Is 'Trump 2028' a scary notion? Plus, Pelosi 'masterful' in aligning caucus, but GOP 'caves.' And, an anonymity overdose.

By Gary Abernathy

Trump teases a third term. Should we be alarmed?

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

President Donald Trump obviously enjoys sending the far-left (formerly mainstream) media into a tizzy, and one way he does it these days is to suggest that he might run for a third term.

Of course, the 22nd Amendment states: “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 President more than once.”

The amendment was driven primarily by Republicans, passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951 after Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times. It was a case of turning to alternative means of stopping someone from holding office when defeating them at the ballot box proved difficult or impossible.

I have always been opposed to term limits, whether for president or any other office. Most term limit laws in various states have historically been a Republican idea. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that term limits for members of Congress are unconstitutional. Frankly, if there could be such a thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, the 22nd Amendment would qualify.

Since our country was founded, we have always had term limits for every elective office. They’re called “elections.” All members of Congress and all members of state legislatures are limited to a certain number of years, usually anywhere from two to four to six. When those terms expire, officeholders are required to seek election again.

I understand the arguments about the “unfair” advantages of incumbency. So what? Incumbents are actually important. Experience makes a difference. It takes several years to gain seniority, learn how to best navigate the system, and become an effective lawmaker. It doesn’t happen in a year or two. Term limits do nothing but empower unelected bureaucrats who keep their jobs indefinitely while elected officials come and go.

The fact is, even in the U.S. House of Representatives — where there are no term limits — the House experiences about a 50 percent turnover every 10 years. That’s a lot of change. Here’s a good article to put it into perspective.

There’s nothing more insulting, condescending or demeaning as laws designed to protect voters from themselves — from what others consider the stupidity or irresponsibility of voters. Why shouldn’t voters be allowed to vote for the same person for president — or any other office — as often as they want?

There are some legal experts who believe the 22nd Amendment contains a loophole for non-consecutive elections of the same person. In other words, the intent of the amendment is to prevent someone from being elected “more than twice” consecutively. That’s actually more logical, especially when you consider that FDR’s consecutive election success was the impetus for the amendment. There are no limits to how long someone can serve as president; the 22nd Amendment only limits how often someone can “be elected.”

Repealing an amendment is difficult. Some (including Trump) have suggested that there are other ways around it, mostly involving someone (Vice President J.D. Vance has been suggested as the most likely possibility) running for president, then resigning to allow Trump to again assume the office. Here’s an article describing such scenarios.

Frankly, even if he could, I think it would be unwise for Trump to run again, since he would be 82 when the next term begins in 2029. As energetic as he seems now, even Trump will not be physically or mentally immune to advancing years.

But that should be a judgment for voters to make. We do ourselves no favors when we tie our own hands in regard to our presidential options. The Constitution originally established only three requirements to be president: a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the U.S. for 14 years. Those are still the only limits we should impose.

Media on budget: Pelosi was ‘masterful,’ while GOP ‘caves’

Photo by Ashraf Ali on Unsplash

It’s amazing how biased the far-left (formerly mainstream) media is when reporting on politics. Case in point: The recent vote in Congress to approve a budget outline.

The New York Times reported that it was “the latest instance of House Republicans caving to Mr. Trump on a critical issue.” Unbelievable. Most other far-left (formerly mainstream) media outlets followed that lead.

When Republicans come together to pass legislation, it’s “caving” to Trump. When Democrats vote together, it’s a sign of wise and powerful leadership keeping the caucus in line.

For instance, when Democrats coalesced to pass the huge Biden budget plan back in 2021, the Washington Post headline was, “Why Nancy Pelosi is being heralded as ‘masterful’,” with this opening line: “After House Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion partisan budget plan on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is getting all the credit for bringing together two diametrically opposed groups in her party to make it happen.”

No such kudos for House Speaker Mike Johnson this time around. Just stories complaining that Republicans “caved” to Trump. The partisanship in reporting styles is undeniable.

News media reminder: Social media is not the real world

Photo by Adem AY on Unsplash

Ninety percent of the time, the news media should ignore anything said on social media. The exceptions are announcements or remarks made by the president of the United States, a high-ranking member of Congress, or a handful of other influential people — by that I mean truly influential people, not the minor social media celebs who arrogantly call themselves “influencers.”

A good reason to follow that guidance was highlighted recently in the case of a fake report that President Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs. (This was before Trump actually did decide to pause many of his tariffs.)

On Monday, April 7, a little-known and little-followed X (formerly Twitter) user calling himself “Hammer Capital” posted, erroneously, that Trump was considering a 90-day pause of the tariffs he had announced. This false post was “amplified” by an X user named Walter Bloomberg — not affiliated with the Bloomberg financial company, but someone with many more followers than “Hammer Capital.”

Then, CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla announced the rumor on the air, with a co-anchor, David Faber, adding, “We’re trying to source that exactly in terms of where that’s coming from.”

Maybe do that first?

A headline about the pause popped up on the CNBC screen a few seconds later. Then, the Reuters news agency reported the CNBC report to its subscribers worldwide.

But none of it was true. It was all based on a comment by an X user who was a virtual unknown — just a typical X account holder — who was misrepresenting a statement by a Trump official.

Stocks began to soar on the false report, only to fall again after the White House denied the rumor.

