nyt: Refusing to ask the pertinent question

Thomas L. Friedman wrote a New York Times opinion-editorial piece, Where Did ‘We’ Go?

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Mr. Friedman's point that death threats and discussions about B. Hussein Obama are wrong - cannot be disputed. The America promised in the US Constitution is a nation of rule by law - extra-legal acts are against those laws. That should be simple enough for everyone to understand.

But Mr. Friedman takes a surface view only. He looks at who badmouths and belittles - and threatens - who.

I personally find that B. Hussein Obama has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Constitutionally provided checks and balances - the Congress and the Supreme Court have not addressed those abuses of office. Congress persistantly aids and abets, in some cases, as in the hounding and badgering - for public consumption and political gain - AIG bonuses, an issue that should have been beneath the notice of Congress, in the larger issues facing America.

The Supreme Court, with it's newly appointed racially bigoted political hack justice, Sotomayor (and what did Obama do to get Souter to resign?), has yet to address Obama interfering in the restructure - and firing a CEO - of GM and Chrysler.

Pelosi/Reid/Obama have chosen to wield their power for political gain, for corrupt enrichment of hangers-on, and to punish those with wealth they covet. This is a dangerous, dangerous action, taken in such a way that they create a scenario where the safeguards of the Constitution are thwarted. In effect, by acting as tyrants, by enacting whatever they want in the face of popular opposition, they create a sense of desperation in their opponents. Desperate opponents need to see formal safeguards in action - or desperate responses may be tried.

Since taking office, President B. Hussein Obama has taken frequent steps to curtain and interfere with gun ownership, and frequently denied plans and actions taken. This pattern of bald-faced deceit has raised the hackles, paranoia, desperation, and anger of his opponents. No one doubts that Obama still intends further attacks on gun ownership - in flat defiance and disregard of the Bill of Rights - but is biding his time, planning his next moves.

This is not the way I believe a President governs in a constitutional government. In fact, I believe President Obama has violated his oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution, and thus should be impeached. I am firmly convinced that for now, the US House of Representatives is flatly incapable of honoring it's duty to consider and serve a bill of impeachment if warranted. I am convinced that the Pelosi-led House would block consideration of a bill of impeachment of the President, and would, on party lines, neglect to consider the merits of holding the President to the contents of the US Constitution, and to his oath of office. That is, the Pelosi-led House is acting in a tyrannical manner.

Reid has less of a political plurality to work with, but seems even less likely to follow the path of honor than political expedience. His Senate confirmed Sotomayor, after all. And continues to confirm fringe, radical, bigoted, and anti-American Obama appointees.

Are we to the point where the Declaration of Independence states, "When in the course of human events . . ."? I am offended at the Obama administration, and the Democrat-led Congress that this question occurs to me.

Mr. Friedman, you lament the "dangerous" atmosphere endangering our President. I do as well. But from my chair in Oklahoma, it seems that organized labor and radical elements of the Democratic party are largely to blame for making villains of opposing candidates.

As for the birth certificate - three supposed facts keep the issue alive for me. Kenya, as a nation, believes Obama to be their native son. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is incomplete as a birth certificate of a natural born citizen of the United States, not requiring that the birth took place at the facility cited. B. Hussein Obama has spent time, energy, and effort to conceal the original of his birth certificate. In addition, there are so many questions about Obama's background, including who financed his Ivy League college education, what his participation was in the Chicago politics that sold his Senate seat - did those same factors buy it for him in the first place? Obama claims to be Christian, with a 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's racially polarized congretion. Yet, within days of publication about that congregation, Obama no longer belongs - was it faith that kept him going to church, political expediency, or a cover for the Muslim beliefs of his early schooling and childhood?

It seems incredible to me that a closet-raised, inept, unschooled person could make as many foreign affairs blunders by accident. If President Obama isn't deliberately trying to dismantle America's place in world stability - by giving away our honor, our promises, our friendships - he sure makes himself look stupid. And this from a background of world travel, Ivy League education, and a sitting US Senator.

I think the right place to start is an intense review of the most polarizing efforts by Congress and the President. Let supporters and opponents hear the arguments, and ask their questions. Let bills and actions be submitted for public comment and review. Act as representatives of the nation, rather than autocrats ruling with an iron fist and no concern about nay-sayers.

I actually think that the atmosphere of antagonism can be returned to a hashing of issues quite readily. It just takes all parties allowing their pet agendas to be legal, shaped by all interested parties, and a dedication to rule of law and the Constitution. There are laws and procedures and best practices in place for all of this. Let the leaders show that the Constitutional protections against tyranny are in place and that they work. That would be a really worthwhile change.

The coup that went away.

Where to start.

1) Newsmax.com contributor John Perry wrote a piece, an opinion, expressing concern that at least one scenario might be more likely now than in the past - the military intervening in the President's affairs - a coup.

2) Newsmax.com took the page down, the article is not listed, now, on John L. Perry's author page where his other articles are listed.

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

And others pick it up.


3) Little Green Footballs reports that the Perry piece was written - and pulled (This article contains the full text of the initial post).

Bad Craziness at Newsmax: Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

Weird | Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:03:51 am PDT

Newsmax columnist John L. Perry published this article at the site yesterday, and it’s apparently been tossed down the memory hole.

For obvious reasons.

Beltway Blips mentions the piece. TPM LiveWire includes the NewsMax announcement about removing the piece. MediaMatters reports Newsmax columnist: Military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem' " is not "unrealistic"


4) TimesOnLine.com relates Gore Vidal's opinion - not related to the Perry piece - that America is facing a dictator soon.

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’
The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is ‘rotting away’ — and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it

Note that the Times, (known the world over as The London Times paper), is published outside the US, and outside White House influence - the Vidal article has not been removed.

5) Comments mostly range between calling the article sedition and treason, to goofy.

What is disturbing is the apparent censorship and chilling effect on free speech.

I doubt that Mr. Perry's piece is complete. I believe there though the military might conclude - maybe, in some hypothetical space and time - that President Obama had abandoned devotion and obedience to the US Constitution - that they would not act, unless the Congress and Supreme Court also abandoned the Constitution. So I don't believe military intervention is any closer today than it has been since (General) George Washington was first sworn in as the first President of the United States. Intervention - a coup - could happen, it could always have happened. But the military, at least during my service in the US Navy, teaches and lives the premise that the military must be governed by civilian authority to maintain a rule of law and order - and that the military exists to provide security for that rule of law and order, as defined in the US Constitution.

As well imagine a general officer of the military walking into a meeting with B. Hussein Obama and intervening, as a fund raiser from Chicago walking into the White House and telling B. Hussein Obama, "Get the Olympics into Chicago, now, or else." Actually, I have less experience with fund raisers from Chicago, so that might not be a fair comparison.

No, what I find disturbing is how the original piece was seditious and treasonous - though it warned of an existing threat, not create or advocate a threat - and was so contrary to the good of the nation that it had to be removed. And yet those that agree with the gravity of the situation, or especially those that ridicule the notion, are free to copy and comment on the content of that dangerous piece.

There have been rumors of other blogs and online content that have been affected, when they rose to the notice of the White House. Did B. Hussein Obama, the Secret Service, or other staff or representatives - or other government agencies or marshals - intervene at NewsMax or directly to John L. Perry? We may have to wait for the next Presidential administration - or impeachment hearings for B. Hussein Obama, if that should happen - to find out.

Personnel is policy: With appointees like these, how can we *not* fear ObamaCare?

ALG Research, writing for NetRightNation, presents in Appointment Watch: Jarrett and Holdren:

John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Science Czar)

* Holdren has been a big proponent of population control.
* Holdren has suggested adding a sterilant to drinking water in order to control the population.
* Holdren advocated a “de-development” of the United States.

Holdren was confirmed March 19, 2009, with not one single Senator voting against.

When Obama keeps appointing people that advocate "abortions" until two years after birth and right to sue for animals, and people like Holdren, who can wonder what kind of social leverage Obama intends to inflict with his so-called Health Care package?

After reviewing Holdren’s views one would hope that his appointment as a Czar was an anomaly. Unfortunately Holdren’s appointment follows Obama’s pattern of appointing people with views to the left of almost everyone on Earth.
-Don Todd, Director of Research,
Americans for Limited Government

bim: ObamaCare starting to look like a horror movie

Billll at Billll's Idle Mind writes about Cast for Codgers.

