Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Bush family email hacked: Here's a security refresher

Thanks to an anonymous hacker self-identified as Guccifer, we now know that former President George W. Bush likes to paint self-portraits in the bath. That’s one of the tidbits revealed when at least six email accounts belonging to Bush family members were hacked and their contents shared online. The high profile hack underscores, once again, the importance of a strong password when it comes to your email account – whether you are the former President of the United States or an average Jane or Joe Gmail user.

George H.W. Bush

The email messages from the family of George H.W. Bush and close friends span 2009 to 2012, and include private family discussions along with family photos, according to The Smoking Gun.

Other than the shower paintings, the photos posted online are pretty generic. One shows former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton posing with a younger member of the Bush clan, possibly Pierce Bush (no stranger to online over exposure himself). Others include photos of Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Laura and Barbara Bush.

The Bush family intrusion is the focus of a criminal investigation, a Bush family spokesperson told The Houston Chronicle. Hacking public figures has become a routine occurrence in recent years, with email, personal photos, cell phones, and social networking accounts all under fire. The Bush family joins a roster of hacked politicians that includes former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Sen. Chuck Grassley. Beyond politicians, the volume of celebrity hacks inspire countless online slideshows, including leaked photos of Miley Cyrus, Olivia Munn, and Scarlett Johansson.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld

The Politics of the Spoken Word Grammy

By Tara Block

Did you know that Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton are nominated for Grammys this year? The first lady is nominated in the best spoken word album category for her book American Grown, along with the former president for his book Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government For a Strong Economy. Another political nominee this year is TV host Rachel Maddow, who’s nominated for her book Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. In the spoken word category, Rachel follows in the footsteps of fellow political hosts Stephen Colbert (who was nominated in 2009) and Jon Stewart (who won in 2011).

Since 1959, when the spoken word album Grammy was created, it’s had presidents, first wives, senators, and civil rights leaders in its nominee and winner pools. You may be surprised at the political figures – including three US presidents – who can call themselves Grammy winners. Find out more about this category’s history now!

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at fashionologie

Sotomayor’s Autobiography Whitewashes Radical College Years

By B. Christopher Agee

sotomayor SC Sotomayors autobiography whitewashes radical college years

People in general – and leftists specifically – have a tendency to view their own past achievements through rose-colored glasses, and many go as far as to completely rewrite history.

Bill Clinton’s autobiography all but ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal that triggered the downfall of a morally bankrupt president. Al Gore, in addition to his steady stream of lies concerning the environment, infamously took credit for the creation of the Internet.

In the continuous orgy of self-congratulation that is American politics, an autobiography might be the only place to find a more sickening whitewash of history than accounts from sycophants in the media.

Such is the case with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recently released tome.

Instead of the familiar “tell-all” book, Sotomayor apparently wrote a “tell-all-she-wants-us-to-know” book leaving out key experiences during her college years.

To be clear, she wrote in great lengths about her time at Princeton University; but her association with openly racist organizations and other left-wing fringe movements are conveniently absent.

She does describe her involvement in groups such as Puerto Rican organization Accion Puertorriquena and the civil rights association the Third World Center.

What the book fails to reveal, however, are the radical policies and ideologies espoused by members of those two organizations.

As co-chair of Accion Puertorriquena, Sotomayor pushed relentlessly for racial quotas in her quest for affirmative action.

Accusing Princeton of “an attempt … to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion,” she stoked backlash from campus newspaper “The Daily Princetonian”‘s editorial staff.

“Affirmative action should not mean positive efforts to reverse a historical pattern of minority under-representation at the expense of traditional standards of excellence,” the paper published at the time. [Emphasis in original.]

Her pro-minority bias seemed to morph into an anti-white bias with her involvement in the Third World Center at Princeton.

In addition to a radical agenda put forth in the group’s founding documents, Sotomayor added her own leftist fingerprint by inviting speakers such as Manuel Maldonado-Denis, who reported that the “only solution” to the U.S. “exploiting” Puerto Rico is “through the establishment of national liberation and the establishment of socialism.”

