“During Pres. Obama’s third term…”

I have sometimes made a passing comment about what was going to happen to us during the third term of Pres. Obama.

The usual sort of person pooh-poohed that.  “But Father! But Father!”, they chortled, “You can’t be serious!  That’s against the the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution and… and… he’s … like, you know… a constitutional scholar!  Besides, how bad would that be?”

Pretty bad.

And truth is stranger than fiction, friends.

On gov.track you will find catholic Rep. Jose Serrano’s (D-NY 15) offering H.J.Res. 15: Proposing 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.

He has done this before, by the way.

Aside from the fact that resolution is abysmally stupid, it is also abysmally evil.

Liberals attain their goals through creeping incrementalism.

They introduce something.  It’s gets shouted down.  But they have bumped the needle a half point in their direction.  They introduce it again.  It’s gets shouted down again.  But they have again bumped the needle a half point in their direction. They introduce it again.  It’s gets shouted down again.  But they have again bumped the needle a half point in their direction. They introduce it again.  It’s gets shouted down again.  But they have again bumped the needle a half point in their direction…. until… one day it passes.

This is what they have done on a range of issues which you can name all by yourselves.

And catholic quislings collaborate.



About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liberals, Pò sì jiù, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Glen M says:

    I predicted this shortly after his re-election: Obama would either seek a third term or Michelle will run for president in 2016. Politicians without principle crave power; Obama doesn’t serve the people – he expects the opposite.

    The world needs America (the one the Founding Fathers created). America needs prayers.

  2. wmeyer says:

    I agree with your concerns, Father, and find a third Obama term quite likely. However, another scenario involves the suspension of elections following the imposition of martial law. But I digress.

    There have been many attempts to repeal the 22nd amendment. Hopefully, this one, too, will die.

    As to the creeping incrementalism, the Republicans keep on “voting their conscience” while the Democrats have, for over 100 years now, voted on all the matters about which they really care, as a bloc. They take their tiny victories, advancing the ball down the field. And a century later, what do we get, but Obama and 2,000+ page bills being passed into law. Politics has long been called the art of the possible. I prefer to think of it as a blood sport, which it most certainly has become, but the blood is ours, not that of any politician.

  3. wmeyer says:

    …but Caesar is not the image I would use.

    I keep remembering that Austria was not conquered, but voted for Hitler.

    And yes, I am aware of Godwin’s law, but Godwin was undoubtedly a liberal trying to distract voters from the true state of risk.

  4. iPadre says:

    Yes, Fr. Z is correct. I have seen this coming. Obama is the “new” Roman Emperor. The first president to push every evil issue as part of his agenda. The most sad part is our “Catholic” politicians who have run wild and against Church teach for years and nothing has been done.

    I my state the issue of “Marriage Equality” is once again up for a vote, not by the people, but by the same old XXXXX we have been putting in for years. I send an eMail to my Rep. a Catholic. Schooled by the Dominicans at Providence College and a further degree with the Black Friars in Oxford. Do you think he would have the mind of the Church?

    Here is his response to me:
    “I am fully supportive of marriage equality. The Church is entitled to define marriage however it like. The State is not entitled to, and must not, treat two adults differently than two other adults. It is an equality issue. It is a civil rights issue. It is not a religious issue. Thank you for contacting me on this important topic.”

    So many things wrong with his response. I think he must never have studied logic, but that point aside. Our own will be the ones who bring on the bloody persecution in our beloved nation. We’re paying for the sins of our past leaders, religious and political, who have allowed it reach the point it’s currently at and the lows where it will go from here.

  5. Supertradmum says:

    Thanks for posting this and explaining to the incredulous that this or martial law will happen. I put the tweet on my blog earlier and tried to get some people interested…only the Millennials get it.

    I hope the tweet is heard around the world, how sneaky that this proposal would occur on a dull weekend.

    I got a special Apostolic Blessing and plenary indulgence today. I suggest all seek out reconciliation with God and Church.

  6. acardnal says:

    Reminds me of what happened in Egypt recently (thanks to Obama’s lack of involvement) where the party in power changed the constitution to favor themselves, the Muslim Brotherhood. Pray for the Christian Copts. More persecution in their future I’m afraid.

