This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

WaPo's Modest Proposal: Dictator Obama

Tyler Durden's picture




 

"It’s time to put that power back where it belongs," explains Jonathan Zimmerman in today's Washington Post, "Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves." The 22nd Amendment, limiting the Presidential term, according to Zimmerman, reflected "a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people." Of course, in the increasingly 'entitled' America, it would only cost a few hundred million to bribe all the newly downgraded Middle-to-Lower class Americans with Obamaphones in order to finally get a "dictatorial democracy" by indirectly funding the lower common denominator with $400 in free money every election cycle.

 

End Presidential Term Limits (Jonathan Zimmerman),

Via WaPo,

I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him — during the troubled rollout of his health-care reform. Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have.

 

...

 

Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?

 

Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.

 

Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?

 

...

 

the GOP moved to codify it in the Constitution in 1947, when a large Republican majority took over Congress. Ratified by the states in 1951, the 22nd Amendment was an “undisguised slap at the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt,” wrote Clinton Rossiter, one of the era’s leading political scientists. It also reflected “a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people,” Rossiter said.

 

...

 

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?

 

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

It was only yesterday that we highlighted what happens when the entitled elect themselves... a brutal hangover," and the dismal waste of the Obamaphone program (among many others) suggests we are well down that route:

As Heritage reports, free cell phones for low-income Americans, one of the fastest growing welfare programs in the United States, is—by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) own admission—rife with “waste, fraud and abuse.” And who is paying for these free Obamaphones? If you have a phone subscription, you are.

 

...

 

According to figures supplied by the FCC to The Wall Street Journal, 41 percent of subscribers were unable to prove their eligibility for the program.

 

Indifference to abuse of the program is appalling.

 

...

 

Lifeline has mutated from a program designed to help the needy into a glorified corporate subsidy. Abuse of the program will continue while the FCC scrambles to fix it.

 

An all-expense-paid cell phone, courtesy of those who actually pay for their own service, is not a human right; it’s an insult to struggling families who are reminded every month that their money is lost in yet another sloppy government slush fund.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 11/29/2013 - 14:35 | 4200057 iLiquid
iLiquid's picture

IN other news, the sheeple can now donate to presidential campaigns directly off their EBT cards.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 14:40 | 4200072 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Communism/Fascism on the move!

This is another tool who needs to be swinging from a lamp post.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 14:42 | 4200082 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

The fact that Americans believe in the infallibility of one man and pay any attention to him,  give any type of credence to political campaigning and believe in elections signals loud and clear that our country is blind, deaf, and incredibly stupid...  The only proper response to all should be endless laughter and derision....

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 14:47 | 4200097 Gold N Glocks
Gold N Glocks's picture

Two terms is two too many for any and all Kenyan half breed muslim marxist fucktards that by all rights should really be out in the fields picking cotton!

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 16:59 | 4200422 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

aw come on, with G-Dub we got President 'fool-me-twice'. Why not make this '3 times a charm' ?

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 14:58 | 4200131 hound dog vigilante
hound dog vigilante's picture

The article's author - Zimmerman - wants BO to run/win a 3rd election/term...

How deeply deluded one must be to think BO would even stand a snowballs-chance-in-hell of winning another election.  BO supporters should be grateful for term limits, for it would be impossible to fake/ignore/lie/manipulate everything under the sun for yet another 4 years.  BO's had 5 years now and the unprecedented volume of smoke&mirrors juggled by this administration has already collapsed despite the herculean efforts of our highly-partisan lapdog media.  The beltway bubble has reached all-time levels of delusion if a "journalist" like Zimmerman believes a third-term of Obama would bring anything but outright revolution/secession en mass... BO may not be allowed to finish his current term much less run for a third. 

Or perhaps JZ is cynically implying that BO/dems should steal another election - because they can? 

Can't believe WaPo actually published this tripe... it's infinitely more destructive/radical than the most 'extreme' tea party/conservative rhetoric... by a country mile. 

 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:00 | 4200142 LetsGetPhysical
LetsGetPhysical's picture

Hail Caesar. 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:25 | 4200212 autofixer
autofixer's picture

All hail Octavian! 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:03 | 4200144 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear."