If this was her inspiration back then, is there any wonder Barack Obama chose her to sit on the highest court in the land – possessing the power to change public policy without worrying about re-election?

Perhaps most relevant to her current position of power, Sotomayor showed partiality toward minorities as a student judge in college.

After inappropriately disparaging eight students who broke into the dorm room of two gay individuals in a letter to the Daily Princetonian, Sotomayor heard the case and demanded those involved be expelled, sources familiar with the incident report.

In the end, the eight students were given two years of probation and were stigmatized with a permanent mark on their records.

Even the victims of the break-in said at the time the punishment was too severe.

While I certainly want a Supreme Court sensitive to injustice, Sotomayor’s past seems to indicate she is receptive to only the suffering of her favorite minority groups.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Purging The Ghost Of Bill Clinton’s Economics From The Holy Spirit Of Barack Obama

By Breaking News

Bill Clinton SC Purging the Ghost of Bill Clintons Economics From the Holy Spirit of Barack Obama

One of the more interesting and regrettable ideological developments over the past eight or so years has been the Democratic Party’s repudiation of Bill Clinton’s economic policies (a repudiation, fortunately for Clinton, that does not require rejecting the Big Dog himself, nor renouncing credit for his economic successes).

What form does the Clintonomics-purging take in our current political context? In complaints that President Barack Obama’s economic policies are being guided by Clinton deficit-scold holdovers who do not sufficiently understand that deficits don’t matter right now. Here’s Jim Tankersley, writing in The Washington Post:

[Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin espoused an economic philosophy that would dominate Democratic policy circles through the Great Recession: one that favored opening global markets, deregulating Wall Street and limiting federal budget deficits. […]

For all its success in the 1990s, much of Rubin’s philosophy took a beating in the following decade. The financial crisis spurred a move back to stricter rules on Wall Street institutions and financial products such as derivatives, which Rubin had advised Clinton against regulating. The disappearance of millions of manufacturing jobs in the face of technological change and foreign competition cast the downsides of free trade in a harsher light. […]

But the Rubinesque focus on the deficit, if anything, is stronger in the Obama administration than it was in Clinton’s. Even before his first inauguration, while the economy was in a job-shedding, recessionary free fall, Obama’s advisers were discussing an eventual pivot to deficit reduction. Now, by tapping Lew as Timothy Geithner’s successor at Treasury, the president is signaling clearly that budget negotiations with congressional Republicans will dominate economic policymaking in his second term.

Tankersley’s canned history of the last two decades omits a crucial word: spending. (Except for this sentence: “Protecting federal spending on education and innovation is an attempt to keep the middle class from slipping even further, but it’s nowhere near the fundamental overhaul in skills training that many economists believe is necessary….”) Federal spending, in fact, has doubled since Bill Clinton left office. At least some of the economic thinkers who Tankersley disagrees with believe that jacking up government spending produces the very economic sluggishness he aims to combat, and that cutting spending would spur growth.

Read More at reason.org . By Matt Welch.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

The Big Picture Is A New World Order

By Tim Powers

New World Order SC The Big Picture is a New World Order

(Author’s note: The views expressed here may not be those of The Western Center for Journalism.)

George H. W. Bush spoke about a New World Order when he was in office. There was barely a blip on the news radar about it.

Since that time, a lot of chaos has ensued which I believe can be mostly attributed to the 1961 US state department directive aimed at disarming the governments around the world and placing total rule in the hands of the United Nations. After Bush Sr. came Bill Clinton, who not only ordered up private land grabs across the United States, but also pushed for the closing of many military bases in an effort to reduce our strength to defend ourselves.  In the heat of all of this, the Monica Lewinski affair happened.  I believe that this whole affair was planned as a distraction and that Hillary was in on it. Why would she still be married to the adulterer Bill if she wasn’t?  Remember, these people are the 60′s hippies from the free love generation. They have no shame.

Then we have George W. Bush, who was cut directly from his daddy’s backside. He was intent on finishing the war that his daddy started, which only led to more dead American servicemen as well as leading to more instability in the Middle East. He is also responsible for the Patriot Act, which has allowed for Americans to be spied on.

Then we have Barack Hussein Obama, a Constitutionally questionable President who has VIOLATED the US Constitution by chairing the United Nations security council. It has become abundantly clear that he is backed by the soulless monster George Soros, who has his hand in total control of the propaganda-driven media that gives Obama a pass at every turn. It seems that every time the heat gets put on Obama, another crisis erupts to distract people and get them to move on to the next story.

In essence, this is about world domination through programs such as Agenda 21 and weapons bans. Barack Obama already has his seat at the table. Our two-party system of government is dead, as they all think alike now. Our national debt is NOW unsustainable; and I do believe that Hillary Clinton, by virtue of her husband’s land grab actions as President, has given guarantees of US land to the Chinese in order to secure our ever-increasing debt. Why else would OUR government not seem to be worried about it?

The end game here will be total disarmament of the world, a world court (already established), and a world bank (already established). We will have a few at the top controlling everything, and US sovereignty will be ceded to the United Nations. The UN will be the only entity that will have firearms in order to control the rest of us. We as Americans must wake up before it is too late. Our very existence is at stake. As always, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.

Photo credit: duncan (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

The End Of The Reagan Era?

By Paul G. Kengor

Ronald Reagan The End of the Reagan Era?

Editor’s note: A longer version of this article first appeared at American Spectator.

With Barack Obama’s second inauguration, liberals are touting an altogether new epoch: the end of the Reagan era.

Unfortunately, I believe they are largely correct. We are witnessing a period of left-wing ascendance, marked by gay marriageforced taxpayer funding of abortion, an exploding government class, and big government. As to the latter, Ronald Reagan had declared in his first inaugural: “government is not the solution … government is the problem.” The first Democrat to follow Reagan, Bill Clinton, similarly stated “the era of big government is over.” Clinton’s affirmation was also an affirmation of the Reagan era.

Then came Barack Obama. Just days after his 2009 inauguration, Obama proclaimed: “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.” He said “only government” could alter our “vicious cycle.”

Obama had repudiated Reagan, and the electorate would again reward him four years later. What Obama called for in 2009 seems to be the new American spirit in 2013.

But is it? Well, the answer is complicated.

For one, Barack Obama is undoing the Reagan era courtesy of an American public that exhibits utterly schizophrenic voting behavior. Let history record a confounding reality that will baffle future historians: The Obama era supplanted the Reagan era thanks to a voting public that adores Reagan, judges him our greatest of presidents, and overwhelmingly calls itself conservative rather than liberal. All unbelievable, yes, but true. Consider the facts:

For a long time now, starting with the Reagan presidency, Americans have described themselves as “conservative” rather than “liberal” by margins of roughly two-to-one. Generally, self-identified liberals have hovered around the 20 percent level, while conservatives have ranged in the upper-30 percent, sometimes above 40 percent.

Surely this must have changed in 2008, with Obama’s election? No; despite Obama winning the presidency by 54 to 46 percent, 21 percent of Americans who voted said they were liberal vs. 38 percent who said they were conservative.

If that seems contradictory for a nation that voted for a man from the far left as president … well, it is. But it gets worse.

A major Gallup poll conducted from January to May 2009, at the height of “Obama mania,” found more self-described conservatives than liberals not only by 40 percent to 21 percent but in literally all 50 states. That’s correct, all 50 states, from California to Massachusetts. And that electorate chose Obama.

It also chose Reagan. During that same period, a remarkable survey was done by Clarus Research Group, which asked Americans which president should be the model for Barack Obama in shaping his presidency. Their top choice was America’s most conservative president: Ronald Reagan.

How could that be? Answer: it cannot. It is impossible.

And yet, it isn’t a shock that Americans would look to Reagan as their model. Two years after the Clarus survey, a Gallup poll released for Presidents Day 2011 ranked Reagan the “greatest president” of all time, garnering 19 percent of the vote among 44 presidents (beating Lincoln fairly soundly, who finished second at 14 percent). Gallup began asking the “greatest president” question in 1999. Of the 13 times Gallup has done the survey, the public placed Reagan first four times—2001, 2005, 2011, and 2012.

How does that same citizenry twice elect Barack Obama? That’s a very good question.

Well, maybe this long admiration for Reagan conservatism suddenly changed in November 2012?

No, though liberals did draw a little closer. According to CNN exit polling, 35 percent of voters on November 6, 2012 described themselves as “conservative” and 25 percent chose “liberal.” This was identical to a Pew poll.

Importantly, some observers dispute these self-designations, insisting that many of those who call themselves conservative really aren’t. Here and there, that may be true. Overall, however, I think the designations are fairly accurate. When you break down the data and ask questions like whether voters prefer more taxes and more government, they generally don’t—even when they vote that way.

So, what does all of this mean?

It means that a self-described conservative, Reagan-loving electorate has twice voted for a hardcore leftist, Barack Obama, to, in effect, end the Reagan era. That wasn’t the intent, but that’s the result.

I’ll end with a dose of Reagan optimism: It also means that the Reagan ideal is not over. I believe that most Americans (for now) still prefer Reagan’s principles and view of government over Obama’s. The Reagan principles are ultimately time-tested and true; they are the universal, unalienable principles of the Founders, rooted in eternal Judeo-Christian beliefs and Natural Law.

The Reagan vision and values are already here, ready to be tapped and again prevail. They merely require the right spokesman (and Barack Obama’s exit from the presidency.)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Obama’s Definition Of ‘Liberty’

By Susan Stamper Brown

Liberty Tree Obama SC Obamas Definition of Liberty

Oh, how far-removed we are from what now seems like the “innocent” Bill Clinton days when all we had to worry about was the various definitions of the word “is”. And now, after watching President Obama’s second term inaugural address, it is clear we have a president who calls into question the meaning of the word “liberty.”

It is incomprehensible that this former constitutional lawyer would argue during his speech that America has evolved to the extent that “our founding documents” no longer require us to “define liberty in exactly the same way.” But then again, it’s not so far-fetched considering what he’s done so far as well as the radicals he’s wrapped his life around. Some in the mainstream media have pondered if compromising with Republicans will be part of his second term agenda; but based on his address, the short answer is “no.” Put on your seatbelts; we’re headed for four more years of divide-and-conquer politics. The carnage will be immense, considering that the majority of Americans are not far-left radicals.

Clearly, our founders defined liberty as the right of individuals to pursue their own interests with minimal interference from a limited government. To suggest otherwise either shows a lack of understanding of America’s founding principles or a disregard for the same. Obama seems intent on widening the already colossal ideological divide.

And herein lies the complexity of a community organizer turned president: his ideology contradicts the constitution he is sworn to uphold.

If the ultimate goal is to shake up, tear down, and fundamentally transform America into the collectivist society Obama’s honey-filled words dripped of, he will do so without the support of half the country. As the rest of us find ourselves scratching our heads trying to figure out where the constitutional authority exists to achieve this transformation, Obama moves forward, motivated by a ludicrous notion that the Constitution must change because times have.

Obama’s inaugural speech words echoed similar thoughts from his book “The Audacity of Hope,” suggesting the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

At least he is consistent. On WBEZ-FM in Chicago 12 years ago, Obama attempted to make a case for wealth redistribution and social justice, suggesting it would be found in what the Constitution did not say. Citing a previous court case, Obama said “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties” mandating “what the states can’t do to you” and “what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

And he’s lived in the gray ever since. Black and white have given way to ever-expanding shades of gray so much that listening to a policy speech from the president requires an interpreter. The inaugural speech was replete with duplicitous and eerily conservative phrasing like “equality” to conceal wealth redistribution and “safety” in “the quiet lanes of Newtown” to mask expanded gun control.

It might be time for citizens to grasp an understanding of what our founders meant when they wrote and spoke about liberty. Let me leave you with former congressman Ron Paul’s definition: “Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks…Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety…Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen, and a false government security blanket beckons.”

I still believe. How about you?

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

President Obama's Inaugural Speech Just Isn't Worth Watching

By Thomas J. Basile, Contributor If you’re a patriot, there is no experience quite like a Presidential Inauguration.  I helped run the inaugurals in ’01 and ’05 and attended Bill Clinton’s second in 1997.  Regardless of who the president is, it’s important to acknowledge that what happens on the West Front of the Capitol every four years is the great culmination of our democratic process.  As a Republic and a nation of laws founded on the principles of self-governance, the transition of power or affirmation of a national election in this simple yet powerful ceremony is a testament to the success of our Founders’ overarching vision for America.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Is Obama Planning A Third Term?

By Twila Le Page

Obama Forward SC Is Obama Planning a Third Term?

There are several theories, but there is more talk that Obama now plans a third term in 2016. What, you say?  “That’s unconstitutional! ” Well, when has a little thing like that ever stopped Obama?  Why not, when you can reportedly safely steal elections, decree executive orders for anything one wants, and go on endless expensive vacations?

His aim is to emulate Franklin Roosevelt, who died in the first year of his 4th term (April 1945) and to have that kind of power. Besides, Obama’s plans will not be completed by 2016–so he needs to finish off the job–of tearing down this colonial, military-loving, rich superpower of America.  He must have played with Tonka toys where kids delight in building intricate towers and buildings, only to laugh when knocking them down.

Obama is not dumb but is far-reaching, manipulative, and conniving due to his roots steeped in anti-colonialism from his perceived father’s ideology and is surrounded with like-minded associates. According to Dinash D’ Souza in “Obama’s America,” while he only saw Obama Sr. a couple of times, his mother kept his father’s ideology and dream alive in his son’s eyes. And later, Obama Jr. gravitated towards people who also had an anti-colonialist, Marxist, anti-capitalist ideology, which only fosters his beliefs from his father.

Another theory is that while Obama appears to downgrade and over-regulate oil, natural gas, and fracking shale development, especially on public lands, he will suddenly allow it so that by 2016, we will be swimming in oil. We will be the # 1 exporter of it, and we will have another oil boom as was seen in the early 1900s in Texas. This will give him incredible power, control, and money for dishing it out to his favorite unions and donors and allowing more and more government entitlements and amnesty for immigrants. Apparently, for now, he wants to keep unemployment high, too, as the unemployed are persons he can control even more.

But to allow himself to be elected again (after all, he is already out there campaigning again), Obama’s henchmen could stir up unrest, pit the “haves” against the “have nots”, assess higher taxes on all the rich (except oil producers), and declare Martial Law, and therefore suspend the  the 2016 election indefinitely (or just decide he will run regardless.) So far, we have seen a weak Republican offense against him since they have taken no action on all the illegal things he has done and all the lies he has told.

Another theory is that he may not run but will work with a proxy with his already-set-up ground game and ability to get campaign money from large donors and small ones on the internet, with no one stopping him from getting money from other countries, and to go with even more voter fraud. Who is going to stop him? What was Bill Clinton promised in order for him to speak for Obama at the convention and to campaign for him, when they have not been friends since Hillary’s campaign?

Already, someone has introduced a bill in the House to appeal the 22nd Amendment, which stated that Presidents should only serve two terms.

Something is being planned; why is the Dept. of Homeland Security buying millions of rounds of ammo and the latest heavy-style tanks? Would they round up the dissenters into detention camps and  take away money through high taxes on the rest? Then who is left to complain? Through UN treaties, our gun rights as well as property rights may be taken away from us, no thanks to a liberal Senate that could vote to ratify them and thus go against our own sovereignty and our rights.

Obama and his hand-grown liberal media will continue to demonize Republicans all the time, as he did Romney in the campaign, until we possibly lose the House in 2014. Then for two years, he will have full control again over Congress. In the meantime ObamaCare will get rid of the old who see through his ambitions as well as the ill and children and tax the rest to death. Who will stop him? So far, no one has stopped his march to take over our country. Could it be because he is untouchable since he is black and they are afraid to rock the boat?

