You can bet your bippy, suckers.

There’s been a lot of weird Neo-Con activity that would indicate that they would like to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and run George Bush for a third term. This, to me, explains the sudden attack on PBS since it is the last vestige of a free press now that the various National papers and the big TV networks are held hostage by large corporations.

If you think I’m kidding here is a bill introduced in the house this February by both Democrats and Republicans including a Congressman from Wisconsin, Sensenbrenner as well as the Dem. House Whip, Hoyer. The bill has one article and one sentence only:

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.’.

A few bloggers picked up on this in February when it was introduced, then it died down until lately when I started seeing bi-partisan support for the idea.

I can only assume that either these Democrats are being blackmailed or they actually expect to run Clinton again. There is no other reason for their support. The real idea is to get George Bush in for a third term so he can continue his consolidation of power. It’s important to get rid of PBS in the meantime.

This attempt to repeal the 22nd amendment is not new to this administration. One website, the Carpetbagger Report, has a good discussion of earlier attempts.

The general thinking concerning this initiative is that if the Conservatives can pick up a few more seats in 2006, they can go ahead with this scheme. There is no evidence that the Democrats are getting any traction for anything so this is quite likely.

And there is the foreboding. If you listened to the issues concerning the Air Force Academy and it’s Evangelical management the one thing that appears in the discussion was the promotion at the institution that the “separation between church and state in not in the Constitution — it’s a myth.” A myth propagated by Liberals. Jerry Falwell, as mentioned in this blog here, and others have come out and openly stated that their intent is make the USA non-secular, in other words – a religious state. Giving Bush a third term is one step in that direction.

What is frightening about all this is the bi-partisan support for this and the support exhibited by liberal bloggers. Click here for an example. They honestly believe that in 2008 the public is going to oust Bush and they can get Clinton BACK in. It’s unbelievable. Today’s Democrat party should disband. Bush is consolidating power as this is written and might never be removed from office if this is allowed, or hasn’t anyone noticed? He is young and could be re-elected five more times. With his Rasputin-like marketing genius Karl Rove by his side nobody will beat him, get a clue. And the public just loves to reelect their officials rather than worry about the unknown. Furthermore there is a war going on and we must “stay the course.” How dumb are the Democrats, you have to wonder.

related link:


Another Public Display Of Anger – Goons Attack Elmo

The guy from the Kansas PBS station noted that Moyers is just one man on one show. He further mentioned William F. Buckley Jr., a staunch conservative, very popular (who founded the National Review), that was on PBS for thirty years! The goon’s response was something like, “well, you were lucky to catch Buckley at midnight!” The very few times that I’ve watched Moyers was right before PBS went off the air in the evening, the same time spot that Buckly was said to have had ;)

As I said above, bias was the entire basis for his argument. It took the good, non-biased, PBS journalist to ask the question about tax payer money and PBS… good answers were given from the pro-PBS side, answers that I won’t go into in this article. The goon responded with, “No one watches PBS anyway!” Well, first, this begs why he cares about bias at all if no one is watching? Second, as the other guy pointed out, this is factually quite wrong. Despite what many think or would like to think, cable news shows get only a very small percentage of Americana on a regular basis. PBS and NPR are also currently growing.

I guess this brings us back to the Antichrist thesis posted here. At least it’s entertaining.




  1. site admin says:

    AB CD — You have me cornered on this one. Let’s just say I do not use Right-Wing nut in the perjorative. How’s that? You’re right, I should like him for that. I’ll remove the right wing-nut attribute. I’m flexible.

  2. site admin says:

    I tamuses me that some people actually think that seperation of Church and State is a bad thing. Too funny.

  3. James Hill says:

    I guess Escape from New York really did predict the future.

    James Hill

  4. Pat says:

    In my post above, #31, there is a typo. I meant to hit the $ sign but hit the number that 4 instead. The line should read:

    In other words, they are short almost $2 million dollars.

  5. I will like to see President George Walker Bush run for a third term in 2008 or convince his younger brother Jeb run for president .

  6. Bill Adams says:

    I haven’t decided whether I would renouce my citizenship and move to Australia or commit suicide if Bush won a third term.

  7. Mark C says:

    Wow, this is pretty hilarious in retrospect. Bush couldn’t get elected dogcatcher. The Democrats weren’t so dumb after all.

  8. parallax says:

    Atheism is not a religion, it’s called A-theism for a reason.

  9. Karridine says:

    Parallax, ‘atheism’ is the belief (and accompanying belief-system), whether passionate or dispassionate, that there is ‘no-god’

    It is NOT an organized religion, even though it takes the place of and serves the individual holding such belief-system AS IF it were a religion. By displacing a ‘religious/theist’ belief-system, ‘a-theism’ must, in fact, BECOME the belief-system of choice (the personal ‘religion’) of that atheist believer.

    Me? I’m an atheist, agnostic Baha’i…

  10. Gooney says:

    Well 6-6-06 has come and gone and the election year is upon us. While this constant paranoia is still upon me with this “third-term” conspiracy theory, it does not seem likely. Honestly the “W” was the third and fourth term for “Sr” and since my guess will be that “Hil” will win the nomination and therefore beat Mr. McCain she will just be “Bill’s” third term. It’s all the same shit – different assholes.

    The interesting thing is what will happen on 12-21-2012…

  11. Kelvington says:

    Moving day is being pushed up. UK here I come.

  12. John… your story is not exactly timely. The bill you pointed to was introduced in February of 2005 and was not re-introduced during this congress. It was introduced by Stenny Hoyer (D-MD) who had visions of Bill Clinton running for a third term.

    The article you pointed to on the Carpet Bagger Report is from 2003, which talked about a bill introduced in 2003 by Hoyer. Again Hoyer wanted a third term for Bill Clinton.

    None of this is current and nobody has even talked about doing this in the 110th congress (currently in session). That is because both sides do not want anyone to think they are advocating a third term for Bush–even the GOP who is not exactly happy with McCain.

    The 22d Amendment was a knee jerk reaction to life after FDR. Like all knee jerk reactions (see the 18th Amendment), the unexpected consequences are more of a hassle than intended.

    I am for allowing the people to exact term limits by voting the bastards out of office!

  13. /T. says:

    Amazing !!

    300+ Million people in the US and you guys stick with repeat POTUS’ (good & bad). Seems to me there’s got to be better choices from such a deep pool.

    Ben & Jerry’s has 31 flavors and yet, you get to pick from two (sometimes repeat) candidates.

    My suggestion; make an effort and have a fricken’ look around!!!

    Remember, November’s outcome has GLOBAL implications.

    Again, A friendly but nervous neighbor.

    /T.

  14. bobbo says:

    #44–T==what democratic governments haven’t been captured by two party systems? Even parliamentary systems rarely offer more than 3 parties, and mostly just two parties there too.

    I welcome criticism but not mindless bitching without suggestions for improvement all while being a screaming hypocrite.

  15. B. Dog says:

    Easy on the guy, he’s just a Canadian.

    +Plus, why do you always side with the clowns, bobbo?

  16. roemun says:

    In this entire loopy story, there is not one shred of evidence offered to indicate that Bush has anyting whatsoever to do with the alleged plan to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This has about the same level of credibility as the theory that McCain will select Hillary as VP. John has been hanging with Adam Curry too much. Thinking people will begin to question the bona fides of people who offer such stories to their readers.

  17. Nat says:

    You guys all realize that John wrote this back in 2005, right? He’s just “revisiting” it, probably because the events since then have shed a new light on the whole theory.

  18. shit says:

    This is the kinda crap that gets my father acting like a crazy loon… thinking all this stuff is true… he says we have to leave the US now..THANKS

  19. I keep listening to people on TV talk about this stuff so I have been looking around for the best site to get info. Thanks :)