The media has fallen into a dangerous trap in reporting on social media comments. Too often, the media even highlights random critiques of various politicians or news events — particularly when they can use them to pile on Trump for something. They often assign value to X users by sharing how many “followers” someone has. As any X user knows, clicking the “follow” button on an account hardly means you are actually paying close attention to it going forward.

A typical headline is, “Trump Blasted on Social Media for …” take your pick as to the reason. Then comes a long recounting of various critical comments made by X users under their fake handles.

Fact check: Only 39 percent of Americans have an X account. Only about 24 percent of Americans use it daily or weekly. And only 11 percent of Americans “frequently or occasionally” post content.

The news media should recalibrate and acknowledge that social media is not the real world, and does not reflect the real world. It should not ground any reporting (except as stated in the first paragraph above) or gauge any reactions based on social media responses.

A relatively small number of Americans participate regularly on social media, and a small percentage of that small percentage does most of the posting. They are neither a scientific nor an accurate sampling of public sentiment.

And when a rumor starts circulating across a social media platform, the fake tariff story should be a cautionary tale that keeps all serious journalists from relying on it to any degree at all.

These days, anonymity is handed out like candy

Photo by Luis Aguila on Unsplash

News organizations once had a strict and seldom-employed policy when granting anonymity. It was so seldom used that when it was granted, it was news in and of itself. The most famous anonymous source of all time — “Deep Throat” of Watergate fame — became a celebrity for decades just for being anonymous until his identity was finally revealed.

These days, anonymity is granted to sources for little to no reason at all, especially if it’s in the service of saying something negative about President Trump or Republicans in general.

A story this week by NBC News offers a perfect example. NBC wanted to find and quote Democrats who were upset by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) visit with Trump at the White House. They did it like this:

“Just a f---ing disaster,” said a Democratic operative who admires Whitmer and, like others interviewed for this article, was granted anonymity to share candid thoughts about her day. “It feels like it removes some of the momentum she had as a politically savvy swing-state Dem.”

First, of course, it was important in this day and age to make sure to find someone who would use a profanity, which seems to be the new standard. But more importantly, the story actually acknowledges that anonymity was being granted to this “operative” and others. Why? Because their lives might be in danger? Because he or she was the only person alive who could provide the needed information?

No. They were “granted anonymity to share candid thoughts about (Whitmer’s) day.” No one had the courage to speak candidly about Whitmer without speaking anonymously? Seriously?

Two suspicions arise over the widespread and, frankly, lazy practice of so easily granting anonymity. First, as stated earlier, it seems to be a device particularly designed to allow piling on Trump or anyone who seems sympathetic or even courteous to Trump. Second, it raises questions as to whether the comments were actually made by a real source, or simply concocted out of thin air by the reporter. Unfortunately, I have little doubt that the latter is true in many cases.

Another common reason these days to grant anonymity is because someone fears losing their job, particularly federal workers. Again, not a good reason.

If something is important enough to be said, it is important enough to take the risks associated with saying it. Modern “journalists” and their editors seem not to understand or care about that any more.

Stories based on throngs of anonymous sources are worthless.

The real-world nightmare of ditching fossil fuels

A recent guest column in the Washington Post headlined “I made my home fossil-fuel-free. Why did my utility bills nearly double?” spelled out the unexpected costs of ditching fossil fuels and going “all electric” for the sake of the environment.

But despite thousands of dollars in expenses and a myriad of headaches, the author, Katherine Ellison, continues to defend the switch in the name of fighting “climate change.”

I respond in my new column for The Empowerment Alliance by noting:

While Ellison’s harrowing adventure would likely be a wakeup call to others with similar experiences, her faith is unshaken. She remains convinced that at the very least, her home is “comfortable, healthier, and even safer.” And those in the know assure her that things will eventually get better.

“A lot of really smart people are working to solve the problems you ran into,” one expert promised. “Contractors are getting better at guiding people. Manufacturers are designing equipment to more easily replace gas furnaces. Activists are pushing for utility rate reforms.”

A lot of “really smart people” should perhaps familiarize themselves with the facts. First, the belief that going “all electric” ends a reliance on fossil fuels is misguided. About 60 percent of U.S. electricity generation is courtesy of fossil fuels, with about 43 percent of that total generated by the very source so concerning to Ellison – natural gas.

And anyone hoping for falling electric bills should be alarmed by the fact that an annual power market auction held last summer by the largest U.S. electrical grid operator for the 2025-2026 season “resulted in prices more than 800% higher than last year as supply dwindled and demand increased,” according to a Reuters report. In reality, natural gas is already 3.5 times more affordable than electricity for the same amount of energy.

You can read the entire column at this link.

MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal’ — for yourself or for that friend or loved one confused about America today

“MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions” is a great addition to the library of MAGA Trump supporters, or the perfect gift for non-MAGA friends and loved ones to help them make sense of the 2024 election results. It’s available on Amazon. Buy it here.

The book (actually much thicker than the illustrations above indicate — the hardcover and paperback are each 453 pages) is a compilation of many of the nearly 200 columns I wrote for the Washington Post from 2017 to 2023 (and a handful of columns I wrote about Trump for The (Hillsboro) Times-Gazette from 2015 to 2017). The columns cover a variety of topics, but they particularly focus on Trump’s rise to political prominence and help explain his appeal.

Here’s a link to a website dedicated to the book.

Sign up or share this newsletter

Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you!