  7. pmullane says:

    ….which is why you guys need to keep your guns, cause an unarmed people is a docile people.

  8. poohbear says:

    In 2008, NYC mayor Bloomberg wanted to change the term limit law so he could have a third term. The city council voted in favor of it. In 2010, the people of NYC voted to return to a two term limit.
    Not exactly the same as overturning an amendment, but ……

  9. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    One can go pro or con on repealing the ban on third-terms, (personally, I’d allow for a third term, but not a fourth) BUT NOT A REPEAL INTENDED TO BENEFIT A SITTING PRESIDENT OR EVEN A CANDIDATE LIKELY TO RUN IN THE NEAR FUTURE. Stay the change, if it is passed, for 10 or 15 years. Then politics has next to nothing to do with it, and the issue can be assessed on the merits.

  10. wmeyer says: I agree with your concerns, Father, and find a third Obama term quite likely. However, another scenario involves the suspension of elections following the imposition of martial law.

    I can see this happening before I can see a constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments are easier said than done: just look at the ERA. But this administration has proved itself as undeterred by the Constitution as it is by the natural law.

    But it seems to me that, before he can invoke martial law, Obama would need the support of the troops. Has he got that? I can see the politically-correct big brass following him, but will the rank-and-file obey him if he tries to take this country by force?

  11. wmeyer says:

    But it seems to me that, before he can invoke martial law, Obama would need the support of the troops.

    Actually, as the posse comitatus prohibits the use of the armed forces domestically, it would require yet another violation of Federal law to use the troops. On the other hand, the National Guard exists to sidestep that prohibition. However, the Guard in each state operates at the orders of the governor, as I understand it, so there would have to be agreement between POTUS and the governors to go that route.

  12. Facta Non Verba says:

    It seems to me that our President is more interested in playing basketball and golf than being president. I just don’t think he cares to work that hard to want a third term. I’m surprised he even wanted a second term.

  13. tealady24 says:

    That pic of BO at ND just makes my skin crawl! What exactly does he have on Jenkins and the bishop of South Bend??? [?] The loving look he is getting is nauseating! These people are NOT Catholic in any sense. Of course, all is forgotten because we have the BIG game coming up Monday evening.
    Don’t be fooled by all the recreational pics of BO here there and everywhere but in the WH. That is his loving media just doing their jobs by making him look very benign.

  14. Laura98 says:

    A Constitutional Amendment would take too long, as 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. I can’t imagine that many of them are really that fond of our Dear Leader to want him to stick around. We all know how good politicians are at dawdling when it comes to legislation…

    No, the more likely scenario for Obama’s third term is more likely as wmeyer stated – beginning with the suspension of all elections after a period of martial law. I too see him more like “Der Fuehrer” – especially in how this whole thing is being orchestrated.

  15. SegoLily says:

    If I recall correctly, the good bishop of South Bend condemned the honoring of Obama.

  16. Dr. Edward Peters says:
  17. Cantor says:

    Rep Serrano’s been re-introducing that piece of legislation for at least the the past 16 years, so it’s not likely it was just for our present electee. It has failed each time, of course. (Unlike, for example, the vital HJR 17 (1987) declaring “National Dairy Goat Awareness Week”, to be celebrated the third week of June, passed, and signed by President Reagan on Thursday of the FOURTH week of June.)

    This is the time of year lots of fluff gets blown into Congress, from repealing the income tax amendment to mandating a balanced budget. The bills often fail or die, but the Clown Princes of DC can then go to their electors and tell them they tried… they really tried.

    Yet, it’s not wise to grow complacent.

  18. wmeyer says:Actually, as the posse comitatus prohibits the use of the armed forces domestically, it would require yet another violation of Federal law to use the troops. On the other hand, the National Guard exists to sidestep that prohibition. However, the Guard in each state operates at the orders of the governor, as I understand it, so there would have to be agreement between POTUS and the governors to go that route.

    True re posse comitatus, though I don’t see O being deterred by the prospect of having to violate federal law. As for the National Guard, maybe he’ll figure on getting around governors via executive order. But the question still arises: will the rank-and-file troops obey him if he goes this route?

