Our Imperial Presidency

“AN ELECTED KING”

by Michael Gaddy, ©2016, blogging at The Rebel Madman

1762 painting of England’s King George III by Alan Ramsay

(Mar. 17, 2016) — “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” — Richard Nixon

I certainly did not realize what would be the extent of time spent researching for my future class on: who were the five best and who were the five worst presidents in American history. Especially, considering I had chosen in advance as the baseline for that determination how each president performed in accordance with their oath of office.

We should all be aware that in today’s political landscape, our Constitution can mean everything or it can mean nothing, depending of course on how any decision based on a sacred oath to ‘protect and defend” that Constitution plays with the country’s electorate. Those citizens who are clamoring for so-called entitlements or those who are begging to be protected from some existential threat, a threat most often created by their own government, are equally uncaring about how their president and other elected officials perform in accordance with that sacred oath.

“Violate the constitution if you must in order to provide me with that which I believe I am entitled, or to protect me from that enemy you created” is the mantra of the great majority of the voting public. Damn the Constitution; full speed ahead. Keep the free stuff and bombs coming for the derelicts and cowards. Of course, while these insatiable appetites are addressed, the international banking cartel controls the flow of the necessary borrowed money—-which, in the end—is the ultimate power.

All of the above has created an imperial presidency in this country and the belief by those in public office that no matter what they do, it can’t be illegal because they are the ones in power—thus the Nixon quote. It matters not to the majority of people in this country that the executive has become one of the things our founders feared most and knew would eventually destroy our Republic.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 sat in stunned silence when James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed a single executive. The thought of one person controlling all facets of government was totally repugnant to the other delegates, for they had just finished fighting a long and bloody war against a monarchy.

John Rutledge of South Carolina was adamantly opposed to placing the “power of the sword” in the hands of one person. Fellow delegate from South Carolina, Charles Pinckney, feared the convention would produce the worst kind of tyranny, an elected king.  If we take into consideration the thousands of signing statements by George W. Bush or the executive orders by Obama, all of which circumvent our Constitution, one would be forced to admit Mr. Pinckney was spot-on with his prediction.

While the common thought is the worst president in history is the one in the political party opposite the one you support, the truth is: if presidents were held strictly to their sacred oaths, all presidents in the past 100 years should have been impeached.  Of course, there were many before that 100 years who violated the oath of office, they just were not as common, or so blatantly unconstitutional as the ones in the past century, with the obvious exception of Abraham Lincoln of whom it has been written “had to destroy the Constitution in order to protect it.”

Granted, it has gotten steadily worse during the past 100 years with each new president seizing on the unconstitutional acts of their predecessors to increase their scope of powers. Like the judicial branch with rulings based on unconstitutional “precedents” by former courts, the executive branch doubles down on the unconstitutional precedents of former presidents.

Two of the most prominent Federalists (read Nationalists) among our founders, Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, promised those like Pinckney and Rutledge who were concerned a new monarchy was being created by the convention, the only powers the executive branch would possess would be those of “executing the laws and appointing officers.”  Roger Sherman of Connecticut chimed in that he “considered the executive magistracy as nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect.” 

We constantly read and hear of the “intent of our founders,” especially when nominees for the high courts are being discussed and debated, but this is nothing more than a gigantic charade to play out for Ignoramus Americanus. The “intent of our founders” is actually pretty clear if one would but simply read their words. But, when that intent runs head-on into the avarice of the political sect in this country, tyranny always prevails.

Most citizens today who participate in the electoral process, especially when it comes to the election of a president, do so with an overwhelming ignorance of the limitations on that office as instituted by our founders. Most don’t really care as long as the free money and perpetual wars for peace continue to flow from the perceived horn of plenty.

Greatest in my mind among the hypocrites are many of those who refer to themselves as “conservatives.” Among these are a group of farmers and ranchers who the government pays not to work. A great deal of this is known as the Conservation Reserve Program. (CRP) In this program farmers and ranchers are paid not to farm and ranch. Yet, almost to a person, these “conservative” recipients of free money are very much opposed to domestic welfare programs where “liberals” get paid not to work. Without debating the benefits or constitutionality of either program, the bottom line is: no one votes against a government that gives them free money! Of course they find it irrelevant that the only money government has is either money stolen from others in the form of taxes or money borrowed on the future of their children and grandchildren.

Then there are the perpetual cowards in our society who believe our government can dispose of our enemies and protect us by bombing and shooting them whenever and wherever possible. The fact our government leaves our borders open, which allows the relatives and friends of those we are bombing, shooting and killing to simply walk through unmolested is of little political consequence.

Among these folks you will find the most rabid advocates for our Second Amendment rights. They will tell you the right to keep and bear arms must be protected in order to protect us from a tyrannical government. The mental disease called cognitive disconnect prevents them from comprehending the tyrannical government they fear is the same tyrannical government that is doing the bombing and killing of other people in other countries. While it is openly advocated our government should “disarm” countries with which we don’t politically agree, we personally want the right to be armed in order to protect ourselves from that selfsame government. It is virtually impossible to not see the blatant hypocrisy in such a position.

Both sides support and defend the very “standing army” our founders feared so much. We claim to the heavens they are “defending our freedoms” yet our individual freedoms have been more severely restricted in the past 15 years than any other period in this country’s history, with the exception of the years 1861-1876 during the War to Prevent Southern Independence and Reconstruction. If this theme continues to its logical end, eventually, we will be supporting the troops who are escorting us to the gulag.

We continue also with support for the “federal and state sheriffs” Patrick Henry warned would eat out our sustenance. We care not the majority of laws they are enforcing are unconstitutional. We support them because they represent the government we fear  we will need to defend ourselves from with weapons at some point in the future. Undoubtedly, those we now support will be the very ones the government sends to take our freedom and liberty, just as soon as the government passes the unconstitutional laws which will authorize those arrests.

We have an imperial presidency, an out of control government apparatus; a congress that has repeatedly abrogated its authority to the imperial executive and perpetual wars which destroy the lives and futures of many of those who participate in those wars.

We have a national debt of something over 19 trillion with unfunded mandates of at least 100 trillion more on which we will never be able to pay the interest. We have rampant violent crime in our larger cities brought on by insane, unconstitutional wars on drugs and poverty. We have millions of illegal immigrants in this country who are putting us even more in debt while participating in multiple criminal acts. We have, on the horizon, hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming soon to our cities and towns from countries where we have been bombing and killing members of their family and their faith and we expect this to happen without incident once they are here. All of these things we have, not because of crooked politicians, but because of support for all of the above by an ignorant population which is constantly clamoring for more government money, wars and programs.

In my class on the 26th, I will have my list of the five best and worst presidents in this country’s history. The list for those who have supported, enabled and praised them would take entirely too much time to compile. But—just look around—they are everywhere and the majority of them vote.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.