We are living in a  far more dangerous world now with a severely weakened America. Who could or would save us? What candidate for the Republican Party could possibly have a chance at all then? Where could martyred or blacklisted Americans then go?

Photo credit: Dave Merrick

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Memo To The GOP: Study DLC Demise Closely

By capblack

GOP SC Memo To The GOP: Study DLC Demise Closely

Denounced by liberal icon Jesse Jackson as the “suburban wing of the Democratic Party, ” the Democratic Leadership Council ( DLC ) was created in 1985 to (shhh!) woo White voters away from Republicans.

Its enviable zenith was electing Bill Clinton twice to the White House by offering Whites moderate policies while drawing majority shares of a stalemated liberal Black base.

The rise of President Obama seems to have ended its relevance. It officially closed its doors in 2011 and offers a GOP scrambling for diversity a valuable case study.

Republican reformers claim that the party needs more non-Whites in order to be competitive. The DLC won on the opposite premise.

Their centrist appeal aimed at White independents and conservative Reagan Democrats who were painting states red alongside straight-ticket Republican voters.

I’m curious to see how far Republicans will go to make their brand of conservatism appealing to hardcore liberal constituencies like American Blacks and, as of the last election, Latinos.

Appealing to the super-energized Ron Paul Republican libertarian youth movement seems a better bet. While cosmetics are nice, at day’s end, White Republicans and liberal American Blacks have found few reasons to unite.

American Blacks are individually choosing to be Republicans based upon shared values. This centrist and conservative demographic stands in stark contrast to Democrat peers who want more government in our lives.

That’s not a dynamic that even the much vaunted Heritage Foundation nor the RNC can alter. American Blacks must weigh liberal policy and conclude ourselves that it’s worthless.

I could be wrong, and a hitherto unseen army of new Jack Kemps could cheerfully march across America re-connecting the moribund GOP/Black alliance.

That would be a very welcome development- but unlikely. Latinos will likely be the outreach target given their more recent record of voting Republican for George W. Bush.

While not holding my breath for that day, nor for large numbers of American Blacks kissing liberalism goodbye, I do suggest that GOP planners study the demise of the centrist Democrat Leadership Council closely.

There are game-changing lessons waiting to be learned.

Cap Black, The Hood Conservative
504 214-3082

Donate/Stop Socialist Hate!

http://www.gofundme.com/197xk8

” Be your OWN Superhero!”

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Globes Were Actually Pretty Awesome

By Matt Cantor Critics agree: With top-notch hosting , memorable speeches , and an appearance by Bill Clinton, last night’s Golden Globes were a big success—a feat all the more impressive given the awards-show track record. Here’s what reviewers are saying: “Lovely, brilliant, and utterly fearless,” hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler “made awards-show…
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Great Finds

Ben Affleck Proves Golden At The Globes

By Mark Hughes, Contributor The Golden Globes awards ceremony last night was full of great and memorable moments, as well as a few surprises. But even with former president Bill Clinton making an appearance, perhaps the biggest surprise was when Ben Affleck’s Argo topped recent high profile films Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty to […]
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

New York Congressman Introduces Bill To Abolish Presidential Term Limits

By Breaking News

Barack Obama American flag 2 SC New York congressman introduces bill to abolish presidential term limits

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress on Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow President Barack Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office.

H.J. Res. 15 proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

The bill is a reintroduction of H.J. Res. 17, which Serrano introduced in Congress in January 2011. It was referred to the House judiciary committee, but did not make it to a floor vote.

Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been a longtime goal of Serrano’s, regardless of the sitting president’s political party. Serrano proposed similar resolutions in 1997 and 1999, during Bill Clinton’s administration, and in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, during George W. Bush’s administration. He proposed the repeal again in 2009 after Obama took office.

Read More at The Daily Caller . By Patrick Howley.

Photo Credit: The US Army (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism