 8-Year Restriction Of 22nd Amendment
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest