Free Republic

22nd Amendment —
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.

It doesn’t appear that a two-term ex-President can’t run for the office of Vice-President nor would he/she be ineligible to become President. They could not run for re-election though.

How do you KNOW that Americans can’t build TVs that could compete with Asian manufacturers?

YOu don’t know because there is no free market in manufacturing especially with the Chinese.

Let’s start with all the state subsidies, free or cheap electricity, cheap capital, nonexistant environmental and labor regulations and the undervalued currency. Enough of an advantage for you?

How about the real pisser that these free traders NEVER mention. The fact that the rest of the world uses export subsidies. In almost every country in the world, the VAT on goods that are exported is refunded. That can be as much as a 20% subsidy for export. Is that “free” trade?

Picking a fight when you don’t have support of your base AND SIDING WITH THE OTHER SIDE is a bad idea (see amnesty).

In fact, that’s the only way a President could plumb the depths of negative public opinion.

But staking out a position that would resonate with your base and antgonize the opposition, that’s how you claw your back to 40%.

SPIEGEL: All your life you have called on the authorities to repent for the millions of victims of the gulag and communist terror. Was this call really heard?

Solzhenitsyn: I have grown used to the fact that, throughout the world, public repentance is the most unacceptable option for the modern politician.”

I daresay the old Russophile is dead on.

Conservatives to RINO Bush: Fire Gonzalez (perfected)

I wonder how long it was after the news of Sen. Johnson's condition was known, did the phones start ringing in Se. Lieberman's office?

I mean now he could basically dictate to either leadership which committee's he wants and which he would want to chair. And the side that gave him the best deal, get his vote for the organizing resolution.

I am no expert but I think there may be some confusion regarding "tax exempt". Churches can't be compelled to pay tax no matter what. However, in order for donations to the church to be tax deductible for the donor, then they have to 501 c 3 organizations. 501 c 3's are prohibited from spending more than 10% of their budget on lobbying.

A church could organize under a different section of the tax code 501 c 4 for instance and be able to lobby all they wanted but donations would not be tax deductible for the donor.

Most churches would rather have tax deductibility for donors than have unlimited ability to lobby.

Everyone knows there was a second spitter . . . behind the gravelly road. That's why Lembcke couldn't find him.

That's a very apocalyptical scenario. Aren't you comforted by the fact that your boy GWB will be standing tall in the White House with his mighty veto pen knocking back all that left-wing nonsense?

I mean really, what harm could Nancy Pelosi do as Speaker? She can't raise taxes -- it would just get vetoed right? More spending? Is it even possible to increase spending faster than its been increased in the last 6 years?

It's been 12 years, its time for a purge.

And the day President Hillary sends the FBI into Mike Pence's office, you'll wonder how it happened here.

[quote]Perhaps Congress should be angry at itself...just a little.[/quote]

Congress isn't one person, the President is. When you say Congress should be angry at itself, well maybe some are. I'm sure we could find 20-30 members who, given the complete legislative power, would produce a budget conservatives would love.

What to do about the problem we have with a system biased toward higher and higher spending? We can all posit our theories.

What is your solution? Or are you a dogmatic free trader who says money talks?

National Security is one of the few functions the federal government should have. This is a legilimate use of federal power and having the power delegated to the executive in the form of the CFUIS without any oversight is not correct.

Would you prefer the executive to operate without the check of the legislative branch? That's the way the Republic is supposed to operate.

[quote]If elected, Hillary Clinton in only 4 years may be appointing in upwards of 150-200 judges on the federal bench most of whom will be retirees from the Reagan and G.H.W.Bush administrations and some replacements from earlier in her husband's administration. That will make it a Clinton majority body shaping judicial decisions.[/quote]

How bad could it be without Senate control? And with the new precedent set that the Senate can filibuster judicial nominees for political disagreements, the worst nominees won't even be put forward and the most extreme will be rejected.

Besides, we've had 8 years of GWB? Aren't we firmly in control of the federal bench by now?

The first Clinton administraton was such a boon for conservatives, why wouldn't a second be even better?

Captured Congress for the first time in 40 years, held control of the House ever since. Developed an alternative media to crack the MSM stranglehold on information. That's quite a legacy Bill Clinton left us.

As long as Hillary doesn't get any new entitlement programs and doesn't get too many kooky left wing judges, I doubt she'd be able to set us back 40-50 years.

The only risk is that the RINO's would win the post-election purge. If they did, then we'd have the kind of problem you descibe.

GOP congressional leaders seek reviews of foreign deals


http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/news_item.asp?NID=1960680

"House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., is drafting a bill to require congressional oversight as the administration reviews foreign business acquisitions, a role Congress has not played since the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was created three decades ago."

It's oversight of the existing mechanism which seems to be a decent idea based on the Dubai fiasco.

The economies (sic) is not a zero sum game. But it's not self-rising yeast either. Empires rise and they fall.

Well, the GOP leadership has made it pretty clear that they oppose all judicial filibusters on principle. Not that a politicians couldn't take a totally opposite position when it suits his/her interests but it would be difficult for the GOP to argue for judicial filibusters now unless the Dems launched one now.

I think Reid knows this and is thinking long term. Kennedy is just nuts and Kerry is thinking short term.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. If a minority GOP conference was faced with the choice of the "nuclear" option, they would back down.

Still, setting the precedent that SC nomnees can be filibustered for political reasons gives us leverage if the tabels are ever turned even if the Senators in question lack the spine to do the right thing.

This was my intial thought . . what's the down side to Kerry filibustering Alito? He gains credibility with the people who will be key in the 2008 nomination process. He would also launch himself directly into the center of the political debate, essentially making himself the focus of the opposition party.

However, upon a little reflection, I beleive that launching a filibuster would be a disaster for Kerry and the left in general.

As it stands right now, the Senate has agreed NOT to filibuster Supreme Court nominees unless "extraordinary circumstances" occur. The Alito nomination doesn't remotly rise to that level. If Kerry launches a filibuster, it would essentially open the dorr for any future Supreme Court nominee to be filibustered for any reason.

And since it is highly unlikely that liberals will have a 60 votes to confirm any moderate left-of-center judge they might appoint in the future. So Kerry might gain some short term poitical traction with a filibuster but in the long run, his decision might force future Democratic presidents to be very judicious in choosing SC nominees.