Pattern of Tyranny: Hugo Chavez, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Bill Clinton

What do each of those individuals have in common? Each of them over the past several years has been associated with term limits abolition for presidents.

Hugo Chavez already has the coveted "president for life" job. Argentinian President Fernandez de Kirchner this week seemed to float a trial balloon in her country about amending their "outdated" constitution. Bill Clinton suggested that the term limit amendment be lifted in this country recently.

The executive branch has an advantage over the legislative in this key area. At the most, every eight years, the executive gets swept clean of its political officers. Even presidents from the same party tend to want to have their own people, avoiding the messes caused when John Adams and Harry Truman held over officials. Turnover in office reduces the amount of corruption that can settle in.

Congress operates without term limits. Invariably, human nature takes over when a person in power gets comfortable. They cut corners, ignore rules here and there, and probably are as surprised as anyone else if they end up scandalized.

President Washington feared more than most the concept of "president for life." He saw it as upsetting the balance established between the branches of government, leading to the establishment of what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority." The president has the most to gain by somehow purchasing or otherwise appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority. And the majority rarely see infringements upon their rights.

Presidential term limits are necessary for the continuance of good government. Congress should consider them as well.

Apologizing For America Leads Not to Peace, But to War

Over a hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt sent the United States Atlantic Fleet under Admiral George Dewey into the Caribbean. He feared that the presence of a debt collecting European fleet off the coast of Venezuela might destabilize the entire region and produce dire consequences for America. Now it is Venezuela that has emerged as the threat.

In the past several months, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has been on a shopping spree. He bought over $2 billion worth of weapons from Russia. Certainly these arms are inferior to American materials, but his immediate target is not our country, but likely his neighbor Colombia. By building his military strength, Chavez intends to transform his country into a regional power that will challenge American political and ideological influence. Russia has been only too happy to extend Chavez almost unlimited credit to purchase these materials.

In the past few days, Chavez has massed tanks on the border of Colombia and almost promised war with our most solid ally in the region. He threatens to launch an invasion to back the faltering left wing guerilla/bandit movement known as FARC.

Where is the United States? This is an example of the evil reaped by Obama's Apology Tour. Tens of thousands will die if Venezuela invades Colombia. If this happens, the blame lies partially at the feet of the White House. Obama created a perception of weakness and Chavez intends to exploit it. He either wants Obama to broker a Munich type deal for "peace in our time" or will invade to show the world that America is impotent against him.

Obama needs to deploy the United States Navy to the shores of Venezuela immediately. We also need to publicly move strategic bombers to southern US bases. This actually in military terms makes no difference, but it does rattle the sabre. We need commit no ground troops, but we can demolish Venezuelan military assets from the air with little threat to our own personnel. This will do a great deal to restore our credibility in the world as a power that will use strength to enforce peace. It also mimics John F. Kennedy's successful moves in forcing missiles out of Cuba without an actual fight in the early 1960s. If we make Chavez understand that his behavior is intolerable, he will back down. Chavez is a classic bully. Man up and face him and he will back down.

If not, we are seeing the emergence of the next Hitler right here near our shores. Chavez can destabilize much of Latin America if we do not act to protect Colombia. American weakness will only encourage weak nations in the region to defect to his side for their own protection.

Theodore Roosevelt loved the African phrase "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The current president of African extraction has spoken loudly about how much he dislikes his country's stand for freedom. Now he must use the "big stick" or he will allow a very serious problem to emerge.

From Revolutionaries to Aristocracy

In the 1770s Massachusetts made a very definite statement about its opinion of mindless hereditary aristocracy. This week a majority of polled voters in that same state made their own kind of statement.

Most Massachusetts voters said they preferred Hugo Chavez's buddy Joe Kennedy II. Just like his ancestor, he prefers the apparently orderly authority of a dictator to freedom and democracy. Kennedy appeared on commercials for Citgo that tried to restore the Venezuelan state oil company's image after Chavez stole elections. Analysts agree that the state has a soft spot in its heart for the Kennedy name. If you ran a pit bull named Kennedy up there it could win a congressional seat.

True, the Kennedy family has brought to the state a national leadership role larger than its declining share of the electoral college and congressional represetnation. It's not hard to understand why they would have a sense of loyalty. However you have to look behind the name. You cannot expect that all the members of a family will have the same qualities as those that have led in the past. This is not Rome, Senate seats should not be seen as a family trust. Then again we are a democracy. The voters have the right to choose.

Problem is that I am not sure what the Kennedys have accomplished outside of being tabbed as natural leaders. President Kennedy had some noteworthy moments. Robert Kennedy's reputation for ruthlessness died when he was assassinated. What had Ted Kennedy actually done? I may be simply misinformed, but what did he do to earn his leadership role outside of being the brother of a president? What have any of the other Kennedys actually done whose names have been tossed forward for public office?

Assigning someone a position of importance based upon a family name and little else smacks of aristocracy. Massachusetts is not the only state that gives a pass to its first families. However it was at one time the first state to toss that idea of authority aside.

Sean Penn Points to Dennise Kucinich as Free World Leader

Actor Sean Penn is expected to announce Dennise Kucinich is his choice for president. Among Penn's credentals for picking the president of the United State is meeting with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

How Democracy Dies

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez took another step towards the final strangulation of democracy in his country this week. He announced a proposal to eliminate presidential term limits and the rubber stamp National Assembly will undoubtedly approve enthusiastically. Venezuela's people will again suffer from Chavez's quest for absolute and permanent power.

Wealthy people, private enterprise, and the middle class definitely suffer. A business climate requires the rule of law and protection of private property. Without these guarantees, investment dwindles and people lose opportunities. The poor suffer as well. They may appreciate the crumbs thrown their way by the government, but the opportunity for real advancement (except through the government) disappears. Even though Venezuela sits atop a major oil pool, the state ownership of much of that resource means that the private sector must kowtow to Chavez. One wonders if Jimmy Carter received a gift basket for his certification of the rigged vote that assured Chavez of continued power.

Term limits have generally defined the limits of our presidential system. George Washington rejected pleas for a third term because he wanted to avoid the precedent of a man serving until he died. Washington died in 1799, two years before his possible third term would have ended. Franklin Roosevelt broke the third term barrier due to an unusual national emergency and served until his 1945 death. Since then a constitutional amendment bars third terms.

America benefits from this limitation. The strain of the job wears down the holder of the job mentally and physically. Few leaders have the kind of political and state responsibilities that the American president has. Early Roman Emperors who shared their authority with other bodies provide a parallel. However the immense power drove many of them mad within their first decade of rule. Being Caesar for too long can mentally unbalance a person, or physically destroy them (like FDR.)

Chavez has few political worries except for a bullet in the head. However he presents a danger to his people and to US influence in the region. Hopefully his murder of Venezuelan democracy will inspire other Latin Americans to hold even tighter to their freedoms. Conversely he has grown into an inspirational figure for loony leftists such as the mayor of Macon, Georgia who requested a partnership with him. Does he think he can inspire revolution here? Likely. His activities require watching.