 

The president doesn't elect lawmakers, the voters do.

!6 democrats ran to Obama about his lie that people could keep their insurance, worried that their constituents may end their career and that would be the case even if Obama was reelectable.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:08 | 4200161 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

While we're at it, we can get rid of the electoral college.  

Tyranny of the majority!

Zimmerman should be run from his job.  Or introduced to the other Zimmerman.

 

But seriously I could see wanting to elect to a third term, if he was any good.  If he had actually done something useful, brought people together, pumped up the economy.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:07 | 4200163 Joe A
Joe A's picture

People who voted for him showed a lack of common sense in the first place. Especially when they voted for him the second time.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:17 | 4200189 Joenobody12
Joenobody12's picture

Lacking common sense ? You vote for him you geet free health care and a free phone. What part of these programs do you not understand ? The rest of us get a free screw in the ass. 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:41 | 4200242 Joe A
Joe A's picture

There is no such thing as free stuff. That is the real common sense.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 19:36 | 4200702 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Compared to what? McCain? Romney? The way you talk, you would think the voters had a choice and picked the wrong guy.

What difference would it have made? Before you say it, remember that McCain meant 4 more years of Bush's policies which you got anyway. And that Romney was the champion of government health care back in Massachusetts. Electing either of them would not have changed anything.

Sat, 11/30/2013 - 02:16 | 4201416 Joe A
Joe A's picture

Well, there was also Ron Paul of course....

But I get your point. In a democratic system with only two candidates you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. That system is heavily flawed. But it then depends on the people to form alternatives. That is the only way to set about change.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:07 | 4200165 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Reality is this - Obama domestically is irrevelant already just a year into this 2nd term due to the failure of the Obamacare rollout.  He is already spending what little amount of political capital and time he has left on it.

Immigration reform might pass because the corporatist masters who run the GOP are gung-ho for it, the Latino on the left want it in the worst way, and even some of the Democrats most notable industry supporters (high-tech) want it badly too.

Of couse will this help any averaging working American or soon to-be college graduate?  Of course not but it will help the bottom-line of a number of large US corporations and in the end that is increasingly want matters. 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:24 | 4200207 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

It is kind of laughable on here that reaction that Obama induces.  The reality is that he is quickly become an impotent president domestically who can't even get his own party to support him on core issues, has even less effective people in the Executive Branch at almost every key appt who are less likely to get things done that Obama wants to achieve, and on the international stage is stymied and limited. 

Obama isn't a Marxist/Communist Muslim bogeyman.  He's an incompetent f@ck who is out of his league as the president just as GW Bush largely was too. 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:26 | 4200215 autofixer
autofixer's picture

If you remember and apply the new motto of the United Socialist States of Amerika: "What difference does it make!?", it will make you life run a lot smoother and your blood pressure stay low. 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:47 | 4200254 colin
colin's picture

if you like your fuhrer u can keep your fuhrer

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 15:46 | 4200255 colin
colin's picture

if you like your fuhrer u can keep your fuhrer

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 16:13 | 4200321 jjsilver
jjsilver's picture

It makes no difference who is sitting in congress, the senate and the office of the president, and for how long. Your only hope is to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States, start by getting rid of the voluntary Social Security number

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 16:49 | 4200405 22winmag
22winmag's picture

That paper is not worthy of wiping my ass with...

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 17:03 | 4200429 TomGa
TomGa's picture

Obama's second term was an abject indictment of the "common sense and good judgment of the people."  Don't think we could survive a third one (Venezuela coming to mind here....).

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 19:38 | 4200713 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Yeah right, like Romney would have been better. He was even more dedicated to government health care and not only was he in bed with the banksters and hedge fund bloodsuckers, he was one of them.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 17:05 | 4200438 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

It might be different if he had done something successfully.... Just thinking 3 more years is scary; 7 more years and you could stick a fork in the USSA. I have a better position - you have to have a stake in our nation to be allowed to vote. $100K minimum GROSS annual income.  

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 17:40 | 4200507 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

5% are allowed to vote? What's the basis of your figure? Pulled out of your not inconsiderable behind, I presume?

How about this: you either have paid federal income taxes for 2 years, or you have given national service (military, Peace Corps, whatever) for 2 years. Then you at least have contributed something.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 17:51 | 4200532 I Write Code
I Write Code's picture

That's a good argument, if you're a pig-ignorant demo party sycophant.  If you've actually read anything of history or political science, ancient or modern, you probably know better.

Here's my suggestion, make it legal to run for a third term and you get a special bonus if you win, at inauguration your heart is cut out and burned as an offering to the gods.  The Aztecs were just ahead of their time.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 18:35 | 4200598 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

"In some ways even more worrisome than communism's  expansionism-- for at least that could be resisted through force of arms, and the United States was all the most powerful country in the world-- was the insidious nature of the communist threat. To many around the world, especially in developing countries, where income inequality and colonialism had bred enormous resentment, the appeal of communism was powerful and easy to understand.   Marxism offered a 'scientific' theory about how capitalism would inevitably fail, and promised a nirvana of brotherly solidarity and world peace. As capitalism left some people behind and left others unsatisfied with material advancements alone, the prospect of a Marxist revolution gave the idealists around the world something to believe in and fight and die for. Even in free advanced Western democracies like France and Italy, large and well-organized communist parties represented more than a quarter of the electorate, and in both cases were slavishly loyal to Moscow and the aims of the Third International.

Within the United States, wher communism had not taken hold, it was not only the paranoid or ultranationalistic who feared the ideology could spread, especially if capitalism entered one of its  periodic crises. The 1950 McCarthy Act, passed by Congress over Truman's veto, stated: 'World Communism has as its sole purpose the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in America, to be brought about by treachery, infiltration, sabatage, and terrorism.' The rhetoric was overblown and led to some disgraceful which hunts, but it also reflected genuine fears based on the reality that foreign communist actually did want to undermine the United States, and there were those within the country willing to help them. In January 1950, the former State Department official Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury for denying having been a Soviet spy in the 1930s and 1940s,  and three days later, the British government revealed Klaus Fuchs, an emigre`German scientist, had confessed to turning over nuclear weapons secrets to Moscow. In May 1951, two other British spies, Donald MacLean and Guy Burgess, were unmasked as Soviet agents and defected to Moscow before they could be arrested. Many Americans wondered how many of their compatriots or allies were secretly working for the other side."

end quoted excerpts   Pages39-40 by Phillip H. Gordon   "Winning The Right War"  c.2007

Ps. this is a short read, and if read between-the-lines, could go along way in explaining what has happened in this great country since 9-11

Ps2.   Containment -Truman/Eisenhower v. assertivness and agreession (the Bush Doctrine in which Obama has picked-up the FUMBLE and is running towards the wrong 'GoalPost!!!'

Thankyou Tyler       JMO :-)) 

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 18:52 | 4200629 f16hoser
f16hoser's picture

Fuck Obama! This FAGGOT needs to go Bye-Bye!

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 19:02 | 4200645 mendolover
mendolover's picture

"a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people."  Wow I didn't know I was so pro 22nd amendment.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 20:31 | 4200830 Bagbalm
Bagbalm's picture

President for Life...

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 20:40 | 4200848 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Impeach this Marxist con man now.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 21:00 | 4200885 laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

why does he think there is going to be an election?

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 21:04 | 4200899 Promethus
Promethus's picture

After viewing the Black Friday clips and the socialism in Venezuela stories above, and the fact that the American people voted the current ass clown into office twice more than justifies "a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people,”.

Fri, 11/29/2013 - 21:53 | 4200978 Clueless1
Clueless1's picture

The original 'Modest Proposal' was a work of satire from the 18th century; kill the poor, feed the hungry!  Soylent Irish Green.  It was a wind-up, a prank wihich provoked commentary on the social inequity of the times.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, seems sincere.  Just like a raving lunatic with an axe would seem sincere.  His modest proposal should be satire, but sadly, it is deluded sincerity.

Sat, 11/30/2013 - 11:42 | 4201810 MyBrothersKeeper
MyBrothersKeeper's picture

Here is his email, tell him what you think of his idea:  JLZIMM@AOL.com  and a link to his profile at NYU:  http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Jonathan_Zimmerman

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!