As most voting Americans who use secured loans and cash loans are aware, a president can currently serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms in office. In extreme circumstances (such as the death or removal of the president), the limit is raised to 10 years for the successor. This is mandated by the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was put in place not long after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s time in office ended. Roosevelt actually died in office. The Amendment was proposed on March 21, 1947 and eventually ratified  on February 26, 1951.

Why was the 22nd Amendment introduced? Congress was concerned that without term limits, the president would have the power to become a dictator. Thomas Jefferson foresaw this problem in 1807, and he warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings. In his words to the U.S. legislature at the time,

If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.

Now, we have a new cult of personality in America in the leadership of Barack Obama. And we also have a movement underway in Congress that could seek to repeal the 22nd Amendment and make Obama the king of America.

He claims he isn’t…

World Net Daily (WND) reports that while President Obama supports the idea of term limits. This comes straight from the mouth of his chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs. Les Kinsolving of WND asked this question at a recent White House press briefing:

Does the president support New York Democrat Congressman José Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5… That’s the (repeal) of the 22nd Amendment. Does he support this – because Steny Hoyer in 2006 came out in favor of it – does he support the repeal of the 22nd Amendment?

Gibbs’ response?

This is to serve more – this is for two terms?… I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he’s given that awesome responsibility by the American people.

What is Rep. Serrano proposing?

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced House Resolution 5 back in January. It 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.”

There it is, cut and dry. If Serrano succeeds in repealing the Amendment by securing a two-thirds vote of the Senate and House as well as 3/4 of state legislatures, Obama would be allowed to run for an unlimited number of terms. Only the vote of the electorate would be able to remove him.

Does Obama want this?

Hyde Park strongman Franklin van Roosevelt

His staff says one thing, but Obama hints at another. Take the recent coup that threw Honduras President Manuel Zelaya out of office. Zelaya violated his country’s Constitution on numerous counts. President Obama said the following:

We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there.

But the interim government in Honduras says otherwise. Roberto Micheletti, who was named to serve out the final seven months of the deposed president’s term, insists that foreign powers do not interfere in their course toward democratic elections – like in Iran . Micheletti claims that Zelaya’s dismissal was legal, voted upon by the Congress of Honduras.

So does Obama favor keeping questionable rulers in office? It doesn’t appear that he’ll be steering American toward strong action against Ahmadinejad for the clearly farcical Iranian election, so perhaps he does. How much of a leap is it to assume that he wouldn’t support repealing the 22nd Amendment? Get your secured loans and cash loans now, because if Obama becomes king, he’ll ban them because they aren’t part of the plan for the world banking establishment (which has been doing so well, by the way)…

Related Video:

Don’t count on it

Have you ever heard of “planned obsolescence?” Essentially, mass-produced products are designed to either become obsolete or non-functional after a certain amount of use. This is very useful to the party that controls the means of production, as it creates a never-ending stream of demand for their products after things fall apart.

Things are falling apart now, America

Planned obsolescence has historically played a huge role in the American automobile industry. General Motors, one of America’s “Big Three” auto makers, has consistently operated under the principle of “What’s good for GM is good for America.” While this may have been appropriate during World War II, when GM’s involvement in the defense effort provided many jobs for hard-working civilians, it is an antiquated idea now. What’s “good for GM” may no longer be good for the American people.

For a lighter look at planned obsolescence in action, check out this classic 1940 short film, “Hired!” This is actually Part 2 of the film, but you’ll get the idea. The disposable punch line comes around at about 8:04 – these auto salesmen are hoping to sell a gentleman his next 10 cars. You’d need a heck of a fast cash advance for that!

Consumers are wiser now

They’ll buy sturdier, more economical foreign cars. And despite the current call for greener vehicles with lower emissions, America has taken a rather lackluster approach to this over the years. Don’t expect this to change anytime soon, as building big trucks and SUVs is the “American way” that has enabled the CEOs of America’s big auto makers to become obscenely rich.

The CEOs will take down America to save their own skins

As film director Michael Moore recently said on “Larry King Live,” the Big Three CEOs have no real interest in the capitalist ideal. “Go Capitalism! Free Market! Free Enterprise!” Really? It seems that the handout you’re crying to the government for - $25 BILLION – is their own Socialist safety net. Is what’s good for GM still good for America?

Perhaps not.

You’d think companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler that were losing money hand over foot would make the right kind of adjustments into order to right the ship. Right?

Wrong. Mass layoffs are imminent, yet the Big Three CEOs refuse to work with the government for the benefit of the American people. Didn’t Spock say that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?”

Capitalism doesn’t work if it means the rich get rich and the poor get trampled

When individuals are ruled by impersonal, irrational abstractions that make up a capitalist system in its purest form, the little people lose. People will be laid off because the CEOs don’t want to give up this kind of money:

• GM CEO Rick Wagoner: $5,000,000 per annum total salary, with the potential to receive a $15,000,000 golden parachute
• Ford CEO Alan Mulally:$22,000,000 earnings the past year
• Chrysler GEO Robert Nardelli: $22,800,000 total earnings

They are being paid this kind of money while workers are being laid off. While they are begging the government for a $25,000,000,000 handout. Cash advance loans, but without that “loan” part written into the deal.

How much money are the companies losing while CEOs sop up cash?

According to Moore when he was on with Larry King:

• Ford: $2,000,000,000
• GM: $39,000,000,000
• Chrysler (not mentioned by Moore): $662,000,000 in the second quarter of 2008 alone!

The end of capitalism as we know it?

And I think, really, what we’re seeing now — with them, with the banks — we’re seeing the end of capitalism. The end of capitalism as we know it and I say good riddance. It hasn’t helped the people or the planet.” – Michael Moore on Larry King Live, Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Are you listening, government? We can’t give $25,000,000,000 to men who will use it to give themselves great bonuses, vacations, bigger jets and biggers yachts. We have to take a stand now.

Mr. Moore suggests that Obama step in as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the Great Depression and WWII. He told the automakers what to do: build what America needed. Today, if the automakers can employ their workforce in the service of bettering mass transit, hybrid vehicles and more things that will help improve this country’s infrastructure, we’ll be on the road to recovery.

That’s a cash advance in the direction of a modified form of Socialism that the people of this nation can use. A strong nation is what we need. By repairing the economy and our infrastructure, we will achieve. That’s the American way.