  19. Andrew says:

    I agree with Miss Anita Moore. There is a kind of don’t say anything bad about the commander and chief attitude among many in the military, but how many actually like him to the point of allowing him to stay in power? Although admittedly I guess they would still have jobs if he needed them for a take over :P There are too many too patriotic military members and families for it to be viable in my opinion. Still, bad things happen by people just sitting around and not preventing even little things, so who knows.

  20. Supertradmum says:

    Re-introducing this every 16 years falls smack into the drip, drip of liberal persistence which is connected to the incremental strategy.

  21. Mike says:

    You guys are way over the top here in panic-ville. Exhale.

  22. EXCHIEF says:

    If one believes some of the information being leaked out of FEMA/DHS the government is preparing for the imposition of martial law. That avenue is much more likely than repealing the 22nd ammendment. As another asked, is the rank and file military (including the National Guard) supportive of the Marxist dictator? I hope, pray, and think not. Certainly much of the command structure, being nothing more than politically correct self servers would support the Marxist but I think they would look around on the field of battle and see themselves quite alone.

    I also believe that there are some within the Special Forces communities who are developing plans which I am sure they hope to never have to implement…but plans in any event to deal with a blatant attempt to take over the Republic and outright turn it into a dictatorship (which is certainly where it seems to be headed)

  23. Cantor says:


    But Mike, you’ve never worked for General James Mattoon Scott at ECOMCON!

  24. JimGB says:

    I have to agree with Mike. Amending the Constitution is not an easy proposition. it requires passage of a Joint Resolution by supermajorities in both Houses of Congress and ratification by three quarters of state legislatures. The Republican would surely block it. On the other hand, a declaration of martial law would require extraordinary circumstances to justify and it is unlikely that the military, which swears an oath to the Constitution and not to the President, would carry out what it’s commanders deemed an unlawful order.

  25. wmeyer says:

    The government has already violated the 1st amendment, repeatedly, and are now working to eliminate the 2nd by compliance with the U.N. The tax code has for decades violated the 5th, and the 10th has been ignored altogether. Those of you who depend on the Constitution for your freedom are living in the past. O hasclearly demonstrated contempt for the Constitution. If he learned anything about the document, what he learned was ways to subvert it or nullify it.

  26. aragonjohn7 says:

    And then somehow there still are clauses and loopholes in constitional, civic, and other types of laws that still allow for the third term of a president without the revocation or re-writing of the amendment all there needs to be is a majority of sorts hopefully something like this won’t happen now or soon.
    Even if he is the third or fourth worst president in terms of promises and/or management he needs prayers just like everyone else.

    God bless Y’all
    God bless America and the rest of everything
    God bless the president (hopefully)
    Merry Christmas
    Hope y’all have a blessed and wonderful epiphany in some small way

  27. Medjugorje Man 07 says:

    In some ways like this example I miss my Southern Fundamentalist Church. They would not ever put up with this in their church! It’s time to make a stand and exhibit just an ounce of courage by leadership

  28. Gulielmus says:

    From Gregory diPippo’s link-

    ” 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.

    None of his proposals has ever made it to a floor vote.

    Democratic Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer also repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

    Current Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sponsored a bill to repeal the amendment in 1995.”

    Was it as evil when Serrano proposed repeal four times during the Bush administration, or when Republican Senator McConell did it?

    Let’s fight against real things that must be opposed, like the HHS mandate, and criticize the administration for what it’s actually doing. Hyperbolic fantasy on the part of the right helped reelected him by turning off independents and making principled opposition look unbalanced. Let’s not help the Democrats take the House in ’14, okay?

  29. jesusthroughmary says:

    I am fully and unequivocally in favor of the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. Term limits restrict unnecessarily the ability of Americans to vote for someone they believe has done a good job as President, and they remove all accountability from a second-term President. Imposing term limits on the President alone also gives credence to the heinous lie that the Presidency is more important and more powerful than the Congress. (I am also in favor of repealing the 16th, 17th, and 23rd amendments, and repealing/replacing the 14th.)

    For the record, Rep. Serrano has introduced this resolution in each of the last nine Congresses – five times under Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama and four under President George W. Bush.

  30. Pingback: Father Z Explains the 'Creeping Incrementalism' of Liberalism - Catholic Bandita

  31. Pingback: Catholic Bandita » Blog Archive » Father Z Explains the ‘Creeping Incrementalism’ of Liberalism

  32. Stvsmith2009 says:

    jesusthroughmary is correct Rep. Serrano has introduced this same resolution every 2 years since 1997, and it has yet to get out of committee. If it somehow did manage to get out of committee, it would require a vote of 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate before it could be sent to the states for ratification. It would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states before it would be added to the Constitution. Keep in mind, that the 22nd amendment, which limits the POTUS to 2 terms was introduced in 1947, and was not ratified by the required 3/4 majority of the states until 1951.

  33. pmullane says:

    Mike and JimGB,

    I largely agree that its unlikely that Obama will seek a third term, however only because he seems to be lazy and largely disinterested in the actual job of the Presidency, he just seems to have a Kardashian-like love of fame and celebrity. However lets not kid ourselves, the age of citizen government in America is over, the political class is now an elite that hungers after endless power. Furthermore, the progressive ‘left’ believes more in advancing its own cause than respecting the institutions of government, these are the children of revolution after all. Furthermore, progressivism requires subjecting the will of the people to the will of the state, and elections frustrate the will of the state and subject them to the will of the people, to at least some extent (think of historys most famous leftists, Mao, Stalin, Hitler).

    All worldly things are going to pass, including America, and whilst it probably wont be Obama that decides he wants to be president for life, the groundwork has been laid and its just a matter of time. And in 4 years time, if theres lots of unemployment, hyper inflation, civil disobedience, why not have benevolent Kind Barack take away the uncertainty of an election, which might be (shock horror) won by the woman hating, gun toting, Tea Partying religious nutters in the GOP. Whose going to stop him? The media?

  34. MWindsor says:

    Posse Comitatus has been circumvented before, whenever the need arises. Yes, the NG answers to the governors, but it can be federalized at any moment. That places the Guard under orders of POTUS.

    I don’t think the imposition of martial law would go all that smoothly without a major crisis to set it off. Without a crisis, the military would fracture. With a crisis, maybe not.

    I had a DHS security clearance at one point in the pre-Napolitano era. I think many people assume that DHS is a well oiled machine. It is not even close. The Coast Guard is the only efficient outfit in the group, and even the CG has their bad days. When I was in the Coast Guard in the early 80’s, we were outnumbered by the New York City police department in manpower, and things haven’t changed all that much. The thing I’ve seen in the news lately that bothers me is the amount of hollow point ammo that DHS is buying for “training purposes”. This just makes no sense.

    Without a major crisis, I don’t see either a third term or martial law. With a major crisis, anything is possible.

    I am reminded…

    “…We can succeed only by concert. It is not “can any of us imagine better?” but, “can we all do better?” The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

    Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. … No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. … We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. …” Abraham Lincoln

  35. SKAY says:

    When the German people voted for the National Socialist Party pre WWII, many of them did not realize what they were voting for. They voted for the propaganda – not the reality. When they realized what was happening it was too late
    Obama does like to fly around on Air Force One. Those behind him would be happy with a third term — but another Democrat will do–like John Kerry. It is the idiology that is important.
    The HHS mandate is just a small bit of what is coming.
    If one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices leaves the court and the Senate stays in the Democrats hands–we will get another very bad appointment and confirmation.
    If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

  36. wmeyer says:

    MWindsor: Thank you for your service. My daughter is a freshly minted Ensign, now assigned to USCGC Boutwell.

    I agree that without a crisis, the imposition of martial law will not be possible. However, the crisis could be manufactured rather easily, and might well be provoked by further damage to the economy, which could lead to riots, or by hyperinflation, which certainly lurks as a possibility in the not so distant future.

  37. wmeyer says:

    SKAY: I believe that many of those who voted for Obama voted for the propaganda, as well, and did not see the reality. Some of them are now having their noses rubbed in it, however, as they see the decrease in their paychecks which resulted from the “no tax increase” of the fiscal cliff agreement.

    Both parties are committed to increasing the size of government, as well as to automatic increases in spending. Neither makes any commitment to spending cuts, believing that Keynes had it right in contending that deficits are not applicable to governments. Keynes’ writing needs to be studied only as a lesson in what foolishness can be promulgated by an academic. Our fiscal hope lies in Friedman, Mises, et al.

  38. John Fannon says:

    I agree with Glen M.
    The Democrats could put up Michelle for President and she could employ her husband for $1 p.a.

    This is what George Wallace arranged with his wife Lurleen in 1966, though she died in office.

  39. MWindsor says:

    wmeyer – pleased to make your acquaintance. I was a boatswains mate back in the day, and briefly a “butter bar” in the Auxiliary after 9-11 (I was called the “world’s oldest ensign”). I actually saw the Boutwell once upon a time in San Diego, but was never on board. I spent my time in northern California. I did spend a few weeks TDY on “the Morg”, one of the Boutwell’s sister ships, back in 1981. I spent most of my time on 95’s or in boat force, so the big cutters were way too smooth a ride for my taste. I wish your daughter fair winds and a following sea.

  40. SKAY says:

    Pelosi is now telling the President to go around the Congress to raise the debt ceiling.


    The Democrats need more money we do not have — to waste.

  41. gambletrainman says:

    Father Z, you’ve struck a nerve with me. This is something I’ve been having discussions with some of my friends. It is now 5:30pm, and I have just started reading this . I will respond to these as I read them. Sorry I’m late, but I don’t start reading this website until the afternoon. My first is to wmeyer (11:30am). I completely agree with you, and this is what scares the living daylights out of me. I have been waiting for one of our “beloved” leaders to take over this country by force for the last 20 years (President Clinton, when he described pro-lifers as hate groups), but President Obama really fits the description as a dictator. Look at Germany. Hitler promised so much to the Germans, and they fell hook, line and sinker into his trap. That’s how he took over Germany. Then, the appeasment. Hitler promised to leave Europe alone when he was handed Austria-Hungary on a silver platter. Did he stop? No! It finally took the allied forces to force him into committing suicide to stop him. Then, unfortunately, Stalin replaced him. Both, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan took credit for ending the “cold war”. Sorry, folks, communism is not dead, just in retreat. The communist adage is two steps forward, one step back. This is the one step back. They have the “patience of Job” waiting to take over the world, even if they have to wait hundreds of years.

    Obama’s tactics are really slick. I remember watching a campaign ad just before the elections where one lady said she was definitely for Obama, because he gave her a free phone. Someone sent me an e-mail with a joke about why Romney lost the elections. He promised to put 51% of the unemployed back to work. That’s why he lost. Why should they work when they’re getting free unemployment? That was sent to me as a “funny story”, but, how much truth COULD it be in there?

    Anita Moore, you asked if Obama has the support of the troops. Wmeyer made a “technically correct” response. However, one incident came to mind. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Oklahoma National Guard was sent to New Orleans to help out the police department. They went from door to door asking if anyone was in the homes. Then they busted the doors down and started looking for guns (the police chief wanted all guns confiscated). It wasn’t the case of one person entering the home. It was about 10. Five guardsmen had their rifles trained on the persons inside the homes, and five guardsmen ransacked the homes looking for guns. The majority of guardsmen were under 21 years of age, and obeying their superiors to the letter just as they were trained to do. That scenario could be repeated in any natural disaster. Lessons are not necessarily learned from these incidents.

  42. Legisperitus says:

    A good old Franciscan once pointed out to me that a good 95% of the things we worry about will never happen. That’s a lot of wasted time.

  43. gambletrainman says:

    Mike and JimGB:

    As I’ve said, I’ve had discussions with friends of mine, and one of them had your perspective. When the campaigning was going on, this one friend quite emphatically stated that the people were fed up with Obama, and he would lose in a landslide. The general population would completely revolt and throw him out of office. He even told me he didn’t want to hear any more of my concerns as I didn’t know what I was talking about. When the elections were over, he was so angry, he didn’t want to discuss it. In that case, I don’t think I’m “over the top in panic-ville” as you put it.

  44. NescioDomine says:

    The POSSE COMITATUS ACT is the United States federal law that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order”; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.
    The Bill/Act was modified in 1981 and refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the NATIONAL GUARD under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor. I was a member of the LAPD during the Los Angeles riots and worked with the National Guard, who were invited by the Governor of California. The US Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act. So you see my friends they ran an end game around the intentions of the original framers of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1778.

Comments are closed.