Under the Cash For Codgers program, if someone came in seeking health care services that were judged “excessive” by a locally appointed appraisal board, then their nearest relative will be granted power of attorney to make the decision, and will be offered $3500 to $4500 for such organs as are usable, and the patient would then be humanely parted out[emphasis added]. Unusable portions will be disposed of in an ecologically approved manner, with preferences given to demands of the agriculture industry.

Movie fans may recall a couple of old-time, science fiction horror movies: Logan's Run and Soylent Green.

Soylent Green invited people to step into the vat, to be surprised to emerge as canned food headed for the nearest grocery. Logan's Run sounds eerily like Cash for Codgers - at age 35 people are deemed "too old", and participate in a major media event - a "run" with the promise of being let to live if they escape the many dangers and traps. Until Logan, of course, none are permitted to survive. Logan manages to escape.

I wonder if people have thought through this rationed health care. For one popular instance, suppose B. Hussein Obama sets himself as a national icon of health.
- Want to see a doctor, but weigh more than The One? Wait until you lose the weight.
- Want to see a doctor, but don't run like a top Marine Sargeant? Get practicing - the doctor is on the other side of the obstacle course.
- Want your kid to see the doctor, but the little tyke is throwing a tantrum? Come back when the toddler shows discipline and courtesy, and reverance for Big Foot and B. Hussein Obama.
- Want to see the doctor but didn't vote for Obama? Maybe after the next election Alderman Obama will have time for the doctor to see you.
- Want to see the doctor but smoke/take drugs? Have to pass the pee-in-the-bottle test and pass the 60-days without exposure to smokers sniff test.
- Want to see a doctor but aren't married and sexually active? Well, the doctor will be available as soon as you have been "fixed".
- Want to see a doctor, you are pregnant with more than one kid at home? The doctor will see you right after the abortion and after you get "fixed".
- Make more money, or have more assets, than a retired grocery store clerk? Tough. Hire an illegal Mexican to be your family doctor. Just don't expect to have access to legal pharmacies and diagnostic equipment.

This may answer Frank W. James' "I've Got A few Questions" post, on why Obama gives a rip. Oh! Bummer! wants control of average Americans.


Back in the Reagan Presidency, one conservative quote angered Liberals: The more you spend on health care, the more expensive health care becomes. If someone survives cancer, a car crash, or anaphylactic shock, the odds are great that the person will be using, at some time, additional medical services. Invent a new drug or machine that helps critically ill patients - and it will get used on those that *might* benefit. Look at how frequently viagra happens to be used for recreation rather than medical necessity. Or how often Tylenol gets used when drinking less alcohol, or more water, the night before would have sufficed. Back 100 to 200 years ago, you got the flu or dysentery, and you died or got over it, with few people seeing a doctor. The advent of health insurance now insures lots and lots of people see the doctor for a few palliative prescriptions and instructions to get plenty of rest in bed, drink fluids, and take tylenol/aspirin. Doctors get the income, insurance companies make out, pharmaceutical companies make out big time.

The answer has to lie somewhere in between. There has to be a way to improve health care for those that cannot afford the elite prices and elite services and elite pharmaceuticals that the American Medical Association, big hospitals, and big drug companies have established as "minimum". There has to be a way to reduce costs, improve availability and reduce waste (fraud happens in Medicare and Medicaid; other providers and insurers don't put up with it).

Reducing cost and waste has to include reducing difficulty in getting care.

I propose an underlayer to the layers of medical care in America: Healers. A medical practitioner with credentials to practice overseas, or a BS with apprenticeship, capable of treating minor scrapes and breaks and viruses, and charging about what a movie ticket costs. And able to screen patients to identify those that need traditional or advanced medical care. Healers with immunity to mere negligence law suits; it would take active assault and intent to inflict harm for a healer, or doctor, to lose in court.

fwj: Where does the Constitution permit ObamaCare??!?

Frank W. James writes on Corn, Beans, Spent Brass, an empty page and a deadline about disturbing questions regarding ObamaCare: I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS????...

I am afraid there is a fallacy in leaning on the interpretation that the founding fathers had for the Constitution.

That is, the Constitution has always been a living document. It wasn't ratified, or wouldn't have been, without the Bill of Rights - the first 10 substantive changes or Amendments.

I fear and hate the agenda pursued by the deceitful, dishonorable President B. Hussein Obama. There may come a day that the world will naturally and rightfully fall under a single world government. We aren't there by a long ways, not when Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Venezuela entertain so many military interests and factions from so very many nations. We aren't ready when Muslim's can be found that hate anyone not of their belief, or Christians or anyone else. It is suicide of family, community, and nation to proceed as if we can accommodate or appease hostile forces in the world.

The unfortunate truth is that many Americans share the vision and what they have been told is the agenda of B. Hussein Obama; I fear there is still much deception hiding the truth from most of them. In the past, it has been the compromises between left and right, between those wanting change and those wanting stability, that has been the major source of the strength of the United States.

What I see happening is a lack of compromise, that the liberal and socialist agenda is proceeding unchecked. And proceeding unchecked is a clear and real invitation to tyranny - which does violate the Constitution.

I am appalled at the White House interfering in GM and Chrysler far beyond the authority of the White House. I am horrified that Congress participated in the "overpay and bonus" witch hunt at AIG. But what really gets my goat is that there has been no motion to censure the President for exceeding his authority, no move to impeach him for interference and intimidation in private business. If a court were to find that B. Hussein Obama had violated the Constitutional bounds of his office, does that violate his oath of office - and thereby unseat the President? The question hasn't been asked. And that bothers me, a lot.

Regardless of how one views the intent of the Constitution at the founding of the country, I contend that the current wording and interpretation in the courts holds true. As a nation of laws, I am disappointed that the President is permitted to ignore the Constitution, rather than wait out the process to amend it or whatever would be required to support his extralegal shenanigans.

I still want to know what Obama did to get Souter to quit the Supreme Court; it is obvious he needed a bought judge, Sotomayor, to cover his butt when ObamaCare lands before the Supreme Court - it cannot help but start out there.

There have been no publicized moves to recall any of the privileged players treating the President's proposals as if they were simply another proposed law - one that they don't need to worry about what it contains.

What I fear is a breakdown of civil authority, unless the Constitutionally mandated checks and balances start exerting a dampening influence on the outrages coming from the Obama White House.

I have heard anecdotes that President Obama appears to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That there is a psychological explanation for why he considers anyone thwarting him to be evil and deranged, why his every whim seems to him to be the Truth Before God. I dunno. I figure his tenacious pursuit of ObamaCare is either deranged obsession that he knows better than most Americans, or that he keeps ObamaCare on the media fire to prevent us looking at H.R. 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act or gun control efforts or other underhanded misuses he is making of the US Government. I suppose it could be both.

I consider Obama's conduct outside the authority of the Presidency and against the limits of the Constitution to be illegal. But the same House majority that helps assure passage of Demcrat-sponsored legislation means that a move to impeach cannot be voted out of the House of Representatives, either. Obama's butt is covered against being prosecuted, at least for now. Which amounts to another invitation to tyranny - freedom from prosecution for illegal acts.

Frank, your worded your piece in a fallacious manner, implying you were unsure if the Constitution either required or even permits what ObamaCare is attempting to do. I think most of the argument was lost when LBJ launched his War on Poverty. Right or wrong, I think ObamaCare could well end up being implemented if passed. My Representative and Senators have been told how I feel about the program - that it is unconstitutional, devised to destroy incomes of physicians and hospitals in favor of government operated services, that it is another step in implementing government management of wages at all levels from part time custodial on up. ObamaCare rewards certain of Obama's secret backers, and destroys additional American infrastructure, as a means to dismantle America.

Because the America Obama is headed for has nothing to do with the US Constitution. Just wait until he irritates enough people he has reason to invoke martial law, and see what gets set aside and what doesn't.

But that is just my thought tonight.

Obama's school address

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post writes about President B. Hussein Obama's speech to America's school children.

Kathleen writes - Why all the fuss? An A in Overreaction.

Granting a super-sized benefit of the doubt to protesters, Obama's speech originally included classroom instructional materials from the Education Department that asked students to express how they were inspired by the president and how they might help him.

. . .

Okay, benefit-of-the-doubt rescinded. Even asking kids to help the president improve the nation doesn't justify charges of socialist indoctrination. John F. Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" is hardly considered a bugle call to summer camp in the Urals.

Actually, I see a lot of difference. John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address - not even a speech publicized as directed to school students - quotes George Bernard Shaw's line - to serve your country. That is way different, to my mind, than how to serve B. Hussein Obama, who at best will be President four or eight years. We need students and communities and states to serve, support, and protect the institutions that keep America strong and safe for her citizens.

Administrations come and go. As a nation, the founding fathers determined that a king, an individual representing the sanctified spirit and soul of the nation, was inappropriate. Thus we have had a Pledge of Allegiance - to a flag, and a republic. Thus we swear on entering public office or military service, to serve - the constitution. Having the President inspire school children to consider how they might server B. Hussein Obama is a spit in the eye to Americans that honor the Constitution of the United States.

I cannot understand that the venerable pledge of allegiance (to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.) could be challenged in court - and Obama's call for allegiance to President Obama to go unchallenged. It amazes me. President Obama is not a fitting repository of devotion and reverence. The office of the President of the United States is, the Constitution is, the Congress is, but the individual holding office deserves respect only insofar as he or she fulfills the requirements of that office.

Ultimately Kathleen Parker's piece covers the criticisms and the resulting speech. But she fails to acknowledge the way criticism before hand shaped the speech that was ultimately delivered, to avoid the most egregious abuses.

I think President Obama should thank those that pointed out the dangers to a democracy of some parts of his original message. I think the change in the speech, from first concept to delivery, is entirely to the benefit of America.

As for your article, Kathleen Parker, Ma'am, I think you completely missed the point. Your article chronicles the education of a President, and the strength of the right to free speech in criticizing the President. Calling this process overreaction is disrespectful and disingenuous.

Stimulus fever running high in Oklahoma

According to the AP, Oklahoma is late to the storm. State unemployment for August 2009 was up 2.9% since August 2008, and up .9% since July, according to the Associated Press out of Oklahoma City, OK.

It turns out the state gained some 1700 jobs in government last month. 1700 - that is a lot of stimulus money, and a lot of ongoing payroll. Now, remind me. What is it that government produces, what value does government add to the economy?

Because the state lost 1900 manufacturing and related jobs last month, and another 1100 in the service sector of the workforce.

Trading two jobs for one, while losing the ability of 3000 employees to increase value and serve the state and the nation.

Well, at least President B. Hussein Obama's union-owned car makers are doing better than they were. I sure wish Oh! Bummer had fewer political debts to pay off at the cost of the nation.

Quack, quack, Mr. President.

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck - maybe, just maybe, it is a duck.

Racism

I consider racism to be someone that permits stereotypes of racial actions and qualities to overcome their perceptions of people as people. A racist is one that prejudges people because of racial characteristics.

Is Glenn Beck racist? Beck calls B. Hussein Obama racist, with deep seated hatred of white people or white culture. Does that make the President racist? The Ed Show, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls Glenn Beck racist - does that make these people or networks racist?

Is there a fundamental difference between attributing qualifications and character to a race - or an ideological label, and acting in hate-filled and dismissive manner toward all that identify them selves with the opposition on a spectrum of liberal / conservative?

So why is it that hating Glenn Beck is great, and worthy "news" and opinion fodder, yet expressing concern (as Glenn Beck did) that B. Hussein Obama is racist is hate speech?

The Ed Show takes off on bashing Glenn Beck. Starting with charges that Beck is "hiding behind his plastic Jesus", Ed paints Beck in an awful light.



Glenn Beck's quoted words are that B. Hussein Obama appears to have a deep hatred for white people or the white culture, Beck isn't sure which. This is a very long ways from declaring that Obama is acting in a racist manner, which is illegal.

In part two video, the Ed show gets a guest that disputes Ed's continued assertion that Beck doesn't cite any reason for the accusation, when Beck clearly cites Obama's 20 year membership in the Rev. Wright's church, with Wright's repeated white-bashing rhetoric. Personally I find the number of radical and violent and criminal figures of racial militants that keep showing up surrounding President B. Hussein Obama to be significant - of a deep opposition to the rule of law, if not hatred of the established structure or white culture or white race.

Chris "tingle down my leg" Matthews discusses the issue.


Matthew's guests, if not Chris himself, champion the extremist interpretation that the nation hates Obama because of his race, and pays no respect to those that oppose Obama's abuses of office. And Matthews and guests overlook completely the number of avowed racial hatred-centric people B. Hussein Obama has brought to Washington, D.C.

And that is what makes this look like official, sanctioned, orchestrated by the White House - Spin Control.

Spin Control

Those towing the Obama line seem to be reading from the same play book. Instead of looking at the opposition as helping to identify weaknesses and problems, they instead make the excuse that the opposition is hateful, is destruction-minded, and motivated by unthinking hatred.

Divide and conquer, isn't that how strategy is supposed to work?

When Glenn Beck states what many loyal and true American citizens observe, that our President appears to harbor hatred for whites and the America that is the result of 230 years of history, I believe Beck is correct. I do not hear Beck, or any conservative, challenge Obama's right to feel and think as he does. What I hear is an expression of concern, an erosion of the "hope and change" that was promised, that seems to be hope for some, change for the rest.

For the Tea Party tax protesters, for the gun rights advocates, for those wanting to keep America at work, watching B. Hussein Obama has been a necessary and arduous burden since before the inauguration. Fears that Obama and the rabid gun-control phobics he surrounds himself will attempt trickery, extra-legal tricks, legislation proposals, regulation changes, and any other means available to pursue their agenda - regardless of whether the legal means of proceeding indicate that the nation's consensus is that the proposals are wrong and harmful to America.

I find Fox and Friends' interview with Glenn Beck, when he made his "Obama has a deep hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know", merely places the concerns about underhanded and harmful and obnoxious dealings many have already experience from the Obama administration, into perspective.

Should we call the President racist, if we believe his actions and words are consistent with a deeply defining identity with one race in opposition to one or more other races? Yep. If I believe that the President's prejudices and history are pertinent, and racially motivated, then keeping that aspect pertinent and prominent may benefit those trying to understand those actions - and defend their own interests and / or the best interests of the United States.

Should someone stop us from calling the President a racist? Yes, if we advocate others hating him for that reason. Yes, if we advocate acting based on hatreds.

But we cannot identify and address hatred-based issues, if we are not permitted to discuss them. Obama supporters must admit to the racist actions, words, and companions of the President. Obama detractors must be clear that opposition is based on healthy disagreement with policy, or with disagreement of values, and not based on perceived or imaginary issues related to race.

bim: Irrational assumptions - gun control and term limits

Bill at Billll's Idle Mind raises the issue of term limits. Bill laments the wasted opportunity, that the tea party movement might have made short work of getting term limits instituted.

Gun Control assumption

I watched The American President again last night. Same old Michael Douglas, Annette Bening story. Same rich tapestry of majesty of the Presidency, the White House, and the offices of the Government, reverently presented by Rob Reiner.

Michael J. Fox, White House Chief of Staff, comments after being told that handgun restriction measures were being left out of a proposed anti-crime bill. "Can we return to the subject for just one moment? It would be easier to fight crime if we weren't arming the drug dealers."

This far into the Obama administration, after their clandestine as well as public moves to thwart, limit, and abolish ownership of all guns, not just handguns - well, this assumption of the movie and Mr. Reiner caught me pretty clearly.

Those proposing eliminating or limiting handguns assume that 1) the benefit of removing handguns from criminals is worth the inconvenience of taking guns from law abiding citizens; and 2) implementing laws limiting or eliminating handguns will remove handguns from criminals.

Term limit assumptions

I have come across proposals for term limits many time.

I think the assumptions proponents make about term limits is similar to the anti-gun assumptions. 1) The benefit of removing powerful legislators that no longer serve their constituents is worth the loss of good men that might have served longer; and 2) implementing term limits will remove the very powerful and unresponsive legislators.

I don't see the connection.


If a legislator were not representing the interests of the people of the district that elects them - surely we can count on an opponent to woo enough votes next election to unseat the incumbent. And nothing I have seen establishes to my satisfaction the supposition that the cost of losing a good legislator too soon, due to term limits, is in any way worth tossing out other people that hit the term limit.

And I don't see that term limits will necessarily end the influence of powerful people.

Sorry, Bill. I just don't see that your assumptions are valid.